Matthew Runkel
Well-known
I don't think that is correct, nor have I seen that suggestion made before. The M8's sensor itself is more sensitive to IR than it should be, a fact that does not change according to lighting conditions or aperture. The factors that should matter are the amount of (invisible) IR in the lighting mix and the IR reflectivity of objects in the frame. My expectation is that no easy generalization can be made about the relationship between light intensity and the amount of IR present. And I cannot imagine how stopping down would change the mix of visible and IR radiation reaching the sensor.Philinflash said:
Toby
On the alert
Sailor Ted said:Russ most people who own this camera, take it out and shoot with it, learn its traits and LOVE the M8, or at least respect it. Just because you did not feel comfortable jumping in the water does not mean the rest of us are not enjoying the swim.
Now hurry up and take that survey and explain why you don't like your M8 Russ
PS. 4000 exposures and NO filters.
I'm obviously guessing but normally I would guess these would be black slacks if the guy's working on public transport.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sailorted/345158417/in/set-72157594451678528/
purple puffa or black?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sailorted/396030840/in/set-72157594451678528/
x-ray
Veteran
Philinflash said:
What does stopping the lens down or bright light have to do with the IR content? The problem is in the ratio of IR to visible light. Stopping the lens down reduces both visible and IR the same. The ratio doesn't change. Certain kinds of light have higher IR to visible ratios for example tungsten vs daylight.
Look at the spec sheet for IR film and see how the ISO changes with different light sources using the same filter like an 87c.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
Superb series of photos. If you have the talent, doesn't matter what the camera is, you'll get great results.
HAnkg
Well-known
Philinflash said:
If you look at the sample I posted that was 5200K light at f/16. No synthetic fabrics and the difference between filter and no filter is not subtle. So loads of light, stopped all the way down and no synthetic fabrics and still lots of IR problems.
x-ray
Veteran
Nigel Meaby said:
So very true!
rsl
Russell
Sailor Ted said:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
This whole thing is lame beyond words. NEVER make untested changes BEFORE race day. That said if you're comfortable with the M8, and if this comfort is based on experience, then you will know what to expect and you can use this understanding to communicate your vision. Photography is about expression and this expression is seldom about mere objective observation. This at least is what is important to me in the photography I respect- I hate Hallmark cookie cutter dreck.
PS. The photograph of veggies without a filter does not take away from the image IMO. The image sucks either way but it's representation is as good, to my mind, as the equally bad image without the filter. If you want to use filters then great and if this helps you express your image the way you want then great again. But if your expression lacks vision then the image will be just as bad as if you had not used a filter in the first place. Likewise if your vision is important**you or others then it would likely have been just as meaningful had you used filters or not.
PS. The photograph of veggies without a filter does not take away from the image IMO. The image sucks either way but it's representation is as good, to my mind, as the equally bad image without the filter. If you want to use filters then great and if this helps you express your image the way you want then great again. But if your expression lacks vision then the image will be just as bad as if you had not used a filter in the first place. Likewise if your vision is important**you or others then it would likely have been just as meaningful had you used filters or not.
Last edited:
Gid
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Ted,
Comments like this are just not acceptable - this is the kind of response I'd expect from a nine year old. Stop trying to defend the indefensible. I really like my M8, but it is flawed. IR sensitivity is a significant issue in all lighting conditions. If you, or anyone else, are happy with the results you get from your M8 without a filter, then that is great and I am happy for you all. Just don't pretend that it is a myth - that is just plain dishonest.
TJV
Well-known
Mate, your decision not to take the M8's was the right thing, in my opinion. I saw IR problems in most images taken with my M8's, not to mention too many mechanical and electrical problems to mention or bother rewriting about in this thread. In the end it comes down to knowing your gears limits when going out on a job and god knows the M8's limits are well documented. It's a great camera to hold and shoot but nothing to rely on for professional use yet. Soon it may be all it was supposed to be, but who knows when Leica will actually deliver on their promises. I'm still waiting for my lens to return from Germany's repair dept, that's only taken blah blah blah
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Gid old boy where in my post did I say that IR sensitivity is not real? Go back and re-read what I wrote.
Regarding the OP, why if he did want to take the M8 and concerned as he was regarding IR contamination polluting his vision on a "once in a lifetime photo op" (or words to that effect) did he not just buy an IR filter or two? Was it the cost of getting filters? It seems to me that faced with having my Leica on such a trip and forking out a couple hundred dollars or not having the camera I'd spend the money. What's the old saying? "penny wise and pound foolish."
What is the point of this whole thread? That the M8 needs filters if you want accurate color under all lighting conditions? That Leica is not getting the filters out as fast as we'd all like? Is any of this news?
Regarding the OP, why if he did want to take the M8 and concerned as he was regarding IR contamination polluting his vision on a "once in a lifetime photo op" (or words to that effect) did he not just buy an IR filter or two? Was it the cost of getting filters? It seems to me that faced with having my Leica on such a trip and forking out a couple hundred dollars or not having the camera I'd spend the money. What's the old saying? "penny wise and pound foolish."
What is the point of this whole thread? That the M8 needs filters if you want accurate color under all lighting conditions? That Leica is not getting the filters out as fast as we'd all like? Is any of this news?
Last edited:
Gid
Well-known
Ted,
Re-read the OP. He did try to acquire some filters, but they are not exactly growing on trees (at least they weren't). I don't read the OP as didsappointed at Leica or the M8 per se, but disappointed that he didn't get the chance to use his new M8(s) on what would most likely have been an ideal shoot. I understand and support his stance not to trust to a new camera set up with documented problems (however inflated these may be) - regardless of brand.
Re-read the OP. He did try to acquire some filters, but they are not exactly growing on trees (at least they weren't). I don't read the OP as didsappointed at Leica or the M8 per se, but disappointed that he didn't get the chance to use his new M8(s) on what would most likely have been an ideal shoot. I understand and support his stance not to trust to a new camera set up with documented problems (however inflated these may be) - regardless of brand.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
I too agree that he has the right not to trust the camera "exclusively" however I would have taken the camera and that is the point of many people who have responded to this thread. Regarding IR filters and their availability, I am of the opinion that if you look on the Internet and not procrastinate before a looming photo date you'll find what you need then, now, and in the future.
Sorry but my Kleenex box is not getting used very much as a result of this thread.
OTOH he may have just purchased the camera prior to departure and this would be a case of a new car on race day- always a bad idea but at least he would not have had the opportunity to get filters or perhaps he tried, really tried and with two or three weeks to spare and none were available. If so then it's a shame he could not have used his Leica on this trip.
Sorry but my Kleenex box is not getting used very much as a result of this thread.
OTOH he may have just purchased the camera prior to departure and this would be a case of a new car on race day- always a bad idea but at least he would not have had the opportunity to get filters or perhaps he tried, really tried and with two or three weeks to spare and none were available. If so then it's a shame he could not have used his Leica on this trip.
Last edited:
HAnkg
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Ted, that is a small detail from the image. It was not taken for esthetic value but to test the effect of using filters or not. I thought that was so obvious that it would not require explanation. I was wondering if I could get away with out IR filters for subjects that did not contain synthetic fabric lit by strobes.
If you'd like to critique the esthetic value of my photos you can find them on my photoblog -the address is in my signature.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
HAnkg said:
I do understand and was not being critical of your work- sorry. My point was very different and yes the M8 exhibits IR sensitivity in it's images. A well worn fact.
olivepress
Member
Sailor Ted said:
Ted-
I had the M8s for 3 months before the trip. Plenty of time to get to know them. In the months of January/Feb I oculd not locate filters for the lenses I was bringing. I tried all the obvious/not obvious places and enlisted Leica people's help as well. No luck. As I noted in the original post I really wanted to take the cameras because of size and image quality to Brazil. As I was preparing to leave in the begining of February the dealer and Leica reported that there were some issues with batteries and camera start up issues.
So I felt IF I could get the filters in time I would bring the cameras and play thru. IF I did not get the filters that was a sign to leave them home. I also brought 2 Canon 1DS mIIs, and had a Hasselblad H3D 39 for personal work in landscape. SO NO BIG DEAL if the Leicas had issues. The legendary size and rangefinder prowess would be welcomed in the City of Garbage and streets of the Favela where I would be shooting!
When the filters did not make it, I said OK that is NOT MEANT TO BE and left them home. The point of the thread was two fold - one to express my personal disappointment in not being able to SHOOT LEICA, not that the cameras failed, not that the camera had issues, not that the quality was in question, or that IR issues are real or not real- simply I was disappointed in not being able to SHOOT them in Brazil. Missed opportunity. And secondly, I was not prepared to use equipment that I had a question about in any way- not then, not now not EVER! It's not worth it.
YOU and otheres may feel different! You may make other choices. And thats fine. One member said he likes to try new stuff on a shoot for creative reasons. Thats okay too. Its not how I work. I really dont care what kind of camera it is I am holding as long as I get the desired results. As I posted in the original post- SOMETIMES there is a BETTER TOOL for the job and a preferred tool. In the case of the Brazil photos, the best choice would have been Leica, BUT I didnt have the opportunity so I was a bit disappointed...... that's all!
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
Hey Paul
Hey Paul
Welcome to the Forum!
Hey Paul
Welcome to the Forum!
bottley1
only to feel
A benifit of increased CCD IR sensitivity is that by using an IR transmission filter, and B&W mode, lovely IR images are possible with the M8. So, great colour, great B&W, and great IR all in one camera, and all without carrying film through airport secxurity checks!! Sorry to be slightly off topic.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
olivepress said:
I'm a bit puzzled - I had no problems getting filters over the internet . I just had to hunt around a bit....Welcome to the forum btw.
rsl
Russell
Sailor Ted said:
Ted, I'm glad you love your M8. It's all right to love your M8. But there's a difference between "taking it out and shooting with it" and doing a serious shoot for someone else. I expect I'll love my M8 if Leica ever gets it fixed. As far as respect is concerned, I respect the IDEA of the M8, but at this point it's like a beautifully designed suspension bridge that keeps falling into the river. I'm not ready to depend on it to get to the other side.
I'm also glad you've shot so many frames with no filters and haven't seen the problems we all know are there. Again, there's a difference between shooting for your own pleasure and shooting for someone else's specific requirements. You need to go back and read what Paul wrote in his first post. He wasn't "taking it out and shooting with it." He was doing a job that couldn't reasonably be re-done. That's different from "taking it out and shooting with it."
Last edited: