The unofficial statement from Leica on M8

[Tom Diaz]

I'm sticking

I'm sticking

I wish I did not have to anticipate my M8 taking a trip to Solms. However, the fix and other offers sound right to me.

I am ever so slightly unclear on one point: why exactly is there not a more intrinsic solution for the IR problem, like a filter directly over the sensor? I would think that a "mark II" will eventually come out and will solve that problem intrinsically. Do I infer correctly that, with today's technology, a better IR filter on the sensor would compromise resolution or other image quality factors?

I'm an occasional infrared shooter but would prefer to load a film camera with IR when I want that--until of course they stop making IR film... maybe that will be soon....

Anyway, can someone explain succinctly why the on-the-lens filter is the best IR solution? I am not looking for an argument or a Leica bash, I'm trying to learn.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

from now on, let pictures talk, please.

Sometimes they say the worst things about our hand-holding skills :angel:

 

[Trius]

Tom: I've skipped large portions of this thread, but I infer that the physical dimensions of the camera and its interior preclude using a thicker filter. And there isn't glass available with more IR filtering unless you increase the thickness of the glass.

Maybe Olympus had it right when they decided on a whole new set of digital specific lenses for the 4/3s system. They made the OM-4/3s adapter available only after a huge hue and cry from the Oly faithful. While the older lenses perform well under certain conditions, they don't conform to the standards that the Olympus designers developed. Not that they didn't want to sell a bunch of new lenses, too...

 

[Toby]

Tom: I've skipped large portions of this thread, but I infer that the physical dimensions of the camera and its interior preclude using a thicker filter. And there isn't glass available with more IR filtering unless you increase the thickness of the glass.

Maybe Olympus had it right when they decided on a whole new set of digital specific lenses for the 4/3s system. They made the OM-4/3s adapter available only after a huge hue and cry from the Oly faithful. While the older lenses perform well under certain conditions, they don't conform to the standards that the Olympus designers developed. Not that they didn't want to sell a bunch of new lenses, too...

Maybe the next generation M lenses will have the IR filtering built into an element?

 

[Kim Coxon]

It is explained in post 3 here. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=425012#post425012

Kim

Anyway, can someone explain succinctly why the on-the-lens filter is the best IR solution? I am not looking for an argument or a Leica bash, I'm trying to learn.

 

[jlw]

I am ever so slightly unclear on one point: why exactly is there not a more intrinsic solution for the IR problem, like a filter directly over the sensor? I would think that a "mark II" will eventually come out and will solve that problem intrinsically. Do I infer correctly that, with today's technology, a better IR filter on the sensor would compromise resolution or other image quality factors?

Yes, that's exactly what Leica says the problem is. A more effective IR filter would have to be thicker; a thicker filter would scatter light rays more at the edges of the sensor, leading to color fringing.

The problem is worse with an M camera than with a DSLR because the M body is shallower, causing the light rays from the lens to strike the edges of the sensor at a steeper angle. Steeper angles produce more scattering in the filter and thus more color fringing.

A thicker body, like those used on DSLRs, would reduce the angles and allow a thicker IR fliter to be used over the sensor without degrading the image quality too much... but then the body wouldn't accept M lenses.

Leica really was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one; any solution they chose would involve some kind of compromise, so they chose the one that compromised image quality the least.

 

[Kim Coxon]

Apart from the fact that some Leica users seem to have a pathalogical hate of filters, I am not sure what the problem is. Due to the properties of an RF camera and the sensitivity of sensors to IR, a lens filter will give the highest possible quality. Putting the filter in the lens is a bit like putting a yellow filter in a lens for B/W work. It saves putting a filter on true but it spoils it for other work.

Kim

Maybe the next generation M lenses will have the IR filtering built into an element?

 

[darkkavenger]

Ah well.. take it cool folks🙂

Ah well.. take it cool folks🙂

Good luck to all of you who purchased an M8. I'm sure you'll love your camera more once it'll be fixed, I'm curious to see how those who are violently criticising the camera and Leica policy will react in 6 months - 1 year - 2 years...once their camera will be fixed.

I'm sure most of those will be fondling their M8 and letting everyone know how it's the best camera they ever had and how it is outstanding. Let's hope 😉

I'll stop the rant and i'll go fondle my FSU cameras 😉

Hope this upgrade/repair will be helpful to all of you!
Max

 

[Tom Diaz]

Leica really was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one; any solution they chose would involve some kind of compromise, so they chose the one that compromised image quality the least.

Thanks, jlw. If they'd documented this design tradeoff up front, as part of their product launch, and if they had also made the "free filters" offer up front, they would be looking 100% all right with me on the IR issue. The fact that they are coming up with this solution while embarrassed makes them only 75% OK with me, but it is still a solution.

If they get through this and become a stronger company (which I hope), I think they'll learn from this experience, and meanwhile I think I will be just as well off as if they had handled the problems more proactively.