hankg

168 signatures in the first 24 hours.

 

Again, here is the link to sign:

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/M8menu/petition.html

"Inexcusable to use physical coding when the user can simply select a lens from a menu on the screen."

 

"I disagree. When you consider the number of possible lens profiles to choose from it's much quicker and simpler to rely on the bar codes."

 

The much easier and more reliable option of automatically reading the 6-bit code would remain for those who have lenses that are coded. We are talking about one additional menu choice for the many who have one or more lenses that can't be coded or that they choose not to code:

 

1. Lens detection on

2. Lens detection off

3. Manual -select lens profile from a sub-menu

"Not to be argumentative, but wouldn't this also be true of Leica's profiles?"

 

I don't know. The M8 does have an idea what aperture you are using but does not put that info in the EXIF. Vignetting changes with aperture but I have no idea how Leica dealt with this.

"Didn't DxO or maybe someone else offer a DIY lens profile creation kit? I'd think something like that would be more generally applicable than coincidental near-matches to existing profiles."

 

DXO needs the aperture information, which is not supplied by the M8. The existing profiles can serve as "generic" profiles for non-supported lenses. You pick the one that gives the best result. If it takes care of 80 or 90% of the cyan-shift you'll be OK. The rest would be correctable in photoshop if you wanted further correction. But for wide angles, especially ultra-wides without any in camera corrections the cyan shift can be so severe as to make the files useless.

"Maybe I'm missing something - what's the purpose of user-selectable lens profiles? Is it to avoid putting the code on your existing lenses?"

 

Some lenses cannot be coded (that includes all non-Leica lenses). In addition coding costs $150. per lens and takes at least 3 weeks.

 

Before the IR problem became known 6-bit coding was an added feature that you could purchase if you desired, not a requirement. Now that we know the effect of cyan shift on wide angle lenses it has become a requirement to overcome a shortcoming of the camera. That being the case I think it's only right that Leica restore the situation to 6-bit being a convenient option to those that want it and can afford it.

Well, Leica seems a bit reluctant to provide users with this option. Let's see

how many users would like to see menu selectable lens profiles in a future

firmware update.

 

"The undersigned M8 users respectfully request that Leica include an option for

user selectable lens profiles via the menu as soon as is possible."

 

Sign here:

 

http://www.petitiononline.com/M8menu/petition.html

 

Your email will remain private, even from me. Might be a good idea to put your

country in the comments field.

I know professional photojournalists who's work you can see on any given week in national and international publications, who have been to Iraq, the West Bank, Haiti, etc., and who are repped by top flight agencies and grabbing a wedding on the side is not 'beneath' them. With the new economic order of rights grabbing contracts, micro stock, royalty free and numbers crunchers squeezing photographers - a lot of talented guys who 20 years ago would have had lucrative careers today are barely scrapping by. But they stay in it because they love it.

 

It's really rude and arrogant for some online blowhard to belittle what any given photographer chooses to do to make a living. The new Walmart economy has not been kind to illustrators or photographers, what was once respected as creative work, worthy of respect and support, is today just another commodity coming from just another vendor that needs to be squeezed for every last penny.

As to Leica going for "low hanging fruit" it would have been a hell of a lot easier to design an all new digital mount and tell people they would have to get new lenses but Leica's customer base was demanding a digital solution for their Leica glass. Trying to produce the product that your customers want would seem to be what one would expect of a company. I can imagine the howls if the Leica DRF was not M compatible.

Nels I don't know what you are talking about. I made a simple point: add up all the professional images on the net and they are a tiny fraction of the number of total images. The vast majority shot by amateurs. So it's pointless to point out M8 images made by amatuers and try and make some point about the camera because you found some poorly done photos on the web. There are more amatuers taking family snaps with Canon 1 series cameras then Leicas.

 

None of which has anything to do with Magnum or any other professional photographer or the quality of Leica or Canon products. Neither was I comparing myself to anyone else, professional or otherwise.

99% of the images you see online taken with any camera are amatuer snaps. Canon makes far more money off of well heeled amatuers with their full frame line then they do from pros. So on that score Leica is not so different.

 

Rangefinders are no longer mainstream cameras. They appeal to a specialized niche. In terms of image quality, I shoot professionally and the quality of the M8 images meet or exceed what I'm getting from my Canon 1Ds. The film Leica's were never used by fashion or tabletop product shooters, they were used for documentary available light work. I think the M8 fills the bill for that type of work. Its nice to finally have a digital option for what the M excells at.

oops sorry for the double post

The M8 is already exceeding the limits of microlens technology (note the cyan vignetting with the IR filter). Make the sensor full frame and or move the sensor behind the lens and the camera would be unusable. The M platform is at a severe disadvantage to SLR's when it comes to digital. So if you are waiting for a full frame, filterless Digital M you might want to consider sticking with film or buying yourself an DSLR. If you want a digital M in the near future be prepared to compromise. That is unless you have developed some revolutionary technology to get around the physics of the M mount.

For those waiting for a full frame digital RF with IR filter at the sensor. Buy yourself a DSLR. The physics of the M platform preclude the possibility of that happening any time soon. The M8 is already exceeding the limits of microlens technology for wide angle lenses -note the cyan vignetting with IR filters, move the filter behind the lens and the vignetting would be much totally unmanageable. The fact is that the M wasn't designed for digital and as a digital platform it is at a severe disadvantage to SLR's. So learn to live with compromises, stick with film or get yourself a DSLR.

"What's happening, is IR energy which you cannot see, produces visible tones that are just not there. It isn't an extended tonal range. If you're not all that fussy with your B&W, maybe that's OK seeing things in your image that really aren't there in real life."

 

Actually they are there, you just don't have super IR vision so you can't see them:)

THe IR filters are a must for accurate color. The 6-bit coding is a useful option with wide-angle lenses where the edges loose some magenta and shift cyan as a result of the IR filter. But this could also be done by software in post. For normal to long lenses the 6 bit coding won't make much difference.

IR contamination can not be fixed properly with profiles, shooting RAW, etc., An image with 2 blacks side by side -the black cotton will be black and the black polyester may turn purple. Fix the purple blacks with a global correction and you will negatively affect color balance.

 

The RD1 has IR contamination issues whether or not individual users have noticed or not, but the M8 exhibits much more IR contanimation so it is more noticable (especially after its been pointed out on Internet forums). The M8 has a larger sensor then the RD1 so angle of incidence becomes a much bigger problem and quality problems caused by filters over the sensor a more difficult issue.

The only difference you can see in a small web jpeg is the obvious difference in depth of field between the digicam and the Nikon/Leica shot. If you stopped down the Nikon and Leica to match the depth of focus of the digicam all three shots would look virtually identical at that size jpeg -although you might need to tone down the sharpening on the digicam, it's looking a bit crunchy.

Color balance, white balance, saturation and contrast are controlled by software. With RAW files you can set all that when you develop the RAW files. Shooting jpgs leaves you stuck with in camera processing.

 

I like to make sure I capture all the original info. Not to much contrast and not to much saturation and then make my output file from that master in photoshop. If you are an event photographer who has to deliver 1000 images that is not the best workflow. In that case you can set up Capture One to give you the final result you prefer.

I believe the Foveon sensor stacks the RGB layers rather then having them side by side making it even more problematic for RF wide angle use then bayer sensors. More problems with light at an acute angle making it to the sensor.

 

Leica knew what it was talking about when it said that a digital M was not possible. Business considerations convinced them that to survive they would need to produce a digital RF even though it would mean compromises that perhaps when they made the not possible statement they were not willing to make.

Melvin Sokoslky, one of the top tier of fashion photographers used view cameras for years to get the image quality he wanted. He switched to Canon 1 series digital a while back and for output to CMYK offset 2 page spreads he is getting images that meet his very high standards, while working with a DSLR rather then a view camera on a tripod has transformed his ability to interact with the models. This from a guy who wasn't satisfied with medium format film.

 

Film is great, (especially B+W)and good for you if you prefer it to digital for what ever reason but to dismiss digital as inferior in image quality to film is at this point is just plain ignorant. Some people prefer 35mm, some 8x10, yes 8x10 (on a tripod) can resolve a hell of a lot more then 35 but that doesn't mean its better for your application. Digital has arrived at the point where it can replace 35mm, medium format and even large format for most applications -that doesn't mean you should be using it though. Use whatever tools/medium make you happy. If you need to convince youself that only true artists use film and digital is trash to justify your choice of tools, well whatever makes you happy :)

For exhibition prints film can require just as much if not more post processing as digital. If you had a look at a straight print from an Ansel Adams negative and the final exhibition print you'd think that you wre looking at 2 different images. A master printer has a significant imapact on how the image looks and thats all in post production.

Thanks, I'll be posting a couple a week. New and old -I've got 1000's of negs, transparencies and digital files 'collecting dust'. Unfortunately all my negs from the 70's are lost. Recently, I found a box of 8x10 proofs from then -maybe a dozen images out of 100's. That inspired me to do something with the work and so the blog.

Thanks Lutz -several of your Leica accessories where used in the making of the images.

I just put up a photoblog to publish my personal work. All the B+W images were

shot with a Leica M4 have a look: www.hankgraber.com

A TLR with a waist level finder is just about the most stable available light camera

made. Add the prism and you must hold the camera away from the body in a much

more unsteady position.