Will IR cut filters AND coding be necessary on longer lenses?

[edlaurpic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps I am a little thick, but what I have been reading seems contradictory. At first I understood that 6 bit coding would be necessary only on lenses longer than 28mm to reduce unwanted vignetting and that other than that function, the codiing only added exif data. Then it seemed that the 6 bit coding could also reduce or eliminate cyan in the corners of images shot with the IR filter, but, again, I thought this was only an issue with lenses longer than 28mm.

 

I had the impression that the use of UV/IR cut filters, alone, on lenses 28mm or longer is all we would need to tame the magenta beast and get good AWB. Is this true? Or do we need to have the 6 bit coding AND the filters even on lenses longer than 28mm?

 

This isn't a trivial question for me, as I have a dozen lenses longer than 28mm that will not only need filters (only two of which Leica is apparently going to offer to provide tomorrow), but the lenses would also need 6 bit coding (not just for exif data but also for image quality).

 

Your advice will be much appreciated.

 

Please forgive this post if it has already been covered in other threads, but even though I have read the posts on this and related topics, this is still not clear to me.

[edlaurpic]

I meant to say:

 

At first I understood that 6 bit coding would be necessary only on lenses longer than 28mm to reduce unwanted vignetting and that other than that function, the codiing only added exif data. Then it seemed that the 6 bit coding could also reduce or eliminate cyan in the corners of images shot with the IR filter, but, again, I thought this was only an issue with lenses SHORTER than 28mm.

 

I hope the question is now clearer . . .

[johnastovall]

All lenses will require IR cut filters to correct the IR contamination problem regardless of focal length.

[mike prevette]

The issue is the fact that on the wider lenses with the filter, a slight cyan color cast apears on the outside edges of the frame. Basically the light is traveling at too steep and angle and receives to much of the ir filtration. The question is now wether leica will implement some firmware correction for the color cast in addition to the current vignetting correction. I personally will just correct for it in photoshop/or raw processer and have no interest getting my lenses coded.

 

_mike

[mike prevette]

Just reread your Q. Yes the IR is an issue for all lenses, but the cyan corners will only affect lenses with a entry pupel incedence angle of 33 degrees. 28mm or wider.

[edlaurpic]

First topic:

 

I think I get it, but let me ask one more time this way . . .

 

Unless I want exif data, after getting the filters for my lenses that are 28mm or longer, will it be necessary for any reason to also have them 6 bit coded?

 

(I hope the answer is "No.")

 

Related topic:

 

And so we are clear about the extent to which Leica is going to assist us in this situation, would it be correct to say that they will provide two filters and only two filters gratis and are not offering even a discount for people who need more than two filters because they have many more than two lenses?

 

Seems ironic—the more devoted you have been to Leica glass, the more you will have to pay for the privelege of using your lenses on an M8?

 

Of course, there is the 30% discount on one lens, which is nice, but that won't make up for the cost of having to purchase at retail a dozen UV/IR cut filters...and what if, like me, you don't want/need any more M lenses?

 

Sorry to sound a little ungrateful for Leica's gesture regarding the discount on one new lens for eaarly buyers who have already received our M8's, but, as noted before, for avid users of Leica M cameras and lenses, one of the reasons we wanted an M digital camera was so that we would continue to be able to put our M lenses to work... and not have to pay for that privilege beyond the cost of the camera.

 

And why should we have to send our cameras in for the "upgrade" related to the banding and green blob instead of receive immediate replacments? These were defects right out of the box, which some people suspected/noticed early but which Leica did not immediately acknowlege. Once acknowledged, it seems to me that when a purchaser receives a product that is defective right out of the box, he/she has a right to have it replaced with a new non-defective unit...not have to send it in for "upgrade" or repairs. Again, I really feel for Leica, and I want them to come out of this all right, but early purchasers of the camera prior to Leica acknowledging the problem should get an immediate replacement camera before new buyers receive any of the next batch of cameras.

 

Go ahead and be tough on me about this if you disagree. I am not saying this just to spout off dissatisfaction. If I am out of line, tell me. Otherwise, it seems to me that those of us who purchased early and got defective cameras should get replacements, not an invitation to send it in for repairs... that might be appropriate if it happened a year from now, but not immediately upon delivery to us. The two gratis filters and the 30% off on a new lens seems like a reasonable gesture (to those of us who don't already own a cabinet full of M lenses, that is) as compensation for the inconvenience of having to use filters to deal with the UV/IR issue, but we should get any filters beyond the two free ones that we need at least at Leica's wholesale cost. We shouldn't have to pay full retain for them, and our defective cameras should be replaced...swapped, however you want to put it.

 

Leica hasn't officially posted what it intends to do so maybe if enough early purchasers feel the same way Leica will go a little further to deal with this... although it appears that the earlier post relaying the information that a dealer received may be their bottom line about this. If so, Leica is missing an opportunity to handle this situation in an optimum way—that is, as the saying goes, in a "stand up" way— it seems to me. Acknowledging the defects and offering to correct them (albeit at substantial cost and inconvenience to the purchaser) is, I suppose, better than denial or inviting us to sue to get what we bargained for.

 

Expecting the purchaser to pay to "put right" what Leica said would be right with this camera when we received it is a mistake. This should not be and it almost cancels out the gesture regarding the new lens discount and two filters (it doesn't quite cancel it out, but almost).

[chetccox]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree. No new cameras should be shipped until the old ones have been replaced. They have the boards and have modified them already. All they have to do is pop them into the cameras. The only problem I see with an exchange is that any camera that they would get back under this program could only be sold as 'refurbished'. In the United States at least I don't think they could resell these cameras as new. This is not to say they could not sell them at a discounted price, but I will bet they are not about to do this.

[robsteve]

First topic:

 

 

And why should we have to send our cameras in for the "upgrade" related to the banding and green blob instead of receive immediate replacments? These were defects right out of the box, which some people suspected/noticed early but which Leica did not immediately acknowlege. Once acknowledged, it seems to me that when a purchaser receives a product that is defective right out of the box, he/she has a right to have it replaced with a new non-defective unit...not have to send it in for "upgrade" or repairs.

 

This is where you have to talk to your Leica dealer. If you are still within their return policy limit, return it to the dealer for a refund. For those that do return, I hope the dealer puts you at the head of the list for the next batch of M8 that come in.

[edlaurpic]

You have a point regarding having to sell the returned camera as refurbished instead of new, but if they were accompanied by a Leica warranty I believe they would sell well even if the discount from new were only $1,000. And, given that Leica—like all camera makers—stands to make more money selling lenses than cameras, individuals who might balk at $4800 might go for it at $3,800, and here's an idea, what if the refurbished cameras came with a coupon good for at 10% discount on any new lens? The more Leica gets people buying lenses (without using an artificial means of pulling them in, such as unnecessary lens coding), the better will be their profits and the bigger their customer base will become.

 

Sean Reid's suggestion about manually lens settings through firmware . . .

 

Regarding my earlier question about the need for coding on lenses that have filters attached, I just re-read Sean Reid's Part IV piece about the M8 and he illustrated pretty effectively that even the 28mm can squeak by without coding with filter attached.

 

He made an excellent point in that piece regarding Leica making it possible through firmware for an M8 user to specify in a menu which lens is attached, thereby obviating the need for coding except if one wants fully automatic exif data and vigetting control, for example. As with some of his other suggestions, this one is very compelling and one which I hope Leica AG takes seriously, as to refuse to make such an easy change in firmware, particularly in light of the problems we have experienced with this camera and the inconvenience we will have to accept in continuing to use it with IR cut filters, would be ill-advised and wrong-headed (I hope this excess of candor will not be poorly received in Solms).

 

Indeed, it seems to me that such a change in firmware would be viewed as a generous gesture by Leica. In my opinion, the availability of the Cosina voitlander lenses actually expanded Leica's market for cameras and lenses and the R-D1 prepared the market for the M8. Refusing to alter the firmware to allow manual lens settings would be and should be viewed vy customers as an insecure and defensive decision unbefitting a company with optics of the quality of Leica's. It is foolish to think that the mere automatic coding feature will be enough to make someone choose a Leica lens over a VC lens or even a Zeiss.

[edlaurpic]

Robsteve said:

 

'This is where you have to talk to your Leica dealer. If you are still within their return policy limit, return it to the dealer for a refund. For those that do return, I hope the dealer puts you at the head of the list for the next batch of M8 that come in."

 

Yes, but the dealer's return policy is usually stated in relation to when a camera was delivered, as in defective items must be returned within two weeks of purchase date," but this situation relates to a LATENT defect and somewhat ambiguous defect that we were not sure existed in all of our cameras and it wasn't until Leica acknowledged the defect that we all knew that it existed, for sure. Moreover, we won't not know officially until tomorrow whether we have to return the camera or whether a firmware download will fix it (unlikely, I know, but no final word has been received as yet). In this case the decision to return it to the dealer is very much a function of whether the problem can be addressed without the camera having to go back to Solms.

[adan]

Since IR stain affects other colors as well as black, I suspect, especially for jpeg shooters, one would need a different color profile applied to pictures shot with the filters. One would not get cyan corner shading with the longer lenses, but might get a slight overall color shift.

 

(In fact, a slight or significant color shift away from magenta is what we WANT, is it not?)

 

E.G. I've done a Camera RAW calibration for the M8 "as is" and unfiltered, that does pretty well with color overall (not with the extreme purple shift in black) - but I expect I'd need a recalibrated, different profile saved for shots made with the filters. And so will shots processed in the camera.

 

I expect this is the kind of thing that will be addressed in the "Q&A memo" that will be part of Leica's full and official announcements Friday or Monday or whenever.

[harmsr]

First topic:

 

 

And why should we have to send our cameras in for the "upgrade" related to the banding and green blob instead of receive immediate replacments? These were defects right out of the box, which some people suspected/noticed early but which Leica did not immediately acknowlege. Once acknowledged, it seems to me that when a purchaser receives a product that is defective right out of the box, he/she has a right to have it replaced with a new non-defective unit...not have to send it in for "upgrade" or repairs. Again, I really feel for Leica, and I want them to come out of this all right, but early purchasers of the camera prior to Leica acknowledging the problem should get an immediate replacement camera before new buyers receive any of the next batch of cameras.

Go ahead and be tough on me about this if you disagree. I am not saying this just to spout off dissatisfaction. If I am out of line, tell me. Otherwise, it seems to me that those of us who purchased early and got defective cameras should get replacements, not an invitation to send it in for repairs... that might be appropriate if it happened a year from now, but not immediately upon delivery to us.

 

This has been exactly my problem since the beginning. Leica needs to handle this correctly with new replacement cameras, period.

 

Ray

[sean_reid]

I meant to say:

 

At first I understood that 6 bit coding would be necessary only on lenses longer than 28mm to reduce unwanted vignetting and that other than that function, the codiing only added exif data. Then it seemed that the 6 bit coding could also reduce or eliminate cyan in the corners of images shot with the IR filter, but, again, I thought this was only an issue with lenses SHORTER than 28mm.

 

I hope the question is now clearer . . .

 

It's a very good question. Here's what I'm finding so far in my testing:

 

wider that 28 mm - cyan drift, coding needed

28 mm - slight cyan drift, coding will be helpful

35 mm - not yet tested, possible tomorrow

50 mm - no cyan drift, coding should not be needed

longer than 50 - should also be fine, have not tested yet

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

"And so we are clear about the extent to which Leica is going to assist us in this situation, would it be correct to say that they will provide two filters and only two filters gratis and are not offering even a discount for people who need more than two filters because they have many more than two lenses?"

 

Don't assume anything in that respect just yet. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

You have a point regarding having to sell the returned camera as refurbished instead of new, but if they were accompanied by a Leica warranty I believe they would sell well even if the discount from new were only $1,000. And, given that Leica—like all camera makers—stands to make more money selling lenses than cameras, individuals who might balk at $4800 might go for it at $3,800, and here's an idea, what if the refurbished cameras came with a coupon good for at 10% discount on any new lens? The more Leica gets people buying lenses (without using an artificial means of pulling them in, such as unnecessary lens coding), the better will be their profits and the bigger their customer base will become.

 

Sean Reid's suggestion about manually lens settings through firmware . . .

 

Regarding my earlier question about the need for coding on lenses that have filters attached, I just re-read Sean Reid's Part IV piece about the M8 and he illustrated pretty effectively that even the 28mm can squeak by without coding with filter attached.

 

He made an excellent point in that piece regarding Leica making it possible through firmware for an M8 user to specify in a menu which lens is attached, thereby obviating the need for coding except if one wants fully automatic exif data and vigetting control, for example. As with some of his other suggestions, this one is very compelling and one which I hope Leica AG takes seriously, as to refuse to make such an easy change in firmware, particularly in light of the problems we have experienced with this camera and the inconvenience we will have to accept in continuing to use it with IR cut filters, would be ill-advised and wrong-headed (I hope this excess of candor will not be poorly received in Solms).

 

Indeed, it seems to me that such a change in firmware would be viewed as a generous gesture by Leica. In my opinion, the availability of the Cosina voitlander lenses actually expanded Leica's market for cameras and lenses and the R-D1 prepared the market for the M8. Refusing to alter the firmware to allow manual lens settings would be and should be viewed vy customers as an insecure and defensive decision unbefitting a company with optics of the quality of Leica's. It is foolish to think that the mere automatic coding feature will be enough to make someone choose a Leica lens over a VC lens or even a Zeiss.

 

Ed,

 

Please send those thoughts (in some form) to Leica. They need to hear from people who want manual lens selection (for correction) to be available. Then please pass the word to anyone else who cares about this issue and ask them to contact Leica as well. I am unabashedly pushing for this feature in the M8 and I think that it's important for photographers who do not wish to work with a closed system.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[edlaurpic]

Sean -

 

I don't know who to send the message to, but is it expecting too much to expect that someone in Solms reads this, their own Leica Users' Forum?

 

Further to your reference to having an open architecture or similar words by which any M lens could be used on the M8 and in which one could simply go to a lens selection menu and choose, for example, a Leica lens with a focal length and f stop close to one's non-leica lens, I am reminded of the incredibly foolish decision that Sony made in the early 80's not to license the Betamax system to other companies... expecting people who wanted to play beta tapes only to buy sony VCRs. As a result Matsuchita stepped in with VHS and licensed it to every single Japanese, Korean and US maker, quickly rendering the Beta system obsolete. This is all the more poignant given the fact that beta is far superior to VHS in audio and video quality (and is still the standard for professional broadcast).

 

There are other examples of this kind of company-centric thinking that ends up shooting the company in the foot, the most noteworthy probably being Apples refusal to license the Mac system to other computer companies, thereby creating the opening for Microsoft to copy the look of the Mac with Windows, a much inferior product (let's not have an ideological struggle about this now...everyone knows Mac is better).

 

The relevance of all of this is that the other shoe hasn't dropped at Zeiss-Ikon, which is making some very nice affordable lenses now. If they can come out with a dependable digital camera that focuses as well as their film RF entry, AND they make all M mount lenses useable on it, that would be a benefit that Leica potentially will have missed. I personally doubt the Zeiss or a successor to Epson could come up with cameras that will equal or surpass the M8, but if they are priced right and are completely flexible regarding Mmount lens choice, that is simply a potential way to compete against Leica, which, if they are unwilling to provide the firmware lens selection option, will have alienated some of their customers. But I come back to a different point, and that is this: refusing to make one's camera other-lens-friendly is an insecure, defensive, second-runner's (not front runner's) position to take, and it isn't appropriate for Leica.

 

Sean, please feel free to forward this if you would like to whomever at Leica you think will read it.

 

P.S>. It's interesting that in the Sony example above, when VHS first came out Sony's diehard supporters strived to let everyone know that Sony Beta was better (and it was), but in the end it was simply the fact that more tapes were made for VHS because more VCRs were made as VHS machines that killed consumer Beta . . . .

[robsteve]

In regards to lens coding, has anybody asked Cosina or Zeiss if they would provide a coding conversion on their exisiting lenses?

 

A good percentage of the Cosina lenses are screw mounts. All Cosina would need to do for these lenses is to provide coded L39 to M mount adapters.

[osera]

I sort of thought the coding thing was proprietary to Leica in some way? Was I mistaken about that?

[edlaurpic]

I haven't read anything to suggest that the coding is not covered by a Leica patent, but that isn't the point. In the case of Sony Beta and Apple Mac, both of these systems were also covered by copyright (computer code is copyrighted rather than patented). Therefore, in each case competitors simply came up with systems that did not technically infringe the copyright but created the "look" and the funcionality of the copyrighted system. In this case Leica's coding could be a combination of patent and copyright, as the machining might be under patent and the software/firmware that reads the code would be copyrighted. The only closed systems that seem to survive aggressive competitive activity are those which are openly licensed for royalties that competitors can afford, the best example being Dolby, which made is noise reduction technology available and affordable to virtually every single audio system manufacturer. Instead of fighting Dolby almost all of them have licensed it for their own systems and Dolby has become the standard. In Leica's case, the M mount has become the RF standard, but it is no longer covered by patent, I expect, so numerous companies have now adopted the mount for their RF cameras, both because it is a proven mount and because it enables their cameras to use Leica lenses.

 

I am not suggesting that Leica license their coding to other lens makers, although they of course could do so if they wanted. I was simply endorsing Sean Reid's idea of making it possible for an M8 owner to dial in his or her lens in the camera's menu rather than only being able to tell the camera what lens is attached by means of the coding on the lens mount.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jelderfield]

A thought on the coding of lenses vs. Sean's idea of the manual selection: With the crop factor of 1.33 my CV 21mm/F4 becomes a much more important lens for me now. It's now a 28mm - a lens I use much more than the 21. If I can't select the 21mm manually then I really can't use it as far as I'm concerned. I need to be able to rely on accurate color across the lens and do not want to make fixes in photoshop to the corners.

http://www.jefoto.com