jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
In every M8 thread somebody sees it fit to introduce the IR issue, resulting in no end of yes-no type of discussion. Let's put an end to it by lumping it all together in this thread.
Up front. There is no M8 owner that I know of that denies that the M8 is the most IR sensitive camera on the market - not counting some MF backs.
There is no denying that basically all sensor types exhibit an enhanced sensitivity to IR, making some kind of filter a prerequisite for normal photography.
If Leica knew beforehand that this was an issue is pure speculation. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories imaginable as well as all kinds of apologist arguments, but none are provable and all are destructive and contribute nothing whatever to a sane discussion.
It all boils down to the question where the filter should be located.
Arguments for a filter in front of the lens:
1. Not putting a filter in front of the sensor enhances IQ.
2. A filter can be removed if not required, for instance when there is a low IR intensity in the light or when the IR reflectivity of the subject is low.
3. In B&W photography the shift in grayscale from IR is not detrimental to the artistic rendering of the subject, so here a filter is not needed.
4. IR filters are said to be less subject to flare than other types of filter.
5. About 50% of photographers use protective or UV filters anyway, so it makes no difference.
6. The cost of the filter is low in comparison to the price of the camera and Leica lenses, and Leica provides two filters free.
7. A filter in front of the sensor on a rangefinder camera, with its steep angle of incidence, would cause cyan vignetting that is difficult to correct in firmware, as opposed to a filter in front of the lens, that only requires lens coding.
8. Photographers have been using light-balancing filters since time immemorial.
9. Using a polfilter is no problem, as it only is used in minimum-flare conditions.
Arguments in favor of a sensor filter:
1. A lens filter is an undesirable complication and a stop-gap solution.
2. Filters add unneccesary costs to an already expensive camera.
3. Other camera brands manage to produce IR-corrected camera's.
4. Filters cause flare, especially on digital camera's
5. Filters in front of the lens also cause cyan vignetting which makes software corrections necessary, losing dynamic range in the corners.
6. Not using a IR filter in B&W photography influences the gray-scale.
7. In-camera correction of cyan vignetting is difficult if not impossible on non-codable lenses.
8. The need to code lenses adds more extra costs.
9. Using a pol-filter or any other filter involves the stacking of filters which is basically undesirable and detrimental to IQ
10. Bystanders might react unfavorably to the colour of the filter.
Which divides photographers into four groups:
1.Those that will not accept the use of IR filters and will decide to go elsewhere.
2.Those that will dislike the idea of using filters but will accept it, because they like the camera well enough to overcome their distaste.
3.Those that used filters anyway and don't mind exchanging them.
4.Those that accept the technical argument and welcome the solution because of better image quality.
So there you are. Judge the arguments and decide which group you belong to and act acordingly, but please, let's not pollute all threads with this repetitive bickering any more.
Btw. I freely confess that I am wavering between group 2 and 4.🙄
Up front. There is no M8 owner that I know of that denies that the M8 is the most IR sensitive camera on the market - not counting some MF backs.
There is no denying that basically all sensor types exhibit an enhanced sensitivity to IR, making some kind of filter a prerequisite for normal photography.
If Leica knew beforehand that this was an issue is pure speculation. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories imaginable as well as all kinds of apologist arguments, but none are provable and all are destructive and contribute nothing whatever to a sane discussion.
It all boils down to the question where the filter should be located.
Arguments for a filter in front of the lens:
1. Not putting a filter in front of the sensor enhances IQ.
2. A filter can be removed if not required, for instance when there is a low IR intensity in the light or when the IR reflectivity of the subject is low.
3. In B&W photography the shift in grayscale from IR is not detrimental to the artistic rendering of the subject, so here a filter is not needed.
4. IR filters are said to be less subject to flare than other types of filter.
5. About 50% of photographers use protective or UV filters anyway, so it makes no difference.
6. The cost of the filter is low in comparison to the price of the camera and Leica lenses, and Leica provides two filters free.
7. A filter in front of the sensor on a rangefinder camera, with its steep angle of incidence, would cause cyan vignetting that is difficult to correct in firmware, as opposed to a filter in front of the lens, that only requires lens coding.
8. Photographers have been using light-balancing filters since time immemorial.
9. Using a polfilter is no problem, as it only is used in minimum-flare conditions.
Arguments in favor of a sensor filter:
1. A lens filter is an undesirable complication and a stop-gap solution.
2. Filters add unneccesary costs to an already expensive camera.
3. Other camera brands manage to produce IR-corrected camera's.
4. Filters cause flare, especially on digital camera's
5. Filters in front of the lens also cause cyan vignetting which makes software corrections necessary, losing dynamic range in the corners.
6. Not using a IR filter in B&W photography influences the gray-scale.
7. In-camera correction of cyan vignetting is difficult if not impossible on non-codable lenses.
8. The need to code lenses adds more extra costs.
9. Using a pol-filter or any other filter involves the stacking of filters which is basically undesirable and detrimental to IQ
10. Bystanders might react unfavorably to the colour of the filter.
Which divides photographers into four groups:
1.Those that will not accept the use of IR filters and will decide to go elsewhere.
2.Those that will dislike the idea of using filters but will accept it, because they like the camera well enough to overcome their distaste.
3.Those that used filters anyway and don't mind exchanging them.
4.Those that accept the technical argument and welcome the solution because of better image quality.
So there you are. Judge the arguments and decide which group you belong to and act acordingly, but please, let's not pollute all threads with this repetitive bickering any more.
Btw. I freely confess that I am wavering between group 2 and 4.🙄
