mark_s Posted August 13, 2009 Share #1 Posted August 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just curious. When reading some M9-related rumour threads, some people say they'd like to see the external IR filter go. I don't understand this, as I would never dream of using any top-quality lens without some form of protection on the front. Whenever I bought a new Nikkor, I always bought a B&W/Schneider UV filter at the same time, so the lens optics were always protected from the very first day. OK, these top-quality filters cost around 100 euros a piece, but surely this investment is worthwhile to protect the much more expensive lenses. I'm much more relaxed about swiping a micro fleece cloth across a filter than I ever would be doing so across a lens. So even if I didn't have to use an IR filter on my Leica lens, I would have bought a good quality UV filter for it without hesitation. Furthermore, doesn't the thinner filter in front of the sensor also mean an increase in sharpness? Increased protection and sharpness are good things, so why do people want to see these filters go? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Hi mark_s, Take a look here What's so bad about external IR filters?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pascal_meheut Posted August 13, 2009 Share #2 Posted August 13, 2009 Because they make the camera more noticeable, sometimes sending red reflections into people's face Because we do not all use anything else than the hood to protect our lenses Because they are a pain in the ass with uncoded wide-angles Because they are not 100% efficient with some rich-IR light Because by night, they reflect the light from the sensor, creating ghost images of highlights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 13, 2009 Share #3 Posted August 13, 2009 ...so why do people want to see these filters go? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/93388-whats-so-bad-about-external-ir-filters/?do=findComment&comment=993208'>More sharing options...
tgray Posted August 13, 2009 Share #4 Posted August 13, 2009 The big one in my mind is the cyan corners they cause. Which means coded lenses or post processing AND the inability to use the same lens on a film camera without first taking off the filter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_s Posted August 13, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted August 13, 2009 Ah, OK, so there are plenty of good reasons. Thanks for enlightening me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted August 13, 2009 Share #6 Posted August 13, 2009 Steve shows the typical reflections of those filters: green spots with a repetitive pattern. It occurs mostly in dark ambiances with small points of light... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted August 13, 2009 Share #7 Posted August 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I haven't had many problems with the filters. For me the main reason is that they're expensive and can't always be found as easily as, say a plain old UV filter. I always have used UV filters for lens protection. Difference now is that if one breaks I better have a spare or else I'll have a problem. Worst case scenario with the UV filter was that I lived without it for the rest of my assignment if it got broken. If I had the choice between the sharpness of the M8 or a camera that doesn't need IR Filters on the lens but also doesn't produce files that are as sharp, I'd choose the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mweiner Posted August 13, 2009 Share #8 Posted August 13, 2009 If there is an M9 or M8.3 which doesn't require external uv-ir filters, then I surely hope that it will still be possible to get great images still keeping a uv-ir filter on the lens. Possibly this would be achieved in the firmware with a menu setting. Many of us would be switching lenses back and forth between M8 and the M9/M8.3 and don't want to be having to take the filters on and off. I haven't seen any discussion of this in the M9 threads. There have been some differing opinions about whether a uv-ir filter degrades image quality on a film M. Some would say "double filtering", just removing 'more ir' would be a non-issue with a new M9/M8.3 with ir filtering in the sensor (if that is indeed how "internal" filtering would be implemented), and others might cite the 'angle of incidence at the corners' and cyan drift. We don't know how Leica would implement "internal" ir filtering -- but certainly one would hope there would be an option to keep the external uv-ir filters on the lenses. Otherwise, while the people switching lenses between M8/M9/M8.3 and film Ms would be saved a lot of hassle, many of us switching lenses among the digital Ms would be screwed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 13, 2009 Share #9 Posted August 13, 2009 If there is an M9 or M8.3 which doesn't require external uv-ir filters, then I surely hope that it will still be possible to get great images still keeping a uv-ir filter on the lens... I haven't seen any discussion of this in the M9 threads... I mentioned a few months ago that if a future M didn't have the requirement for filters there'd be M8 users complaining about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted August 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted August 13, 2009 Because your lens is just about a block of solid glass and the filter is a sliver. In the humidity and in the wet, filters fog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted August 13, 2009 I mentioned a few months ago that if a future M didn't have the requirement for filters there'd be M8 users complaining about it. An easy prediction to make Steve. Complaining is what we do so well! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted August 13, 2009 Because your lens is just about a block of solid glass and the filter is a sliver. In the humidity and in the wet, filters fog. I always thought it was just my eyes going foggy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted August 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted August 13, 2009 Rob, Are you still calling that plane in to land?! Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 14, 2009 Share #14 Posted August 14, 2009 Just curious. When reading some M9-related rumour threads, some people say they'd like to see the external IR filter go. I don't understand this, as I would never dream of using any top-quality lens without some form of protection on the front. Whenever I bought a new Nikkor, I always bought a B&W/Schneider UV filter at the same time, so the lens optics were always protected from the very first day. OK, these top-quality filters cost around 100 euros a piece, but surely this investment is worthwhile to protect the much more expensive lenses. I'm much more relaxed about swiping a micro fleece cloth across a filter than I ever would be doing so across a lens. So even if I didn't have to use an IR filter on my Leica lens, I would have bought a good quality UV filter for it without hesitation. Furthermore, doesn't the thinner filter in front of the sensor also mean an increase in sharpness? Increased protection and sharpness are good things, so why do people want to see these filters go? Among other things, even the best filters are prone to flare. This can be especially problematic when bright light sources appear within the lens' field of view (as opposed to just the area cropped by the sensor). Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_j Posted August 14, 2009 Share #15 Posted August 14, 2009 Mark- Your point is well taken about the protection aspect of a filter on a lens. But the bottom line is, filters (or glass in front of glass) do degrade an image. This difference will vary depending on viewing method but I feel these differences do add up (as was the difference from a Nikon F-3 to a Leica M-6 and a lens hood vs w/o a lens hood). That said, I never use filters on my M-6's but always use them with the M-8. Best, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Root Posted August 14, 2009 Share #16 Posted August 14, 2009 Sean, do you or did you use uv filters when shooting film? Among other things, even the best filters are prone to flare. This can be especially problematic when bright light sources appear within the lens' field of view (as opposed to just the area cropped by the sensor). Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted August 14, 2009 Share #17 Posted August 14, 2009 Sean, do you or did you use uv filters when shooting film? I didn't usually unless I was shooting near sea spray or something else where I wanted extra protection for the front lens element. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted August 14, 2009 Share #18 Posted August 14, 2009 Because your lens is just about a block of solid glass and the filter is a sliver. In the humidity and in the wet, filters fog. Oh yes - I can attest to that! I was in Jamaica recently in pretty hot, humid conditions and traveling around by air conditioned SUV. I got a lot of misty photos on that trip! Unlike with a DSLR you don't always notice it immediately. (I know, I know ... user error!). The night time flare is the biggest problem I run into. If a mythical M9 were still to be 1.33x crop but remove the need for the filters - I'd be tempted to upgrade. For the other 99% of the time the UV/IR is fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcuthbert Posted August 14, 2009 Share #19 Posted August 14, 2009 I agree with you on the protection front, it's a must have solution. My bug with the IR filters is that on the higher cost lenses, they are an additional cost. I've just purchased the 24 lux, which isn't the cheapest lens in the arsenal, and I had to spunk out an additional 100 quid so that the lens functioned correctly on the M8 Now here is where Leica have failed and failed miserably. If someone with an M8 is buying a new lens, there should be some scheme whereby the user DOESNT pay full whack for the cost of a IR lens in order to have it function correctly on their camera. So whilst there is nothing bad with having to use one in my mine, there is something really bad about having to pay full price to rectify a design problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted August 14, 2009 Share #20 Posted August 14, 2009 I agree with you on the protection front, it's a must have solution. My bug with the IR filters is that on the higher cost lenses, they are an additional cost. I've just purchased the 24 lux, which isn't the cheapest lens in the arsenal, and I had to spunk out an additional 100 quid so that the lens functioned correctly on the M8 Now here is where Leica have failed and failed miserably. If someone with an M8 is buying a new lens, there should be some scheme whereby the user DOESNT pay full whack for the cost of a IR lens in order to have it function correctly on their camera. So whilst there is nothing bad with having to use one in my mine, there is something really bad about having to pay full price to rectify a design problem. You'd rather they'd priced the lens £100 higher and thrown in a free filter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.