UV/IR woes...

[bluepenguin]

I have used UV/IR with M8 but finally I sold my M8 due to UV/IR affecting my picture with flares.

Here is my story.

I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.

I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.

Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.

Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.

Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.

I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.

Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

Ah, bluepenguin did you remove the UV IR and take a pic to see if the black fabrics were affected? I've taken a number of pics of black fabrics without UV IR and only one has ever come up maroon. It was a lampshade made from synthetic fabric.

[Ben Z]

Before I bought my M8 the potential for flare and ghosts from the IR filters scared me. Even though I have always used UV filters and almost never got flare or ghosts, I did switch some time back to the multi-coated B+W filters. There was much talk about the B+W 486 filters, and Leica's branded filters, not being multicoated and therefore had more possibility for flare and/or ghosts. Except for the 2 free filters I got from Leica, all the rest of my lenses have Heliopan IR filters, and I have one 486 I bought used to carry as a spare (since IR filters are mandatory on the M8 unlike a UV filter, I carry spares for all sizes of lenses I am travelling with). One of the Leica brand filters is a spare e43 for my 50 Summilux and I haven't used it, but the other Leica filter lives on my 15mm. I have not seen any evidence of flare or ghosts in the time I've had my M8 (since last Summer), in all kinds of light, indoors, outdoors, directional, nighttime, you name it. In fact, other than the 15mm, I put back my B+W Multicoated UV filters on top of my IR filters to protect them because they're so expensive, and I still haven't gotten any flare or ghosts. I'm not saying it can't or won't ever happen, but after as many shots as I've done and it hasn't happened, it's not keeping me up at night and certainly isn't giving me thoughts of dumping the M8. Of course YMMV.

[jackal2513]

open photoshop and press control + U or hit the sponge tool


A THOUSAND TIMES EASIER THAN FAFFING ABOUT with a million different IR filters and sending lenses to the moon and back to be coded and then going into menus and selecting all sorts of nonsense and then still getting tons of vignetting and blue in your corners. Complete nonsense. In fact i'm convinced peopel get into all this IR lark because they just want more stuff to own, buy and look at.

this is DIGITAL kids, the whole point being that you can insert a whole herd of wild animals into the background of your picture if need be, you can render out of the whole of Moss Isley and layer it back over that picture of your own front garden. Sponging a few magenta colours down in photoshop takes seconds. And if you dont have the skill to be able to do that, well, stick to film... because good digital photography requires a LOT of hard work on the computer.

[Richard Marks]

I have used UV/IR with M8 but finally I sold my M8 due to UV/IR affecting my picture with flares.

Here is my story.

I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.

I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.

Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.

Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.

Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.

I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.

Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.

This sounds a bit daft
The beauty of digital is that you can see if you are getting flare and then alter your position.
Flare is a bit easier to elicit with filters in place but it can happen without as well. It is not logical to just blame this automatically on the filter. It can be as simple as dust or deposits on the filter or lens element.
Also worth trying without the filter. Capturing the moment in RAW data it is usually possible to get a pretty good correction.
This is the first IR issue post for months and I rather thought we had moved on. You are posting now to tell us you have sold your M8. There are some pretty experienced M8 users here and it might have been more useful to post for a bit of advice (or for others to see your images) before actually selling. Why mention this now?

Best wishes

Richard

[Bob Parsons]

I have used UV/IR with M8 but finally I sold my M8 due to UV/IR affecting my picture with flares.

Here is my story.

I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.

I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.

Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.

Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.

Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.

I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.

Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.
Are you sure the filter was the cause of the problems you saw. Did you take any comparison shots without the filter? If you take a picture of a fire without a filter then the fire appears as a whitish purple color not a yellow flame. You may also find the flame is slightly out of focus. A fire is a very intense source of IR and the filter isn't always sufficient to completely remove its effect especially if the flame is in the picture.

I've not had any major problems using the IR-UV filters with the M8. Occasionally I get a few ghost images of very bright light sources, but you would get these with any filter under similar conditions.

Here is an image taken with the M8 and Wide Angle Tri Elmar straight into very intense lights. The only artifacts that have appeared are colored haloes around the lights cause by blue light being scattered by the thin films on the filter.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/gallery/images/15816/1_L9990545.jpg

I've also used an RD-1 for concert/band photography and have found that it needs a UV-IR filter to avoid magenta blacks or a pinkish cast - the RD-1 is quite IR sensitive, it's not only the M8 which has this problem.

Bob.

[macmx]

this is DIGITAL kids, the whole point being that you can insert a whole herd of wild animals into the background of your picture if need be, you can render out of the whole of Moss Isley and layer it back over that picture of your own front garden.

Haha. I agree. I do very little post and even Aperture has a quick and simple selective hue function that lets me get rid of magenta in a matter of seconds. Doesn't bother me, but then again I've never shot film so what do I know.

[docolmo]

Ah, bluepenguin did you remove the UV IR and take a pic to see if the black fabrics were affected? I've taken a number of pics of black fabrics without UV IR and only one has ever come up maroon. It was a lampshade made from synthetic fabric.

For graduation ceremony, no chance! Just got my M8 when I attended my son's once-in-a-lifetime graduation, and had no IR filters then. All robes were distinctly purple! Removed all the saturation of magenta component in photoshop, but it does affect the color balance of the photo. Wished I had brought my 5D then.

[jaapv]

For graduation ceremony, no chance! Just got my M8 when I attended my son's once-in-a-lifetime graduation, and had no IR filters then. All robes were distinctly purple! Removed all the saturation of magenta component in photoshop, but it does affect the color balance of the photo. Wished I had brought my 5D then.

Or an IR filter..Weighs less than the 5D.

[jaapv]

I have used UV/IR with M8 but finally I sold my M8 due to UV/IR affecting my picture with flares.

Here is my story.

I took m8 on last christmas, and took some pictures with my beloved family next to wood burning fire.

I had to use UV/IR since many are dressed or have black fabric. So I got the UV/IR and put it on... but it wasn't giving me the same result that it should. It was kind of soft with my summicron 35mm.

Secondly, I went to U of M graduation.

Again UV/IR gave me a funny flare,,, but I cound't take UV/IR off since all are dressed in BLACK.

Using an UV/IR is a significant drawback for M8 and I sold M8.

I will use R-D1s meanwhile, but I believe that other company will come up with new dRF.

Or maybe Leica with upgrade M8 with FF with right filter so all M8 users don't have to use UV/IR with a high price.

Well, if you use an RD1 I know which camera will be junked next for IR issues....:p
Seriously: could you put one or two offending dng files on yousendit.com?
I am sure postprocessing can save the day in most cases.

[bluepenguin]

lol..

I was so spoiled by using zeiss/contax lens for not having a flare/ghost.

M8 is a great camera,,, but not in my photographic style.

I want to take a picture freely with a minimum light flare/ghost affecting on my picture. But m8 doesn't fit me in this catagory.

If the light source is in your viewfinder, it will probably not make a flare. However there are times that you will see UV/IR flares when the strong light source is hitting UV/IR in 70~90 degree angle with your UV/IR.

[Tuolumne]

Don't expect the R-D1 to slove your problems. It, too, suffers from magenta colored blacks in the right circumstances. I shoot alot of theater and under theater lighting, almost all blacks turn heavily purple on the R-D1. This was easily fixed with an IR/UV filter. No flaring problems, either, that I can tell. Good luck!

/T

[cmogi10]

that's weird.
I've never had those kind of problems and my M8 has seen all kinds of different situations.

Sorry to hear that it didn't work for you.

[Ben Z]

I'd just like to add 3 things to what I already said about never having the flare problem. One is that I also had an R-D1 and it most definitely has the same IR issue as the M8, although to a much lesser degree, it was still not something I could ignore. Black is black (to quote Los Gatos) and even a little magenta sticks out like a sore thumb and needs correcting. I was grateful for the M8 fiasco because otherwise I wouldn't have known that an IR filter could solve the problem on my R-D1. Which brings me to my second comment, which is that I certainly know how (in fact, several ways) to correct the contamination in post-processing, and more or less agree that it takes "seconds", but if I had to multiply that by thousands of files, I would hang myself first. There is no batch-action or profile that can correct the IR contamination without altering other items (eg discern those that are supposed to be magenta). Plus, the contamination goes beyond once in a while only on black synthetics. I've had outdoor foliage go all psychedelic on me too.

Third comment, I coded all my lenses myself, permanently (no sharpie marker). Cost me nothing, took very little time, didn't have to send anything anywhere. But unlike for the IR contamination, there is quick and easy software that can more or less automatically correct the cyan corner drift from wide angle lenses.

[Richard Marks]

You have titled this thread "UV /IR woes" but you have not provided any convicing evidence firstly that flare was the problem and secondly that it was caused by an IR filter. I am still unclear wh you present this now for discussion as you have sold your camera and presumably do not have any further interest in the M8
Hope you find something more suitable.
Regards
Richard

[furcafe]

Are the Heliopan filters multi-coated on both sides? IIRC, the problem w/the B+W 486 & Leica filters is that they are only coated on 1 side. FWIW, I have gotten a few flare artifacts w/the 486 & 13411/13414 filters when shooting bright point light sources, like candles & spot lights @ shows, that are in or just outside of the frame. Not enough to ditch the M8, but it has made me think about switching to the Heliopans, if they are multicoated.

Before I bought my M8 the potential for flare and ghosts from the IR filters scared me. Even though I have always used UV filters and almost never got flare or ghosts, I did switch some time back to the multi-coated B+W filters. There was much talk about the B+W 486 filters, and Leica's branded filters, not being multicoated and therefore had more possibility for flare and/or ghosts. Except for the 2 free filters I got from Leica, all the rest of my lenses have Heliopan IR filters, and I have one 486 I bought used to carry as a spare (since IR filters are mandatory on the M8 unlike a UV filter, I carry spares for all sizes of lenses I am travelling with). One of the Leica brand filters is a spare e43 for my 50 Summilux and I haven't used it, but the other Leica filter lives on my 15mm. I have not seen any evidence of flare or ghosts in the time I've had my M8 (since last Summer), in all kinds of light, indoors, outdoors, directional, nighttime, you name it. In fact, other than the 15mm, I put back my B+W Multicoated UV filters on top of my IR filters to protect them because they're so expensive, and I still haven't gotten any flare or ghosts. I'm not saying it can't or won't ever happen, but after as many shots as I've done and it hasn't happened, it's not keeping me up at night and certainly isn't giving me thoughts of dumping the M8. Of course YMMV.

[Bob Parsons]

Are the Heliopan filters multi-coated on both sides? IIRC, the problem w/the B+W 486 & Leica filters is that they are only coated on 1 side. FWIW, I have gotten a few flare artifacts w/the 486 & 13411/13414 filters when shooting bright point light sources, like candles & spot lights @ shows, that are in or just outside of the frame. Not enough to ditch the M8, but it has made me think about switching to the Heliopans, if they are multicoated.
The B+W and Leica filters are coated on both sides. One side has a multilayer antireflection coating and the other side the multilayer UV-IR interference filter. There was some talk of the UV-IR being less abrasion resistant than the other side. Of the several B+W and Leica filters I have about 75% of them had the UV-IR side facing towards the lens, I reversed the glass in the others.

Bob.

[keithwms]

Why not place an AR-coated UV/IR filter over the actual sensor? Is there space to do that?

There are UV/IR conversions done by companies like maxmax for digital UV/IR shooting that remove the need to put a vis-blocking filter on your lens... this is of course done on dSLRs so that you can compose TTL and AF normally. All they do is take out the normal hot mirror or sensor cover and replace it with whatever you want. So you can do Uv, IR, UV+vis, IR+vis, UV+IR only, etc. It seems to me that one could just as easily put any desired hot/cold mirror over the M8 sensor itself, as long as there is ~1mm of space in front of the sensor to do this. I use thin filters for microscopy in my lab all the time. No big deal.

In fact, I'd be totally shocked if somebody isn't doing this and selling the service- it would be a ten minute operation, and the glass plates that would be installed can be mass produced for maybe a hundred bucks apiece, including AR coating for the visible.

(N.b. I will not speculate on what Leica will charge you for what I am describing)

With all due respect to some of the posts above... habitually using a physical or software filter because of unwanted UV / IR sensitivity of your sensor... well I'm not going to say it. You just have to be kidding.

Apologies to offended readers if I am overlooking something obvious about your particular sensors, which I have not yet seen, but I have been following this M8 issue from a distance. There is an M8 in a local store and I could stop by and look and see if it is possible to do what I am saying.

[Gabriel M.A.]

But m8 doesn't fit me in this catagory.

If the light source is in your viewfinder, it will probably not make a flare.
Those are some serious images being invoked right there :eek:

[furcafe]

Sorry, I meant that the B+W & Leica filters only had anti-reflection coating on 1 side. Your explanation makes sense because the flare seems to be from reflections coming off of the lens itself & reflecting off the inside surface of the filter (& back again through the lens).

The B+W and Leica filters are coated on both sides. One side has a multilayer antireflection coating and the other side the multilayer UV-IR interference filter. There was some talk of the UV-IR being less abrasion resistant than the other side. Of the several B+W and Leica filters I have about 75% of them had the UV-IR side facing towards the lens, I reversed the glass in the others.

Bob.

[jaapv]

Why not place an AR-coated UV/IR filter over the actual sensor? Is there space to do that?

There are UV/IR conversions done by companies like maxmax for digital UV/IR shooting that remove the need to put a vis-blocking filter on your lens... this is of course done on dSLRs so that you can compose TTL and AF normally. All they do is take out the normal hot mirror or sensor cover and replace it with whatever you want. So you can do Uv, IR, UV+vis, IR+vis, UV+IR only, etc. It seems to me that one could just as easily put any desired hot/cold mirror over the M8 sensor itself, as long as there is ~1mm of space in front of the sensor to do this. I use thin filters for microscopy in my lab all the time. No big deal.

In fact, I'd be totally shocked if somebody isn't doing this and selling the service- it would be a ten minute operation, and the glass plates that would be installed can be mass produced for maybe a hundred bucks apiece, including AR coating for the visible.

(N.b. I will not speculate on what Leica will charge you for what I am describing)

With all due respect to some of the posts above... habitually using a physical or software filter because of unwanted UV / IR sensitivity of your sensor... well I'm not going to say it. You just have to be kidding.

Apologies to offended readers if I am overlooking something obvious about your particular sensors, which I have not yet seen, but I have been following this M8 issue from a distance. There is an M8 in a local store and I could stop by and look and see if it is possible to do what I am saying.

Yes- there is something obvious, you probably were not around here when it was discussed extensively. On an RF the distance between lens and sensor is about half of a SLR and many lenses stick into the body to get even closer. That means the angle of incidence of the light on the edges of the sensor varies wildly. As IR filters are sensible to this angle the images would have deteriorated unacceptably, uncorrectable in software as well. This makes an IR filter in that spot impossible at the present stage of technology, a larger sensor impossible and the current camera a miracle.

[keithwms]

Yes- there is someting obvious, you probably were not around here when it was discussed extensively. On an RF the distance between lens and sensor is about half of a SLR and many lenses stick into the body to get even closer. That means the angle of incidence of the light on the edges of the sensor varies wildly. As IR filters are sensible to this angle the images would have deteriorated unacceptably, uncorrectable in software as well. This makes an IR filter in that spot impossible at the present stage of technology, a larger sensor impossible and the current camera a miracle.

Jaap, actually, I did know that, but I thought about it but didn't think it would be a killer, but yeah, now I see I'm wrong. Now I see that this issue you describe is a sensitive function of coverage / focal length of the lens, so an ordinary hot mirror won't cut it, it'd have to be a lensing hot mirror, yikes! :rolleyes: Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

So...another solution! How about coating the back elements of the lenses. You could coat the fronts but probably you don't want to screw with the multicoating there. Anyway lens coatings are not outrageously expensive... not nearly as expensive as certain camera companies would like us to believe ;)

If anybody has a not-too-dear M lens they want to try, I can dig up some names of companies that do an IR blocking front or back coating. This would get around the problem Jaap describes.

[jaapv]

Actually the best thing to have is a filter next to the aperture blades, where the light is more or less parallel. I have one lens with this feature, a 9.8 mm (!) wideangle, and it has no cyan problems at all, obviously without coding.
I'm not sure a coated lens would be suitable for film use.

[bluepenguin]

I know what happed to my picture and how the UV/IR affects under certain light point.

Why don't you try it yourself then we can talk more.

Try to take a picture of the object and make 70~90 degreen angle with your filter and strong light source.

You will see the uneven spreading ghost/flare on your picture.

[Richard Marks]

I know what happed to my picture and how the UV/IR affects under certain light point.

Why don't you try it yourself then we can talk more.

Try to take a picture of the object and make 70~90 degreen angle with your filter and strong light source.

You will see the uneven spreading ghost/flare on your picture.
I am sure that one can create conditions that produce flare, but this is not necesarilly the fault of the filter. The skill is to re compose so avoiding the problem. It is usually possible. Incidentally one of your earlier posts makes reference to Zeiss glass. There are now plenty of m mount Zeiss lenses. Why did you not try one of these?

Richard

[bluepenguin]

Richard,

The problem is due to using an UV/IR filter.
The leica put the temporary solution on their problematic CCD.
Using an UV/IR filter solution was a fault from the beginning.

It is a skill to make a good results. (Yes)
It is a good digital camera that has an antialiasing filter with CCD. (Yes)
It is not a good solution to use UV/IR filter on lens that may cause problem.

[jaapv]

I know what happed to my picture and how the UV/IR affects under certain light point.

Why don't you try it yourself then we can talk more.

Try to take a picture of the object and make 70~90 degreen angle with your filter and strong light source.

You will see the uneven spreading ghost/flare on your picture.

I is very hard talking about this if you do no show your examples. The number of times I did have flare because of an IR filter is very limited and veiling flare even more rare.

[Paul Kay]

The M8 and UV/IR filters are hardly unique in being able to produce flare under certain conditions! I can 'force' flare with pretty much all cameras/lenses which I do (or have) owned! Actually I sometimes do this because I want to create a particular effect (and quite like the results). You can even add flare in Photoshop. Where now?

[TJV]

From what I understand it is impossible to put an anti-reflectice coating on top of, that is to say on the same side of the filter as the IR filtering coating. Leica have stated this (or was it Schneider?) As someone else said, the IR coating is easily scratched so the anti-reflective coating is facing outwards because it's harder wearing. I ALWAYS use UV filters so I'm not against using filters but I'm guessing using a UV/IR is more prone to causeing INTERNAL REFLECTIONS, not flare as such, than good quality multi-coated UV filters because the anti-reflective layer isn't where it counts for digital - sensor side to stop light bouncing of the mirrored surface of the sensor and back off the filter etc.
I think it's pretty bad if one needs to constantly re-check ones self in situations that may cause ghosting artifacts. It doesn't exactly inspire a feeing of creative freedom that I expect (wrongly or rightly!) with my film M's. I was never able to shoot my M8's with UV/IR filters so I can't claim to know the real world practical issues of using the M8 with them. I only know what I've read and my experiences without them.

Thoughts?

I'm seriously thinking of getting another M8 now the initial dust has settled. It's a great camera and the only digi I'd consider buying at this point in time. I would never have gotten a refund on my M8 (which I used for three or four months) if I didn't have important work to do at that time.

[Paul Kay]

I shoot both film and digi Ms - sometimes I shoot using inappropriate filtration (UV/IR on film or UV on digi) due to inability to remember to change them. Problem is that I am mostly hard pressed to tell and certainly have seen no evidence of an increased flare tendency with UV/IR. I've had lenses in the past that produced awful flare (the standard Zeiss zoom on the Contax N1 suffered from a very hard, white flare spot at times which I found pretty objectionable as an example - and zoom creep if pointed downwards at all), and I always use lens hoods on the fast Canon L primes that I use extensively as these too suffer from flare at times (hardly a surprise). But my M8 and lenses and UV/IR filters certainly doesn't show flare anywhere near enough for it to be a real problem for me and I doubt that I'm unique. I'm not defending the M8 here but I'm still unsure of the original poster's intent!

[jaapv]

From what I understand it is impossible to put an anti-reflectice coating on top of, that is to say on the same side of the filter as the IR filtering coating. Leica have stated this (or was it Schneider?) As someone else said, the IR coating is easily scratched so the anti-reflective coating is facing outwards because it's harder wearing. I ALWAYS use UV filters so I'm not against using filters but I'm guessing using a UV/IR is more prone to causeing INTERNAL REFLECTIONS, not flare as such, than good quality multi-coated UV filters because the anti-reflective layer isn't where it counts for digital - sensor side to stop light bouncing of the mirrored surface of the sensor and back off the filter etc.
I think it's pretty bad if one needs to constantly re-check ones self in situations that may cause ghosting artifacts. It doesn't exactly inspire a feeing of creative freedom that I expect (wrongly or rightly!) with my film M's. I was never able to shoot my M8's with UV/IR filters so I can't claim to know the real world practical issues of using the M8 with them. I only know what I've read and my experiences without them.

Thoughts?

I'm seriously thinking of getting another M8 now the initial dust has settled. It's a great camera and the only digi I'd consider buying at this point in time. I would never have gotten a refund on my M8 (which I used for three or four months) if I didn't have important work to do at that time.

I can only confirm the previous post, yes, flare can be induced, mostly in the form of a green spot somewhere, easily cloned or one of those upside-down refelections of a specular highlight, but seldomly and usually easily cloned. Veiling flare is rare. In short, nothing but the daily photographic routine we all know and are used to.

[bluepenguin]

Since many of you want sample picture, here it is.

As you can see, I'm taking a picture of the object and the sun is getting on my way and making interesting flare.

Take a picture of graduation ceremony inside a dorm:

You have to use an UV/IR filter due to everybody dressed in black.
But if you use the UV/IR filter you will have a high possibility of having a flare due to dorm's strong lights from above.

[jaapv]

Thanks. Yes- veiling flare. Rather nice artistically btw, but that is beside the point. I would have believed you as well if you had told me this is without filter, because a lens-any lens- can produce something like this just as easily in these lighting conditions. But yes, a filter can do this. So maybe it should have been removed here, as there is no IR problem.

[rsl]

Since many of you want sample picture, here it is.



Keep it. It's very good surrealism.

[keithwms]

From what I understand it is impossible to put an anti-reflectice coating on top of, that is to say on the same side of the filter as the IR filtering coating. Leica have stated this (or was it Schneider?) As someone else said, the IR coating is easily scratched so the anti-reflective coating is facing outwards because it's harder wearing.

....

Thoughts?



I am thinking one could apply IR coating to an interior element. Then, no scratches, and no problem interfering with the normal AR coating.

[jaapv]

All glass-air surfaces on Leica lenses are coated, also the interior ones.

[Ben Z]

Since many of you want sample picture, here it is.

As you can see, I'm taking a picture of the object and the sun is getting on my way and making interesting flare.

Take a picture of graduation ceremony inside a dorm:

You have to use an UV/IR filter due to everybody dressed in black.
But if you use the UV/IR filter you will have a high possibility of having a flare due to dorm's strong lights from above.

I've had similar results in similar situations to the example photo many times, with many lenses, with no filters at all, on film and digital.

I was also very concerned with the possibility of getting increased flare from overhead spotlights in otherwise dark rooms (jazz clubs, theaters, receptions, etc.). When I first got my M8 I took hundreds of shots in those situations in an attempt to develop a sense for when the IR filter would cause extra flare and therefore would need to be removed. I found no such situations. I did get some flare, yes, but it was the same with and without the IR filter. The only IR filters I have used in such situations are Heliopan (the only non-Heliopan filter I use is a Leica brand on my 15mm and I've never shot that one in a room with overhead spotlights). After reading someone on the net mention about it, I examined my Leica and 486 filters next to Heliopans and I can definitely see much less surface reflections coming off the Heliopans. Whether that translates to more transmission/less contrast loss as it would seem to, intuitively, I can't say for certain because I'm not an expert on optics. But it's the same difference between a regular B+W UV filter and an MRC, and those definitely have better transmission and less reflection.

[bluepenguin]

I use my summicron 35mm 1st most of time and without UV/IR fillter it would generate good rendition of the light instead of flare.

M8 is a great camera and I dont' doubt that.

But I wish that Leica would make CCD with right low pass filter so all of us don't have to use UV/IR filter.

[jaapv]

I'm sure Leica engineers have wished the same all along ;)

[furcafe]

Yes, the flare problems I have encountered have always consisted of the green(ish) reflected spots. Unfortunately, they tend to pop up quite often when shooting in stage & stage-type lighting (away from stages, candles are usually the culprit) where I do the bulk of my digital shooting, & they are not always easily cloned out (e.g., when they cover an entire eye).

I can only confirm the previous post, yes, flare can be induced, mostly in the form of a green spot somewhere, easily cloned or one of those upside-down refelections of a specular highlight, but seldomly and usually easily cloned. Veiling flare is rare. In short, nothing but the daily photographic routine we all know and are used to.

[Richard Marks]

Richard,

The problem is due to using an UV/IR filter.
The leica put the temporary solution on their problematic CCD.
Using an UV/IR filter solution was a fault from the beginning.

It is a skill to make a good results. (Yes)
It is a good digital camera that has an antialiasing filter with CCD. (Yes)
It is not a good solution to use UV/IR filter on lens that may cause problem.
Dear Sir
Your sample image shows some flare I accept but that does not mean it was the filter. A very considerable number of people posting here (if you believe them) appear to cope with this problem. It may be that we have lower standards than you but it is also possible that you might be being a little hard on the M8.
You have obviously finished with your M8 and doubtless some one else will get the pleasure of it.

Richard