carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Jack Flesher wrote:
Second, like Harvey I used to shoot M's almost exclusively in film days and third, I actually did own an M8 for about a week before I sold it, disgusted with Leica's *ARROGANT* Band-Aid fix for their IR cut screw up!
Jack, I normally would not respond to a complaint of yours which I do not agree with, because I respect you too much. I did see the smiley, btw, but you have made similar comments often enough by now that I think I can safely ignore it. You obviously mean what you write, smiley or not.
Here it is: You have absolutely no evidence that their response has anything to do with arrogance, but just assume it.
As I understand it, and as LFI publishes, putting a hot-mirror-style filter on the sensor is a terrible technical choice, since it introduces too much colour-shift depending on the lens. This type of filter, as we all know by now, is very dependent on the angle of incidence, and this angle is quite dramatic with many M lenses. The only way to deal with the resulting mess of colours would be to use only coded lenses, which no one would accept.
Secondly, the absorption-type filter which they ended up using has an effectiveness based on thickness. Properly absorbing all (or even most) of the infrared light coming through requires a filter thicker than 0.5mm, as it is in the M8. You have probably seen shots from the Epson R-D1 which demonstrate why a thicker filter is undesirable: it introduces internal reflections in the filter, which decrease image quality in the corners noticeably. They both decrease sharpness and introduce artifacts. This is clearly not acceptable either, for a company with the standards of Leica.
So the only choice for filter on the sensor was the thin, 0.5mm infrared-absorbing filter which they implemented. Otherwise they would lose the image quality they are so famous for, and reduce their legendary M lenses to little more than the competition.
Continuing to search for a solution, they had to fall back on what they had early on isolated as the fix to what they thought was a minor problem, but which turned out to be a major one: infrared filters on the lens.
Given this sequence of reason, what can they do to make angry people happy, without going bankrupt doing so? I think that two free IR filters and 30% off one of their lenses is much more than any other camera manufacturer has ever done, and will likely ever do. It is clear that they are not holding back from replacing hardware, as you imply, since they are doing just that to solve the banding issue.
Honestly, I don't know why you continue to hammer on them. If you don't like their solution, stay away from the M8. If you understand and accept it, buy one. But this bad-mouthing serves no one. Not us here, not Leica, and not even you. The only other option for Leica would be to wait until research develops an IR filter 0.5mm thick which could absorb more IR light, and this may take longer than Leica even has to manage to survive. If this gets developed soon, I am certain that Leica will offer an upgrade at cost to all M8 owners.
This is a small, excellent company which is trying hard to stay alive in the face of near-impossible odds, and I have a huge amount of respect for what they have accomplished with the M8, even though it isn't perfect. It is still a great camera which doesn't deserve the heaps of abuse which you are unleashing on them. Look at what Epson could do, and what Leica has accomplished. There is a world of difference there.
I feel so sorry for the struggle at Leica which much seem never-ending to them, just as it does to us.
|
