Sean's information from Leica on IR issues

[thurows]

I don't think Leica were careless. It is easy to criticize "after the facts". there is no way that a bunch of technicians could experience in advance any possible scenario- when a camera gets to the wide public that is when it genuinely being tested.

Actually Kodak had a similar problem in the early 90s with the DCS 200 and shipped the cameras with a hot mirror filter to put on you lens. The filter was only 52mm so it limited the lenses you could use it on and the filters were expensive. Kodak developed the chip and by looking at gamut display the spike is apparant, a better solution needs to be made, this is ten years after the intro of capable digital cameras.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml Color gamuts are down towards the middle of the page.

Too bad I was looking forward to getting one of these.

 

[roblumba]

A review is not a gaurantee

A review is not a gaurantee

I think someone has a bit of a idealistic expectation of a review. Sure, the ideal review would show every flaw of a camera, however, I don't think Sean gaurantees that his reviews will find every flaw of a camera.

Also, notice that although everyone is exlaiming how this IR thing is also a problem of the past, no one said a thing to Sean during the 3 parts of his review process. No one asked him to check IR sensitivity. And furthermore, Sean made no claims about the IR sensitivity being flawless. Today, Part 3 has a footnote about the IR problem and I think that Sean has done his job in keeping his review updated. Most magazines I would think would have a larger lag time. Sean has a very good turn around time.

We all know, there are risks to buying a new technology product. This is our reality. People who take the risk are putting their necks out for the rest of the population that sits back to see what is going to happen. I think they deserve some respect and compassion for their situation. The rest of us should be patient and hope for the best.

 

[DaveSee]

Why none of the earlier reviewers saw the magenta blacks. It took no time for the actual owners to spot these issues.

Dunno, how many folks would you expect to see in black velvet? How many reviewers would point a camera at a light bulb... no, wait, point and /focus/ their APO lens at a light bulb to "test" it?

I saw your review again since the story broke and I see magenta blacks in all your coloured pictures.

And now, thanks to folks pointing their newly arrived--usually in the afternoon post--M8s at, well, lights in their homes, lights in their garage, lights at a sports complex... and in November, when that black syncilla jacket is pulled outta the closet...

20/20 hindsight this is easy to spot, but does your review procedure skip over this part of the image analysis?

Sean reviewed what he made of images with the M8 he was loaned. He wasn't given a half dozen M8s to:

- point at light bulbs with the shutter set to "B", or 1/4 sec at 1250 ISO
- drape various black textiles in a studio and light them with 6500K lights...
and then shoot them at 1/4 sec and 1250 ISO
- drop an M8 on hard-packed mud; on man-made ice in an ice rink; on a
wooden chair, floor... or the passenger-side foot well of his car.
- pick a random RFF member to offer... and then reneg a loan to test...

- pointing the camera at a light bulb​

- various black draped textiles in 6500K light at 1250 ISO and 1/4 sec​

- etc.​

Did /you/ see these "magenta"(added red, actually) casts when you read his review, the first time?

No, you didn't... because you did not know to even look for it... until the chilly November climate brought black syncilla out of the closet... and someone shot a snap, at 1250 ISO and 1/4 sec, etc.

Learning is fun, huh?

 

[ywenz]

Did /you/ see these "magenta"(added red, actually) casts when you read his review, the first time?

Nope, beacuse I'm not a professional reviewer. End of story.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Why none of the earlier reviewers saw the magenta blacks. It took no time for the actual owners to spot these issues.

I saw your review again since the story broke and I see magenta blacks in all your coloured pictures.

20/20 hindsight this is easy to spot, but does your review procedure skip over this part of the image analysis?

This also shows that film reviewers in the past and film manufacturers were "bed fellows". As soon as the film reached the hands of the normal consumer, people would find uneven developing times, terrible grain, blown highlights, thin shadows, sometimes even purple negatives which would just stay purple no matter how long you looked at it. Nevermind that the reviewers developed the film properly or pushed or pulled properly. They were exposed by regular folk for what they were: "strange bedfellows". Still are.

And don't get me started on Tri-X and Diafine; if there ever was a conspiracy, there's one: the exposure on the box says "ISO 1600", but they LIE!! I expose it at ISO 1000. Those filthy liars, skipping such info. 🙄

 

[boilerdoc2]

Would two of you who have already gotten your BLACK M8 from Popflash hurry up and return it so I can get one. I'm #2 on Tony's list! Surely no one wants theirs now! Kim, please pull the plug on this thread!. Thanks

 

[MP Guy]

If anyone saw a magent cast or purple black during the review they never would have know unless mentioned by the reviewer. How would I know the color of something being photographed by someone else. I would just asume it was a purple shirt.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I respectfully disagree.

People paid money to read these reviews.

Some read for entertainment and enlightenment. They got their money's worth.

I agree with you, but for a different reason: I thought from the very beginning that selling reviews was a very very shaky idea. You have a paying public? The public has a sense of ownership. And paying for anything, in this age, is a product. An intellectual product is such a can of worms that I'd rather listen to the word "nuke-u-lar" than be submitted to deal with such a thorny issue, personnaly, when *my* wallet against many is at stake.

 

[thurows]

Come on people this is a $5,000 camera that produces images of questionable quality that needs a "fix". Quit trying to defend it just because it's a Leica. You can buy a $200 dollar digital camera that produces better results.

Everyone that bought a camera has the right to get their money back no questions asked and no one should feel guilty for wanting their money back.

 

[jlw]

I also PP every one of my digital images as this is how you get the very best results.

I shot with a 5D for a while and always used PP
I shot with a D200, they all needed PP
My E1, while needing the least, still needed PP

Every digital file needs PP to look their best.

I'm sure I'll kick myself for overlooking the obvious when I get an answer to this, but:

I've been a professional user of Photoshop since v1.0 (before that I used ImageStudio; anybody remember that?) and in spite of all that experience I have no idea what the above poster means by "PP."

What is it?

(I sure hope it doesn't have anything to do with that Avodart stuff that's always being advertised on TV...)

 

[thurows]

Post Processing.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

jlw: I think he meant "post-processing". I tend not to like tsuoa (the superfluose use of acronyms) for that reason: uttrots (unintelligible to the reader other than self) 😉

 

[MarkM6]

Funny...

I subscribed to Sean's review last week and after I read the review of the M8, I have decided to test out the RD1.

Dear Leica,
For now, you came this close;

 

[thurows]

Dear Leica,
For now, you came this close;

Very Poetic.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Dear Leica,
For now, you came this close;

😱 Is that faux hardwood floor?! 😉

 

[ampguy]

good points

good points

And also kudos to Sean for pointing it out ahead of the official leica statements, or for coming out asap on the issue.

However, with regards to IR and the M8, questions were posed as early as the summer and fall according to searching the popular photo sites. Even the Sept. Kodak press release of the sensor mentions the high IR sensitivity of the sensor with the control of this for RF use to be handled by the thin 0.5mm coating, being worked on in conjunction with Leica, and not by traditional IR filters as in DSLRs.

The questions on IR and M8 are still out there if you search pnet.

I think someone has a bit of a idealistic expectation of a review. Sure, the ideal review would show every flaw of a camera, however, I don't think Sean gaurantees that his reviews will find every flaw of a camera.

Also, notice that although everyone is exlaiming how this IR thing is also a problem of the past, no one said a thing to Sean during the 3 parts of his review process. No one asked him to check IR sensitivity. And furthermore, Sean made no claims about the IR sensitivity being flawless. Today, Part 3 has a footnote about the IR problem and I think that Sean has done his job in keeping his review updated. Most magazines I would think would have a larger lag time. Sean has a very good turn around time.

We all know, there are risks to buying a new technology product. This is our reality. People who take the risk are putting their necks out for the rest of the population that sits back to see what is going to happen. I think they deserve some respect and compassion for their situation. The rest of us should be patient and hope for the best.

 

[DaveSee]

Nope, beacuse I'm not a professional reviewer. End of story.

Fair enough, you are not a professional reviewer. I looked again too at the "Part 2" review, and can see the "reddy blacks" in a fella's jacket, and the cap of the fireman.
But you did not see it before, so, what kind of reviewer are you? You cannot even properly assess a reviewer's opinion when the evidence is right in front of your nose!
Yes, this story has ended for you.

 

[DaveSee]

😱 Is that faux hardwood floor?! 😉

Well, he'd have to shoot it with an M8 to capture the red cast of IR sensitive polys to be sure... but the bills aren't very crisp, nor well rendered: they may be fake.

 

[Matthew Runkel]

I think the word "defective" is strong.

If a type of color film behaved the same way, we would probably say it was defective. Few would purchase such a film. As a "tool for creativity," a film like this would get old faster than a 6mm fisheye.

 

[roblumba]

Foolish Ignorance

Foolish Ignorance

It's really easy to call the M8 "defective" because you found a flaw. But reality isn't so black and white. I think Leica explained a portion of the complexity of the situation that intelligent people should be able to discern that this is not just a fail / pass characteristic of the product. There are multiple variables in balance here and this defect only shows in some circumstance, not in all cases. And really, you should all be patient to wait some time to allow Leica to reveal their final statement of resolution before making final ultimatums. Imagine if your longtime friend had such problems, would you be so inconsiderate, brash and harsh to your friend. I think Leica is like an old friend for many people here and should be treated like one.

I'm not saying that you should just throw $5,000 on an M8. But I am saying some things are more important than money. After all, most photographers aren't photographers for the money, but for the art. And the photography art is especially about relationships between people.