View Full Version : IR- the final thread I hope -poll
In every M8 thread somebody sees it fit to introduce the IR issue, resulting in no end of yes-no type of discussion. Let's put an end to it by lumping it all together in this thread.
Up front. There is no M8 owner that I know of that denies that the M8 is the most IR sensitive camera on the market - not counting some MF backs.
There is no denying that basically all sensor types exhibit an enhanced sensitivity to IR, making some kind of filter a prerequisite for normal photography.
If Leica knew beforehand that this was an issue is pure speculation. There are all kinds of conspiracy theories imaginable as well as all kinds of apologist arguments, but none are provable and all are destructive and contribute nothing whatever to a sane discussion.
It all boils down to the question where the filter should be located.
Arguments for a filter in front of the lens:
1. Not putting a filter in front of the sensor enhances IQ.
2. A filter can be removed if not required, for instance when there is a low IR intensity in the light or when the IR reflectivity of the subject is low.
3. In B&W photography the shift in grayscale from IR is not detrimental to the artistic rendering of the subject, so here a filter is not needed.
4. IR filters are said to be less subject to flare than other types of filter.
5. About 50% of photographers use protective or UV filters anyway, so it makes no difference.
6. The cost of the filter is low in comparison to the price of the camera and Leica lenses, and Leica provides two filters free.
7. A filter in front of the sensor on a rangefinder camera, with its steep angle of incidence, would cause cyan vignetting that is difficult to correct in firmware, as opposed to a filter in front of the lens, that only requires lens coding.
8. Photographers have been using light-balancing filters since time immemorial.
9. Using a polfilter is no problem, as it only is used in minimum-flare conditions.
Arguments in favor of a sensor filter:
1. A lens filter is an undesirable complication and a stop-gap solution.
2. Filters add unneccesary costs to an already expensive camera.
3. Other camera brands manage to produce IR-corrected camera's.
4. Filters cause flare, especially on digital camera's
5. Filters in front of the lens also cause cyan vignetting which makes software corrections necessary, losing dynamic range in the corners.
6. Not using a IR filter in B&W photography influences the gray-scale.
7. In-camera correction of cyan vignetting is difficult if not impossible on non-codable lenses.
8. The need to code lenses adds more extra costs.
9. Using a pol-filter or any other filter involves the stacking of filters which is basically undesirable and detrimental to IQ
10. Bystanders might react unfavorably to the colour of the filter.
Which divides photographers into four groups:
1.Those that will not accept the use of IR filters and will decide to go elsewhere.
2.Those that will dislike the idea of using filters but will accept it, because they like the camera well enough to overcome their distaste.
3.Those that used filters anyway and don't mind exchanging them.
4.Those that accept the technical argument and welcome the solution because of better image quality.
So there you are. Judge the arguments and decide which group you belong to and act acordingly, but please, let's not pollute all threads with this repetitive bickering any more.
Btw. I freely confess that I am wavering between group 2 and 4.:rolleyes:
Gabriel M.A.
01-06-2007, 15:51
I can't form an opinion yet. I'm still waiting. Been waiting since October.
You make me feel guilty, Gabriel. I just picked up my second M8 body today. It should have been yours...:(
Gabriel M.A.
01-06-2007, 15:59
Don't worry, Jaap, not your fault. You didn't get it from the U.S., right? :o
How dead does this horse have to be before you stop beating it? :bang:
Peter Klein
01-06-2007, 18:18
In the early Stephen Sondheim musical "Anyone Can Whistle," inmates of the local insane asylum (called the Cookie Jar) mix with the general population of their town. At which point, nobody can tell who is who. A visiting doctor says that he can separate the Cookies from the townspeople. After some interrogation, he assigns the people to two groups: Group A and Group One. But he won't tell which group is sane and which is insane. And therein hangs the plot.
So, fellow RFFers, are you in Group A or Group One? :D
--Peter
Gabriel M.A.
01-06-2007, 20:13
So, fellow RFFers, are you in Group A or Group One? :D
I'm in Group Q, but I was kicked out of the Continuum, temporarily. :cool:
I never thought anything would make me nostalgic for 'is film dead?' threads:rolleyes:
J. Borger
01-07-2007, 03:22
Where is the group that enjoys the M8 tremendously WITHOUT using the ir filters ???
Who use appropriate colorprofiles (from Jamie) and/or B&W profiles ....... that's my group: GROUP5!
How dead does this horse have to be before you stop beating it? :bang:
Exactly my point. Thank you. So let's move all IR posts to this thread and let it die a silent death....
Where is the group that enjoys the M8 tremendously WITHOUT using the ir filters ???
Who use appropriate colorprofiles (from Jamie) and/or B&W profiles ....... that's my group: GROUP5!
Those are the sane ones; they are not supposed to be reading this thread.
Two M8s Jaap?!!! I can't even get the one I ordered in November.
Yes. Lets have this thread die.
Two M8s Jaap?!!! I can't even get the one I ordered in November.
Sorry :( I justwalked into my Leica dealer and bought one. Maybe because it is mainly Americans complaining about M8 "issues"that Leica is sending the new batch to Europe :D How is that for a conspiracy theory? :D:D
Believe it or not I'm in group 1 :D I'm betting there are more people "out there" in my frame of mind than not, and betting as well that Leica's market researchers don't just read the high praise from a handful of fanboys on the internet and report back to Solms that all is well. I'm betting the manager of my dealer was being honest when he said the majority of their pre-orders evaporated once the filter "solution" was revealed, and that his boss has contacted the rep, and the rep told him other dealers and other reps have cancelled a large number of orders to Allendale, and that Allendale has expressed its dismay to Solms and "suggested" they find a way to fit a stronger IR filter to the sensor ASAP. Maybe it's all just someone I've known to be 100% straightforward for 25 years suddenly deciding to become a self-destructive liar, but I doubt it.
That said, there is a possibility I could end up in category #2 at some point. Right now there is still no firmware 1.10 that has the cyan corner correction. Right now there is still a shortage of IR filters, nobody seems to know which ones if any are MRC coated or how to guarantee that's what they get if they order them, and Leica's filters aren't on the market yet. Heck, right now it's hard to come by a spare friggin' battery! By the time that's straigtened out, the waiting-list situation for the M8 will probably have changed. I figure that by next fall there will either be a new model with a stronger IR filter, or if not at least I will be able to go down to my dealer and get an M8 with all the firmware and hardware bugs solved, and all the MRC (Leica or B+W) IR filters I need without having to surf the net and order from Timbuktu. That will be the time I might decide to take the plunge. Heck maybe there will be demos by then:)
The M8 is waaaaay out of my budget, and my R-D1 is still working well.
However, if I had the money.... I don't mind the IR sensitivity but it does seem a bit extreme. The R-D1 is sensitive too but it's not easy to notice. I understand and accept Leica's technical explanation, and even understand the filter solution. However, I never use filters, and for good reasons: flare and ghosting. Plus, they get dirty easily (and aren't that easy to clean well), they scratch, and all that adds to the chances of introducing flare. So, no filters for me. But I won't vote as I'll probably never be able to afford the M8.
I've been avoiding all these threads, but isn't high IR sensitivity a GOOD thing?? With a UV-cutoff filter you could manage some good digital IR photography
... that was my first and only thought process. I'd use an external filter, in front of the lens is desirable - clogging up the insides of the camera isnt.
So to be honest I don't fit into any category. If/when I come across an M8 (actually, probably M9 or M10 by the time I can afford it!!) I'm keen to exploit the IR 'issue' not get rid of it!
I don't understand the need for group 4. Isn't the tecnichal understanding a nessesary background for beeing in group 2?
BTW, it seems many M8's have been delivered i the USA. There is a shortage in Europe too. As far as i know only one chrome M8 have come to Sweden yet. I ordered mine in November and will probably have to wait a few months more.
The problem is that Leica seems to deliver to dealers that don't have a waiting list, instead to those dealers that have firm customer orders. A strange and rude bussiness behaviour.
/Erik
I think Han and Ash have it right; celebrate the IR sensitivity and make use of it... There's always the option of filtering out IR if desired. Flexibility!
Actually having IR filtration on the lens side is not on principle a bad idea, you can put an IR block filter in fron tof the camera to use it as a normal camera, or a filter that blocks visible light and have an exellent IR camera, also doing away with the hot mirror would increase image quality.
It is the idea to have a hot mirror that only does a partial filtration on the sensor, and then having to filter the rest lens-side, that I find terribly silly.
POINT OF VIEW
01-07-2007, 16:52
I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill
POINT OF VIEW
01-07-2007, 17:02
I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill
I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill
Bill,
I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives? :confused:
Scott
The domain name m8forum.com is available.
Just a thought :-)
Ian
Don't worry, I'll make it expire when we are all sick and tired of it ;)
Any time now would be fine :-)
Ian
On this forum- I already did -back and forth- about a year ago, remeber the fun and games we had back the?. No, if it goes sour I'll just delete it.
Bill,
I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives? :confused:
Scott
Looks like a bad noise reduction algorithm more than a real noise problem to me, maybe a not too careful use of NR software like NeatImage or Noise Ninja?
I am sure had the image been taken in raw mode and noise reduction applied more carefully we wouldn't be seeing all those artifacts.
I can't find any problems with the M8, AT ALL. Attached photo was taken in low light with one incandescent table lamp, NO FILTER. in my opinion the M8 is the greatest piece of engineering Leica has ever pulled off. I do not use rangefinder cameras because they are the simplest, easy, automated programmed camera that thinks for me. I use it because It gives me the best results with the greatest challenge. The answer to the perceived IR problem for me is, learn how the camera works. Bill
The photo you attached is noisy, pixellated, lacks saturation and unless her dress really is deep purple, shows IR contamination too. If I were you I wouldn't show that photo to anyone if you're trying to prove what you said in words because if anything it proves just the opposite, which may actually be more due to poor post-processing than the faults of the camera.
I think it has been (over) sharpening before noise reduction and then sharpening again. That brings out the worst...Plus underexposure.
To get a better idea of the high-iso possibilties of the M8 check out :http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/13183-m8-higher-iso-levels.html#post137261
for instance.
Or this 1250 one (I've posted it before)
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/L1000148.jpg
What are those vertical (sort of, they're not exactly vertical and not parallel to each other) streaks in the sky area of upper left? And why is it that those outdoor lights, which look to be the same type of lamp, have flare halos that some are magenta and some are cyan? BTW is it sharpened for print? It looks a tiny bit oversharpened for web display.
BTW, does anybody know if there would be any weird ill-effects (other than even more loss of contrast and increased chance of flare) if one were to put back his MRC UV filter over the IR filter? Since the IR coating is easily scratched and that's the one supposedly facing front (according to Schneider), I'm just wondering if doubling the UV blocking by putting an MRC-UV in front of the IR would cause some weird color shift.
Just show me a 1600 ISO shot on film. And those streaks are called snowflakes.And those lamps were indeed different types of light.Italians are not very precise in that sort of thing Wonderful, isn't it, that a camera can actually record such things...Yes, it was sharpened for print, and turned out a bit too much I agree on the web, but-should that not have provoked horrible noise?
Gabriel M.A.
01-08-2007, 10:00
Cyan? I see green. One's evidently a Mercury-vapor lamp and the others are Tungsten or Halogen (I'm not counting the candles)
Just show me a 1600 ISO shot on film.
I think you misunderstand my overall position so let me state it concisely. Considering the DMR, I (and most people as I recall) never honestly expected the M8 to come close to matching ISO 800 and above of any recent Canon DSLR. Still, I was ready to buy one, so you won't ever hear me gripe about its high-iso noise. The various lockups and blobs and bands, that was also expected with a new camera from a small company with little experience in digital and dependent upon outsourcing to several parties, rushing to get it to market by Photokina, and they will all be fixed over the next year with as many firmware upgrades or recalls as it takes, but eventually they will all be fixed. The IR oversensitivity and the front filter "solution" was a one-two sucker punch that caught everyone off guard and some have had more luck turning the other cheek than me.
I hear you, Ben, I even understand you, though it may not always seem so. But what about my argument: the camera is bigger than the issue. Some stupid marketing guy did not see it. But the engineers were right: this is -for the moment- the optimum solution for a digital RF.Let me try again: 75/1.4, wide open, tungsten/candles, ISO 1250, 1/16th, hand-held.I cannot do this with any other digital camera.
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/kimb.jpg
POINT OF VIEW
01-08-2007, 19:25
Hi, thanks for your inquire. Let me start by saying I tend to be a little long winded when discussing photography, so I will try to keep it short, but I apologize up front if I go to long for any reader. As you can see I’ve already said more then necessary.
To the subject, noise, (dig.) / grain (film). The print made from the original file has some noise / grain. It in no way has the appearance of the photo you see. The noise in the print would only be noticeable to a person with a trained eye. The photo I am referring to, incase some one is reading this not knowing the reference. Is the M8 photo I attached to my reply in the M8 survey, dated - Jan. 7 .
Back to the subject, as a rangefinder shooter, I have 2 challenges, I try to always restrict myself to. In order of importance. #1 never use a flash, (IF YOU CAN SEE IT YOU CAN SHOOT IT). #2 Always hand hold the camera. (tripods are intrusive and dangers to my equipment). With that said I think I can explain why you see excessive noise.
There are 3 reasons, I think. First, the original file is 5.5MB, the file you see is 700KB. I am only a temporary member to the upload group ( I’m a newbie) therefore I’m only allowed small files. By the way while I’m on the newbie subject, I apologize for the 2, reply entries. I got a message on the first one that my entry was denied. Anyway, the second reason is the file is a JPEG, and I find most low-res have a JPEG artifacts. Lastly the M8 was set on ISO. 2500. The room was extremely dark and I was shooting at ½ a second. One last thing on M8s and ISO. I am very impressed with the little noise I get at high ISO settings. I shoot a lot of T Max 3200 stopped down to 1600 and although I haven’t done any comparative shooting I feel confident the M8 will do far better noise / grain wise, compared to T Max 3200. I hope my ramblings have given some understanding to the question you inquired of me. What’s up with the noise? The real purpose of the photo was to demonstrate the color the M8 is capable of in a very dark room and a black dress. Thank you Bill
Bill,
I don't think IR is your problem, but NOISE certainly is! Unless this is a result of file compression you definately have some issues. My Fuji F30 at ISO 800 has less noise, what gives? :confused:
Scott
Kodak Porta 160NC at speed with Nikon 28 autoflash - Nikon F5 with so-so Sigma (i.e. Quantary) zoom.
Kodak Porta 160NC at speed with Nikon 28 autoflash - Nikon F5 with so-so Sigma (i.e. Quantary) zoom.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?
That is a nice example of all that I hate about flash pictures. Especially the OOF blown-out face that dominates the front, plus the underexposed background that still has the heavy shadowing. But no red eyes, I grant you that. A good argument to used a Rangefinder - fast film or high ISO and a good, fast lens.
That is a nice example of all that I hate about flash pictures. Especially the OOF blown-out face that dominates the front, plus the underexposed background that still has the heavy shadowing. But no red eyes, I grant you that. A good argument to used a Rangefinder - fast film or high ISO and a good, fast lens.
Jaap, we've both seen lots of flash pictures that look naturally-lit thanks to knowledgeable use of diffusion, bouncing, slaves and a host of other techniques, though that shot is more along the school of Speed-Graphic-#2-flashbulb-in-the-face popular 50 years ago (before we were born of course :D ) . Even the problem of sequential flash photography can be solved with specific batteries and <1-second recycle times. What remains a problem and always will, is the inability of any photographer to maintain a productive rapport with anyone but a professional model after repeated bombardment with strobes. Existing-light photography of people is my preference as well, however I happen to get better results with autofocus than a rangefinder and I haven't noticed the 20D's small mirror slapping causing me a problem (maybe the rubber-clad body also absorbs a lot of vibration). And of course in high-ISO performance Canon does have one up on the rest of the brands out there.
...the school of Speed-Graphic-#2-flashbulb-in-the-face popular 50 years ago (before we were born of course :D )
Not before all of us were born. I owned a Speed Graphic and I even used flash powder once, though it was a curiousity and I just wanted to see what it was like.
But I agree. Having to trash natural light with flash was the kind of thing that made me give up professional photography shortly after I started doing it.
Jaap, we've both seen lots of flash pictures that look naturally-lit thanks to knowledgeable use of diffusion, bouncing, slaves and a host of other techniques, though that shot is more along the school of Speed-Graphic-#2-flashbulb-in-the-face popular 50 years ago (before we were born of course :D ) . Even the problem of sequential flash photography can be solved with specific batteries and <1-second recycle times. What remains a problem and always will, is the inability of any photographer to maintain a productive rapport with anyone but a professional model after repeated bombardment with strobes. Existing-light photography of people is my preference as well, however I happen to get better results with autofocus than a rangefinder and I haven't noticed the 20D's small mirror slapping causing me a problem (maybe the rubber-clad body also absorbs a lot of vibration). And of course in high-ISO performance Canon does have one up on the rest of the brands out there.
Ben- i agree totally. The best flash picture is the one that doesn't show it was taken with flash.
Did you see the SHPhoto website? The Neopren Cases for the M8 were photographed with an unfiltered M8!:D :eek: It does bring out the black Leica logo on the front:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.