sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #41 Posted October 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry Sean--done in Lightroom, so I can't / won't comment. Hi Jamie, OK, I just ran the tungsten IR test pictures through C1 and its the same deal as we saw in LR. I'll prep them for an additional section of the review when time allows but the relationship between the three is the same. Again, this is not news to Leica and they have been forthcoming about it in their FAQ. *But*, again, the sensitivity may well not be enough for many people to bother filtering it. Tungsten brings it out the most. I'm not using IR-cut filters on the M9 myself. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 10, 2009 Posted October 10, 2009 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Leica M9 with filter or au naturel ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
D&A Posted October 10, 2009 Share #42 Posted October 10, 2009 Hi All, I haven't worked with enough M9 files to personally make a pronouncement if IR contamination may be a problem in some of the events I generally shoot...specifically under certain kinds of lighting. Only time will tell and whether it is an issue or not for some, may be dependent as many have said, on individual circumstamces and the threshold of what one expects. I personally commend Leica for being forthcoming. I think though that the need for a menu option for UVIR filter use on lenses with the M9, stems from two points of view. First are from those who desire to use UVIR filters on lenses with the M9, to remove additonal traces of IR contamination without having to resort to cyan corner correction. The other is from those that want to continue using their M8/M8.2 in conjunction with an M9, and don't want the hassle of fitting and removing UVIR filters when switching lenses between cameras..especially wide angle lenses. I feel at this time there may be equal or greater numbers in the latter case (those using M8/M8.2's along with their M9's) and possibly Leica might be better served in the long run by addressing this issue in the M9 through menu selection, even thoiugh as Sein reid pointed out, it's no simple matter fro Leica to redo all the necessary computations for all the lenses. Its one small issue to a very notable and superb camera, but I believe this issue may become more prominant to both potential groups I mentioned above, as time goes by and more M9's are in the hands of users. Just some thoughts to mull over. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #43 Posted October 10, 2009 I brought this up in another thread but never saw a response: An expert at Leica told me that perhaps there may not be noticeable cyan drift in the corners when using the 24 lux on the M9 because of how the front element is designed (no recess I think) as compared to other 24mm lenses. In fact, I have used the 24 lux on my M9 and so far do not see any cyan in the corners but my experience is very preliminary. The simplest answer is to try it out and see what happens. Either watch your normal pictures with that lens or, if you want to be deliberate, shoot a white wall (or the like) which is evenly lit *by only one type of light source*. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olsen Posted October 10, 2009 Share #44 Posted October 10, 2009 I had a hilarious experience when putting my MP through the paces with some negative colour film, the other day. When the prints came back from the lab, my black photo bags came out all purple! Today the film is scanned in a Noritsu scanner before prints are made. Can there be some IR/UV filter missing in the process? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_m Posted October 10, 2009 Share #45 Posted October 10, 2009 Sean, Thanks for the advice. Do you think the closeness of the front element to the filter that exists with the 24 lux could explain less cyan corners than with other 24s or does this theory not make any sense? Thanks, Doug Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalker649 Posted October 10, 2009 Share #46 Posted October 10, 2009 Sean, what is your take on putting a high quality UV filter on the front of your lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #47 Posted October 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sean, Thanks for the advice. Do you think the closeness of the front element to the filter that exists with the 24 lux could explain less cyan corners than with other 24s or does this theory not make any sense? Thanks, Doug It seems surprising but I'm not an optical engineer so I really couldn't say one way or another. But you certainly could test to find out how it behaves. You may not find out why but you can find out the "what". Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 10, 2009 Share #48 Posted October 10, 2009 Sean, what is your take on putting a high quality UV filter on the front of your lenses? I understand that some people like them for protection. I myself prefer not to have the extra reflective surfaces so I normally use them only when I'm photographing near sand, sea spray, etc. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suden Posted October 25, 2009 Share #49 Posted October 25, 2009 This is something I've been pondering in general having just sold my M8 and the UV/IR filters I had for my lenses, my primary being the 35 Summilux ASPH. I have the M9 on order and am mulling over which filter route to take. I've always used high quality (usually B+W) multicoated UV filters on all of my lenses with various cameras for protection but this time I'm wondering if a clear multicoated filter might be better than a UV...anybody have any thoughts on this? Also, in my experience, the multicoated filters rarely had ghosting or flare issues...whereas the UV/IR filters did on occasion. The multicoating really does make a difference and is worth the extra money, IMHO but does it diminish the quality of the image to any significant degree? I usually leave my filters on all the time...for night shooting as well as day for protection, so that's why I usually buy multicoated filters. I've considered shooting without and using just a hood but just a few weeks ago an incident happened that would have possibly caused major damage to my lens-turned around in the dark and right into a protruding metal object-thankfully, my B+W filter saved the day and came away without even a scratch on it to boot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom M Posted October 25, 2009 Share #50 Posted October 25, 2009 Does anybody have an idea what repair cost are to be expected for exchanging the front element?/QUOTE] For your edification: US$ 600 for the front element on a 75mm f1.4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.