herbkell Posted November 22, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I posted this on RFF but there is more activity here and I am interested to hear peoples opinions "Actually this may make for an interesting poll. My question is simply this - If the Leica M8 solution is as we expect ie filters to solve the IR purple issue and a sensor board replacement to solve the banding green blob problem - will you 1} Return you M8 or cancel your order ..or 1) Accept the solution and move on.... or 3) Are you undecided? I am in the undecided camp. My main use for the camera will be street shooting and I can't figure out without personally seeing an IR filter how intrusive they will be for this type of work. I strongly resent being a guinea pig for Leica (who released a camera they must have known had issues)and this resentment has clouded my thinking. I had expected that over the last few days I would come to a clear decsion on this but I haven't. I have not shot much with my M8 (less than 50 images) due mainly to the fact that I have been busy with other things and I am aprehensive about using a $5K camera that I may well have to return. I would hate a nick or scratch to be a factor in the decision. I would be interested in other M8 owners or prospective owners views." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2006 Posted November 22, 2006 Hi herbkell, Take a look here Will the IR filter solution satisfy you?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
osera Posted November 22, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 22, 2006 I have the M8 (probably shot about 800 images) and I am in the "accept this solution" category. Of course, I'd like to learn as much as possible about the compromises that might necessitate this solution, because I think it will help me in using this tool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtownby Posted November 22, 2006 Share #3 Posted November 22, 2006 If the solution is a filter, I will advise my local camera shop to take my name off the order list. Personally, I don't think Leica knew of this problem before shipment. How it missed this issue (did it shoot only color charts in its testing?) has got to be one of the most intriguing high-tech stories in memory. http://www.gordonownby.net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark D Posted November 22, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 22, 2006 If Leica includes a free filter with every lens you have coded and makes filters available at their cost for lens we don't have coded and a free filter with every new lens we buy it would satisfy me. Bottom line we should not have to pay for their mistake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
canlogic Posted November 22, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 22, 2006 I will keep it, the camera is just too good but they will have to give us the filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 22, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 22, 2006 I am grumpy about it, but will accept the filters. I have had to deal with worse, and this camera is special. I do think that firmware and colour profile improvements will reduce the issue by an order of magnitude, so that at least it will be palatable to want to shoot without, and only have minor problems left, on the order of what one sees with the R-D1, for example. Although the no-filter option is clearly preferable, I do believe that we are dealing with a situation where this option is only an option in words, and not in reality. When one reads the design parameters and restrictions that the M8 had to conform to, it is clear that Leica is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and is to be commended for creating such a great camera with such brutal constraints. The fixes, in whatever form they come, simply finish the job as best they can. In opposition to what some vocal members feel, namely that Leica has "pulled a fast one", I believe that it was their intention from the beginning to create a truly legendary camera with the M8, a camera which was fully worthy to be the successor to some of the most legendary cameras ever made. Mistakes were made and will be corrected, but the original intent shines through in so many ways that I think it is unmistakeable. I am not making excuses for Leica, but I do think that they deserve more credit than what they have been given. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig-s Posted November 22, 2006 Share #7 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Accept the solution and move on...though I would very much prefer not to have to pay for the filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_233 Posted November 22, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 22, 2006 Acceptable solution. (a) Usually want something protecting the primary anyway ( M photography demands awareness of the tool so this IR business is not a problem so much as it is a characteristic of the camera that you simply get to know and work with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 22, 2006 Share #9 Posted November 22, 2006 I'm in so deep with this (financial and emotional commitment) that I'll be happy to see some sort of resolution. I don't expect Leica to fall on their swords, but I do expect some straight talking. There's a difference between people who bought the camera on trust and those who buy after a formal announcement (let's say) on Friday telling us filters are required. Early adopters did not expect to have to use filters, so should not have to pay for them; people buying after the announcement must factor the need for filters into their buying decision. Leica should certainly help the situation by including filters with every new lens and every lens coding. In the M8 world, it looks like they are just as much part of a lens scope of delivery as a lens hood and if they're worried about costs, how about dumping the leather lens cases? Does anyone use them? Coding is a little different. Leica have always said that coding was optional but that image enhancements would not be available for uncoded lenses. Up to the announcement, we didn't know what the enhancements exactly were, initially pretty minimal, now maybe more significant. Either way, Leica's original statement was correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted November 22, 2006 Share #10 Posted November 22, 2006 Acceptable to me. The camera is outstanding. Having and only planning to have a relatively few lenses, it's just not a big deal to get filters for them. When the nikon D2H showed the same problem, it would have been impossible to filter the large set of Nikon lenses I shoot with, especially the long lenses with drop filters. I quickly sold the D2H. But with currently 4 leica lenses, and at most 2-3 more in the future, I can live with this for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sungnee Posted November 22, 2006 Share #11 Posted November 22, 2006 Accept the solution and I don't really need them to give me the filters free of charge, because I don't always use them. The magenta cast from artificial fibre was an ancient and known issue with film. At that time no one blamed the lens makers, no one blamed the film makers. Photographers were simply told to advise their subjects to wear natural fibre, and if they took candids, they would have to live with it. Come to think of it, I will do exactly that with some shots, if it merits artistically. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #12 Posted November 22, 2006 I would accept the filters but kicking and screaming. If I am forced to use filters, they will stay on the lenses permanently. I hate anything that interupts taking pictures including lens caps. The real downside for me is not the cost but *occasional lens flare and reduction of contrast. I researched this pretty carefully during one of the intermiable arguements about "protective filters". Decent coated filters don't hurt 90% of my photos but anything into the light will result in a high percentage of reflection artifacts and a general veiling glare. The reduction of contrast can be mitigated by post processing. But the reflection artifacts are forever. People that think that protective filters are not harmful in adverse lighting conditions are just plain wrong. I resent being forced to use a filter but if I want 5D quality images in a rangefinder body, I have no choice. But I'm still pissed. *equally annoying is being forced to mount a red eye light beacon on the front of my camera. As a street photographer I like to keep a low profile. So much for being discrete. The sad part is Leica could have avoided the external filter solution by implimenting a more aggressive sensor filter. The .5mm absorbtive filter could have been combined with a thin film reflective coating that could have avoided the necessity of an external filter. I wish that Leica would go this route even if I had to send the camera back to Sohm for a retrofit. Using the external filters on a temporary basis would be OK with me if they would commit to a real fix. But such an admission of a real technical solution would be difficult for Leica to make. Don't get me wrong, the sensor IR solution is very complex and right at the limit as being solvable. But it could be done. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grober Posted November 22, 2006 Share #13 Posted November 22, 2006 NOT acceptable to us until Leica significantly ameliorates the unplanned additional expense of buying filters and now-mandatory 6-bit coding. -g Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 22, 2006 Share #14 Posted November 22, 2006 im thinking that down the track a bit there will be a more propriety in that a real fix will be applied (yes it just could be that is what will happen in this fix, we have to wait and see) and on that M8 camera, filters will not be necessary Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 22, 2006 Share #15 Posted November 22, 2006 Rob, I think you're correct. Right now, there isn't time or money to do anything other than recommend filters and ease the pain of their introduction. Longer term, they may look at coating the sensor glass to remove the need for lens filters. Filters are, at best, a medium term fix to a design flaw. Needs must, as they say. Before the M8 was announced, people used to wonder whether a sensor upgrade would be available, thinking pixels, crop factor and colour depth. I guess I'm thinking now that a sensor upgrade to sort out the filtering would be good, but it would be bound to be expensive. What's certain is that if an M8-2 comes out with a new sensor and no upgrade path for M8 users, the early M8s will be worth peanuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdewitt Posted November 22, 2006 Share #16 Posted November 22, 2006 Accept the solution and move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 22, 2006 Share #17 Posted November 22, 2006 The sad part is Leica could have avoided the external filter solution by implimenting a more aggressive sensor filter. The .5mm absorbtive filter could have been combined with a thin film reflective coating that could have avoided the necessity of an external filter. I wish it were that easy, but I don't believe it is. There is already something on the filter, and adding another coating is apparently not an option. I bet you that Leica also wishes it were this easy. They have to make hardware changes anyway, and this camera was not made for a short run like so many others are, so whatever they can do, I am certain they will do it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted November 22, 2006 Share #18 Posted November 22, 2006 The off color is unfortunate and disappointing. But so many other things about the camera are pleasant surprises. I've shot about 800 pictures with the camera, and absolutely love it. This is a great camera! I trust Leica more than anyone to understand optics---if they say filters are the best solution, I'll be getting some filters. Hopefully Leica will decide to provide a couple. Return the camera? No way! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #19 Posted November 22, 2006 I wish it were that easy, but I don't believe it is. There is already something on the filter, and adding another coating is apparently not an option. I bet you that Leica also wishes it were this easy. They have to make hardware changes anyway, and this camera was not made for a short run like so many others are, so whatever they can do, I am certain they will do it. I didn't say it was easy. The existing filter is an absorbtive filter that has a cut-off frequency of about 780 nm. The filter has no dichroic coating on it besides the mandatory antireflection. As I have said before, one possible solution to improved IR rejection would be a modest increase in the thickness of the absorbtive layer to ,perhaps, .7 mm from the existing .5 mm. This would have a very modest effect on the edge sharpness. Given some of the examples of edge sharpness I have seen on the internet, I would expect that the M8 would still be the class leader in this regard. Furthermore, the addition of a modest dichrioc thin film IR rejection coating to the package, would reduce or eliminate the need for an external filter. This is all tricky stuff but it could be done. We are talking cutting edge stuff here, its never been done because there has never been a requirement for short back focus lenses to be corrected on a digital sensor. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 22, 2006 Share #20 Posted November 22, 2006 would you like to be a fly on the wall, with the conversations that must be taking place between kodak and leica? Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.