lct Posted November 22, 2006 Share #41 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Will the IR filter solution satisfy you? Thanks no thanks. I want to use my old and new Leica lenses the same way as i did with my Ms and still do with the R-D1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2006 Posted November 22, 2006 Hi lct, Take a look here Will the IR filter solution satisfy you?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
moikle Posted November 22, 2006 Share #42 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 Absolutely! Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted November 22, 2006 Share #43 Posted November 22, 2006 Kodak doesn't lose any sleep.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2006 Share #44 Posted November 22, 2006 Thanks no thanks.I want to use my old and new Leica lenses the same way as i did with my Ms and still do with the R-D1. An IR filter would not be a bad thing to use on the RD1... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammam Posted November 22, 2006 Share #45 Posted November 22, 2006 ...people buying after the announcement must factor the need for filters into their buying decision. It all depends on where and how the announcement was made. Consumers are not required to monitor the Internet constantly to be protected. So it depends on wether the DEALER has informed the customer of Leica's announcement or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted November 22, 2006 Share #46 Posted November 22, 2006 Accept - I expect Leica will do something to ease early adopters pain ie. vouchers for filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted November 22, 2006 Share #47 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess it is my turn here. First I hate filters just never liked them and figured why put a 80 dollar filter over a 3000 dollar lens and i think many folks feel the same way, so don't think I am filter happy when i recommend the IR cut filter which i have done on several threads and many posts. But we have a fabulous RF camera in our hands that acts like my DMR so giving up a nice small RF is NOT what i want to do. I have shot it for a week now and already i can see the potential of it. Now on the other hand i have spent almost 800 dollars on filters still waiting for some. Now that part is the upsetting part because honestly we should not have to do this but i accept that and am moving on. Now i think and believe leica will give us something for this issue maybe 2 free filters and a voucher for 2 at cost. that will ease the pain of this for some. I guess the bottom line in this is this, where you going to find a better RF camera with 10mpx that has the same file quality as a 8000 dollar DMR/R9 and actually overall maybe better. I think for some folks it is the thought than the money and i understand that but understanding the design and the limitations that Leica had with a M series you grasp the issue better and are more accepting of the issue. That is something that i have done is to understand what happened so for me that is a compromise that i will accept, so i am at the point with a lot of money invested in it with lenses , filters and all that i am at the point of out of my dead cold hands am i giving this up and will most likely order a second one soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurtch Posted November 22, 2006 Share #48 Posted November 22, 2006 My M8 is on order. I will accept it when delivered. If the IR filter is required as a "fix" what do we do if we need polarizers....stack them? Never a good ndea. Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 22, 2006 Share #49 Posted November 22, 2006 An IR filter would not be a bad thing to use on the RD1... What for really? I've shot about 6,000 pics with the R-D1 and never got the least magenta or whatever colour cast problem outdoor. Perhaps 4 or 5 times indoor (tungsten) but was easy to fix by PP then. I did not even know that such filters exist... I want to use my Leica lenses the same way as i did with my M bodies. I don't want to be bored by coding or filters of any sort. I want to use my dear old 'cron 40/2 without getting ugly colours. I want to use non Leica lenses if i need without any restriction. Quite understandable isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted November 24, 2006 Share #50 Posted November 24, 2006 My prediction... Leica will make a hardware change sometime next year to deal with the IR problem after initially trying to solve it with the filter solution. It will come as a result of consumer pressure and less than expected M8 sales. In a few years time, the initial batch of M8's with the IR problem will become a collectors item because of it's superior resolution in comparison to the "fixed" M8 as well as the ability to be used for IR photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted November 24, 2006 Share #51 Posted November 24, 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. really? i've never, ever seen that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertknappmd Posted November 24, 2006 Share #52 Posted November 24, 2006 Let's grow up, accept the solution and move on.... BTW, hope the IR filter is a B+W with MRC so that flare is essentially nullified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 24, 2006 Share #53 Posted November 24, 2006 My prediction... Leica will make a hardware change sometime next year to deal with the IR problem after initially trying to solve it with the filter solution. It will come as a result of consumer pressure and less than expected M8 sales. In a few years time, the initial batch of M8's with the IR problem will become a collectors item because of it's superior resolution in comparison to the "fixed" M8 as well as the ability to be used for IR photography now that the facts of the matter are known this is almost certainly going to be the case. be it Just on the behaviour here of late, true or not, people will inevitably believe that M8 ver1 was always so much sharper than the subsequent 'fixed' versions. and no one will understand the aversion to the filter solution given the sharps available Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph S. Wisniewski Posted November 24, 2006 Share #54 Posted November 24, 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 The filter blocks very little visible light, less than 4% (0.06 stops). In exchange for that little bit of light, it improves low light performance. IR contamination creates problems with "mutual information", it adds data that appears in all three channels of the sensor output (red, green, and blue, although red and blue tend to be stronger than green, resulting in magenta tints). Data that is common to all three sensor channels increases noise in the shadow detail when you correct it (I won't get into an ozone discussion about large negative non-diagonal matrix coefficients or high local slopes in a spare to space interpolator). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph S. Wisniewski Posted November 24, 2006 Share #55 Posted November 24, 2006 Let's grow up, accept the solution and move on.... BTW, hope the IR filter is a B+W with MRC so that flare is essentially nullified. Both my B+W and Heliopan IR blocking filters have excellent "lens side" AR coatings, very modern. Unfortunately, I can't measure their effectiveness on my goniometer stand because I'm picking up the front dichroic coating. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted November 24, 2006 Share #56 Posted November 24, 2006 The solution satisfies me and I am EAGERLY awaiting word from my dealer that he is shipping my M8. Actually, with Jamie's profiles, I'd have been satisfied even without filters. That camera is producing some of the best looking digital images I've ever seen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph S. Wisniewski Posted November 24, 2006 Share #57 Posted November 24, 2006 really? i've never, ever seen that... No color film had sufficient IR sensitivity to cause these type of magenta problems. He's confusing some UV sensitivity characteristics of early color films with the IR sensitivity of digital cameras. Photographers didn't "simply" tell their subjects to wear different clothing. They put a lot of money into having their studio strobes fitted with tubes with UV absorbing coatings, or adding UV absorbing domes over the tubes, or getting soft boxes with UV absorbing diffusion panels. Film manufacturers also put a lot of money into reducing the UV sensitivity of their films. My old Chimeras have UV absorbing panels, and most of my White Lightnings have been updated to UV filtered tubes. It's not needed as much now, but I want them all to match each other, and to match the Elinchroms at the MPW studio. For nature photography, UV sensitivity basically reduced contrast, but didn't shift colors to the extent that IR sensitivity does, so it was easier to deal with. The effects were often actually helpful. IR sensitivity causes any number of image damaging problems. Aside from color shifts, there's blotchy skin, increased visibility of veins, and an x-ray vision effect that isn't enough to really see through clothing to the "good parts" but is just enough to show you more annoying underwear lines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph S. Wisniewski Posted November 24, 2006 Share #58 Posted November 24, 2006 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! There are street shooters that rely on skill. Curiously enough, all the ones I know, on the mean streets of Detroit, use SLRs. There's a special kind of street shooter that relies on stealth. Those are the ones that buy a 90 degree mirror lens attachment for their SLR, or use long lenses, or shoot rangefinders... Urban Dictionary: leicaphile Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.