rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #21 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) would you like to be a fly on the wall, with the conversations that must be taking place between kodak and leica? Riley Yah, especially since Kodak was giving out contradictory information on the IR sensitivety of their sensor. On the other hand, you would think that Leica would have independently checked to see for themselves what the profile was. I would imagine that there is alot of finger pointing going on. It would be nice if Kodak offered to help fix the problem seeing how they don't have any more customers for the 100500 sensor! Hope springith eternal Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2006 Posted November 22, 2006 Hi rvaubel, Take a look here Will the IR filter solution satisfy you? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Riley Posted November 22, 2006 Share #22 Posted November 22, 2006 Yah, especially since Kodak was giving out contradictory information on the IR sensitivety of their sensor. On the other hand, you would think that Leica would have independently checked to see for themselves what the profile was. I would imagine that there is alot of finger pointing going on. It would be nice if Kodak offered to help fix the problem seeing how they don't have any more customers for the 100500 sensor! Hope springith eternal Rex actually i quite understand Leica not spotting this untill too late, wherever you judge too late to be, given their inexperience in digital matters. this because of the comparitivley small size of leica compared to say canon and im thinking that 'if' kodak share some responsibility then the financial burden shifts somewhat away from leica suffice to say, that when next time comes, for it is clear that digital is the companies future now, leica will justifiably think very hard about whos sensor they incorporate i would predict a closer relationship to panasonic/olympus thats no bad deal either Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morten Grathe Posted November 22, 2006 Share #23 Posted November 22, 2006 I can live with filters if they don't block to much light. Does anybody how much they block. I need to get full use of the M8's lowlight-ability. Morten Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #24 Posted November 22, 2006 I can live with filters if they don't block to much light.Does anybody how much they block. I need to get full use of the M8's lowlight-ability. Morten They don't block any light that you can see. Only the IR "pollution" which you can't see, but unfortunely the camera can and interprets in a way that is not pleasant to nuns or penquins. Basically you don't lose anything in visible light sensitivety. The filter factor is 1.0 The only thing good about an IR filter. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted November 22, 2006 Share #25 Posted November 22, 2006 I accept the solution, and doubt i will use these fiters very often. I still believe in a good colorprofile (as Jamies proofs) to take care of most of the issues. Shoot B&W most of the times anyway! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 22, 2006 Share #26 Posted November 22, 2006 I'm sitting on the fence right now - constantly vacillating between pro and anti, but mostly just glad that my number 2 position on my dealer-list didn't come up before the issues were discovered. Essentially i have no fundamental objection to filters - and i truly don't understand the objection on cost grounds, considering the price of Leica equipment in general - but i confess that buying the first release M8 now strikes me as possibly foolhardy (with due respect to all those who have it and are loving it). I'm much more worried by the color shifts that i see in the test images using different profiles - all an excellent endeavor from the members here - but with or without filters, the images seem to me to still lack the color veracity that i originally expected from the camera. I actually think that some in-camera solution will ultimately be possible without sacrificing image quality; and then the M8 beta-release cameras will sadly be consigned to the dusty shelf of history... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted November 22, 2006 Share #27 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) After seeing Guy's results on the 'Green' thread I would accept the filters and get on with making wonderful images. A question for street shooters. Do you really think people can't see you already? Surely the key is to be insignificant, perhaps inconspicuous, but not invisible. I would think that what you wear (clothes that make you look ordinary) and the way you act is more important than what camera you are carrying. People see cameras so often these days, in all sorts of funny shapes and sizes. I'm thinking that these days the way to be successful as a street photographer is to be obvious buy ordinary. Trying to be secretive sounds like a good way to get either a punch on the nose or arrested! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2006 Share #28 Posted November 22, 2006 I'm sitting on the fence right now - constantly vacillating between pro and anti, but mostly just glad that my number 2 position on my dealer-list didn't come up before the issues were discovered. Essentially i have no fundamental objection to filters - and i truly don't understand the objection on cost grounds, considering the price of Leica equipment in general - but i confess that buying the first release M8 now strikes me as possibly foolhardy (with due respect to all those who have it and are loving it). I'm much more worried by the color shifts that i see in the test images using different profiles - all an excellent endeavor from the members here - but with or without filters, the images seem to me to still lack the color veracity that i originally expected from the camera. .. To this there is but one answer: print them on paper! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted November 22, 2006 Share #29 Posted November 22, 2006 Accept and move on. I have been using UV protect filters on all my M lenses (21 elmarit, 28 cron, 35 cron, 50 lux, 75 lux, 90 cron, 135 elmarit) and been really pleased they were there (dropped the 135 when I fell in Nepal, would have destroyed the 50 getting out of a car too quickly, smashed a filter on the 90, but no damage to the front element in a crash in Pakistan). No problem using IR Cut if they do the job. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 22, 2006 Share #30 Posted November 22, 2006 No way -- not if this is supposed to be THE solution. I would accept filters if this was only for special, definable situations -- like shooting under incandescent (incl. halogen) because this would be just as today, when I shoot Portra with a KB correction filter, and only three lenses would be affected: 28, 35 and 50 mm asphericals, and all with 46 mm filters! But not for my remaining ten M lenses. As of now, my order and down payment is on hold. They will be cancelled if the situation does not improve, that is, if Leica Camera AG continue saying "we know what's best for you, take it or leave it". The obstinate old man from the Age of Flashpowder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #31 Posted November 22, 2006 Accept and move on. I have been using UV protect filters on all my M lenses (21 elmarit, 28 cron, 35 cron, 50 lux, 75 lux, 90 cron, 135 elmarit) and been really pleased they were there (dropped the 135 when I fell in Nepal, would have destroyed the 50 getting out of a car too quickly, smashed a filter on the 90, but no damage to the front element in a crash in Pakistan). No problem using IR Cut if they do the job. Chris When you first get a digital camera that accepts M mount lenses you should do some filter experiments. Its so much easier than with film.. So, try this. Shoot into the sun with a tree or some backlite subject in the forground. Do it with a UV filter and without. Chimp the images back and forth. I will guarentee you that you will be horrified at how much contrast is lost and how the depth of the dark areas is washed out. Experiment #2. Shoot directly into the headlight of a your car in the driveway with a filter and without. Quess what.... with a filter you will have two cars instead of one! Filters suck. The only thing good about them is 95% of the time they do no harm. The other 5% they are bad news. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted November 22, 2006 Share #32 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 think Leica would really like us to believe that physics wise, it is not possible to devise a sensor that provides the same high quality images today without IR contamination, and that it is not possible to add another layer of filter on the sensor etc etc.... but this is the same Leica that until recently, told us that a digital rangefinder is not possible - until the RD-1 pops up that is.... "It's not possible" is not quite the same as "we don't know how to", and the difference is hard to tell! If this same problem were given to any of the Japanese companies, I wonder if anyone of them will come up with a solution? My guess is they goofed on this one, didn't find out until it's too late, and then decided not to pre-warn buyers, and try to buy time to do a fix AFTER the camera is launched...due to deadline constraints and marketing concerns... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #33 Posted November 22, 2006 I think Leica would really like us to believe that physics wise, it is not possible to devise a sensor that provides the same high quality images today without IR contamination, and that it is not possible to add another layer of filter on the sensor etc etc.... but this is the same Leica that until recently, told us that a digital rangefinder is not possible - until the RD-1 pops up that is.... "It's not possible" is not quite the same as "we don't know how to", and the difference is hard to tell! If this same problem were given to any of the Japanese companies, I wonder if anyone of them will come up with a solution? My guess is they goofed on this one, didn't find out until it's too late, and then decided not to pre-warn buyers, and try to buy time to do a fix AFTER the camera is launched...due to deadline constraints and marketing concerns... I basically agree that the problem is solvable at the sensor level. However, I do not blame Leica for not getting it right in the first attempt. The sensor only solution is really cutting edge stuff for a short back focus rangefinder system. This is a real difficult problem and I would really be surprised if Leica has the resources to come up with the optimal solution in any kind of timeframe. I have sort of resign myself to the external filter option because I value the other qualities of the camera more than i hate the external filter concept. Pissing and moaning about how Leica screwed up isn't going to help anything. After all I want them to be around when the M9 comes out and they solved all the problems! Meanwhile, since the M9 is about 3-5 years off, I need to consider whether I can live with my RD1 (if it lasts:o ) or I just go for the M8 now. Still pondering Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2006 Share #34 Posted November 22, 2006 What I find weird: Sunny conditions make a yellow filter virtually mandatory on black and white film. I have, in fifty years of photographing, never, ever heard anybody complain about this "ISSUE"..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. borger Posted November 22, 2006 Share #35 Posted November 22, 2006 Ask yourself ........would Leica have gotten away with vignetting of WA lenses like the R-D1 does?? Would Leica have gotten away with imagequality BELOW the current DSLR top-line?? I just think people who say "a R-D1 like package in a Leica body would have done it" .. and "i do not need MF look but want grainy 35mm film like files" are very wrong. We would have a different kind of bashing if that had been the route. With Leica optics beeing the top of the world..... imagequality has to be accordingly .... and that is what the M8 delivers .. no blurry files that need plenty of sharpening .. clean crispy razor sharp files of camera that look if they can be upsized infinetely. Above that the character of different Leica lenses showing in the files. Assuming that the weak IR filter WAS the compromise to get the other aspects as they are ..... i still think they made the right decision. I seriously think the bashing had be the same if there had been no IR issue and would have focussed on other aspects if they had made other decisions in their route to the M8. We most likely get there if this is sorted out .... we will still have to deal with "no full frame/crop factor sucks", "noisy at iso 1250 and up" etc. etc. ... LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #36 Posted November 22, 2006 What I find weird: Sunny conditions make a yellow filter virtually mandatory on black and white film. I have, in fifty years of photographing, never, ever heard anybody complain about this "ISSUE"..... jaapv Hey, thanks for the pictures a couple of weeks ago. I've always valued your insights too. Plus you live in my favorite place to visit. My wife and I always go to Amsterdam and te srrounding area when we are in Europe. Anyway, the filter issue is very personal. I can't believe some of the flame wars I've witnessed over protective filters. I think that personal style has a lot to do with how people relate to filters. In my street photography, colored filters are of limited value. Also the nature of my work, I don't even like lenscaps! It's just a style but I don't use any accessaries at all with my rangefinder cameras. But I may be soon changing my tune. That is if Leica doesn't have a sensor fix Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M'Ate Posted November 22, 2006 Share #37 Posted November 22, 2006 Much prefer to have no need to use IR filters although I have never hesitated to use B&W filters and when in the field UV filters are always fitted for protection. If the solutions provided by Leica are otherwise complete in resolving the launch issues then I anticipate buying the M8. The cost of 4 high priced filters and 4 codings are a concern. I do hope that the IR filter is not intrusive when shooting people. An ND coating to cool it would be something I'd be prepared to take an ISO hit on if it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egibaud Posted November 22, 2006 Share #38 Posted November 22, 2006 When I see the tests done with filters.... I say welcome to filters. They cost extra? yes they do. Is the result what I am looking for? yes it is. so welcome to filters, for some one who has M lenses they are still a lot cheaper than moving onto another option such as Canon or else, or sticking with buying rolls of films. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted November 22, 2006 Share #39 Posted November 22, 2006 with the conversations that must be taking place between kodak and leica?Riley Yes with all the digital total imaging systems Kodak are fitting into Hospitals and radiography practices worldwide they must be absolutely shitting themselves about consumer backlash over a few dozen boxes of digital camera sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 22, 2006 Share #40 Posted November 22, 2006 well the way i see it its not just about the components...is it leica has lost sales, any arguement there ? leica has lost some serious credibility, any arguement there ? leica may have to fit the bill for a full recall, any arguement there ? leica has had to stop production at a critical period in the sales year, any arguement there? 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.