Reasons to upgrade to M8

[Gabriel M.A.]

If I was getting the M8, I would get some filters, but I certainly would feel p****d off by it, if I wasn't expecting it.

That's what happened. People didn't read. When they read after the fact that that was the specification the whole time, they took that as an admission of guilt. The whole thing is like watching a bad adaptation of a Kafka short story on SCTV.

 

[Ben Z]

Where did that come from, The K. Rove School of Spin?

It's like saying that the 1.6x crop factor is a flaw. And that Canon has clearly admitted it's a flaw because they've officially stated that the specification for their camera sensor has a 1.6x crop factor.

Very circular (and fallaced) logic here.

I agree, your logic is about as cockeyed as it gets, and you want talk about spin???? . Show me where in Leica's literature preceding the release of the M8 that they stated the camera would require IR filters on lenses. You can't, because they didn't. Leica didn't say a word until the subject came up on internet forums, and then after a couple weeks, announced the filters. Everyone knew the crop factor of every Canon body before it went on sale, it's totally not the same thing.

 

[Ben Z]

That's what happened. People didn't read. When they read after the fact that that was the specification the whole time, they took that as an admission of guilt. The whole thing is like watching a bad adaptation of a Kafka short story on SCTV.

Again, all you have to do is show us any official literature on the M8 prior to the time the issue broke on the internet, where Leica stated the camera would require IR filters. Simple request.

 

[DaveSee]

Again, all you have to do is show us any official literature on the M8 prior to the time the issue broke on the internet, where Leica stated the camera would require IR filters. Simple request.

There is no "literature", official or otherwise, anywhere--not the 'net, not recorded audio, not printed on paper, nowhere except posts made by Ben Z and Athena--that states "IR cut filters are required on lenses used with the Leica M8".

Is that simple enough for you, Ben?

 

[Ben Z]

There is no "literature", official or otherwise, anywhere--not the 'net, not recorded audio, not printed on paper, nowhere except posts made by Ben Z and Athena--that states "IR cut filters are required on lenses used with the Leica M8".

Is that simple enough for you, Ben?

I really feel like an idiot even responding to such poppycock but for the sake of anyone who might be reading and not know anything about what's been going on re the M8 for the last 3 months:

from Leica's official statment published on their website :

In everyday photographical use the resulting above-average sensitivity for infrared light may lead to a faulty color rendition....

Our solution: We will offer special screw-on type UV/IR filters for all Leica M lenses.

Are they required? Not if all you want is to be pedantic, only if you want proper colors.

 

[barjohn]

don't know about this - I don't know of any way to digitally filter optical frequencies over a 2-D field. It's a completely different issue to radio frequencies from a single source. And you'd have to do it before the sensor, as by then the light has been converted into an analogue signal, and all frequency information has been lost. I'd guess it's just not possible.

I have a group of optical engineers that work for one of my branches and they do a lot of esoteric work in optics and electro-optics. We do work in IR and other spectra (I work for the U.S. Navy Measurement Science Department) and we develop the calibration standards that go to NIST for DoD in many of these areas. I am going to ask them the question and see what they come up with for an answer. For example we do the standards for night vision goggles, laser targeting and trackers, etc. I'll post what I learn.

P.S.
The other arguments about what Leica new and when are moot today. Clearly, the market has spoken that they really don't care since ALL Leica cameras are in high demand and short supply. Further, no one ordering today can claim not to be aware of the issue so it is history and time to move on.

 

[willie_901]

I would love to talk to their engineers and ask if they have looked at working with digital filters to take the raw digital data and pass it through a digital bandpass filter as a means of removing the IR and UV spectrum from the image before they create the image file. Since a digital image is just electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency range it should be possible to filter it electronically just as we do with any other part of the spectrum. Any other engineers have any thoughts on this?

barjohn,

A digital camera sensor can only do one thing. It simply counts photons until you run out of bits. There's nothing to filter. With today's chips, a photon at the IR frequency counts just as much as a photon at the frequency of green. If the photon count is very very low, then there may be bit "noise" (I'm not sure about this). Once the photon count in a given sensor site exceeds the bit size, no more data can be recorded, no information is available for that well (except that you exceeded the bit size) and no information can be recovered for that well.

The M8 and RD-1 sensors have Bayer filters to designate sensor wells (pixels) as red, blue or green. Then clever software algorithms create a color space. All digital cameras except for the M8 employ an optical filter to attenuate the photons at IR frequencies. The M8 has an IR filter too, but it attenuation is significantly below the levels digital photographers expect. However, the thin IR filter in front of the M8 sensor is said to cause less optical distortion than conventional, thicker IR filters. A M8 color image can have color distortion because the photon counts are a sum of the unfiltered IR counts plus the visible light spectrum counts. This distortion is most obvious for dark objects because there aren't many visible light photons to count, and the IR photons dominate. However, whenever IR light is present, then all the colors are distorted to some degree. The stronger the IR light, the more the colors are distorted. At the same time, the photons' phases are always less perturbed than they would be with a conventional (thicker) IR filter. The result is better contrast and increased image definition.

Many believe Leica's approach preserves the optical quality of Leica lenses. This is why they graciously accept the use of IR filters in front of their lenses.

There is a rumor that a much more efficient, sufficiently thin IR filter is being commercialized. If this is true Leica, will certainly switch to this filter.

For completeness, consider what is required to make a monochrome image with a digital camera. You convert monochrome information (is a photon there?, if so count it – if not, don't) into color information via the Bayer filters and software algorithms. Then, you convert the information in color space back to monochrome. Whether this is done in-camera (which should best) or in post-processing software doesn't matter. You are indirectly recovering information that you intentionally destroyed. All digital B&W images from cameras with Bayer sensors are third generation images. This doesn't mean they are automatically inferior. But it does mean they are not as good as they would be if the Bayer sensor was not in place. The RD-1 and M8 monochrome images I've seen on-line have good tonality which means the algorithms do a good job. But I can't help wondering how much better they might be if they didn't originate as color-filtered data.

 

[barjohn]

Willie_901,

I believe I understand what you are saying. In essence, once the photons at the IR energy level get past the RGB filters (that apparently lack sharp cutoof characteristics for light outside of the visible spectrum, the photon gets counted inappropriately as an RG or B photon and losses its identity as an IR photon (nasty little bugger). Wehre levels of RG or B are low but IR levels are high they are the only or at least the majority of photons that get counted. The only way to estimate the count reduction per cell of IR photons would be to have a reference level that ONLY or mostly measured or counted IR photons. Thus a separate sensor with similar sensitivity curves to the main sensor but having a shrap cutoff IR filter that passed IR energy but blocked visible could be used to estimate the amount of IR contamination by having the same RGB filters after the IR pass filter. This would provide a count of how many IR photons were striking a given color cell and this numebr could be subtraced from the image sensor cells giving an approximate IR level for each color. It would't be perfect becasue the sensor would take the average from the entire seen as opposed to the individual specific cell's location in the image; however, it should render better and maybe acceptable color with significantly lower IR contamination levels.

The foregoing is just speculation and an idea. I have no idea whether it would work.

 

[pfogle]

there are a couple of issues here that are quite technical.

You can get two types of filter - absorption (like, say, a dyed red piece of glass that absorbs all the light except red) or interference, where the thickness of the filter is the only thing that counts. This thickness is very small - on the order of a thousandth of a millimeter. So the filter is usually deposited as a film on a glass substrate, but the glass is not actually part of the filter. The screw in IR cut filters are of this type, which is why the color appears to change when you view them from an angle.

Absorption filters work at all angles, but are thicker generally than interference filters. However the interference filters only work for a narrow range of angles.

Leica now has a hybrid approach - a thin absorption filter over the sensor (which is only partly effective) and an interference filter that goes over the lens.

It's not for me to hazard a guess as to whether there's a better solution - but at least the R-D1 seems to work pretty well without the screw in filters.

Now - let's please lay to rest the argument as to what people might or might not have known in the past. If anyone is surprised NOW by the need for screw in filters to get accurate colors, well, more fool them. What happened months ago is dead and gone. I'll be basing my decision on what I know at the time of purchase, irrespective of what I might have known before.

 

[Ben Z]

The other arguments about what Leica new and when are moot today.

To some perhaps, to others the fact the company was so deceptive or incompetent (one or the other must be true) is a faith-shaker. Some might at first blush assume the cost of the 30% lens discount and the 2 free filters would have taught them a lesson they would not be likely to repeat. At closer inspection, they are selling the lens directly so they are basically passing on the distributor and dealer profits to the customer and it costs them nothing...in fact for all we know they're making more on those lenses than if they sell them to their dealer network. And given the historically large profit margin on filters and the fact (also historically) most Leica users have at least 3 lenses and will buy a third filter, Leica may be breaking even on the 2 free ones. So although what Leica new [sic] and when may never be fully proven, but it's incorrect to call it moot.

Clearly, the market has spoken that they really don't care since ALL Leica cameras are in high demand and short supply.

They are in high demand because they are in short supply, not the other way around. Back in November the dealers were being told that pre-orders were sufficient to occupy Leica's production capacity into late Summer '07. Now they are saying the backlog will be relieved by March, and we are seeing M8s pop up now(including multiples at B&H) on open sale, from which we can only conclude that those dealers no longer have pre-order customers in line. I do agree with your first phrase "clearly the market has spoken".

Further, no one ordering today can claim not to be aware of the issue so it is history and time to move on.

Agreed, but for some the moving-on means to another brand or type of camera, and that can't bode well for the survival of Leica as a camera company nor for the future support of their current products. That is why it's my position that the truly loyal Leica fan would look past his own urge for instant gratification and take Leica to task to reconfigure the M8 so that it at least appeals (and sells) to all the people who initially were ready to buy it. But I understand why the reduced number of people who have already bought one would like everyone to shut up and let them continue to heap superlatives on their purchase decision.

 

[LCT]

...What happened months ago is dead and gone. I'll be basing my decision on what I know at the time of purchase, irrespective of what went before....

OK but due to this 'dead and gone' issue some of us are faced to an actual, current and probably future alternative that is less than comfortable IMO: either buy a second-hand or refurb R-D1 or R-D1s with the risk that it falls apart soon or late with no support whatsoever from Epson; or buy an M8 with the obligation to get their lenses coded and 'protected' by stupid reddish filters.
Hence a disappointment that i quite understand personally and the culprit of which is certainly not ourselves, is it?

 

[barjohn]

The problem is we all want a light weight built like a tank perfect image camera. It doesn't exist today and isn't likely to exist tomorrow. In my case, I purchased the M8 knowing it wasn't perfect and had a few warts. After I compared it in use and compared its results to the R-D1 I concluded that for me it was the best currently available and for the foreseeable future. I knew that I could sell either camera and not take a loss and I made the conscience decision to part with the R-D1 which in my experience is an excellent camera and under rated. It is too bad Epson didn't take an interest in improving it because they could have had a real contender with a little more engineering work. Competition would have been good for all.

Ben,

Your comments about what it cost Leica or didn't illustrate that you know very little about business. Support costs are very real costs to a company and most companies try to keep those costs down because they take away from the bottom line. Shipping, receiving, fixing, phone support, internet support, dealer support, lost production time, additional engineering, reduced sales, etc. are all real costs exclusive of discounting lenses or giving away filters. Leica has paid a heavy price for their error in both lost prestige and money. Why you seem to have this vendetta against them is beyond me. Even if you purchased one of their cameras (I don't believe you did) you could have easily sold it by now and even made a profit if you sold it a few weeks ago.

 

[Ben Z]

Ben,

Your comments about what it cost Leica or didn't illustrate that you know very little about business.

I suppose you're right. The extent of my business experience was starting a medical/dental r&d/manufacturing company that was one of the first to patent and produce hip, knee and tooth replacement implant/prostheses. When I was up to 700 employees I took it public, acquired several other related companies, and eventually was bought out by a major multi-national healthcare corporation...at age 49. Then I sat on their board of directors for seven more years before I retired completely. So stupid me can't possibly see through the transparent little monkey shines of Leica's doings. Please do keep enligtening me, I really want to learn...you know, in case my fortunes run out and I need to go back to work

 

[Ben Z]

OK but due to this 'dead and gone' issue some of us are faced to an actual, current and probably future alternative that is less than comfortable IMO: either buy a second-hand or refurb R-D1 or R-D1s with the risk that it falls apart soon or late with no support whatsoever from Epson; or buy an M8 with the obligation to get their lenses coded and 'protected' by stupid reddish filters.
Hence a disappointment that i quite understand personally and the culprit of which is certainly not ourselves, is it?

It's not a stretch to understand why people who own the M8 are defensive and would love to silence any and all references to its faults. What these people really need is a separate forum, called the M8 OWNERS Forum, where only those people who are registered owners of an M8 are allowed to post. That way they can enjoy the exclusive company of like-minded individuals in a purified atmosphere of praise and support for their purchase. After all, being an M8 owner promises to be one of the tinyest most exclusive niches in the world of photography and these folks have a right to shield themselves from the sensibilities of mainstream photography

 

[LCT]

This is the R-D1 forum and i am quite happy that M8 users come here and share their experience with the Leica body AFAIC. In a couple of months they will forget their good old R-D1 colleagues i'm afraid and we will stay alone to discuss fascinating subjects like 'How many of you have had problems with your Epson R-D1'

 

[tmessenger]

I'm with you, digital rangefinders are exclusive enough, even with both camps on board, everyone should feel welcome here.

tm

This is the R-D1 forum and i am quite happy that M8 users come here and share their experience with the Leica body AFAIC. In a couple of months they will forget their good old R-D1 colleagues i'm afraid and we will stay alone to discuss fascinating subjects like 'How many of you have had problems with your Epson R-D1'

 

[barjohn]

Ben,

With your substantial business experience you should know that Leica sufferred a lot more costs than the picture you painted. I am not interested in starting a war with you and I am not defenidng Leica. I never said they shouldn't have handled it better. However, the medical field is far different in that you and every other player has to operate under FDA rules (I know not everyone plays by the rules). In the high technology world competitive pressures often cause a company to bring a product to market before they would like. The other factor is the testing environment is very different. For a good example check out the cell phone business. I have yet to see a new product that wasn't very buggy coming out the door. I have long argued that smart companies would put the product into the hands of early adopters like the ones that frequent bulletin boards under NDAs. I understand their fear that too much information will leak out to their competitors but they would find out about problems and have a chance to fix them before it went to the general public. Leica marketing screwed up and they are paying for their mistake in numerous ways. I would still argue that TODAY and in the foreseeable future (1-2 years out) that there is no better solution available. Maybe lurking in someones R&D lab lies the ultimate Leica killer camera and we just don't know about it. I for one am willing to gamble that there is not and I put my money where my mouth is. If I am wrong I will be the one to suffer for it. Yes, I will probably whine about it if it happens. I still don't get why you are so angry about their screw up when the people that purchased them are not. As I stated earlier if someone was unhappy they had several options. 1. Return it and demand a refund, 2. Send it back for repair and fix it and 3. Sell it when it came back for a small profit or at worst breakeven. If they were stuck with a camera with problems they could not live with, then I would understand your point of view and agree with you completely. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that this has been the case.

I am impressed with your accomplishments but not with your arguments.

 

[Ben Z]

However, the medical field is far different in that you and every other player has to operate under FDA rules (I know not everyone plays by the rules). In the high technology world competitive pressures often cause a company to bring a product to market before they would like.

In the medical field aside from regulations and the possibility of being class-action-sued into oblivion, we also lack the luxury of a public willing to excuse obvious design blunders and accept moronic "solutions" and empty concessions. If we'd made a hip implant where people had to walk sideways no one would want one just because it had our brand on it--that's the salient difference between Leica and other camera companies as well. I daresay Canon or Nikon had put out a camera in 2006/7 that needed $100 IR filters on each lens to give passable colors, nobody would be buying it or defending it. Bugs and teething issues are completely different from this.

I have long argued that smart companies would put the product into the hands of early adopters like the ones that frequent bulletin boards ....I understand their fear that too much information will leak out to their competitors but they would find out about problems and have a chance to fix them before it went to the general public.

Given the denial and defensive posture of unofficial beta-testers such as yourself I can't see where Leica would have gotten any more useful feedback than they did from their official beta testers...or would have used it if they did.

Leica marketing screwed up and they are paying for their mistake in numerous ways.

Yes, had they recognized people would buy the M8 and imbue it with superlative powers no matter what, the marketers would probably have felt completely at liberty to spin the IR-filter thing as a "feature" right from the start--and saved themselves giving away a bunch of filters.

I would still argue that TODAY and in the foreseeable future (1-2 years out) that there is no better solution available. Maybe lurking in someones R&D lab lies the ultimate Leica killer camera and we just don't know about it. I for one am willing to gamble that there is not and I put my money where my mouth is. If I am wrong I will be the one to suffer for it. Yes, I will probably whine about it if it happens.

I'd rather shoot my RD-1 interim and see what happens. If you're right and Leica doesn't rectify the IR issue with a permanent solution on the sensor, I will reluctantly and sadly migrate once and for all to a full-frame Canon dslr, weight and volume nonwithstanding. I won't be happy, but moreso than paying $5K for an M8 which is already behind the state of the art in pixel count, high-ISO performance and crop factor (all which I was and am wiling to live with) and having to add insult to injury with a stack of expensive, funny-looking filters (which I am not willing to live with). Different strokes for different folks.

I still don't get why you are so angry about their screw up when the people that purchased them are not.

Just because a few people are willing to accept and rationalize the screw up doesn't mean it's abnormal for me (and thousands more who would've bought an M8 otherwise) not to. I am angry because I had the money down and was all set to get one. I'm not just some guy who never intended to get an M8 and gets his jollys taunting the guys who own one. I wish I could swallow as deep as you guys but I just can't.

If they were stuck with a camera with problems they could not live with, then I would understand your point of view and agree with you completely.

Then you miss my point entirely. The more complacency--let alone heaping undue praise--on the M8, the less likely Leica will rework it so it doesn't need filters. I understand that will please the current owners no end, not so much because they're happy with filters, but because the prestige and monetary value of their purchase won't be diminished. But the result will very likely be the end of Leica as a camera company. In November there was a full-production backlog until late this coming summer. Now the backlog is only to the beginning of March. That's five months worth of production in cancelled orders. And nobody knows if any significant numbers will be sold after the current backlog is met. This is hugely bad for Leica, who've pinned their survival on this camera .

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Ok, we get it!

We get it!

M8 POS. No buy. RD-1 great. The earth is flat. No, it's round. No, turtles under.

Horse is very dead.

 

[furcafe]

Agreed. Even Barbaro's time had to come.

I had no idea I was a complacent sucker for simply purchasing an M8 & deciding to keep it.

Ok, we get it!

We get it!

M8 POS. No buy. RD-1 great. The earth is flat. No, it's round. No, turtles under.

Horse is very dead.