AlphAlphA Posted October 12, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Am I the only one who's pissed off that Leica is happy to do cosmetic work and minor fixes on an M8, change the shutter, adjust the Delay Switch, exchange the rear viewing screen, but will not replace an inferior M8 IR sensor filter for a superior M9 IR sensor filter? It's madness to think of using an M8 and an M9 with the different internal filters. It's totally impractical and I don't understand why nobody else is complaining about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Hi AlphAlphA, Take a look here IR Cut Filters, M8 & M9. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted October 12, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 12, 2009 Swapping the IR cover glass may not actually be possible. Changing the sensor and glass (as a unit) is probably not an economically sound proposition. I think Leica (quite reasonably) consider that the M digital has moved on and the M9 is where all their energies are directed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 12, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 12, 2009 Am I the only one who's pissed off that Leica is happy to do cosmetic work and minor fixes on an M8, change the shutter, adjust the Delay Switch, exchange the rear viewing screen, but will not replace an inferior M8 IR sensor filter for a superior M9 IR sensor filter? It's madness to think of using an M8 and an M9 with the different internal filters. It's totally impractical and I don't understand why nobody else is complaining about it. Believe it or not, some of us don't want to switch the M8 sensor for a cut-down M9 sensor. Whatever else other people's tests have shown them, my own tests with the two cameras side-by-side leaves me decidedly preferring the M8 files, in my opinion: - the M8 files were marginally sharper - the M8 files showed more differentiation in close midtones - this is the opposite of what some M9 owners have said, so take it or leave it, or try your own test (I did shoot the M9 uncompressed, incidentally) - I preferred the color of the M8 If you don't like using the filters, buy an M9. You also get a full-frame camera in the bargain (which is the nicest part). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 12, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 12, 2009 Am I the only one who's pissed off that Leica is happy to do cosmetic work and minor fixes on an M8, change the shutter, adjust the Delay Switch, exchange the rear viewing screen, but will not replace an inferior M8 IR sensor filter for a superior M9 IR sensor filter? It's madness to think of using an M8 and an M9 with the different internal filters. It's totally impractical and I don't understand why nobody else is complaining about it. Probably because Leica would no doubt ask almost much as the cost of trading over to an M9. What would be economically feasible to facilitate using an M8 and M9 together would be if Leica added an IR-ON setting in the M9's firmware so filters could be left on lenses being swapped between an M8. At the same time it would encourage those of us to buy an M9 who would need to use IR filters on the M9 because it's still too IR sensitive for our work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphAlphA Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted October 12, 2009 What angers me is that my investment in M8 paid for the research that built M9 and harms M8's compatibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
footnoteblog Posted October 13, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 13, 2009 What angers me is that my investment in M8… There's your mistake right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 13, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 13, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Alph-- I bought an M8 and after a couple years' use, upgraded it to M8.15 status or whatever you want to call it. Six months later, Leica came out with the M9. So what? I've had good use of the M8 and still have a solid picture taker. If I want to shoot IR, I get excellent results from it. If you want to gripe, you'll find a lot of people on the forum who'll commiserate and tell you how dumb you were ever to buy a Leica in the first place, especially a digital one, and certainly not the first digital M they made! I'm glad Leica has a full-frame camera; I wish I had more money. But I don't blame them for using my money to develop a new model. They didn't force me to buy. I made that choice myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted October 13, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 13, 2009 What angers me is that my investment in M8 paid for the research that built M9 and harms M8's compatibility. How does the M9 harm your M8? Did it suddenly stop being capable of making great photographs? Do you get angry when you buy a new car, and shortly thereafter discover that the manufacturer has brought out a new model? It's called product evolution, and like bodily waste, it happens! Be happy with your M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted October 13, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 13, 2009 Am I the only one who's pissed off that Leica is happy to do cosmetic work and minor fixes on an M8, change the shutter, adjust the Delay Switch, exchange the rear viewing screen, but will not replace an inferior M8 IR sensor filter for a superior M9 IR sensor filter? It's madness to think of using an M8 and an M9 with the different internal filters. It's totally impractical and I don't understand why nobody else is complaining about it. Actually - many of us did precisely this when using an M8 and an M7 (or other film M) together. Didn't bother me overly, since I tend to decide which lens I'm going to use in advance. I really don't think it would have been economic to do what you describe, it would be like expecting Ferrari to retrofit the new models engine into the previous car. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
H. James Wolf Posted October 13, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 13, 2009 I, too, think Leica is ignoring those of us who bought M8s and have to use the IR filter - something that's a problem since I shoot digital and film with the same lenses. When I'm photographing an incident for our volunteer fire company, I don't have time to change filters on lenses. This is the first time since Ms replaced LTMs that the old bodies cannot be upgraded. (Remember replacing pressure plates on early M3s and converting double stroke to single stroke?. Leica has truly left the M8 owners holding the bag. Perhaps selling or trading the M8 is indeed the best idea, but if it happens this time, it will be for another Canon D1, not an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
croweatr Posted October 13, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 13, 2009 It's called product evolution, and like bodily waste, it happens! Be happy with your M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 13, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 13, 2009 This is the first time since Ms replaced LTMs that the old bodies cannot be upgraded. Where do I send my M6 to be upgraded to an M7? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted October 13, 2009 Share #13 Posted October 13, 2009 Leica has truly left the M8 owners holding the bag. Perhaps selling or trading the M8 is indeed the best idea, but if it happens this time, it will be for another Canon D1, not an M9. No they have left you holding an M8 - a great camera, but in order to stay in business they have bought out an improved model - the M9. And so it goes. A couple of months ago I bought a Canon 50D for a specific type of photography. Low and behold they then bring out a 7D, left me holding the bag etc. If you are going to trade for a Canon 1 series then I suggest you wait a bit, both the 1D3 and the 1Ds3 are due for replacement - if you dont want to be left holding the bag that is. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brill64 Posted October 13, 2009 Share #14 Posted October 13, 2009 ooohh...the "P" word. i still love my m8, sure the uv/ir filters suck. i guess it doesn't make economical sense for leica to make smaller 1.8x filters to retro-fit over the m8's ccd although it does sound like a good idea. there's probably no space Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphAlphA Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted October 13, 2009 It's called product evolution, and like bodily waste, it happens! Be happy with your M8. Throughout the history of M cameras there was no interruption of use of lenses. As a matter of fact, Leica consistently touts its reputation on excellence of lenses. Making their reason d'être a cripple on the M8.2 does no good to the brand name and legacy, and certainly makes life harder for photographers. You may recall that in February 2008 Leica CEO Steven K. Lee was fired for suggesting that a full frame M camera was in the works. It appears Leica got rid of him to shut him up and end the speculation to keep milking the M8/M8.2. I've been working with Leicas for decades, but this is the first time I've felt betrayed. A first generation film M uses the same film and lenses as the last, with the exception of unique deep lenses that interfere with a moving light sensor, or the screw mount mount/bayonet adapter. This M8 filter business, however, is an outrage because this is a matter of lens performance—the quality of the transmission of light—and what a telling thing it is, should this camera indeed be equated with excrement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 13, 2009 Share #16 Posted October 13, 2009 ... this camera indeed be equated with excrement. What nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted October 13, 2009 Share #17 Posted October 13, 2009 Throughout the history of M cameras there was no interruption of use of lenses. As a matter of fact, Leica consistently touts its reputation on excellence of lenses. Making their reason d'être a cripple on the M8.2 does no good to the brand name and legacy, and certainly makes life harder for photographers. You may recall that in February 2008 Leica CEO Steven K. Lee was fired for suggesting that a full frame M camera was in the works. It appears Leica got rid of him to shut him up and end the speculation to keep milking the M8/M8.2. I've been working with Leicas for decades, but this is the first time I've felt betrayed. A first generation film M uses the same film and lenses as the last, with the exception of unique deep lenses that interfere with a moving light sensor, or the screw mount mount/bayonet adapter. This M8 filter business, however, is an outrage because this is a matter of lens performance—the quality of the transmission of light—and what a telling thing it is, should this camera indeed be equated with excrement. Woooo! So much anger. I agree that having to use a filter to reduce the IR light is a not ideal situation, but many people use a filter anyway as protection for the lens element, so it's not that big a deal in reality. And if you decide to use the lens on another camera, then you simply remove the filter. I can't see how this prevents use of the lens in any way, shape or form. You can also use any lens without a filter if you wish, just remember that you may get some unwanted colour shifts. I'm sorry, but I think that you are being just a teeny bit extreme in your comments. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted October 13, 2009 Share #18 Posted October 13, 2009 And if you decide to use the lens on another camera, then you simply remove the filter. I can't see how this prevents use of the lens in any way, shape or form. Nicole, it doesn't. I usually use a yellow filter on a lens when I'm shooting black and white film. When I want to use colour film I have to remove the filter in order to avoid colour casts - rather strong ones in fact <grin>. The principle is the same with the M8 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphAlphA Posted October 13, 2009 Author Share #19 Posted October 13, 2009 Yes, I am angry. I'm angry because of the incompatibility of the M8 with the M9. The beauty of Leica was seamlessness of the system. I could carry a couple of bodies and switch lenses between them without a thought. At conferences and on the fly, it was a great pleasure. The IR issue buggers it up. It's not simple. To remove a filter you have to remove a patented lens hood, or disassemble and reassemble a hood and ensure you don't damage or lose the filter after you've removed it. Leica has done a disservice to M8 users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 13, 2009 Share #20 Posted October 13, 2009 Nicole, it doesn't. I usually use a yellow filter on a lens when I'm shooting black and white film. When I want to use colour film I have to remove the filter in order to avoid colour casts - rather strong ones in fact <grin>. . True. That was but one of many inconveniences we had to put up with in the days of film which no longer ought apply in the digital photography age. If there was a UV/IR-ON setting in the M9 it would tidly solve the intercompatibility issue as well as the issue of the M9's incomplete filtration of IR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.