petermcwerner
Member
M8 - Artificial Light (overhead household 60 W bulb)
Same with the DMR - sorry for unsharpness, my fault but color is dead on the spot
Both photos Automatic W/B, RAW, converted with C1 3.7.6, downsized and saved as jpeg for the web - no color corrections applied
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
OMG is it really that bad?
ClayH
Diana camera, coffee
This is a train wreck for Leica.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
jaapv said:
You gotta be kidding me.
So for every photo that has black in it you have to jump through hoops huh...
This is a big problem if the camera can't get it right initially - I can understand a small tweak here or there if skin tones might be slightly off but the coat is clearly NOT BLACK; not even CLOSE to being black.
I would just hope that a firmware fix is in the works (if it can be fixed via firmware) for Leica's sake.
Dave
FrankS
Registered User
It is beyond me why anyone would decide to buy a camera like this from the first production run and without waiting for the bugs to be ironed out. Did they think there wouldn't be any bugs? I guess there's the prestige of being the first kid on the block with it, but that is just not a prudent descision in my mind. Oh well, it's not something that I have to worry about.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
FrankS said:
:three trees:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
In my experience all higher and high level digital camera's need at least levels,,curves and sharpening to get a good result in raw conversion
KM-25
Well-known
jaapv said:
Ever use a 5D?
80% of the time, it is good to go with no PP for me.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
As a matter of fact I did. I think M8 files generally need less processing. I am very happy with 90% of the photo's I'm taking, the next 8% will be resolved by the filters I have just ordered, there will be another 1% improvement with the banding by the firmware update. I'm not switching for 1%
ywenz
Veteran
jaapv said:
You're kidding right? are you actually trying to legitimize this IR issue? You know that IR magenta cast has nothing to do with WB, levels, curves, and sharpening right? Your solution does not work because you are crushing the shadow details by picking a black point that is not actually black on screen. Further more how do you correct a red parka jacket next to a black rubber or metal that doesn't reflect IR? Draw a mask around the jacket and paint it black manually?
If you're happy with the above, then that's cool. For the rest of us, a piece is still a piece.
leica must be laughing their way to the bank with the customer loyalty they have.. WOW!
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No I'm not. I just don't think posting a mini-jpeg that hasn't even been converted properly ( see the background)if it was raw to begin with-which I doubt, is a very constructive thing to do.
K
Kin Lau
Guest
I wonder if the extra IR sensitivity is contributing to the M8's reportedly good B&W performance?
Great way to get that extra "glow" I guess.
Great way to get that extra "glow" I guess.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Kin Lau said:
It is called "glow" only when it comes from Leica lenses, otherwise the correct term is "flare"
ywenz
Veteran
jaapv said:
Weren't you the one who said little processing M8 RAW files are required?
jaapv said:
Whether or not it was correctly raw processed doesn't really matter because the color is soo blatantly wrong. Plus, if he had put a less IR reflective black object next to the coat, that object would be black in the image. How would you RAW process a picture like that?...
2001alal
Member
FrankS said:
but my friend if no one bought the camera how could we work out the problems
sorry but that how you have more than half the objects that you have.
someone has to do the work for you
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
2001alal said:
And that is why software is beta tested first - get out as many bugs as possible before releasing the software to the general public for PURCHASE. You see.. in this case one shouldn't have to purchase a product to "work the bugs out" for a company that should have the foresight to do that for their clientelle.
It will never reveal EVERYTHING but something this glaring would have been noted if the people who were, well, reviewing, the camera did due diligence.
This of course is dependent on how long they actually had the camera to use. I would think a weeks time to shoot targets, varied lighting, etc. would be ample but who knows just how long they actually had the camera in their hands.
Dave
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Don't think I like the IR issue- I don't. but I like the camera- so I simply ordered IR cut-out filters for my lenses...
ywenz
Veteran
FrankS
Registered User
2001alal said:
All I can say is, "Thank you!" to those folks willing to be guinea pigs and accepting these risks. Also to those who buy new, and later sell used items, like all of the RF gear I own. I'm glad there are folks like this in the world that need to be first with the latest. Isn't this where the term, "bleeding edge of technology" comes from?