bluepenguin
Established
I have used UV/IR with M8 but finally I sold my M8 due to UV/IR affecting my picture with flares.
Here is my story.
I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.
I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.
Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.
Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.
Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.
I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.
Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.
Here is my story.
I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.
I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.
Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.
Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.
Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.
I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.
Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.
infocusf8@earthlink.
Established
Ah, bluepenguin did you remove the UV IR and take a pic to see if the black fabrics were affected? I've taken a number of pics of black fabrics without UV IR and only one has ever come up maroon. It was a lampshade made from synthetic fabric.
Ben Z
Veteran
Before I bought my M8 the potential for flare and ghosts from the IR filters scared me. Even though I have always used UV filters and almost never got flare or ghosts, I did switch some time back to the multi-coated B+W filters. There was much talk about the B+W 486 filters, and Leica's branded filters, not being multicoated and therefore had more possibility for flare and/or ghosts. Except for the 2 free filters I got from Leica, all the rest of my lenses have Heliopan IR filters, and I have one 486 I bought used to carry as a spare (since IR filters are mandatory on the M8 unlike a UV filter, I carry spares for all sizes of lenses I am travelling with). One of the Leica brand filters is a spare e43 for my 50 Summilux and I haven't used it, but the other Leica filter lives on my 15mm. I have not seen any evidence of flare or ghosts in the time I've had my M8 (since last Summer), in all kinds of light, indoors, outdoors, directional, nighttime, you name it. In fact, other than the 15mm, I put back my B+W Multicoated UV filters on top of my IR filters to protect them because they're so expensive, and I still haven't gotten any flare or ghosts. I'm not saying it can't or won't ever happen, but after as many shots as I've done and it hasn't happened, it's not keeping me up at night and certainly isn't giving me thoughts of dumping the M8. Of course YMMV.
jackal2513
richbroadbent
open photoshop and press control + U or hit the sponge tool
A THOUSAND TIMES EASIER THAN FAFFING ABOUT with a million different IR filters and sending lenses to the moon and back to be coded and then going into menus and selecting all sorts of nonsense and then still getting tons of vignetting and blue in your corners. Complete nonsense. In fact i'm convinced peopel get into all this IR lark because they just want more stuff to own, buy and look at.
this is DIGITAL kids, the whole point being that you can insert a whole herd of wild animals into the background of your picture if need be, you can render out of the whole of Moss Isley and layer it back over that picture of your own front garden. Sponging a few magenta colours down in photoshop takes seconds. And if you dont have the skill to be able to do that, well, stick to film... because good digital photography requires a LOT of hard work on the computer.
A THOUSAND TIMES EASIER THAN FAFFING ABOUT with a million different IR filters and sending lenses to the moon and back to be coded and then going into menus and selecting all sorts of nonsense and then still getting tons of vignetting and blue in your corners. Complete nonsense. In fact i'm convinced peopel get into all this IR lark because they just want more stuff to own, buy and look at.
this is DIGITAL kids, the whole point being that you can insert a whole herd of wild animals into the background of your picture if need be, you can render out of the whole of Moss Isley and layer it back over that picture of your own front garden. Sponging a few magenta colours down in photoshop takes seconds. And if you dont have the skill to be able to do that, well, stick to film... because good digital photography requires a LOT of hard work on the computer.
Richard Marks
Rexel
bluepenguin said:
This sounds a bit daft
The beauty of digital is that you can see if you are getting flare and then alter your position.
Flare is a bit easier to elicit with filters in place but it can happen without as well. It is not logical to just blame this automatically on the filter. It can be as simple as dust or deposits on the filter or lens element.
Also worth trying without the filter. Capturing the moment in RAW data it is usually possible to get a pretty good correction.
This is the first IR issue post for months and I rather thought we had moved on. You are posting now to tell us you have sold your M8. There are some pretty experienced M8 users here and it might have been more useful to post for a bit of advice (or for others to see your images) before actually selling. Why mention this now?
Best wishes
Richard
Bob Parsons
Established
Are you sure the filter was the cause of the problems you saw. Did you take any comparison shots without the filter? If you take a picture of a fire without a filter then the fire appears as a whitish purple color not a yellow flame. You may also find the flame is slightly out of focus. A fire is a very intense source of IR and the filter isn't always sufficient to completely remove its effect especially if the flame is in the picture.bluepenguin said:
I've not had any major problems using the IR-UV filters with the M8. Occasionally I get a few ghost images of very bright light sources, but you would get these with any filter under similar conditions.
Here is an image taken with the M8 and Wide Angle Tri Elmar straight into very intense lights. The only artifacts that have appeared are colored haloes around the lights cause by blue light being scattered by the thin films on the filter.
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/gallery/images/15816/1_L9990545.jpg
I've also used an RD-1 for concert/band photography and have found that it needs a UV-IR filter to avoid magenta blacks or a pinkish cast - the RD-1 is quite IR sensitive, it's not only the M8 which has this problem.
Bob.
macmx
Established
jackal2513 said:
Haha. I agree. I do very little post and even Aperture has a quick and simple selective hue function that lets me get rid of magenta in a matter of seconds. Doesn't bother me, but then again I've never shot film so what do I know.
docolmo
Member
infocusf8@earthlink. said:
For graduation ceremony, no chance! Just got my M8 when I attended my son's once-in-a-lifetime graduation, and had no IR filters then. All robes were distinctly purple! Removed all the saturation of magenta component in photoshop, but it does affect the color balance of the photo. Wished I had brought my 5D then.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
docolmo said:
Or an IR filter..Weighs less than the 5D.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
bluepenguin said:
Well, if you use an RD1 I know which camera will be junked next for IR issues....
Seriously: could you put one or two offending dng files on yousendit.com?
I am sure postprocessing can save the day in most cases.
Last edited:
bluepenguin
Established
lol..
I was so spoiled by using zeiss/contax lens for not having a flare/ghost.
M8 is a great camera,,, but not in my photographic style.
I want to take a picture freely with a minimum light flare/ghost affecting on my picture. But m8 doesn't fit me in this catagory.
If the light source is in your viewfinder, it will probably not make a flare. However there are times that you will see UV/IR flares when the strong light source is hitting UV/IR in 70~90 degree angle with your UV/IR.
I was so spoiled by using zeiss/contax lens for not having a flare/ghost.
M8 is a great camera,,, but not in my photographic style.
I want to take a picture freely with a minimum light flare/ghost affecting on my picture. But m8 doesn't fit me in this catagory.
If the light source is in your viewfinder, it will probably not make a flare. However there are times that you will see UV/IR flares when the strong light source is hitting UV/IR in 70~90 degree angle with your UV/IR.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Don't expect the R-D1 to slove your problems. It, too, suffers from magenta colored blacks in the right circumstances. I shoot alot of theater and under theater lighting, almost all blacks turn heavily purple on the R-D1. This was easily fixed with an IR/UV filter. No flaring problems, either, that I can tell. Good luck!
/T
/T
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
that's weird.
I've never had those kind of problems and my M8 has seen all kinds of different situations.
Sorry to hear that it didn't work for you.
I've never had those kind of problems and my M8 has seen all kinds of different situations.
Sorry to hear that it didn't work for you.
Ben Z
Veteran
I'd just like to add 3 things to what I already said about never having the flare problem. One is that I also had an R-D1 and it most definitely has the same IR issue as the M8, although to a much lesser degree, it was still not something I could ignore. Black is black (to quote Los Gatos) and even a little magenta sticks out like a sore thumb and needs correcting. I was grateful for the M8 fiasco because otherwise I wouldn't have known that an IR filter could solve the problem on my R-D1. Which brings me to my second comment, which is that I certainly know how (in fact, several ways) to correct the contamination in post-processing, and more or less agree that it takes "seconds", but if I had to multiply that by thousands of files, I would hang myself first. There is no batch-action or profile that can correct the IR contamination without altering other items (eg discern those that are supposed to be magenta). Plus, the contamination goes beyond once in a while only on black synthetics. I've had outdoor foliage go all psychedelic on me too.
Third comment, I coded all my lenses myself, permanently (no sharpie marker). Cost me nothing, took very little time, didn't have to send anything anywhere. But unlike for the IR contamination, there is quick and easy software that can more or less automatically correct the cyan corner drift from wide angle lenses.
Third comment, I coded all my lenses myself, permanently (no sharpie marker). Cost me nothing, took very little time, didn't have to send anything anywhere. But unlike for the IR contamination, there is quick and easy software that can more or less automatically correct the cyan corner drift from wide angle lenses.
Last edited:
Richard Marks
Rexel
You have titled this thread "UV /IR woes" but you have not provided any convicing evidence firstly that flare was the problem and secondly that it was caused by an IR filter. I am still unclear wh you present this now for discussion as you have sold your camera and presumably do not have any further interest in the M8
Hope you find something more suitable.
Regards
Richard
Hope you find something more suitable.
Regards
Richard
furcafe
Veteran
Are the Heliopan filters multi-coated on both sides? IIRC, the problem w/the B+W 486 & Leica filters is that they are only coated on 1 side. FWIW, I have gotten a few flare artifacts w/the 486 & 13411/13414 filters when shooting bright point light sources, like candles & spot lights @ shows, that are in or just outside of the frame. Not enough to ditch the M8, but it has made me think about switching to the Heliopans, if they are multicoated.
Ben Z said:
Bob Parsons
Established
The B+W and Leica filters are coated on both sides. One side has a multilayer antireflection coating and the other side the multilayer UV-IR interference filter. There was some talk of the UV-IR being less abrasion resistant than the other side. Of the several B+W and Leica filters I have about 75% of them had the UV-IR side facing towards the lens, I reversed the glass in the others.furcafe said:
Bob.
keithwms
Established
Why not place an AR-coated UV/IR filter over the actual sensor? Is there space to do that?
There are UV/IR conversions done by companies like maxmax for digital UV/IR shooting that remove the need to put a vis-blocking filter on your lens... this is of course done on dSLRs so that you can compose TTL and AF normally. All they do is take out the normal hot mirror or sensor cover and replace it with whatever you want. So you can do Uv, IR, UV+vis, IR+vis, UV+IR only, etc. It seems to me that one could just as easily put any desired hot/cold mirror over the M8 sensor itself, as long as there is ~1mm of space in front of the sensor to do this. I use thin filters for microscopy in my lab all the time. No big deal.
In fact, I'd be totally shocked if somebody isn't doing this and selling the service- it would be a ten minute operation, and the glass plates that would be installed can be mass produced for maybe a hundred bucks apiece, including AR coating for the visible.
(N.b. I will not speculate on what Leica will charge you for what I am describing)
With all due respect to some of the posts above... habitually using a physical or software filter because of unwanted UV / IR sensitivity of your sensor... well I'm not going to say it. You just have to be kidding.
Apologies to offended readers if I am overlooking something obvious about your particular sensors, which I have not yet seen, but I have been following this M8 issue from a distance. There is an M8 in a local store and I could stop by and look and see if it is possible to do what I am saying.
There are UV/IR conversions done by companies like maxmax for digital UV/IR shooting that remove the need to put a vis-blocking filter on your lens... this is of course done on dSLRs so that you can compose TTL and AF normally. All they do is take out the normal hot mirror or sensor cover and replace it with whatever you want. So you can do Uv, IR, UV+vis, IR+vis, UV+IR only, etc. It seems to me that one could just as easily put any desired hot/cold mirror over the M8 sensor itself, as long as there is ~1mm of space in front of the sensor to do this. I use thin filters for microscopy in my lab all the time. No big deal.
In fact, I'd be totally shocked if somebody isn't doing this and selling the service- it would be a ten minute operation, and the glass plates that would be installed can be mass produced for maybe a hundred bucks apiece, including AR coating for the visible.
(N.b. I will not speculate on what Leica will charge you for what I am describing)
With all due respect to some of the posts above... habitually using a physical or software filter because of unwanted UV / IR sensitivity of your sensor... well I'm not going to say it. You just have to be kidding.
Apologies to offended readers if I am overlooking something obvious about your particular sensors, which I have not yet seen, but I have been following this M8 issue from a distance. There is an M8 in a local store and I could stop by and look and see if it is possible to do what I am saying.
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Those are some serious images being invoked right therebluepenguin said:
furcafe
Veteran
Sorry, I meant that the B+W & Leica filters only had anti-reflection coating on 1 side. Your explanation makes sense because the flare seems to be from reflections coming off of the lens itself & reflecting off the inside surface of the filter (& back again through the lens).
Bob Parsons said: