rick123 Posted November 22, 2006 Share #1 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi everyone, With all the talk of using IR filters with the M8 (assuming this is part of the solution), are there any downsides? Do the colors get altered (other than black from magenta) from their natural appearance? Is a faster lens needed? Thanks! Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 22, 2006 Posted November 22, 2006 Hi rick123, Take a look here Simple Question about the Use of IR Filters with the M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
blakley Posted November 22, 2006 Share #2 Posted November 22, 2006 If you use the correct (486 reflective IR cut) filter, you will lose no speed (the filter factor is 1.0) and all visible colors should come out correct, subject to any deviations introduced by the RAW profile, WB inaccuracy, RAW-to-JPEG conversion, and post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick123 Posted November 22, 2006 Author Share #3 Posted November 22, 2006 Thanks Bob! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
comapedrosa Posted November 22, 2006 Share #4 Posted November 22, 2006 I've actually only lately come around to wonder about this very basic question too: is it that terrible to use a filter? As for apparently most forum members, I was at first totally dismayed by the concept that one would have to stick a filter in front of the expensive glass for the camera to fulfill its most basic function. But after much rambling, research and insight, it now almost sounds like a vast number of cameras might benefit from the use of such filter in front of the front element (NDR: I am not interested nor qualified to discuss what cameras would benefit most from an IR filter). Hence I would be very interested in other opinions from forum members about the downside of using the filter in terms of image quality (besides price and availability). I am now starting to suspect that my initial gut-reaction was totally wrong... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #5 Posted November 22, 2006 I've actually only lately come around to wonder about this very basic question too: is it that terrible to use a filter? As for apparently most forum members, I was at first totally dismayed by the concept that one would have to stick a filter in front of the expensive glass for the camera to fulfill its most basic function. But after much rambling, research and insight, it now almost sounds like a vast number of cameras might benefit from the use of such filter in front of the front element (NDR: I am not interested nor qualified to discuss what cameras would benefit most from an IR filter). Hence I would be very interested in other opinions from forum members about the downside of using the filter in terms of image quality (besides price and availability). I am now starting to suspect that my initial gut-reaction was totally wrong... First, a disclosure. I am an anti filter person. That is, for filter that don't do anything but protect the lens from dust and grime. There are a lot of people that love protective filters and think that it is a crime to leave an expensive lens unprotected. I have tested the concept and convinced my self that filters rarely do any good and sometimes do some real bad. But mostly they are just there, not doing much of anything One thing that IS important to realize is that a well made coated filter will NOT degrade the image even of a prime quality lens. In the olden days, float glass could degrade the image slightly but not anymore. The real problem with filter is filter flare and ghost images in backlight situations. Basically I can do without them HOWEVER, whadda ya do when ha godda have a filter? The M8 likes like it does. So can I live with a filter? The answer is, if I want a digital rangefinder with more than 6MP and be of Leica quality, I better learn to love filters. But I still have my RD1 so maybe I will wait and see what shakes out. One the other hand, it's hard to take part in these intellectually stimulating discussions without my own M8. Rex still vexed in Berkeley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 22, 2006 Share #6 Posted November 22, 2006 First, a disclosure. I am an anti filter person. That is, for filter that don't do anything but protect the lens from dust and grime. There are a lot of people that love protective filters and think that it is a crime to leave an expensive lens unprotected. I have tested the concept and convinced my self that filters rarely do any good and sometimes do some real bad. But mostly they are just there, not doing much of anything One thing that IS important to realize is that a well made coated filter will NOT degrade the image even of a prime quality lens. In the olden days, float glass could degrade the image slightly but not anymore. The real problem with filter is filter flare and ghost images in backlight situations. Basically I can do without them HOWEVER, whadda ya do when ha godda have a filter? The M8 likes like it does. So can I live with a filter? The answer is, if I want a digital rangefinder with more than 6MP and be of Leica quality, I better learn to love filters. But I still have my RD1 so maybe I will wait and see what shakes out. One the other hand, it's hard to take part in these intellectually stimulating discussions without my own M8. Rex still vexed in Berkeley Your RD1 will benefit by a filter too, Rex... What I've been considering: IR does give an unnecessary light fill to the pixels. Using an IR filter will increase dynamic range. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted November 22, 2006 Share #7 Posted November 22, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Your RD1 will benefit by a filter too, Rex... What I've been considering: IR does give an unnecessary light fill to the pixels. Using an IR filter will increase dynamic range. Yes, the RD1 does benefit from an IR filter. I have a Heliopan that does a good job but the IR sensitivity of the RD1 is only modestly high. It's pretty easy to profile out (ya, like about two days of custom profiling:eek: ) Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
comapedrosa Posted November 22, 2006 Share #8 Posted November 22, 2006 While we are at it, would the old and trusted D2 benefit from it (when I read that the DR might be stretched out, my heart jumped a beat)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevenrk Posted November 22, 2006 Share #9 Posted November 22, 2006 Thanks Bob! One more thing to take into account. That is the reflective qualty of the 486 compared to other filters. See post number 50 on the thread here titled "Re: It's 8:00AM in the USA & 2:00PM in Germany, Any Word from Leica re: M8?" http://www.leica-camera-user.com/dig...-2-00pm-3.html There is a photograph of the strong magenta reflection of a 486 filter that gives a good sense of what it will look like from an angle in sunlight or artificial light. It's purely a personal choice whether this is something that would limit its use for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.