It's 8:00AM in the USA & 2:00PM in Germany, Any Word from Leica re: M8?

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps if IR-cut filters would allow those artists or scientists to get faithful colours, but is it the case actually?

Mark Davison's green blanket does not look green at all with his Tiffen filters so far...

 

It's true. There is something very fishy & scary going on there. Let's hope Mark is right, and that his Tiffen hot mirror filter just doesn't filter enough IR.

 

Otherwise, that darned green blanket (and coat!!) really bugs me. There is no trace of green in the original unfiltered DNG file whatsoever.

 

It makes me even more worried because I cannot reproduce the effect.... if I could get it do this myself I could devise some workaround...

[Guest guy_mancuso]

From what i understand the B+W is the only effective one at this time

[sdai]

Guy, can you repeat Mark's green blanket test with your B+W 486?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I need to read this thread but yes i can.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Mark green blanket under household bulbs . I have to look for a solid green but I have something around here that should be like it. I will run this tomorrow , just starting to wind up my projects so i can finally shoot the M8 again.

[ptomsu]

No external filters as solutions, agree 200%

 

Peter

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter they just are not going to be able to fix this like everyone wants unless they rip out the sensor and there not going to do that. No software or firmware will do it, I still stand on my theory that it is external filters, some new profiles from Phase for the IR cut, firmware for coded lenses for the wides, also AWB in the firmware and a hardware fix for the streaking. Than call it a day. Really when you think about it what options are left. The last thing they want to do is degrade there sensor by added more IR block and affect the sharpnes of there lenses. Leica is a optical company by and large and there optics come first. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it and after all the facts we have talked about i just don't see another option.

[rvaubel]

Peter they just are not going to be able to fix this like everyone wants unless they rip out the sensor and there not going to do that. No software or firmware will do it, I still stand on my theory that it is external filters, some new profiles from Phase for the IR cut, firmware for coded lenses for the wides, also AWB in the firmware and a hardware fix for the streaking. Than call it a day. Really when you think about it what options are left. The last thing they want to do is degrade there sensor by added more IR block and affect the sharpnes of there lenses. Leica is a optical company by and large and there optics come first. This is my opinion and i am sticking to it and after all the facts we have talked about i just don't see another option.

 

Guy

 

Your right, the only real fix is to rip the camera apart and deal with the frigging sensor. And they ain't gonna do it. The other, next best, solution would be to issue a series of digital lenses, mostly fast wides, that would have the filtration built in. How about a nice 1.33 crop only, filtered, 21mm/2.0 ? Now that I would lust after. But....ain't gonna happen

 

Rex

[Guest guy_mancuso]

It would be nice though. I'm convinced this is what it is but i'm already thinking about a second body. The images are just to damn good to pass on for me. I understand some will not get one for the filter reasons, they are a pain but i will put one on every lens and forget it about it.

[waterlenz]

From what i understand the B+W is the only effective one at this time

 

The Tiffen Hot Mirror and B+W 486 look noticeably different. Large one (77mm) is a HM, small one (62mm) is a 486.

Tom

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!

[Guest stevenrk]

The Tiffen Hot Mirror and B+W 486 look noticeably different. Large one (77mm) is a HM, small one (62mm) is a 486.

Tom

 

Tom, is this what the 486 reflects out? Sean Reid was going to compare the Heliopan Digital and the 486 as he has both, but was expecting that they would both be about the same.

 

I have the Heliopan, and the reflective quality is much much less noticeable than what I see here, so that has me concerned again about the beacon like quality of the 486. And this is distinct from whether it can provide a predictable base from which good color can be drawn from a profile.

 

Please let us know, as if this is what people see on an angle from the front of the lens, than it seems that this causes real problems for any kind of street photograhy. Who wants to carry a camera reflects out as bright a color as the one in your shot -- just a non-starter I would imagine for most.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Steven

[waterlenz]

Tom, is this what the 486 reflects out? Sean Reid was going to compare the Heliopan Digital and the 486 as he has both, but was expecting that they would both be about the same.

 

I have the Heliopan, and the reflective quality is much much less noticeable than what I see here, so that has me concerned again about the beacon like quality of the 486. And this is distinct from whether it can provide a predictable base from which good color can be drawn from a profile.

 

Please let us know, as if this is what people see on an angle from the front of the lens, than it seems that this causes real problems for any kind of street photograhy. Who wants to carry a camera reflects out as bright a color as the one in your shot -- just a non-starter I would imagine for most.

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Steven

 

Steven,

I aimed the camera to get as even a reflection as possible - from a white ceiling in a room lit by incandescent bulbs in a ceiling lamp. I tried doing it first with flash but got rather poor reflections. This shot was done at f/8 for 1 second at ISO 200 on a Nikon D2H with a 70-180 macro.

Photographing reflections can be tricky. I was mainly trying to illustrate that the reflection from the 486 is greater than the HM. This difference is noticeable just holding the two in ones hands and turning the filters (color and intensity varies with angle). The two filters are on a flat surface here so you are seeing similar angles. My guess is that the Heliopan is more like the Tiffen HM.

The reflection is not that much worse than that of multi-coating – it is a flat surface so you get quite a bit at specific angles, less straight on than from the side.

Tom

[Guest stevenrk]

Steven,

I aimed the camera to get as even a reflection as possible - from a white ceiling in a room lit by incandescent bulbs in a ceiling lamp. I tried doing it first with flash but got rather poor reflections. This shot was done at f/8 for 1 second at ISO 200 on a Nikon D2H with a 70-180 macro.

Photographing reflections can be tricky. I was mainly trying to illustrate that the reflection from the 486 is greater than the HM. This difference is noticeable just holding the two in ones hands and turning the filters (color and intensity varies with angle). The two filters are on a flat surface here so you are seeing similar angles. My guess is that the Heliopan is more like the Tiffen HM.

The reflection is not that much worse than that of multi-coating – it is a flat surface so you get quite a bit at specific angles, less straight on than from the side.

Tom

 

Tom, thanks for the info. People have been trying to get an answer about the 486's reflective qualtities for a while here. This info gives us all a good sense of it. Let's see if Sean comes back to us with some addtional info comparing the Heliopan with the 486, which would add to the knowledge base -- I'd go out and buy a 486 to see for myself if I could, but none out there. I think Guy has bought them all up

 

Thanks again for the info.

 

Steven

[erl]

Be aware that the reflected colours we see in the two filters above is DOUBLE the real effect. The light to make the photograph is passing through the filter, reflecting off the background and pasing the filter AGAIN to make the image shown above. Now rhe relative diffences as displayed are probably accurate, but the intensities of both is doubled. Yes! It gets more confusing, but I thought I would thow that in just to further confuse.

 

Despite all that, I am grateful to all the resarches on this forum because my supplier knows none of this and wouls sell me the wrong gear for sure.

 

Keep up the good work guys, I am learning.

 

Cheers,

Erl

[ho_co]

... I'd go out and buy a 486 to see for myself if I could, but none out there.

Steven--

Remember that the Edmund Optics UV/IR cut filters are apparently made by B+W, even engraved '486.'

 

Edmund Optics - Mounted IR Filters

 

--HC

[ho_co]

I'm on your side. I have never used filters on M lenses except when rain or spray or sand etc requires their use.

 

But ask yourself: Why do I dislike the use of filters? For me it was because they can cause reduced image quality.

 

But in the case of the M8, several posts on the forum indicate that the images are actually better with IR-cut filters.

 

So to get the best results from the M8, I'm changing my ways: Use a filter!

 

FWIW, the instructions for some Nikkors actually recommend purchasing a filter, putting it on the lens, and never removing it. In the case of the M8, the outcome will be better and not worse.

 

--HC

[blakley]

Remember that the Edmund Optics UV/IR cut filters are apparently made by B+W, even engraved '486.'

 

At least some of them are definitely made by B+W - I received two 46mm 486s from Edmund. One came in a Schneider box and was engraved "486". The other actually came in a genuine B+W box and had the B+W logo on it; even had the B+W instruction sheet in the box.