Why can't M9 "User Select" IV/IR filtered?

[Englander]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Sandy. I have a better understanding now and I appreciate your many efforts.

 

Sean, of course, for using only an M9, I would forget the filters. That much is obvious. Yes, I had a reason to want to use the filters on the M9 which was the basis of the entire thread: so I would not have to remove them when changing a lens from the M8 to the M9 while using both cameras at the same time instead of assigning specific lenses to specific cameras as you say you have done. I know Sandy's program doesn't include profiles, but when the photographer has used the program then there are "profiles" which isn't that much different than plugging known values of lens performance (instead of individually tested results) into an established program to produce profiles. With IR filters, the stronger filter dominates, the filters are not additive; since the lens-filters are stronger than either internal filter, the IR filtration would be the same on both M8 and M9. These are/were the reasons behind my question, which given Sandy's explanation, is now reduced to an acceptance of the likely impossibility of complete interchangeability of lenses used on M8 and M9.

 

Thanks to you both for trying, and ultimately achieving, to get me to let loose of my stubborn hope. Ah well.

 

Joe

Joe Englander Photography

[sean_reid]

2. Likewise, at those levels of corner attenuation, noise performance in the corners will become a consideration, especially at high ISO. The unfortunate irony here is that its under tungsten lights that you might need an external filter, but its also under tungsten lights that you need high ISO. So its potentially a bit of a double hit.

 

Hopefully we'll get test images coming in over the next few weeks that will give us a better feel for how this plays out in practice.

 

Sandy

 

That noise boost question is especially important and the tungsten irony is right on.