The unofficial statement from Leica on M8

[Kim Coxon]

Too late for that - The camera has been taken out of the box and horror of horrors actually used.

Kim

Originally Posted by Toby

That's the sensor flare that all the collector's are raving about - I'd vacuum seal that camera right now!

[Didier]

Leica seems to be be very concerned about it's customers and their reaction is like it could have been expected from them. Has Nikon or Canon ever offered discounts on lenses after they sold partially unfunctional cameras? Never. Many Nikon D200 users for instance had to wait months to get the banding problem resolved - without any official communication from the manufacturer.

The M8 is not in my financial reach yet, and I would anyway have waited until the (predictable) children's diseases are cured, before I would buy it. But their reaction to the here well discussed M8-issues let me feel shure that they really try everything to offer a digital rangefinder which is worth it's red dot.

Didier

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Toby

That's the sensor flare that all the collector's are raving about - I'd vacuum seal that camera right now!

I was photographing a rainbow and got far more than I bargained for...(photo not profiled btw) I would love to hear a technical explanation. I am very happy that there is no sign of the camera making a habit of it

[Nachkebia]

Spaceship is about to land in your park jaapv! its good to see people shooting on the weekend in the park with $8000 outfit

[jaapv]

It's my garden. I've got Alf staying with me now....One cat already narrowly escaped being eaten...

[Nachkebia]

Great! he likes M8?

[jaapv]

Hey! That's great!

Now I challenge you: You produce this effect on film to prove its superiority!

[Nachkebia]

Yeah, we need some positive vibe lately, even though M8 is rubish (kidding) I am happy whenever I think that camera has nothing to do with photography and I get really happy that even if I buy all the best cameras and lenses I still have to learn and discover more and more! so that keeps me with hope to live and discover! regardles any lens or body so I love photography!!! god I want to shooot!!!

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by Kim Coxon

I don't think anything is "free" in this world. If you included an IR filter with every lens, the people whose interest was monochrome could rightfully claim that they were being subjected to an unneeded expense.

Maybe they could make it a free option. If you don't need it, you don't have to take it

Philipp

[summilux]

from now on, let pictures talk, please.

[Tom Diaz]

I wish I did not have to anticipate my M8 taking a trip to Solms. However, the fix and other offers sound right to me.

I am ever so slightly unclear on one point: why exactly is there not a more intrinsic solution for the IR problem, like a filter directly over the sensor? I would think that a "mark II" will eventually come out and will solve that problem intrinsically. Do I infer correctly that, with today's technology, a better IR filter on the sensor would compromise resolution or other image quality factors?

I'm an occasional infrared shooter but would prefer to load a film camera with IR when I want that--until of course they stop making IR film... maybe that will be soon....

Anyway, can someone explain succinctly why the on-the-lens filter is the best IR solution? I am not looking for an argument or a Leica bash, I'm trying to learn.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by summilux

from now on, let pictures talk, please.

Sometimes they say the worst things about our hand-holding skills

[Trius]

Tom: I've skipped large portions of this thread, but I infer that the physical dimensions of the camera and its interior preclude using a thicker filter. And there isn't glass available with more IR filtering unless you increase the thickness of the glass.

Maybe Olympus had it right when they decided on a whole new set of digital specific lenses for the 4/3s system. They made the OM-4/3s adapter available only after a huge hue and cry from the Oly faithful. While the older lenses perform well under certain conditions, they don't conform to the standards that the Olympus designers developed. Not that they didn't want to sell a bunch of new lenses, too...

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Trius

Tom: I've skipped large portions of this thread, but I infer that the physical dimensions of the camera and its interior preclude using a thicker filter. And there isn't glass available with more IR filtering unless you increase the thickness of the glass.

Maybe Olympus had it right when they decided on a whole new set of digital specific lenses for the 4/3s system. They made the OM-4/3s adapter available only after a huge hue and cry from the Oly faithful. While the older lenses perform well under certain conditions, they don't conform to the standards that the Olympus designers developed. Not that they didn't want to sell a bunch of new lenses, too...

Maybe the next generation M lenses will have the IR filtering built into an element?

[Kim Coxon]

It is explained in post 3 here. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...012#post425012

Kim

Originally Posted by Tom Diaz

Anyway, can someone explain succinctly why the on-the-lens filter is the best IR solution? I am not looking for an argument or a Leica bash, I'm trying to learn.

[jlw]

Originally Posted by Tom Diaz

I am ever so slightly unclear on one point: why exactly is there not a more intrinsic solution for the IR problem, like a filter directly over the sensor? I would think that a "mark II" will eventually come out and will solve that problem intrinsically. Do I infer correctly that, with today's technology, a better IR filter on the sensor would compromise resolution or other image quality factors?

Yes, that's exactly what Leica says the problem is. A more effective IR filter would have to be thicker; a thicker filter would scatter light rays more at the edges of the sensor, leading to color fringing.

The problem is worse with an M camera than with a DSLR because the M body is shallower, causing the light rays from the lens to strike the edges of the sensor at a steeper angle. Steeper angles produce more scattering in the filter and thus more color fringing.

A thicker body, like those used on DSLRs, would reduce the angles and allow a thicker IR fliter to be used over the sensor without degrading the image quality too much... but then the body wouldn't accept M lenses.

Leica really was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one; any solution they chose would involve some kind of compromise, so they chose the one that compromised image quality the least.

[Kim Coxon]

Apart from the fact that some Leica users seem to have a pathalogical hate of filters, I am not sure what the problem is. Due to the properties of an RF camera and the sensitivity of sensors to IR, a lens filter will give the highest possible quality. Putting the filter in the lens is a bit like putting a yellow filter in a lens for B/W work. It saves putting a filter on true but it spoils it for other work.

Kim

Originally Posted by Toby

Maybe the next generation M lenses will have the IR filtering built into an element?

[darkkavenger]

Good luck to all of you who purchased an M8. I'm sure you'll love your camera more once it'll be fixed, I'm curious to see how those who are violently criticising the camera and Leica policy will react in 6 months - 1 year - 2 years...once their camera will be fixed.

I'm sure most of those will be fondling their M8 and letting everyone know how it's the best camera they ever had and how it is outstanding. Let's hope

I'll stop the rant and i'll go fondle my FSU cameras

Hope this upgrade/repair will be helpful to all of you!
Max

[Tom Diaz]

Originally Posted by jlw

Leica really was stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one; any solution they chose would involve some kind of compromise, so they chose the one that compromised image quality the least.

Thanks, jlw. If they'd documented this design tradeoff up front, as part of their product launch, and if they had also made the "free filters" offer up front, they would be looking 100% all right with me on the IR issue. The fact that they are coming up with this solution while embarrassed makes them only 75% OK with me, but it is still a solution.

If they get through this and become a stronger company (which I hope), I think they'll learn from this experience, and meanwhile I think I will be just as well off as if they had handled the problems more proactively.