pfogle
Well-known
First, let me say I'm very happy with my R-D1. I've had two years trouble free use.
Some time ago I went from a Canon 10D to a 1DmarkII - more pixels and the change from 1.6 crop factor to 1.33 were reasons enough.
I guess, when I'm a bit more flush, I'll make the equivalent shift to the M8.
The one factor that really temps me, though, is the CV 15mm lens. I find the 12mm CV a bit soft, I never seem to get pictures with real bite from it, and the results I've seen from the 15 on the M8 look brilliant. They seem to have solved the vignetting problem, which is a bit of a killer on the R-D1 with the 15mm CV.
Does anyone here have experience of the 15 on both cameras, and could make a comment on how the results compare?
cheers
Phil
Some time ago I went from a Canon 10D to a 1DmarkII - more pixels and the change from 1.6 crop factor to 1.33 were reasons enough.
I guess, when I'm a bit more flush, I'll make the equivalent shift to the M8.
The one factor that really temps me, though, is the CV 15mm lens. I find the 12mm CV a bit soft, I never seem to get pictures with real bite from it, and the results I've seen from the 15 on the M8 look brilliant. They seem to have solved the vignetting problem, which is a bit of a killer on the R-D1 with the 15mm CV.
Does anyone here have experience of the 15 on both cameras, and could make a comment on how the results compare?
cheers
Phil
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Phil,
I can't help you with the 15mm on the M8 (I've got one but have yet to use it on this camera) Now for an image shot with the CV 12mm on the M8- not too soft?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/345158413_1a46cce31a.jpg
I can't help you with the 15mm on the M8 (I've got one but have yet to use it on this camera) Now for an image shot with the CV 12mm on the M8- not too soft?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/345158413_1a46cce31a.jpg
Last edited:
barjohn
Established
I don't have the CV 15 but I made the plunge. I have compared images taken of the same scene using the same lens on both cameras and they are very close (see Sean Reid's pictures on his sight too for comparisons). The M8 wins but you are paying a premium for that small difference. Where the real benefit is likely to be realized in in large prints (something I am planning to do) and in the quality and longevity of the camera. The M8 really has a high quality feel to it. By the way, in reviewing pictures I see that the Epson does have the magenta problem too and needs the 486 filters though it is not as pronounced as the M8.
I am starting to wonder if Canon has incorporated IR reduction in the lens design since the Epson is likely to have as thick an IR filter as any of the other cameras made in 2005. Since the Leica glass was designed for film before this IR issue was an issue for sensors it doesn't cut off IR. It is either that or they found a better way to reduce IR reaching the sensor than Epson or Leica. I don't think Canon makes their own sensor so I would have thought it would be similar among various cameras except for the Leica with a much thinner sensor.
I am starting to wonder if Canon has incorporated IR reduction in the lens design since the Epson is likely to have as thick an IR filter as any of the other cameras made in 2005. Since the Leica glass was designed for film before this IR issue was an issue for sensors it doesn't cut off IR. It is either that or they found a better way to reduce IR reaching the sensor than Epson or Leica. I don't think Canon makes their own sensor so I would have thought it would be similar among various cameras except for the Leica with a much thinner sensor.
Ben Z
Veteran
barjohn said:
I bought one IR filter, in size 77mm, which I can use on every lens I own (with one of those see-thru step-up "Filter View" sets). Since the RD-1 doesn't require an IR filter 100% of the time like the M8, I can just keep the filter for when I'm shooting in indoor lighting with black fabric. If there are overhead spotlights that will flare off the filter I guess I'll have to dispense with the filter and correct the magenta cast manually in Photoshop (a tedious PITA but doable).
The Epson uses the same Sony 6MP 1.5x sensor as the Nikon D100 and Pentax *ist and those cameras have about the same IR sensitivity. Later on, with the D70 Nikon corrected it with a stronger (not necessarily thicker!) IR filter on the sensor. Canon AFAIK does make their own sensors, which is why they can have an affordable full-frame CMOS.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
I've shot plenty on my M8 and have never uesed an IR filter for what that's worth.
barjohn
Established
When I originally shot some of my R-D1 photos I was not aware of the issue on the R-D1 and missed it because it is not as pronounced; however, when I went back and looked to compare agaisnt the M8 I realized that the issue was there. I have seen it numerous times on the M8 so I am not sure why you haven't (Ted). It will show in daylight or artifical light (look at Sean's pictures on his site taken outside). Profiles will help reduce it but it takes the filters to make it go away. I don't think you can fix it in Photoshop but I could be wrong. I haven't read of anyone that has been able to do that.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
John,
Don't get me wrong I've seen it on both cameras it's just that it has not taken away (for me) from more then two or three images out of thousands. That is to say the color shift did not detract from the image- to me photography is more art then reproduction. Now when I do get my IR filters from Leica I'll pop em on, take em out, and see what happens- and I'll share my results on this you can rest assured
Don't get me wrong I've seen it on both cameras it's just that it has not taken away (for me) from more then two or three images out of thousands. That is to say the color shift did not detract from the image- to me photography is more art then reproduction. Now when I do get my IR filters from Leica I'll pop em on, take em out, and see what happens- and I'll share my results on this you can rest assured
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
barjohn said:
Not every instance of the IR shift is as in-your-face as magenta blacks and not everyone might be as able to discern the lesser effects.
"All" it requires is outlining the color-shifted object with the "Magnetic Lasso" tool and then adjusting or replacing the color. So it can be done but it's about as much fun as cloning out hot pixels or sensor dust.
mike goldberg
The Peaceful Pacific
Hi... just noticed this.
What does an Epson RD-1 cost these days?
Thanks, mike
What does an Epson RD-1 cost these days?
Thanks, mike
x-ray
Veteran
pfogle said:
Why not just buy the 14 Canon and keep the 1DII. No IR problems witht he Canon ans the 14 gives a wider field. The canon has a proven track record and is true pro construction.
Ben Z
Veteran
mike goldberg said:
I got mine (factory refurb from Epson's website) in December, it was $1550 less 10% from a special discount code, so $1395, with free shipping. To put in perspective, that's about what I would need to spend on IR filters for an M8, or what an M8 will depreciate the moment it's purchased once the backorders cease.
Ben Z
Veteran
x-ray said:
Comparatively the Canon rig is quite a chunky monkey
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I don't go to such extremes.Ben Z said:
I simply do some profiling, which I've already discussed a couple of times before, and people still are confused and very skeptical of the procedure. It is very simple.
If the magenta cast problem is so detrimental, don't get the M8. That simple. It is not a flaw in the camera, it is a flaw in understanding in those who can't or won't accept it.
This is as ridiculous to me to read over and over like somebody complaining (and there are people) that it's a flaw for a camera not to autofocus. Expectations. Comprehension. Ability.
If it's too much work, just get the RD-1. It's worth what it's worth.
x-ray
Veteran
Ben Z said:Comparatively the Canon rig is quite a chunky monkey
It is a big guy for certain but look at what it does. AF, multiole AF modes, lens selection weather seals just to mention a few.
I know they're two completely different cameras.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I took a few test shots with a CV 15 on the M8 and I was very pleased with the results too. I'd get it, but that's just not what I use my rangefinders for. I have the Canon 5D and the 17-40 f/4 L lens, so that works just fine for me when I want to do wide-angle photography. I'm not too much into wide-angle anymore, maybe that's another reason.pfogle said:
pfogle
Well-known
Like Gabriel, I use the 5D and a 17-40 for 'pro' work with wide-angle. For IR b/w I use the R-D1 and the 21mm Elmarit. I like having a light-weight wide angle rig to carry round for casual stuff too. For that reason alone, I wouldn't bother with the ZI 15mm or the Canon 14mm. Much too big and heavy.
Ted: your jpg looks sharp enough, but for a 11x16 inch print, the 12 starts to looks a little soft, even with USM. I do think the M8 shots with the 15 look crisper. It would be interesting to compare them side by side.
Ted: your jpg looks sharp enough, but for a 11x16 inch print, the 12 starts to looks a little soft, even with USM. I do think the M8 shots with the 15 look crisper. It would be interesting to compare them side by side.
Ben Z
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Perhaps they're skeptical because profiling can't distinguish between objects whose colors have shifted due to IR contamination and other objects in the same shot that are supposed to be that color. Even Jamie Roberts who wrote the benchmark M8 magenta-correction profile claims it's good enough for proofing but the filters are the only true solution short of doing the individual selection and color modification in Photoshop.
The IR oversensitivity is simply and effectively eliminated by using IR filters, but it most certainly is a flaw, by Leica's own clear admission--and the stated reason they are giving away 2 free filters with every M8 purchased. They state the IR oversensitivity was unavoidable without affecting the image quality in some other way that couldn't be as easily dealt with. To Leica's credit they never have made the ridiculous spin that it was purposefully designed into the camera as a positive feature, such as using a mechanical rangefinder versus autofocus.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Where did that come from, The K. Rove School of Spin?Ben Z said:
It's like saying that the 1.6x crop factor is a flaw. And that Canon has clearly admitted it's a flaw because they've officially stated that the specification for their camera sensor has a 1.6x crop factor.
Very circular (and fallaced) logic here.
barjohn
Established
I suspect that the IR issue (if it is one naymore since many of us have purchased with full knowledge, me included) came about because of the challenge of creating a design that could use existing lenses some of whcih are over 50 years old. It is always easier for an engineer to start with a clean slate. You still have to make compromises but you can juggle the compromises until you find the right mix for your target user. Leica did an incredible job considering so many of the design parameters were set beofre they started such as body size close to current M models, ability to use almost all pre-existing lenses, current sensor technology levels, current IR filtration capabilities, etc.
I would love to talk to their engineers and ask if they have looked at working with digital filters to take the raw digital data and pass it through a digital bandpass filter as a means of removing the IR and UV spectrum from the image before they create the image file. Since a digital image is just electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency range it should be possible to filter it electronically just as we do with any other part of the spectrum. Any other engineers have any thoughts on this?
I would love to talk to their engineers and ask if they have looked at working with digital filters to take the raw digital data and pass it through a digital bandpass filter as a means of removing the IR and UV spectrum from the image before they create the image file. Since a digital image is just electromagnetic energy within a specific frequency range it should be possible to filter it electronically just as we do with any other part of the spectrum. Any other engineers have any thoughts on this?
pfogle
Well-known
don't know about this - I don't know of any way to digitally filter optical frequencies over a 2-D field. It's a completely different issue to radio frequencies from a single source. And you'd have to do it before the sensor, as by then the light has been converted into an analogue signal, and all frequency information has been lost. I'd guess it's just not possible.barjohn said:
I haven't commented on the IR issue as I don't intend to get an M8 just yet - but it does seem clear that Leica were caught short on this one. And I do think they could have put in a stronger IR filter or AA filter if they had really wanted to. It would have perhaps compromised some other parameter - I suspect it would have meant more vignetting or perhaps limiting the sensor size, as in the R-D1, to a 1.5 crop factor. But it could have been done. I just don't think it was a priority until people started to complain.
If I was getting the M8, I would get some filters, but I certainly would feel p****d off by it, if I wasn't expecting it.