el_fang

<i>Please, don't try and bait me...you have no where to go with this avenue.</i>

<p>I'm not trying to bait you. You made a statement counter to what is pretty much common knowledge about the M8 at this point, and I'm trying to determine the validity of that statement. You stated also that the M8, R9 and $50,000 worth of lenses was handed to you on free extended loan. Of course we now know that just because you didn't pay cash for the equipment loan, doesn't mean it was free - your putting the Leica rep up in your house whenever he comes by to visit, is a pretty significant perk that, by any ethical standard, calls into question anything positive you have to say about the "loaned" gear.</p>

<p>I was wondering why a Leica rep, with a job to worry about, would have such a chummy relationship with a customer. Finally, the truth comes out:</p>

 

<p><i>Every time he comes to visit (average every 4-6 weeks) he stays at my house.</i></p>

 

<p>Of course, what he's doing at your house when Leica should be able to put him up at a hotel at company expense, is none of my business. However, what other little "perks" do you give him (or vice versa) should we know about before we ultimately decide if you are biased or not?</p>

So basically, what you're saying is - you know a lot about IR and IR imaging systems (I'm not sure of the relevance to the Leica M8, which is designed to be a visible light recording instrument, with the unexpected side effect of that visible light recording being negatively affected by its oversensitivity to the IR spectrum) and either you haven't photographed with it enough to run into the magenta problem being reported by nearly every other user and reviewer, or you're simply color blind.

 

<p>Have a look at the <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/3403/marooned-leica-m8-lovers.html" target="_blank">PopPhoto article</a> that Brad linked earlier. Also, you might want to check out a <a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_m8/Leica_M8_ThomasHoepker.html" target="_blank">comparison shot</a> (halfway down the page) by Magnum photographer Thomas Hoepker in which his Leica M8 turns his seated subject into The Joker.</p>

<i>Over the past year, I have used the M8 (for free) on extended periods and have evaluated the results.</i>

<p>In the interest of fairness, do supply the name of your Leica rep so your claim of free extended loan can be verified. Then let us know exactly what you have done to circumvent the need for IR filters in order for the M8 to render blacks properly in color capture.</p>

<p>I don't know if you realize it, but you now have the opportunity to become a champion for the Leica M8. It's been denigrated in press, reviled by users and reviewers alike, for a problem you apparently have a solution to. Please let us know about it, so that we can at least try to implement it.</p>

The point was that what you are saying flies in the face of what many people, users and reviewers alike, have been complaining about since shortly after the M8's release. I was hoping you'd be able to share exactly what you did to solve the IR problem, but you said that only you know this secret, and no one else would be able to duplicate it.

<p>"Somehow I knew you'd say that..." because I honestly didn't expect you to drop a bombshell proving the Leica engineers to be a bunch of overpaid buffoons. I was right.</p>

<p><i>I can only relate my experiences which cannot be ubiquitously applied. If you have a problem with that - it's your problem...</i></p>

<p>Somehow I knew you'd say that...</p>

<p><i>Have you used the camera? Or, are you only providing a drive-thru comment with no experience?</i></p>

<p>I have, and the magenta issue is why I returned it (two bodies). I guess I'll just continue to wait for a "ubiquitously applied" solution. Perhaps that will come in the form of the M9...</p>

<i>Brian Bower, whose various Leica books I really like, bought both of his M8s himself. He addresses the various "flaws" that have come to light and describes how it affects his photography. Dr. Knapp is an MD that posts here frequently. I don't think he is affiliated with Leica. They have both put the M8 through its paces and think it is a great camera.</i>

<p>You certainly don't need to be "affiliated" with Leica to be biased. Brian Bower has written numerous books on Leica and has a dedicated pro-Leica readership that he depends on and therefore probably wouldn't want to anger. As well, both he and Dr. Knapp paid for their cameras - and paying $5k+ a pop is just as likely to bias a reviewer as if the camera was "gifted" to them by the company. A loaner with a requirement to be returned is really the only way to go. </p>

<p>From <a href="http://www.lhsa.org/vf_subscriptions.html" target="_blank">LHSA's subscriptions page</a>:</p>

<p><i>"If you are a vendor of Leica products and would like to advertise on the LHSA Web site or in the Viewfinder journal, contact the LHSA Headquarters office at..."</i></p>

<p>Lots of potential here for bias and conflict of interest. Any potential buyer with an ounce of common sense probably shouldn't put too much stock into what's printed in this magazine.</p>

<i>So far, I've had no problems with the IR issue..even without the IR filters.</i>

<p>I'd say this qualifies as a discovery. If you've found a way around the M8's well-known rendering of blacks as purples/maroons, without needing IR filters, conversion to B&W, or avoidance of the color black altogether, do tell. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know.</p>

Yes, that's the one.

<i>a few years ago,pbs showed a documentary about north vietnam war photographers. it was very good. does someone remembers the name?</i>

<p>Are you sure it's wasn't National Geographic's <a href="http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/773.html" target="_blank">Vietnam's Unseen War</a>? I've seen this and recommend it.</p>

<i>El, you would have seen that there's no need for theories, and you would have been spared the effort of concocting paranoid fantasies.</i>

<p><a href="http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sarcasm" target="_blank">sar-casm, <i>noun:</i>(2) A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.</a></p>

 

<p><i>Edberg tested the cameras he uses.</i></p>

<p>Right, and that excuse gives his article 100% credibility and sudden, complete relevance to the people who buy the magazine (refer to "sarcasm" defintion, above). I suppose you'd have been just as eagerly lapping up his drivel if he owned nothing but a Pentax 67?</p>

<i>If I want to test the response of black people to a certain drug, I can't very well test it on white people.</i>

<p>That's perfectly fine - until you title your study "The effect of drug X on humans." You still don't get it, do you?</p>

 

<i><p>You assert that Edberg is making claims which cannot be extrapolated, but you have ignored my point on that-- which is that the article is appearing in a commercial magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus, some eye-candy headline is to be expected.</i></p>

<p>Well good, at least you agree with me that Edberg is misleading in writing the title of his article. Misleading information is misleading information, regardless of the type of publication in which it appears.</p>

 

<p><i>I also suggested that you should check the conclusion to determine whether he claims boldly that his result is applicable to ALL SLRs/DSLR's-- have you done that?</i></p>

 

<p>I only accused him of being misleading, I haven't yet accused him of outright lying.</p>

 

<p><i>You've also conveniently quoted me out of context. I said it doesn't matter whether the cameras are 20 years old or two months old, *if they have mirror vibration*.</i></p>

<p>Which is ridiculous unless you're going to test every single SLR camera ever made and being made, which is obviously beyond the scope of the article. However, if Edberg wanted to write something remotely relevant to his readership, at least he could have made a <u>minimal effort</u> to test <u>at least one</u> of the more popular dSLR cameras being made and sold today. It's not THAT hard to get your hands on one.</p>

 

<p><i>The world is not just Rebels and D70's, there are still new cameras produced (such as cameras from Kiev) even today which still have significant mirror vibration because they're not as technologically advanced as the DSLRs from Japan. And even modern medium format SLR's like Hasselblad H series-- do you doubt they have significant mirror vibration?</i></p>

<p>How many people do you think use Kiev and Hasselblad H series SLRs, compared with Rebel XTi's and Nikon D40's? According to their <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/back_issues.htm" target="_blank">back issues database</a>, the last time the name "Hasselblad" was even mentioned in their rag was back in 2003. "Kiev"? Nada! The last 4 cameras officially "tested" by the magazine include the 1D MkIII, Rebel XTi, 5D, and 1D MkII, so that should give you some idea of their target audience. So why not make this article relevant to that readership?</p>

 

<p><i>But you have produced no scientific evidence to back up your claims that mirror vibration has been reduced to the point of insignificance in modern DSLRs.</i></p>

<p>Cameras were designed to be used to take pictures. Instead of harping on about "scientific evidence," why don't you do what I and many others have done - try any modern dSLR body with a 70-200/2.8 VR/IS and then your Leica and a 90/2.8 at the same low-light event. Then compare how many keepers you get. I think you'll soon find out why, for most working professionals who must bring back the pictures, the 70-200/2.8 VR/IS is THE bread and butter lens. Consider yourself lucky to be an amateur who has the luxury of screwing up at your leisure with whatever you feel like using, with no consequences whatsoever. That's the difference between you and a pro.</p>

<i>You have agreed that mirror vibration affects sharpness in your various posts.</i>

<p>Actually, I said I have no doubt the Timothy Edberg's test results are accurate, <b>for the specific cameras he tested</b>. You cannot reasonably extrapolate those results to include modern dSLR cameras with their smaller mirrors (cropped models), VR/IS and better mirror counterbalancing mechanisms, any more than you can conclude 2007 passenger cars are unsafe based on tests of the 1971 Ford Pinto.</p>

 

<p><i>It doesn't matter whether the cameras are 20 years old or 2 months old.</i></p>

<p>It does matter a great deal when technology and design have changed so much. To say otherwise is analogous to making the claim that safety wise, cars are no different today than they were 20 years ago, which is patently ridiculous.</p>

 

<p><i>I may point out that you have said that modern cameras have much less mirror vibration than 20-year old cameras. But have you conducted (or know of) independent scientific tests to validate this? If not, that's still just a hypothesis at this stage.</i></p>

 

<p>I don't need independent scientific tests when I have real-world experience that's far more applicable. I've shot an M6 and a 90/2.8 at 1/15 and slower. I've done the same with a D70 and a 70-200/2.8 VR, and most recently with a 1D and 70-200/2.8 IS. Hand held, it's no contest. On a tripod with the VR/IS feature turned off, no difference even at 100% magnification. In short, <b>mirror-induced vibration as a problem in real-world application has been effectively negated by modern technology - modern technology purposely ignored by Edberg, for dubious reasons.</b></p>

 

<p><i>I disagree with you that the choice of cameras is a flaw. To prove a hypothesis about mirror vibration, I must find cameras with mirror slap in the test set.</i></p>

 

<p>From <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bias" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster</a>:</p>

<p><i>Main Entry:</i> bias, <i>Definition 3d(2):</i> systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others.</p><div></div>

Debate on the scientific method aside, Wai-Leong - given the Edberg article is published Nov/Dec 2007 - do you have any theories on why he chose to test 20 year old film SLRs over currently available and top-selling dSLR cameras such as the Rebel XTi or Nikon D80?

<p>My guesses?</p>

<p>A) Photo Techniques Magazine pissed off Canon, Nikon and Sony and had to give back the XTi, D80 and Alpha 100 they had on hand for testing and comparison only <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/articles/articles/200703/0702_Lipson_CanonXTi.pdf" target="_blank">4 issues ago</a> (<i>"I compared the XTi with the Nikon D80 (about $930, body only) and the Sony Alpha 100 (about $640 for the body), and the XTi?s noise is comparable with the Nikon, and much better than the Sony."</i> -page 2) so Edberg was forced to raid the local camera museum for samples to test.</p>

<p>B) Edberg was deliberately trying to sensationalize his article by picking samples he <i>knew</i> would do poorly on his "tests." I predict his next article will be "The Effect of Rangefinders on Inaccurate Focus" in which he tests a 0.58x M7 with a 135mm APO-Telyt.</p>

<p>Any other theories?</p>

<i>this statement seems to support the very doubt you have that the mirror vibration degrades the sharpness of an image,</i>

<p>Oh, I don't doubt at all that mirror vibration degrades the sharpness of an image in old, obsolete and out-of-production SLR cameras like the Canon AE-1, Nikon FA, Nikon N8008s and Nikon F4 - the cameras Edberg tested - in certain limited situations.</p>

 

<p><i>all things being equal, no?</i></p>

 

<p>There's the problem, all things aren't equal in this thing called the real world. Technology changes.</p>

<i>For instance, car crash test results and ratings are published by govt agencies without testing 30 samples of each car. It would not be practical for them to conduct so many crashes, and the public understands that.</i>

<p>You're still completely missing the point. To use your analogy of car crash testing, let's say the NHTSA publishes an article this year entitled "Family Cars Are Unsafe." Upon further reading, you discover that they tested a 1981 Yugo GV, a 1975 AMC Pacer, a 1978 Honda Civic and - you guessed it - a 1971 Ford Pinto. None of these cars have airbags or crumple zones. Would it matter if they tested 30 of each? No, what would matter is the article is utterly irrelevant to me, a current car buyer, who is interested in safety information regarding my possible choices between a 2007 Honda Accord, 2007 Volvo S60, or 2007 Toyota Camry - currently available "family cars" with airbags required by law, SRS systems, advanced crumple zones, and accident avoidance technology such as electronic stability control and anti-lock brakes.</p>

<p>The (Edberg article/hypothetical NHTSA study) may be perfectly valid and acceptable for someone who owns or is looking for a 1980's (SLR camera/passenger car) - but completely irrelevant to everyone else.</p>

<i>The scientific method only says methods must be objective. It doesn't say you have to use what's currently available in the market. The test set of cameras is disclosed fully.</i>

<p>In this case it does require it, because of the major differences in the variable being tested (mirror vibration) in currently available units versus 20-year-old ones that few people even use anymore. From Photo Techniques' <a href="http://www.phototechmag.com/current.htm" target="_blank">current table of contents</a>:</p>

<p><i>The Effect of Mirror?Slap on Image Resolution, by Timothy Edberg

At slow shutter speeds, the movement of an SLR?s mirror causes blurring - we investigate how much and at what speeds.</i></p>

<p>The blurb says "the movement of an SLR's mirror causes blurring." The way it's worded implies that all SLR mirrors cause blurring, and, true or not, it is not a valid conclusion that can reached by the scope of Edberg's "experiment." This is an absolute classic example of a flawed abstract that isn't apparent until you read the entire article, and is one of the first thing peer reviewers look for when critiquing scientific literature.</p>

<i>If EVERY experiment is flawed at some level, does it mean logically that you reject the results of all experiments?</i>

<p>No, it just means that you take the results of all experiments with a critical grain of salt. This is a very basic principle that anyone who has any basic training in science learns very early. The official name of this principle is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">The Scientific Method</a>. Taken from the link:</p>

 

<p><i>Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results.</i></p>

 

<p>To conduct an experiment such as this, and willfully or otherwise introduce a major flaw into it by testing cameras that are 20 years old, injects bias into the results. To illustrate using an analogy, say a laboratory publishes a study asserting that a certain class of anticancer drugs does not work as advertised, drawing the conclusion from their test group of patients that showed no difference in average post-diagnosis survival from the control group that was given a placebo. Then, upon reading a little closer, you discover that the study was funded by a drug company, and tested anticancer drugs developed by a competitor - that were marketed over 20 years ago.</p>

 

<p>For the lay person, the phrase "don't believe everything you read" is a pretty good distillation of the Scientific Method.</p>

<i>If you don't believe you can get superior pictures with Leica, then sell out.</i>

<p>I use Leicas because I *like* using them to photograph, I can afford them, and I can tolerate their need to be repaired every other month. But "superior pictures"? I can think of plenty of ways to get "superior pictures" with far less expense and hassle, and not even that much more bulk.</p>

What's keeping you from buying the appropriate-sized paper as large in the length dimension as you need to fit the 16 side of the 16:9 aspect, and cropping off top and bottom of the print itself? And yes, the 28mm is only available in 16:9 on the D-LUX 3, it becomes 35 or so in its other ratios.

"Dirt filled lens"? Even if you're going to diss the guy, cut the hyperbole back a bit. Did you actually mean you could literally grow potatoes inside it, or was it just some dust typical of a used lens (that has no effect on the image quality whatsoever)?

If you're going to take the trouble of lugging along a tripod, and the issue of technical quality is so important to you, why not use a bigger format?

I think your picture is graphically more interesting than the shot of the statue on the front cover. They should have switched them, in my opinion.

First, let me say that I truly appreciate the job you and your colleagues are doing. Please continue to be safe out there. Having said that I feel bad to be a detractor of your photographs. I find the post processing to be over the top and distracting, even bordering on inappropriate given the seriousness of your subject matter. This isn't skateboarding, this is life-and-death firefighting. You also need to edit far more ruthlessly - I lost interest after picture #20 or so.

edit: "at the expense of" should read "by".