Reasons to upgrade to M8

[rsl]

If it had been me making the trade off decision between a thicker IR filter and some corner image resoultion loss, I would have probably gone for the thicker IR filter. I read somewhere that Kodak is working on providing a better thin IR filter. Of course, the big question will be, if they come out with one for the same sensor and new cameras are equipped with it will it be offered to existing customers and will it be free of charge. This is my biggest concern, however, in the U.S. they risk a class action suit which would cost many times more than just offering an upgrade.

My fingers and toes are crossed. I don't want to see Leica go belly up. Let's hope the class action suit doesn't materialize. That would be kicking them when they're down. They screwed up, but they don't deserve that.

 

[Ben Z]

If it had been me making the trade off decision between a thicker IR filter and some corner image resoultion loss, I would have probably gone for the thicker IR filter. I read somewhere that Kodak is working on providing a better thin IR filter.

I keep hearing this "thicker-thinner" bandied about but it doesn't make sense to me. I put a micrometer to my new 77mm 486 filter and then to an old single-coated B+W UV filter and if there's a difference it's below the measuring threshold of my micrometer. It's my understanding the IR cutting is a coating deposited on the glass, not the glass itself. People are talking like the sensor would need another 0.5mm of thickness to do the trick when the 486 coating--which does the trick added to the one already on the sensor-- is in fractions of a micron. I just don't see where making the sensor's filter more effective means it would have to be measurably thicker. Anyone with their PhD in optics please explain this to me.

Of course, the big question will be, if they come out with one for the same sensor and new cameras are equipped with it will it be offered to existing customers and will it be free of charge. This is my biggest concern, however, in the U.S. they risk a class action suit which would cost many times more than just offering an upgrade.

Remember when the MP came out a little less than a year after the M7, and it had a different mirror and a little condenser lens in the rangefinder that prevented the notorious blanking-out in certain light, and Leica started putting it into the M7 from then on, but anyone who had bought an M7 in the months prior to that were charged $275 or so to have it retrofitted? There was no class-action suit and to this day no change in Leica's policy. So if I were you I'd just concentrate my prayers on your M8 being capable of a retrofit, and be happy if it only costs a grand or so...which will be far less than you'd lose by selling it once a new model with better sensor is out.

 

[barjohn]

For now I am not worried about either, a new sensor filter (thicker or thinner) or the cost of a retrofit should one become available. I am also not worried about Leica going out of business and apparently (looking both recently and over the last 5 years) neither are Leica stockholders. When I looked at the technical specifications sheet for the Kodak sensor (there was a link somewhere back in December) it showed good IR cutoff characteristics. I know if the solution were simple and a replacement sensor or sensor glass with a different coating was all it took they would have gone that route and changed it for the current production. I would love to read a good technical explanation of the problem.