iml
Well-known
Ben Z said:
I'm absolutely certain that if Leica stay in business and continue to make digital products, the M8 will be the only camera they ever make which requires IR filters on the front of the lens. I'm waiting for the M8 mark II, or M9, or whatever they call it.
Ian
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
...but there are no specific algorithms built into the M8 firmware for non-Leica lenses so even if you have the skills with a contra-angle and #37FG and model airplane paint to code your own, you'll still probably have to do more tweaking in software to rid the cyan corners.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I can put your mind at ease regarding pol over IR Ben. That case has no negative effects, as the sun is at 90 degrees to the optical axis to get the polarizer effect, so no flare.
Ben Z
Veteran
iml said:
Funny thing is, when my 20D was new the internet knowitalls proclaimed it the champ and the 10D a POS that you should be ashamed to own. Now the 20D is called the POS compared to the 5D. Meantime, nobody argues that the image quality you can get from an M6 and ISO-400 print film is much better than you could have gotten from the same combo back when the camera first appeared in 1984. I know film is dead
but I think there'll still be some around long enough to wait for that M9 
willie_901
Veteran
jaapv said:But then I seem to fit the ideal customer profile the design team in Solms had in mind.
Truer words have never been spoken.
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
I've gotten lowered contrast and some ghosting whenever I was too lazy to take the UV off to use the polarizer, why would the IR be any better? It's still a second piece of glass.
blakley
blakley
nobody argues that the image quality you can get from an M6 and ISO-400 print film is much better than you could have gotten from the same combo back when the camera first appeared in 1984.
Hmmm? ISO 400 color film is MUCH better today than it was in 1984. Better grain, better color balance, better latitude, better tolerance for mixed light sources, scans much better....
There was NOTHING like Portra in 1984.
Hmmm? ISO 400 color film is MUCH better today than it was in 1984. Better grain, better color balance, better latitude, better tolerance for mixed light sources, scans much better....
There was NOTHING like Portra in 1984.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I don't know- maybe it is because the IR filter has an acceptance angle. The pundits will tell you to put the Pol in front of the IR, not the other way around. And of course IR light is not polarized. At any rate, it worked flawlessly. For the record, I strongly dislike using filteres in general, but when I see that a IR filter in front of the lens gives a better result than one in front of the sensor, I'm willing to make the concession.
Last edited:
Nachkebia
Well-known
Just realax people and watch this amazing music videos (photography)
http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/dldvideo.php
http://www.sigur-ros.co.uk/media/dldvideo.php
PHOTOEIL
Established
iml said:
The use of filters in photography is not that strange.
At the Royal Academy for fine Arts (where i studied photography some 25 years ago) they told us to always use filters, particularly for colour but also for B&W (reed A. A., among others, for this), and not only to block of the U.V..
I do not understand why a filter on a Digital Camera could be wrong, if not for U.V. then for I.R., it is registrating the light to, or not?
The reason to use filters for colour is resumed in the Mired system.
So, if you allow me, I would like to explain the Mired system in short, in the hope I am only helping instead of showing of and offending people.
I quote from the internet because the course I had was in Flemish and only about 6 million people on the world are fully understanding this...
Do not shote the pianist!
If you already know Mired then do not feel offended and you do not have to open the separate pdf file ( that's why...)
Attachments
M
Magnus
Guest
jaapv said:
I know we have been here before, but a 5000$ should not need any filter in front of anything in order to make acceptable pictures, but this is only my humble opinion.....
Ben Z
Veteran
blakley said:
Yeah, that's what I said. Nobody argues about the quality of film today being better than ever before.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So which sensor does not need a IR filter at some point in the lightpath, regardless of price?Magnus said:
Ben Z
Veteran
Magnus said:
Every digital sensor needs an IR filter. Most have it sandwitched with the sensor. One company makes you buy one for every lens. Unlike Jaap I don't believe having it on the sensor is inherently worse than having it in front of the lens. What I believe is that Leica and their cohorts didn't or couldn't figure out a cost-effective way to put a stronger one on the sensor that didn't cause other problems they couldn't cost-effectively solve in firmware within the period of time they had before the date (Photokina 2006) they had set as a deadline. I believe they had initially never intended to have to need these filters. They aren't stupid or crazy, they know how utterly preposterous this is to all but a handful of Leica loyalists who doubtful are numerous enough to generat adequate revenue. I believe they are continuing to work on solving the issue at the sensor. If they are successful then there will be an "M9". I'd wish for the M8 to be upgradable, but I know none of the current users would care since they love the M8 so much and are so happy with the IR filters
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I believe the real long-term solution is incorporating the IR filtering in the lens design.
HAnkg
Well-known
Not being able to do it at a cost customers will pay is as good as not being able to do it. Leica makes the best 50mm prime available but it costs almost $3000. Other manufacturers could make equal or better quality primes but no one would buy them at that price point.
I am sure Leica would prefer not to have filters as a solution and it's to bad they didn't realize the scope of the IR problem. I am not surprised engineers testing in a lab missed it, but so did a lot of beta testers. I consider Reid Reviews very thorough and he didn't notice it in his preliminary tests. Will there be an M9? if Leica survives, sure. But I doubt you will see it anytime soon. Eventually technology will make a digital M possible without filters without compromising image quality but that might be in 2 years or 10. There is not a whole lot of resources focused on the digital rangefinder market. It might happen if a chip or special glass developed for another application turned out by happy chance to solve Leica's problem. Until then some people will consider the compromise worth it others will not.
There is nothing wrong with you if you decide that you can't live with the M8 as it now is, nothing wrong with you if you think it's the answer to your prayers either. Personally, I hope there are enough takers to keep Leica going though.
I am sure Leica would prefer not to have filters as a solution and it's to bad they didn't realize the scope of the IR problem. I am not surprised engineers testing in a lab missed it, but so did a lot of beta testers. I consider Reid Reviews very thorough and he didn't notice it in his preliminary tests. Will there be an M9? if Leica survives, sure. But I doubt you will see it anytime soon. Eventually technology will make a digital M possible without filters without compromising image quality but that might be in 2 years or 10. There is not a whole lot of resources focused on the digital rangefinder market. It might happen if a chip or special glass developed for another application turned out by happy chance to solve Leica's problem. Until then some people will consider the compromise worth it others will not.
There is nothing wrong with you if you decide that you can't live with the M8 as it now is, nothing wrong with you if you think it's the answer to your prayers either. Personally, I hope there are enough takers to keep Leica going though.
M
Magnus
Guest
my sony R-1 for instance, it's big, it looks ugly but it makes pictures very comparible to my M8, prints or on screen I do not see the difference in quality, the only difference between the two is the build quality and the size, but image wise I honestly and true to god see no difference. but then I've only done 40x60 size prints..... One thing they do have in common is that they both produce digital prints and this is clearly to be seen, compared to film prints.
I am not complaining about the M8 at all, I love the size and I like the output, but the price does not justify compared to other digi-cams, it is certainly not a marvel, but indeed nice .... but not worth the price.
I am not complaining about the M8 at all, I love the size and I like the output, but the price does not justify compared to other digi-cams, it is certainly not a marvel, but indeed nice .... but not worth the price.
HAnkg
Well-known
Magnus, why would you spend all that money if the results are no better then a $900 consumer camera?
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
Hmmm, when you put it that way compared to buying all new lenses, a dozen filters and take a handpiece and a bur to code my own lenses sounds like a great solution
Reverse psychology, nice try
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No I mean it - filters for the existing line and all that lovely old glass - internal filtering for any new stuff.