"magenta madness"

Erwin Puts has posted an essay on his site about the ruckus over the M8. I feel that though he often

seems to be an apologist for Leica, he is a highly informed, skilled and careful tester with much to say that

increases my understanding of the cameras and their lenses.

 

His look at the M8 strikes me as a good perspective on Leica's troubles (and achievements) in the digital

world. Am I alone in holding this view?

Mr. Puts does not strike me as an aplogist. He is an optimist, however, and has great experience in the difficulties of photographic invention so perhaps his view is that Leica did the right thing; they made reasonable compromises in order to support their particular RF lenses.

 

And I agree.

What makes Erwin so objectionable to some people, I suspect, is his completely convoluted and apparently unedited writing.

 

One example

 

"I am inclined to observe at this moment in time (translation - "I now think") that the Leica Company and the Internet Community of Leica observers and opinion-forgers (translation -- "that the Leica company, its critics and supporters") do the M8 a bad service to over-react to the IR-issue.( translation - should not overreact to this issue.)"

 

So we now have, "I now think that the Leica company, its critics and supporters should not overreact to this issue."

 

17 words to say what Puts needs 33 to say.

<a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IqSJ&tag=">Link to the previous discussion of his article.</a>

I'm not a Leica owner (or basher), but from a disinterested perspective, that article

<em>does</em> read like it was written by an apologist. "Oh, no, see, they <em>totally

meant</em> to build a camera that completely mucks up the color reproduction in common

use cases" is not a reasonable reading of this situation.

<i>17 words to say what Puts needs 33 to say.</i><p>

 

Your translations are approximations. There is more

specific information being conveyed in his 33 words than in your 17. ;)

It all comes down to the question of how bad the IR issue really is, and right now it's mostly speculation. Eventually there will be enough cameras available, and enough people using it, to create a legitimate consensus.

 

Erwin's contribution seems to be that it's a limitation but not a crushing death blow to any and all photographic aspirations. A couple of other gearhead commentators, like Reichmann, agree.

 

Certainly there are others who maintain that the camera's very existence is robbing them of all talent. We'll see how it plays out and, in the meantime, you're welcome not to buy it.

"All sound and fury, signifying nothing!"

my question is: can this 'magenta issue be corrected in photoshop?'

 

a scanner is a basicaly a digital camera that takes a picture of your neg's or chromes. there's no way the scan is going straight to print without some work in ps.

 

same goes for standard darkroom prints. filters are used, and colours timed in or out.

 

i'm sure all of you that shoot with a d70 or other digital camera do post work before making a print.

 

colours need to be balanced all the time. every motion picture film that you see has gone through hundreds of hours of colour timing and tweaking before you see it on the big screen or dvd. this is due to the film/hard drive/tape not being able to capture the image the way the shooter see's it.

 

so...is the magenta issue that some are finding fixable in post?

From what I've been hearing from owners is the problem can only be addressed partially in automated or batch-type post processing but not entirely and everything that's been tried so far has at least a mimimally negative effect on some other paramater such as saturation of certain other colours. They are saying the only way it can be completely eradicated in post processing is by manually selecting each object that has been colour corrupted by IR and tweaking it. That might be workable for a few dedicated souls but not for anyone with limited time or a large number of shots.

 

Good news is that it seems fixing the cyan corners caused by the IR front filters in conjunction with wide angle lenses is quick and easy in post processing, so even if a coded lens would let the camera do the corrections, those without coded (or codable) lenses or the inclination to pay for the "upgrade" are not completely screwed.

It is true that when shutting digital raw one has to ALWAYS apply post processing. But this does not necessarily mean that the magenta issue can be fixed in short order. Perhaps it is on a picture by picture basis....I suspect using batch automated processing is not the4 answer.

 

I'm not a Leica shooter yet, but if I were a Leica fanboy I would be pissed to the max at Leica for messing up their M8. The Japanese DSLR makers have had their picadilloes too, but not to this extent, and often the issues didn't effect image quality to the extent that this Leica magenta thing does.

 

It seems the rush to market may have did Leica in. It seems that this issue has revealed the shalowness, sneakiness, and lack of integrity of some Photo magazines and sites too....their withholding of the magenta issue from the readers of their sites/zines, the very constiuents that they should've been watching out for.

 

There are photo-copy machine makers, printer makers, and other conglomerates that also make digital cameras as a side thing that have gotten it right, or at least close...how a camera company screwed this up is intolerable. You Leica folks need to send Leica a message, and I don't mean in German either....send it with your wallets...refuse to buy the M8 until they make good. Their feet need to be held to the fire.

Dan, right now if any other electronic camera co in the world took up trying to put Leica lenses and a sensor together they would have to do exactly the same thing as Leica have done - only they would know it from the outset.

How can any post-process optically distinguish between wool and nylon, or whatever.

hey on that note,

where is huw finnye and his M2AD?

A lot of Sturm and Drang over the M8 problem.

 

To me the acid test is simple: Would I feel good buying this machine?

 

The answer is no. I don't need filters to get my RD-1s to do the job. Why should I accept anything less than perfection from a LEICA machine, an M8, that costs so much more than an RD-1s? If the RD-1s isn't perfect out of the box, and it's on warranty, send it back, get it fixed, and it will still perform better and for less cost than the M8.

 

I'd like to own a digital Leica M when they have the problems fixed, but only when they have the problems fixed.

Logically, there is no way to fully correct the problem with firmware or an automated postprocessing routine. The RGB signals coming from the sensor are corrupted by levels of IR radiation that vary according to lighting conditions and subject matter. There is no way for the camera firmware, or software, to "know" how much of any particular input in the R, G or B channel is due to infrared.

Matt, yes, I wonder where Huw is and what he's up to. Miss him here on the forum.

It makes you wonder a little if maybe an M8 monochrome or even an M8 IR camera might not be a paying proposition.

 

With so many Leica fans being B&W shooters I wonder if they could get a monochrome version to sell well enough to make a profit. Monochome shooters don't mind using filters and a sensor which was sensitive to IR as well as visible light would probably be seen as an asset rather than a liability. A monochrome sensor would probably be cheaper than a Bayer filtered sensor and would probably give better monochrome image quality as well.

 

If any company could get their users to buy a B&W digital camera, it would probably be Leica.

"I don't need filters to get my RD-1s to do the job. Why should I accept anything less than perfection from a LEICA machine, an M8, that costs so much more than an RD-1s? If the RD-1s isn't perfect out of the box, and it's on warranty, send it back, get it fixed, and it will still perform better and for less cost than the M8."

 

In fairness there are reports of the RD1 being sensitive to IR, just not as much as the M8. It also has 60% of the resolution and crops the FOV by a comparatively significant amount. It has a much shorter based rangefinder, one that is notorious for going out of whack. It is available new only in select markets and word has it has been discontinued by Epson, is selling out existing stock. The RD1 has been plagued by QC problems (rangefinder and hot pixels being only two). Product support and service down the road is worth worrying about, especially if you happen to live in a region of the world where it isn't sold or serviced by the regional Epson centre.

 

I thought very seriously about getting one after I had to cancel my order for the M8, but in looking at it further I decided not to. Just because the M8 turned out to be a disappointment doesn't suddenly make the RD1 a better camera than it was before the M8 fiasco.

perfection in a camera doesn't exist. put a friggen' filter on the lens or just don't buy it..................

Leica probably will get around to redesigning the darned sensor cover, and when they do, I'll be interested in buying an M8. But for now, they still look like they are in denial. It would be so much classier of Leica if they just admitted to messing up and offered to replace the sensor covers for free once they've done the redesign.

the tons of abuses against M8 just reflects the mentality of a modern consumer, one would

image if M8 is sold as the same price level as MP/M7, those home-made reviews would have

been much kinder.

<I>the tons of abuses against M8 just reflects the mentality of a modern consumer, M</i>

<P>

 

Much more to do with the efficiency of the internet in dissemenating information, reviewers

who sat on test result information, and leica apparently shipping product knowing the issue

existed. And the intelligence of the modern consumer - companies that don't respect their

customers lose in the end. <P>

 

Other than that...

companies that don't respect their customers lose in the end. -brad

 

leica could quit right now and they wouldnt lose. they've been around for ages!!! for a company to be around as long as leica has, they've had to have done something right. long term success dont just happen over night. we owe them more credit than is currently being given i think.

How many cameras or other modern electronic devices do you buy and not figure out

a day or a week later you wanted or needed an added accessory to complete it or

make it perform to its optimum? Not too many- from my experience. As I

understand it, the worst that's going to happen if you want this camera is that you're

going to have to buy a filter or two. If I was really into wanting an M8 I probably

wouldn't be happy about the situation but I'd do what I needed with it and move on.

 

With all due respect I don't think some who are relentlessly critical of the M8 would

be interested in using the camera or any

other Leica if it performed 100% out of the box. And yes, technically, the way this has

been handled up to this point hasn't been ideal, but yours is only one interpretation

of the gravity of it. Personally I don't feel it's a crisis of that magnitude.

 

Those who want an expensive special niche item that has some fine qualities found

nowhere else should expect to deal with some quirks, and putting out even a few

hundred dollars additionally is par for the course with these items. If the additional

cost is really a hardship, they shouldn't have been in the market for this high ticket

item in the first place.