A reality check with the Leica M8

Not if I'd believed everything written here - but had I retained my senses and looked at the whole picture objectively - emphatically yes. But then I seem to fit the ideal customer profile the design team in Solms had in mind.;)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunate about the acrimonius tone of the discussion. After all it's just a camera, dealing with equipment that is problematic has been a way of life for me since Scitex came out with the first commercially available paint system (imagine Photoshop that intermitantly worked for $millions). It may be that Leica had it right when they said a digital M was not possible(meaning a 24x36 digital clone of the film M). I'm sure they looked at the obstacles before they made the statement.

It's quite possible there won't be a filterless fix for the foreseeable future. Having the rear element of the lens so close to the sensor may be great for film but its a lousy configuration for digital. They could have used the R system, created an M like body using the M rangefinder with the R mount with a digital friendly distance between the sensor and lens. Then they could have designed digital specific lens line optimized for digital rather then film. From an engineering perspective that would have made for the optimum quality digital rangefinder, maybe even a 24x36 chip. Of course that would have been a marketing disaster since the point of a digital M is to use M lenses. Trying to serve film and digital with a platform highly optimized for film and terrible for digital, it would seem Leica maybe in a no win position.
 
Last edited:
Your excellent analysis reads like high praise for Leica. That they managed to come up with a system of this quality with, what in the end will turn out to be minor, glitches and drawbacks is first rate engineering. It is very unfortunate that the PR and marketing department did not communcate on the same level. Had they said: "look, we did the nearly impossible and the only drawback is that you need to put the filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the sensor, and sorry, it is a cutting edge product, so any unforseen problems will be dealt with correctly" 98% of negative publicity would not even have been written.
 
Ben,
As far as film goes, the filter/filterless debate has been "raging" for some time. The sample on this forum is to too small to draw definative conclusions but the vote was split 50/50 or thereabouts. The argument against using filters is that they cause image degradation. I have seen "mathmatical" proofs that the extra glass surfaces cause an increase in reflections etc etc etc. The basis of these arguments is probably sound.

However, is it that relevant? A similar argument rages about using Wein cells in place of mercury batteries or diode fixes. If you accuratley measure and consider all the voltages and currents involved, using Wein cells more accurately matches mercury cells in an empiracal sense so their argument is true. But as the title of this thread says - a reality check. In practical terms the exposure difference is much less than 1/10 of a stop. This is well within the latitude of E6 let alone other films. Typically the resistors used in the meter circuits of the time awere made to a 10% tolerance hence the need for trim pots etc. There is a difference but in practical terms, there is no real difference in the results produced.

So back to the filter situation. I am happy to use filters despite all the "proof" that they degrade the image. Some time ago, I set a camera up in controlled condition and took a series of filter/filterless shots under various conditions. I had then enlarged to 16x12. Under normal viewing conditions, I, and nobody I showed them to, could differentiate them. Under a lupe, there may have been minor differences. So yes there may be a small degradation but it is of the order of less than say 1%. Now I received a duplicate lens on a body I wanted and this lens had "cleaning" marks on the front. A similar comparison showed a much bigger difference in quality. So, I do use "protection" filters. Much easier and cheaper to replace if they become marked. Others don't hold to this and that is their perogative. (although quite often they are happy to use contrast filters etc in mono work)

This is all well and good for film, what about digital sensors. All digital sensors with today's technology are sensitive to IR wavelengths. To produce a photo which we percieve as as "normal", it must be filtered. In most cases this is achieved by putting a filter directly in front of the sensor. Again with todays technology, this causes some other problems such as fringeing and some loss of definition. This image degradtion is directly related to the thickness of the filter and pixel density. Leica took a fresh look at the problem. They wanted to improve the quality of the final image and the reduced distance and so reduced the thickness of the sensor filter. (As I understand it, it is about half the thickness of that typically used in SLRs). There are other factors involved but these are more to do with the size of the sensor and acceptance angles. The end result is that Leica have managed to squeeze far more quality out of a 10MP sensor than just about anyone else. I have yet to see a repeatable scientific test to measure this but the general opinion is that it might be as high as a 100% improvement.

The downside is that in some situations involving high IR refectance subjects you can get a colour shift but this is easily controllable using an IR filter on the lens. In the end you have 2 options. Double the thickness of the sensor filter with a huge loss in image quality or use a filter on the lens with a minimal loss in quality. The option they have chossen gives the best image quality under just about all conditions. (A user can't change/remove the sensor filter)

Whether or not you accept this is your choice. I think that most would prefer to to put up with the "stigma" of using IR cut filters for the improved quality of the final image. Just because you do not like the way Leica has designed the camera, does not mean that it is going to be "disastrous outcome for Leica due to ignoring guys like me" nor does it justify some of the other comments you have made in this thread. Just because you do not like the camera, does not mean that the camera is bad, a disaster or going to mean the demise of Leica. ;) Furtheremore, harping on about it, isn't going to change anything especially when the technology for the solution you want doesn't exist.

Is putting a filter on the lens in order to obtain a significant gain in image quality that bad? Or are you prepared to pay $5000 for a camera with an inferior image just so you don't have to spend an extra $100 on a filter? If so the M8 is not for you - personal choice. However, your persoanl preference does not make it a bad camera and does not justify some of the comments that have been written here and on other forums from people who have not tried it nor intend to because of some pre-conceived ideas which are a throwback to film tecnology.

I cannot justify spending that amount of money for the use I would get out of the camera and so will not be able to do my own tests. (Anyone want to lend me one? :D ) So I will have to settle for what people that have done some comparisons say rather then those that base their words on conjecture and hype.

My rant for the month over. :eek:

Kim

Ben Z said:
No, that would be like bitching it isn't full-frame, or that it doesn't win the megapixel race, or that the sensor can't be upgraded with a simple plug-in module, or that it doesn't have a real-image zoom finder, or that it doesn't have an advance lever to cock the (cloth) shutter. That's asking for pie in the sky. I want the M8 with an IR filter just strong enough so it doesn't need filters on the lenses, nothing more nothing less. All the other glitches (blobs, streaks, bands) those are just teething issues that can be expected. I'm not moaning about those either. Just the filters.
Click to expand...
 
I don`t think problem is with puting filters in front, problem is they should have said it before selling it (they wish they knew) :D
 
What is wrong with the world Vladimer? It is get more dull. We seem to agree more and more....
 
Well, I can`t remember when I did not agree with you (well except you can not see difference between film and digital on monitor) :D
 
The manner of introduction of the product was/is a disaster. Managing perceptions and understanding customers expectations are as important as the actual product. Not to mention understanding the real world impact of certain design compromises (the IR issue). It remains to be seen if what they have got is commercially viable, unfortunately you get no points for engineering achievement if your product does not meet market acceptance.

What customers want is a full frame M, that costs and functions at the level of a 5D and is compatible with the existing lens line. I would'nt want to be in Leicas position. Your customers want a flying pink pony and you are stuck with the realities of economics and physics.
 
Nachkebia said:
Well, I can`t remember when I did not agree with you (well except you can not see difference between film and digital on monitor) :D
Click to expand...
Well, I do rember a few heated discussions, which we quite enjoyed...;)
 
..... and a large amount of buyers wouldn't have bought it either ....

Jaap wrote: "Your excellent analysis reads like high praise for Leica. That they managed to come up with a system of this quality with, what in the end will turn out to be minor, glitches and drawbacks is first rate engineering. It is very unfortunate that the PR and marketing department did not communcate on the same level. Had they said: "look, we did the nearly impossible and the only drawback is that you need to put the filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the sensor, and sorry, it is a cutting edge product, so any unforseen problems will be dealt with correctly" 98% of negative publicity would not even have been written"
 
HAnkg said:
The manner of introduction of the product was/is a disaster. Managing perceptions and understanding customers expectations are as important as the actual product. Not to mention understanding the real world impact of certain design compromises (the IR issue). It remains to be seen if what they have got is commercially viable, unfortunately you get no points for engineering achievement if your product does not meet market acceptance.

What customers want is a full frame M, that costs and functions at the level of a 5D and is compatible with the existing lens line. I would'nt want to be in Leicas position. Your customers want a flying pink pony and you are stuck with the realities of economics and physics.
Click to expand...

I don't think the sensor size is much of an issue, for those that have liberated themselves from Canon's marketing steamroller.
 
Leica users have always profiles themselves as "purists" there have been many a heated discussion on the LUF concerning the use of filters.

The same people denouncing the use of filters as amateuristic and losing the aclaimed quality of the leica lenses, using filters was seen a middle age herecy actually now proclaim filters as being essential for good photography .... (well for the M8 it actually is). I think it is more the Leica users people get upset about, not the actual product.

and as for full frame digital.... calling this a marketing steamroller is a bit off track....
 
I find it as interesting as the difference between 645 and 135. Utterly moot, as long as one chooses the right tool for the job. Certainly not a quality criterium. Canon is the only one making 24x36 sensors, so it is logical for them to promote the myth.
 
jaapv said:
I find it as interesting as the difference between 645 and 135. Utterly moot, as long as one chooses the right tool for the job. Certainly not a quality criterium. Canon is the only one making 24x36 sensors, so it is logical for them to promote the myth.
Click to expand...

What ... the myth that when you screw your fav 35m lens on to your digi it really is going to be 35mm. :D :D
 
The myth that it has to do with the camera quality.

It is only interesting for those that are unwilling to adapt their technique, unwilling to buy one wider lens (the excellent CV wides are under 500$) and willing to put up with the rather severe quality loss in the corners of the larger sensors. If those are your requirements, your wish is logical. Personally I would not pay one $ more for a "full frame"M9 (if it were possible to build one) than I would have to pay for a "cropped"M8, nor would I "upgrade".
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion, for one I am not against adapting to another technique, but I am a 50mm user, I like it because of the image it provides, not only the focal lenght but the depth of field etc. a 35mm will not be able to cut this however hard you try for it will remain a 35mm with an appr. 50mm focal lenght, but all the other qualities and constraints of a 35mm.

Personally I would welcome a full size sensor in an M format. I like the 5D too, I don't have one but I have used it it's just a tad to big and heavy for my liking, but the sensor size and the capabilities this creates are very nice indeed.
 
So Jaapv ... when leica bring out a 24 x 36 mm sensor would you go with it, or would you be hesitant enough about the perceived problems of the format to doubt that leica had overcome the problems associated with the canon sensor?
 
Magnus said:
Leica users have always profiles themselves as "purists" there have been many a heated discussion on the LUF concerning the use of filters.

The same people denouncing the use of filters as amateuristic and losing the aclaimed quality of the leica lenses, using filters was seen a middle age herecy actually now proclaim filters as being essential for good photography .... (well for the M8 it actually is). I think it is more the Leica users people get upset about, not the actual product.

and as for full frame digital.... calling this a marketing steamroller is a bit off track....
Click to expand...

UV filters and IR filters are two completely different issues. I keep a B+W MRC UV filter on my Leica lenses almost all the time. The operative word there is almost. When I encounter situations I have previously identified as ones where the filters cause reflections and ghosting, I remove it. Indoors where there are people and fabric lit by lightbulbs, the IR contamination is at its worst, and that happens also to be one of the prime examples of where I would normally remove the UV filter because of flare and ghosts.

In addition, I remove the UV filter to use a polarizer. I mostly use a polarizer to cut through reflections off glass, not to darken blue skies, so there is no Photoshop plugin that can substitute. With the M8 I will have to stack a polarizer on top of the IR filter, and stacking filters has never proved to be a good thing in my experience.

And since the UVs were used for protection, if one did get scratched I could always take it off and keep shooting, pending buying a new one. With the M8 I would feel uncomfortable travelling without a spare IR for each needed size (Leica shades don't fit over step-up rings), and the IR filters are about 2.5X the cost of the UVs.

These are some very real concerns I have about the obligatory use of IR filters. I have seen evidence of IR contamination even in daylight landscape shots (greens tending to go yellow while other colors stay true) so I don't see the IR filters as only needed in certain light and with certain subjects as Leica's ad spin implies. If it was, then I could better understand why do it this way and not on the sensor.

And knowing as I do--and Leica must, by now--that they are giving up a lot of potential sales as a result of this, I can't help but feel that within a very short time there will be a version with a thicker IR filter. Given the shortage of filters at present, and the ongoing other bugs and glitches yet to be worked out in firmware upgrades (and possibly more hardware upgrades), I haven't decided completely there will never be an M8 in my bag, but I do plan to wait at least a year. If the M8 is the greatest camera on earth it'll still be that great in Dec 2007 ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom