Erwin: More on M8

[ron_breeze2]

There's plenty of photo's around taken with this camera, Brad, maybe if you looked instead

of nitpicking you'd find them. On the other hand maybe your a perfect candidate for that

string I mentioned earlier. Oh, did I say that out loud. There I go getting kicked off this

forum again.

[canfred]

Hi Ron Breeze , the moderator here is Mr. Bob Atkins ! I for one do not own the M8 nor do I intend to purchase one in the near future .

I still use film since I do not make my living taking photos film is a small expense. I did have a go at the 5D but found after doing careful tests with my Apo Macro Elmarit on the Canon ,film Astia in this case scanned with Imacon came up better on my R9. All I wanted was Mr. Atkins to expain to me the merit of his statement ( if the M8 with 28mm lens was $ 1000.00 he would buy one too)I do still think he lost it and yes I am fully aware one can not compare the 5D to the M8.

[Brad_]

<I>There's plenty of photo's around taken with this camera, Brad, maybe if you looked

instead of nitpicking you'd find them.</I><P>

 

No, Ron. You didn't read what I said: <I>I find it interesting that all the folks who are the

most defensive on this subject don't have any photos when you click on their name.

</I><P>

 

As an example, I click on your name and see no photos. I find that interesting. I've seen

many M8 pics, a few <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/

3403/marooned-leica-">are here</a>, for example.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>It's been pointed out a couple of times that the need for corrective filters is nothing new in photography. Why is this message not sinking in? My Dad's model II required a yellow filter to avoid overexposing the sky with black and white film. So does my IIIc, my MP, and everything in between. I use a skylight filter to remove excess blue from shots taken in the shade; 81A, B abd C warming filters; a Tiffen 812; an FL-D for correcting fluorescent light; and a blue filter for correcting the excess yellow of late afternoon sunlight.

 

New technology calls for changing habits</i></p>No one could argue with that last statement. However it goes to disprove your own point. Filters <i>were</i> needed <i>with film</i> (and BTW, only in specific instances, not all the time. If you believe you only need an IR filter on an M8 when shooting people in black polyester garb, better read up on photographic IR sensitivity). Aside from the M8, no <i>current high-end</i> digital camera needs an external IR filter on the lens to combat excessive IR sensitivity of the sensor. The change of habit you refer to applies only to people who own an M8, and has nothing to do with new technology. Leaving off the IR filter is not "new technology", it was--by Leica's own admission--a compromise made because they couldn't solve it and some other alleged problem together. It remains to be proven whether that other problem was in fact an image-quality issue, or mostly the perceived need to meet the Photokina deadline.

[Brad_]

<I> Leaving off the IR filter is not "new technology", it was--by Leica's own admission--a

compromise made because they couldn't solve it and some other alleged problem

together.</I><P>

 

What's really troubling is the filter solution eventually put forward itself was a reactive

compromise

made after production cameras

were in

peoples' hands

and

complaints came in. Rather than a considered engineering tradeoff taken

during development - which occurred over the previous couple of years. <P>

 

There can't be any doubt they knew about the problem early on, but probably thought the

majority

of their customers were not that fussy on image quality. And didn't consider the extremely

efficient manner in which the internet distributes information.<P>

 

The filteres and discount program "solution" came weeks <I>after</I> the complaints and

negative reactions on the net.

[jerry_kirkwood]

The speed at which Leica reacted and implemented the "fix", including having a supplier producing a run of Leica-branded IR filters to be in dealers' hands in a couple of months, is an impossible stretch to believe they did not have it all in place long before the camera was in customers' hands. Then all they had to do was act ingenuous, pull the bouquet of flowers out of their sleeve and wait for the enraptured fans to burst into applause <wink>.

[rj]

Ahh, now I get the problem. Leica took a few weeks to fix the initial problems that their customers were complaining about, shame on them. If you really want to compare, compare Leica's reaction time to Nikon or Canon's with a product issue. We wouldn't be talking about weeks, more like months if at all.

 

The fact is the M8 is a good camera, one that fits with what an actual Leica M series user would want in a digital camera. They were able to make the digital m camera much like the film camera trying to keep their customers happy. All this internet banter from non-users really shows how efficient the internet is with regards to spreading bulls*&%.

[Brad_]

<I>All this internet banter from non-users really shows how efficient the internet is with

regards to spreading bulls*&%.</I><P>

 

No need to get angry, RJ. You've stood up for your brand and have taken a position that

leica should be commended for their commitment to excellence and with their great "fix."

That kind of loyalty is very admirable - I certainly don't have a problem with that.

[jerry_kirkwood]

Me neither. As long as Leica can make enough profit to stay in business selling only as many M8's as there are people willing to accept them as they are, there shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

[john_camp]

"In any event, despite the snide fanboy comments from the peanut gallery, my original

point still stands. Why not insert a filter on top of the sensor like every sane digital camera

company does? Nice attempts at evasion though."

 

Because the filter degrades the sharpness of the image; as does an anti-moire filter.

Medium format people have put up with this for a long time -- it's simply a design choice.

Take your pick -- more sharpness, along with the need to remove moire with software

when necessary; or, more convenience, get the moire removed in camera, with softer

photos.

 

Lots of serious photogaphers who use DSLRs are primarily concerned with speed, ISO, and

automatic features, because they are working in fast-moving, fast-changing conditions --

wedding, PJ work, etc. To get the auto features, they are willing to accept the softness you

get with DSLR sensor-mounted IR and moire filters, and somewhat inferior lenses.

 

With Leica lenses, however, and with the typical Leica working style, which does not focus

on speed or automatic controls, Leica chose to wring the most sharpness they could get

out of their sensor. That, they felt, would make the best use of their lenses. They got the

sharpness, but there is also some occasional moire to be cleaned up in software, or the

need for IR cut filters to be used if there's a lot of synthetic black materials being shot. The

moire clean-up is trivial for anyone who has ever used post-processing software, and can

be done on a spotting basis -- you don't have to soften the whole image to clean up the

moire. You can also use or not use the filters -- but try to unscrew the IR filter on a Canon

or a Nikon for more sharpness. Of course, many excellent DSLR shooters aren't concerned

with more sharpness -- their photos are being printed on toilet paper anyway (newspapers

or news magazines) or a slight softness is regarded as desirable (no need to record every

last pimple on the bride.) And that's fine; what you want is what you want. Leica shooters

want sharpess.

 

The story out of Leica is that they knew about the IR sensitivity, but they didn't think the

effect was strong enough to be a major concern. Unless you've used the camera, it's hard

to understand -- but it's perfectly possible to take hundreds of shots (landscapes, city

scapes, still lifes) without seeing the IR shift except in certain enhanced greens (in foliage,

for example; and by enhanced, I don't mean wrong, I mean more separation of shades.)

The problem comes mostly with dark neutral shades (black, grey, dark blue) of usually

synthetic materials, or materials recently washed in some laundry products, which reflect

an unusually large amount of IR. Then you get a magenta shift. The most awful example

I've seen of this was a picture of a symphony orchestra, all in black tuxes, which were now

vaguely magenta tuxes. But for ordinary street shooting, you didn't really notice unless

you went back and compared materials to the photographs -- there's an awful lot of real

reddish-colored clothing around. Sean Reid, who does camera testing, published a whole

series of street shots that contained magenta problems, and didn't see the problems until

other people started reporting it. He then went back and looked, and found quite a few

examples of it. In my shooting, I usually found it only in interiors, lit with incandescent

lights, and sometimes, it *was* disconcerting, but not in the expected ways. That people

would have reddish shirts usually was not troublesome -- it just wasn't something that

you'd notice, because they might have been reddish. But to see a pile of reddish nylon

briefcases *was* troublesome, because you *knew* they weren't.

 

In any case, the M8's problems did not arise from stupidity, but from design choices. The

resulting tumult is basically an artifact of the internet, where teen-aged aggression seems

frequently married to ignorance; which is one reason that the most extreme statements

about the cameras seem to come from people who don't own one. As far as the camera

itself is concerned, it is selling well, is being heavily used, and according to the biggest US

dealers, is back-ordered for months.

 

JC

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>Lots of serious photogaphers who use DSLRs are primarily concerned with speed, ISO, and automatic features, because they are working in fast-moving, fast-changing conditions -- wedding, PJ work, etc. To get the auto features, they are willing to accept the softness you get with DSLR sensor-mounted IR and moire filters, and somewhat inferior lenses. With Leica lenses, however, and with the typical Leica working style, which does not focus on speed or automatic controls, Leica chose to wring the most sharpness they could get out of their sensor.</i></p>In other words, Leica M as of the M8 is no longer the camera for quick candid street photography but is now, what? The choice of still-life and landscape photographers in place of their view cameras? Or perhaps the M8 is the quintessential tool for photographing bookcases and newsprint to showcase those $3000 ASPHERIC lenses :wink: </p><i> many excellent DSLR shooters aren't concerned with more sharpness -- their photos are being printed on toilet paper anyway (newspapers or news magazines) or a slight softness is regarded as desirable (no need to record every last pimple on the bride.) And that's fine; what you want is what you want. Leica shooters want sharpess.</i></p> So then, the bulk of professional photography is crap by crap photographers, vs the masterpieces created by Leica users of...their grandchildren, backyards and bookcases?</p><i>

The story out of Leica is that they knew about the IR sensitivity, but they didn't think the effect was strong enough to be a major concern. ..In any case, the M8's problems did not arise from stupidity</i></p>And you think the former isn't a case of the latter?</p><i>The resulting tumult is basically an artifact of the internet, where teen-aged aggression seems frequently married to ignorance. </i></p> Well that's one point you <i>have</i> proven :wink: </p><i>As far as the camera itself is concerned, it is selling well, is being heavily used, and according to the biggest US dealers, is back-ordered for months.</i></p>The people who put this forth conveniently forget to mention an actual <i>number</i> of back-ordered cameras there are. It looks like no more than about 2500-3000 of them have been produced since the beginning, that's about 1500 a month. If the backorder is through March that's another 4500. Can Leica make money selling only 7500 cameras? That's 36Million gross, but subtracting materials, labor, shipping, advertising, Leica-USA's cut, and the dealers' cut, what's left first has to pay off 2 years of R&D before there's any profit. If they can call it a success after 7500 and not care if there's anyone left, once the loyal Leica lovers are done buying, to keep buying them, then by all means I applaud them for not wasting money making changes that would allow the M8 to appeal to the rest of us.

 

JC

[al_gorman]

It's absolutely ridiculous to have to put a filter on a camera to ensure it records color correctly. I've never heard such nonsense; anyone who purchases such a lemon needs their head examining.

[nels]

<i>"many excellent DSLR shooters aren't concerned with more sharpness -- their photos are being printed on toilet paper anyway (newspapers or news magazines) or a slight softness is regarded as desirable"</i>

<p>

Opinions from a person who shoots exclusively with his mouth, worth less than a piece of toilet paper - after use.

[Brad_]

<I>To get the auto features, they are willing to accept the softness you get with DSLR

sensor-mounted IR and moire filters, and somewhat inferior lenses. </i><P>

 

With statements like that you have to wonder if the poster has <I>any</I> photographic

experience.

[Brad_]

<I>but they didn't think the effect was strong enough to be a major concern. ... you didn't

really notice unless you went back and compared materials to the photographs -- there's

an

awful lot of real reddish-colored clothing around ... I usually found it only in interiors, lit

with

incandescent lights, and sometimes, it *was* disconcerting ... That people would have

reddish shirts usually was not troublesome ... </I><P>

 

As I said earlier, leica was no doubt counting on many of it's customers not being very

fussy

and having a more casual attitude towards image quality. <P>

 

Many photos posted here, as well as on other sites, the problem was apparent right off the

bat and in very ordinary shooting situations. Such as the set of photos <a href= "http://

www.popphoto.com/

popularphotographyfeatures/3403/marooned-leica-">on this site</a>.

[rj]

So is that the kind of photography you are always claiming you like to look at?

 

The fix for the magenta shift is a simple filter screwed into the front of the lens, big wup. If leica says its a design choice to keep image quality up to par, I got to believe them. The shots I have seen from the m8 are pretty good.

[andrew robertson]

"Ahh, now I get the problem. Leica took a few weeks to fix the initial problems that their

customers were complaining about, shame on them."

 

I think the problem is not the speed of the fix, but the nature of it instead. Their solution

is a band-aid when reconstructive surgery is indicated.

 

"Lots of serious photogaphers who use DSLRs are primarily concerned with speed, ISO,

and automatic features, because they are working in fast-moving, fast-changing

conditions -- wedding, PJ work, etc. To get the auto features, they are willing to accept

the softness you get with DSLR sensor-mounted IR and moire filters, and somewhat

inferior lenses. With Leica lenses, however, and with the typical Leica working style, which

does not focus on speed or automatic controls, Leica chose to wring the most sharpness

they could get out of their sensor."

 

I don't know if I agree completely. Many if not most of the Leica users out there use their

cameras handheld which should negate any sharpness advantages the lenses hold (if any -

I am not sure a Leica 35 f/2 blows away a Canon 35 f/2 even at 10x the price). Bokeh is

subjective. But the moire filter does not actually destroy sharpness - it simply prevents

information above the Nyquist frequency from entering the sensor - that information is

above the sensor's ability to resolve real data, and instead unpredictable sampling errors

occur. We see those errors as moire patterns. It will be interesting to compare the M8 to

cameras with similar resolution that possess a moire filter. My guess is that they will yield

a similar amount of data or resolution, with the filtered camera having a better image

especially under difficult conditions.

 

"The story out of Leica is that they knew about the IR sensitivity, but they didn't think the

effect was strong enough to be a major concern."

 

But it is. And I have seen more than a few M8 shots lately here that show it to be a real

problem, despite what Leica thought. Most of those shots are indoors without flash - a

place where one would be tempted to use Leica's fast sharp lenses wide open. The

solution is to screw a filter over the front of your lens and shoot that way? That will

drastically effect your photographs in difficult lighting with increased reflections and flare.

Leica probably already knew this "but they didn't think the effect was strong enough to be

a major concern".

[andrew robertson]

"It's absolutely ridiculous to have to put a filter on a camera to ensure it records color

correctly. I've never heard such nonsense; anyone who purchases such a lemon needs their

head examining."

 

Well, the color filters are laminated onto the sensor in color digital cameras (with the

exception of the Foveon). Why Leica didn't also include some kind of IR blocking laminate

directly on the sensor is beyond me. It is my understanding that it can be done even on

cameras that have no moire filter.

[Brad_]

<I>So is that the kind of photography you are always claiming you like to look at?</I><P>

 

No, and your comment is disingenuous in the extreme. <a href= "http://

www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/3403/marooned-leica-">The photos

</a> are a great example of how the magenta problem shows up in very normal outdoor

shooting circumstances.<P>

 

Perhaps you don't shoot outdoors. Not to worry, though, as people have posted pix here

showing the problem with photos taken indoors as well.

[nels]

<i>More on M8</i><p>

If you read that really fast...

[Brad_]

<i>If leica says its a design choice to keep image quality up to par, I got to believe them.

</I><P>

 

Believe all you want.<P>

 

A <I><b>design choice</b></i>, such as asking customers to place external IR-block

filters on

each of their lenses, would have occured and brought forward during product

development (1-2 years ago). Not a month

into production when units are being sold and in customer hands, and spurred by

complaints. <P>

 

That's called a <I><b>bandaid</b></I>.<P>

 

Believing in and sticking up for your brand is very admiral, though.

[kelly_flanigan1]

RE <i>"Why Leica didn't also include some kind of IR blocking laminate directly on the sensor is beyond me. It is my understanding that it can be done even on cameras that have no moire filter."</i><BR><BR><BR>With an IR filter over the sensor the bitching then would be by wideangle lens users. Rare folks like me who tend to use 50mm and longer lenses might like the camera because we wouldnt have to find 58mm IR filters for the noct, 48mm IR filters for a nikkor etc.<BR><BR>The downside of an IR filter over the sensor is with Leica wideangles. Their non retrofocus design means the light strikes the sensors edge at a way way steeper angle than a Canon EOS wideangle, which is retro focus. The light is way more normal to the sensor with a retrofocus lens. The steep angle makes for a poor IR blocking filter.<BR><BR>Thus the design fork in the road is what camp ticks off the wideangle groupies versus tick off having to place an ir filter over the lens. Its not rocket science. The flange to sensor distance of a Lieca RF is way way shorter than a Canon EOS. Retro focus lenses are required on slrs to make the lens not foul the swinging mirror. A byproduct of a retrofocus lens is that the light is more normal to the sensor or film than a pinhole or non retrofocus lens. <BR><BR>With the EPSON R-D1S the sensor is smaller in size than the M8, if Leica used an Epson sized sensor a third set of old farts would be complaining too! :)<BR><BR>Grab a 15mm VC lens, and a similar focal length retrofocus slr lens and see how the light is way more normal when its used off axis.<BR><BR>Leica is not going to build another lens mount. The M8 was designed around a 7 decade old lens system, about 5 for M. Folks whine and want FF sensors on a Leica M, like they want to pig out and drink beer that magically makes one loose weight. There are major conflicts/tradeoffs in the Leica design that the Canon drebel doesnt have.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Magenta problems are nothing new to digital, old digital scan backs like I have require they. They came out when the fastest CPU was a Pentium. Also earlier digital cameras often had poorer IR filtration and one got weird effects on many man made materials. With non film studio work your client quickly notices the images of their apparell product masterpiece has false color, if you deny it you just look like a duffus. Those who have not heard of magenta problems with digital are like folks in a dream or time warp who have never heard at least one of the following items: of Britney, the Beatles, or any war in the middle east, that the sun rises, etc.<BR><BR>

[jtdnyc]

<Why Leica didn't also include some kind of IR blocking laminate directly on the sensor is beyond me.>

 

Leica has offered an explanation for this, though some contributors to this forum who claim optical expertise have disputed its validity.

 

The explanation, as I understand it, is that such a filter would have a variable effect on different parts of the image since the rays, especially from wide-angle lenses, would enter the filter at vastly different angles and therefore travel through different thicknesses of glass.

 

This problem is not encountered with such filters in SLRs because the rays from SLR lenses, if not truly parallel, are much closer to being so.

 

Personally, I don't know whether this explanation is valid, but it seems unlikely to me that Leica would have overlooked so simple a solution as you propose if it were in fact possible and didn't take an inordinate toll on image quality.

 

I agree that the rush to meet the Photokina deadline probably had an influence on the manner in which the M8 was introduced but I question whether it influenced the technological solution settled on.

 

It doesn't seem likely to me that Leica had the front-of-the-lens filter solution up its sleeve when the camera was first presented. If that had been the case, I don't think the company would have allowed itself to go through two weeks of public relations hell, only to announce a solution that would take months to become generally available. But, you never know.

 

Looking for a point we can all agree on, could we at least share the view that we want the company to succeed as an independent entity? I don't see how the world would be a better place either without Leica or with Leica as a legacy brand name for a larger company with a different ethos.

[jtdnyc]

Obviously, I was typing while Kelly was giving the explanation.