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?
😀 ) 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.
😱
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.
