M9 - some more reliable news?

[BerndReini]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

UV/IR filter built in or not? That is the question.

[spylaw4]

UV/IR filter built in or not? That is the question.

 

Ah - but what is the answer?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pascal_meheut]

UV/IR filter built in or not? That is the question.

 

Builtin UV/IR filter: Leica should buy my M8 filters back, I have no use of them now, they do not respect their customers

 

Not builtin: Leica had 3 years to solve this problem, they do not care about real photographers needs, this is pathetic followed by long explanation on how the forum member is a better engineer and a better manager than anybody at Leica.

 

Thanks to earleygallery

[Steve Ash]

Builtin UV/IR filter: Leica should buy my M8 filters back, I have no use of them now, they do not respect their customers

QUOTE]

 

Lets imagine it is your birthday and one of your best friends donates you two filters. Later on you realise you do not need them. Do you go back to him and ask him to get cash?

Weird!

Regards

Steve

 

PS: My main concern is that Leica does not compromise on image quality whatever that means in respect to the location of the IR-filter.

[biglouis]

Also, as I posted in another 09/09 thread, a very big day for Beatles fans. Release of the remasters (in mono and stereo) of all the original UK albums, as well as the release of The Beatles Rock Band game.

 

Jeff.

 

'ang on, weren't they all re-mastered when they went to CD back in the 1990s? I mean, how many times do you have to remaster something. Sound like a money making con...

 

LouisB

[jaapv]

Builtin UV/IR filter: Leica should buy my M8 filters back, I have no use of them now, they do not respect their customers

 

Not builtin: Leica had 3 years to solve this problem, they do not care about real photographers needs, this is pathetic followed by long explanation on how the forum member is a better engineer and a better manager than anybody at Leica.

 

Thanks to earleygallery

Umm.. I use UV/IR filters on my well-filtered cameras too, at longer focal lengths. I get better colour that way...

[marmelade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

is this the new canon thread?

 

im quite curious to the sensor road, some say iliah borg has thoughts on the new sensor, and he has written about this at some forum. i cant seem to find that forum, anyone has any ideas, R. Fossum?

 

will it be the well familiar (to us) kodak, or will they go a different way this time?

things evolve with time, and yes alot has happened in the sensor business..

 

we can atleast be sure of , the ninth is getting closer.. (the date=)

 

are

[adli]

Umm.. I use UV/IR filters on my well-filtered cameras too, at longer focal lengths. I get better colour that way...

 

And you don't have any problems with cyan shift in the corners? At what focal length starts the cyan shift to appear?

[ho_co]

No cyan shift from lenses 50 mm focal length and longer; some say they get none at 35 mm.

 

Kodak chip, no AA filter. The chip will take care of the IR, likely with its coverglass like the DMR. We'll see! That's what they thought with the M8 as well.

 

Still curious about how they'll solve the problem of people wanting to change lenses between the cameras. There'll have to be an M8 emulation mode--lens ID + filter.

 

 

Gee. Guess I'll have to replace my Millich adapters. Maybe a simple thread expander would work?

Edited August 20, 2009 by ho_co

[guidomo]

im quite curious to the sensor road, some say iliah borg has thoughts on the new sensor, and he has written about this at some forum. i cant seem to find that forum, anyone has any ideas, R. Fossum?

 

Re: What theoretically would be the best sensor f/ M9?: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[bill]

Still curious about how they'll solve the problem of people wanting to change lenses between the cameras. There'll have to be an M8 emulation mode--lens ID + filter.

 

This has been one of the M8-killers for me all along. I'll be delighted not to have the problem when switching lenses between digital and film, and for the UV/IR filtration requirement to go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

No call here for an M8 backward-compatibility fudge, I can assure you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

No cyan shift from lenses 50 mm focal length and longer; some say they get none at 35 mm.

 

Kodak chip, no AA filter. The chip will take care of the IR, likely with its coverglass like the DMR. We'll see! That's what they thought with the M8 as well.

 

Exactly. The DMR is well-filtered - and still an IR filter helps. Due to the longer register I can use IR filters down to 28 mm without cyan drift. Heliopan started selling their "Digital" filters about a decade ago, and not for nothing.

[chris_tribble]

Umm.. I use UV/IR filters on my well-filtered cameras too, at longer focal lengths. I get better colour that way...

 

Jaap - others? Interested to hear experience on this... I'll probably be in the market for an M9 in a year or so (depends how business does this year) but I would plan to keep one M8at least to being with.. Good if there was no need for filter swapping (I always used a UV/skylight anyway)...

[jaapv]

Imo you would be fine keeping the filter on at all focal lengths from 35 mm upwards. (subject to experimentation for the 35, the angle of incidence at the far corners might be too steep on full format) Then one would only need to remove them for the night shots with specular highlights. On the DMR my 35-70 does just fine with the 486 on, no cyan drift at all and I really have a better starting point for colour management, especially with shots in the tropics, Caucasian skin tones, etc. Getting that last 2% or so of IR out does make a difference. Did you know the M8 only transmits less than 10% of IR light? And see the trouble that causes.

Edited August 20, 2009 by jaapv

[adli]

Imo you would be fine keeping the filter on at all focal lengths from 35 mm upwards. (subject to experimentation for the 35, the angle of incidence at the far corners might be too steep on full format) Then one would only need to remove them for the night shots with specular highlights. On the DMR my 35-70 does just fine with the 486 on, no cyan drift at all and I really have a better starting point for colour management, especially with shots in the tropics, Caucasian skin tones, etc. Getting that last 2% or so of IR out does make a difference. Did you know the M8 only transmits less than 10% of IR light? And see the trouble that causes.

 

That's good news. I'll do some test shots with the 35 some day :-)

[mhoersch]

Why not rename this forum the "Virtual L Camera Forum"?

 

It will be a serious letdown once the S2 and the M9 are out - what on earth shall we speculate on? The S3, the M10? Won't that become rather boring?

 

I suggest we start speculating in retrospect on what would have happend if there had been an R10 instead of an S2. This could go on for years, easily, without ever having to worry about any connection with reality at all...

 

And now, as Monty Python used to say, and now for something completely different...

[Guest BigSplash]

Umm.. I use UV/IR filters on my well-filtered cameras too, at longer focal lengths. I get better colour that way...

 

Every lens I have ever owned has had its front glass protected by a UV filter, which is much cheaper to replace than any lens work. Now I just use a UV/IR filter ...so what is the big deal? Do people use their lenses without filters on M7 for example.?

 

Some people have suggested that when using my M film cameras I should go back to normal UV....why? I do not shoot with IR film

 

The most annoying thing about the UV/IR filters is actually sourcing them as I have had to wait one month to get the 48mm types. I still do not have the 58mm ones for my old Noctilux and 280m Telyt.....these have been on order now two months. Identifying the supplier was not easy and was helped by this forum...Leica gave no help.

[stunsworth]

Do people use their lenses without filters on M7 for example.?

 

I think you'll find that many people do. The only time I used filters on any of my film Ms was when I was shooting b&w and would normally use a yellow filter to provide a more interesting sky.

 

If the M9 was to no longer require the IR filters, and I bought one, I wouldn't use a filter, UV or otherwise. Of course if you're operating in a difficult environment - sand or salt water in the air for example - then using a filter makes sense, other than that I'd be perfectly happy for my lenses to 'go commando'.

 

Some people have suggested that when using my M film cameras I should go back to normal UV....why? I do not shoot with IR film

 

Because if you are shooting colour film and using a wide angle lens the IR cut filter will lead to a colour caste towards the edges of the frame.

Edited August 20, 2009 by stunsworth

[pascal_meheut]

Every lens I have ever owned has had its front glass protected by a UV filter, which is much cheaper to replace than any lens work. Now I just use a UV/IR filter ...so what is the big deal?

 

There is a recent thread about this. Read it and you'll find that for many reasons, it can be a big deal.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[earleygallery]

Steve, I think Pascal was being ironic, imagining what someone might be inclined to complain about!

 

Watch out for a glut of IR filters going cheap on e bay.

 

Builtin UV/IR filter: Leica should buy my M8 filters back, I have no use of them now, they do not respect their customers

QUOTE]

 

Lets imagine it is your birthday and one of your best friends donates you two filters. Later on you realise you do not need them. Do you go back to him and ask him to get cash?

Weird!

Regards

Steve

 

PS: My main concern is that Leica does not compromise on image quality whatever that means in respect to the location of the IR-filter.