Jack Flesher wrote:
I was beginning to wonder if you worked for them (Kidding!)
Yeah, I see that I must come across a little biased right now. I simply don't see the logical train of thought which leads to your conclusion, whereas I can construct the one which leads to mine.
In fact, irrelevant though it is, it had crossed my mind to apply for a job at Leica. Clearly they need careful programmers right now, and that is what I am. I could not think of many companies that I would rather work for, or where I would feel more passionate about what I would do. On the downside, there are two things: Solms is a small town outside a small town outside a boring city. Secondly, I am a graphics programmer, and I don't know, but I expect that being a firmware programmer (DMR, here I come) or something similar may be a rather specialised job, more connected to hardware than to software.
FTR, the MF back issue was/is different -- It has to do with cosine error induced by light striking the sensor at extreme angles when using hot-mirror aperture grille IR cut filters over the sensor. FWIW, the absorption filters do not have this issue, but are more expensive to use. (Leica claims the thick one will introduce refractive CA, but this has not yet been seen with any MF sensor I am aware of.) Hot mirror filters work fine when the light does not strike the sensor at extreme angles, but will generate color shifts as the angle of incidence gets shallower.
I'll read the new LFI article and comment afterwards.
To be clear, I applaud Leica on the basic image quality of their new M8 sensor -- the sharpness and detail are second to none. It is only the fix they propose for the IR cut color-cast issue I am beating them up over. I like everything else about the M8 -- really!
Cheers,
Edited by Jack Flesher on Dec 17, 2006 at 03:28 PM GMT
I agree that IR cut filter solution is rather silly. Maybe even arrogant, if you feel that way about it. But the camera has so many other redeeming qualities that I'm willing to accept it. I'm not sure Leica itself expected the filters to be required though, they even designed a new lens, the 16-18-21 Tri-Elmar, that can't take both a filter and a hood. And it can't use any plain old filter either, but will need a special holder. If filters had been a prerequisite at the M8 design stage, I'm sure the lens would have had a slightly different barrel and maybe a hood with a filter slot or something. Or at least fit a filter inside the hood. Me, I think Leica screwed up; they thought the problem would be much less severe and filters would only be needed under special circumstances. The stuff about glass thickness, space, etc, just sounds like excuses to me, they could easily make the camera 0.1mm thicker by moving the imager rearwards to fit a thicker glass. (The focus offsets by the thickness of the glass, so isn't affected.)
Edited by ClubShooter on Dec 17, 2006 at 03:21 PM GMT
brainiac wrote:
Carsten, I think I know why a certain person isn't on the Leica engineering team: a few days ago it was suggested that I compare M8 files to 5D files by downrezzing the 5D file to 10 megapixel.
Contrary to the expectations of who made that suggestion, when I tried it the downrezzed 5D file looked every bit as good as the M8 file. But of course, as we all know, 3 megapixels of resolution had been discarded. That's what the maths predicts, so no surprise, except for the suggester's. Actually, maybe that qualifies him for the M8 eng team after all.
I hope we can agree that it's a bit unfair to downrez one camera's file before comparison with another, as that's lossy. That's why my test stuck to uprezzing, which isn't lossy, unless you want to print all those little square things....Show more →
Downsizing is not totally lossy, as you experienced by downzising 5D files.
The amount of information show up in quality.
can a hot mirror coating be applied directly to an element in a lens? Would it have to be the front element? Any downsides (other than IR photography)?
this may have been covered already, but did Leica not notice this during their testing? or any of the beta versions of the camera that were out and about?
bathman wrote:
there is simple chess rule, if you notice you made a bad move correct the error immediately, the longer you wait, the more expensive it is going to be.
Thats what we seeing right now
I think this is being applied by Leica.
It would also be a good lesson for some of the Leica attacker's as well.
Guy was right about some of these threads - getting time to apply the
'...ignore them..." rule to some of the posters here.
Carsten, I will be watching for your very sensible comments on the LUF. I found asking you how close you were to Solms quite offensive. I am surprised how tolerant you are.
Victor, it helps to know that Jack is a great guy who is almost perfect on all issues but one :) I think I also completely missed the offensiveness of that comment. I thought he wanted me to visit to ask personally what was going on :) Anyway, enough of that. I really hate arguing like that, but I don't feel that Leica deserves it. They are a small, excellent company who are struggling to pull off what may be single most difficult move in the last and the next 25 years, and which risks the company. No one at Leica could be happy about the IR filter debacle. They, like their customers, are fully aware that there are very strong emotions about filters on lenses. I cannot imagine what internal strife must have gone on before finally announcing this as the final "solution". No wonder that it took them two weeks to respond once the severity of the issue became known. If they had planned it, like some suggest, then it would not have taken any time at all.
Victor, Guy, following is a quote from a post in another thread. This was a great statement and I had to think about it and I am sorry it was deleted, so I post it here again...
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Thanks Andi yes there are some of us that do have LARGE investments here. I hate when some just jump on the lates bandwagon to just knock it to the floor. Trust me i would be the first one to sell it all if i thought it did not have a chance. The issue is it really is a awesome image maker and files that are extremely detailed and that makes it real hard to say ah just forget it. i want this to work out but also i know when there is more hysteria than facts. Every camera i have owned there is some workaround or issue bar none. Canon, Nikon, Kodak and Leica . i have had them all and they all have had some type of workaround or issue that you just have to deal with. Nothing is perfect if it was than we would all have the same thing. The bottomline on the M8 is the color profile for the files. In ACR which is a program i don' really like but right now seems with the iR cut filter the images are super clean. THAT gives me a lot of hope. I know it is there , now just need this better in C1 and Raw developer which IMHO are much better programs to work in and better workflow. BUT i am seeing clean files without the headaches. So we need to see what Leica does. They have a lot of outside expertise on this camera. Phase One, Jenopiks , Kodak, Sinar and several other experienced companies in digital and hopefully they are working this all out. You know the old saying about the glass house , i think that applies here. It is a cautious rope to walk for Leica and trust me on this . It affects all the other OEM"s also as they watch these things being unfolded. The quick fixes i agree are just what they are and may not be the real answer , so we have to be real carefull on what is done next. The camera truly rocks but there are issues that need addressing and leica knows that and is working it . So for the owners of Leica gear our friends and also the company . I think more support from everyone is needed than just ripping it apart like i have seen here. Personnaly guys i have a lot of money to lose here if this stuff does not get resolved....Show more →
These forums might be could to give feedback to companies and to give some pressure to them to not ignore problems with their products.(I think that simportant and good)
On the other side I dont understand what people expect. Do they think that each idea/ opinion from people with 50%-knowledge should be immediatly answered or maybe even integrated by Leica?
And dont you think that giving one-sided statements about the M8 (meaning allways talking about the bad sides without mentioning much the good sides) leading to reduction of sales-numbers (because people get the wrong overall-picture regarding the M8) will help Leica to pay for R&D and improve the M8 or maybe develop an improved M9?
Why not give Leica some time? Why not let them do R&D instead of forcing them to read forums all day long?
I am sure Leica does deliever excellent products. They might need a little more time than others, but they can produce great things.
Maybe the M8 is too much of a compromise for some people, but it looks like there are others who do like the overall package.
But cant we try to report about the shortcomings in a objective way and try to not overhype everything?
If people continue to behave like this Leica might come to the conclusion that they can not make people happy and its not possible to earn money with a digital M.
There's lots to like about the M8, true, but if I may pick you up on something important Jack:
> ...the sharpness and detail are second to none.
The sharpness and detail of my old Nikon Coolpix 700 is better than the M8. That's irrelevant. It's 2 megapixels. Resolution is what matters, and in resolution, the M8 is probably second to the 5D, and third to the 1DsII and Nikon D2xs, as the pixel count indicates. Let's try and remain factual. If you have a test which shows this not to be true, then I for one am keen to see it. I'm not saying you are lying, but I am saying that you aren't quite in tune with the evidence presented here so far. Of course, you're free to present your own, just like any of us. If you're going to respond with the old 'crap test' call, then why not add some images of your own that do a better job of actually comparing the resolution of the two than my underskilled effort.
I do feel that if people keep repeating the contentious mantra 'M8, the most detailed camera bar none', someone might actually believe it and buy one for the wrong reasons.
Guy, I have done nothing to embarrass you. I don't know why you say that. We disagree about the results and purposes of some digital cameras. That's a healthy thing. I discuss what I see just as you do. It's not personal. Each of us is entitled to his opinion, and each has the means to support it.
Sure, but when the vast majority of posts here are made by non-owners, it does change the thread significantly. This thread is not like the DMR thread in that sense.
It's probably because there is more interest in the M8 from non-owners than the DMR. I think we all want to see as much output from the M8 as possible, even non-owners. I also don't think that non-owners have been especially impolite, flamy or hysterical.
(Kidding!)
They don't do a web version.