Guy Mancuso wrote:
I bought a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit last week that i really like a lot on the M8. So now i just have to many lenses. My favorites so far the 15CV, 21mm, 28mm, 50mm lux is a dream lens, 75 cron i also love and my new friend the 90 elmarit . Now i have not used my 35 1.4 much but i need that for certain things. the 24mm for me is great but from 28 to 90 I can leave the magnifier on the 24mm I have to take it off. So i am going to sell the 24mm , man i hate selling this one
So my package is 2 M8 15,21,28,35,50,75 and when needed the 90 mm. The 15mm BTW i dn't even use the external finder just guess and chimp with it. I try to leave the 28mm external on for the 21mm...Show more →
Guy,
You will soon have two functional M8's; why not have one with the magnifer and one without. My preference is the 24 over the 21 since the 24 works directly with the RF; another consideration is the 16-18-21 TE, which would make a 21 Elmarit redundant except for the 2.8 aperture.
Tom
Given that the sensor in the DMR and M8 is almost the same, how come Leica didn't put an IR filter in the cover glass for the M8 as they did for the DMR.
Best regards,
Tim
This is incorrect. The M8 sensor cover glass is an IR filter; it is just that it is a weak IR filter because it is only 0.5mm thick.
Tom
Tom,
Thanks, however, the strength of the IR filter shouldn' be a function of the thickness, so this to me only makes it even more puzzling why the Leica team went for such a weak IR filter.
fish_shooter wrote:
Excellent point, one has to compare prints and not jpegs on the internet. A lot of what one sees and reads on the internet is pure BS.
Tom
Also very well said! The fact of the matter is there is no good way to show print quality on the web, let alone show comparisons between two different prints! Really, the best we can do is verbalize the differences we see. Unfortunately, that type of verbalization doesn't ever seem to satisfy some -- the same ones who usually demand "proof" -- yet they want to see it on the web! An impossible catch 22 to ever resolve
I'm intrigued by the 90 macro, mainly for casual closeup without the macro adapter, giving that the lens collapsed is so tiny and light that it would easily find a place in the bag.
BTW, I recall that a 90 Tele-Elmarit is about the same size as a collapsed Macro-Elmar and may even be a tad lighter. I have both but they are pesently 4000 miles away back in AK so I can't be sure. I traveled with the 90AA.
Tom
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Geoge that is a great question and one that bears some thoughts. One is they could have done it to not get Moire and given all the users for canon let's say it could have been a PR nightmare with folks having moire so maybe they played it safe here. I'm speculating here . Now not sure on this but maybe CMOS has to have a AAfilter on because of that technology of Cmos and CCD like the Leica's can do without it. Here is were i get off the bus though and let the engineers take over. But MF backs don't use AA filters either and most of them are CCD's....Show more →
I doubt that the choice of CMOS or CCD has anything to do with it.
I do suspect that the Japanese manufacturers are being conservative so as to avoid adverse publicity. As for the MF manufacturers, it may be that they expect the lens to act as an AA filter as MF shots are often made at small apertures which acts very much like an AA filter by blurring the finest detail through diffraction. The 39 mp backs, in particular, are diffraction limited by f/11.
timbedsted1234 wrote:
Thanks, however, the strength of the IR filter shouldn' be a function of the thickness, so this to me only makes it even more puzzling why the Leica team went for such a weak IR filter.
Best
tim
Unfortunately Tim, this is precisely the rub. The absorption type IR cut filter works by varying thickness to attenuate the light waves that ultimately determine the IR cut point. Without going into great detail, it is kind of like you need x thickness of lead to stop your dentist's x-ray. It's also why they are so expensive relative to the hot-mirror filter -- the thickness has to be held to very close tolerances across the entire surface of the filter.
Conversely, the hot mirror filters don't have this problem since they attenuate by a different method -- but the method they use causes color shifts when light strikes them at more acute angles, as it does with the Leica M's short flange-to-focal distance...
Jack Flesher wrote:
This type of confusion is precisely why I refer to 'it' as "net image detail" -- the net quality after taking everything into account from capture through output...
But then I know my 'it' won't satisfy others because it is an entirely subjective definition -- and the factors that comprise it cannot be easily compared empirically. That's why I make prints to show other photographers so we can discuss the actual result and I can confirm or deny my own impressions... Clearly not a perfect system, and very difficult to "show" print differences on the web, but it works for me. ...Show more →
Well, your point is well taken. But 'it' should not be as subjective or arbirary as you say either. I'm fine to use any one's definition as long as it is defined clearly.
Remember, in Physics class, all you do is to understand the definitions of Force, Power, Pressure, Energy, etc. In real life, one may use those words mixed way. But in order to communicate into further depth, those terms need to be clearly defined and understood.
Considering how much energy we spend to argue about Resolution, Detail and Sharpness, we may as well just agree on the definition first.
timbedsted1234 wrote:
Given that the sensor in the DMR and M8 is almost the same, how come Leica didn't put an IR filter in the cover glass for the M8 as they did for the DMR.
Best regards,
Tim
This is incorrect. The M8 sensor cover glass is an IR filter; it is just that it is a weak IR filter because it is only 0.5mm thick.
Tom
Tom,
Thanks, however, the strength of the IR filter shouldn' be a function of the thickness, so this to me only makes it even more puzzling why the Leica team went for such a weak IR filter.
Best
tim
If you have two conventional black and white filters of the same type (e.g., Wratten 25) lying about you can do a simple experiment. Hold up one in front of an illuminated blank wall or plain surface, now hold up the second one so it partially covers the first. Looking through the overlapping portion, it will appear darker than the non-overlapping portion. Two thicknesses versus one.
Tom
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Tom they should be there today or tommorow for you . They got a container full last week. Mine from Solms should be back today along with a exchange from a dealer on the other one. Waiting Waiting. Ups guy must be busy
Thanks Guy
Supposedly it was sent last Monday from NJ to Anchorage, now it has another 4000 mile trip back to the east coast to catch up with me.
Tom
Does anyone have any tips re. the Voigtländer 21mm viewfinder versus the Leica version of the same? The latter seems to go for roughly the same price as the former, used vs. new, and I am not sure if there is a significant difference. I mildly prefer the Voigtländer, actually.
Thanks I am slowly beginning to understand the design dilemma which Leica was confronted with. Either accept the lack of IR filter in front of the sensor and use filters on the lenses or use a "thick" sensor filter, with the accompanying problems, because of the angle of incidence.
Jack you have been of Leica for their design choice, but what could they have done differently?
timbedsted1234 wrote:
Jack you have been of Leica for their design choice, but what could they have done differently?
Tim
Sigh....... I think they could have easily put the thicker IR cut filter in front of their sensor in the first place! On the off chance it actually did cause sensor CA (which I doubt it would), that could be easily fixed with firmware and/or coding for raw conversion. But obviously others disagree with me
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Tom i have thought about tha verymuch with the magnifier and a great idea. i have the 90 elmarit latest version and i really like it a lot frames up well also
The late 90 Elmarit is probably a bit better but uses larger filters and is a bit bigger. The older 90 2.8's used 39mm filters which was more of a standard size in the old days, and the same 90-135 hood. BTW the macro 90 uses this hood too, so it is available new.
Tom
carstenw wrote:
Does anyone have any tips re. the Voigtländer 21mm viewfinder versus the Leica version of the same? The latter seems to go for roughly the same price as the former, used vs. new, and I am not sure if there is a significant difference. I mildly prefer the Voigtländer, actually.
The old metal Leica finders were nice but I have heard of more than one slipping off the flash shoe and smashing on a sidewalk. I have a CV 35mm finder to use on the M3 and it is quite OK, whereas the the Leica 35 finders are too collectable. I gather the CV finders in general are quite good.
Tom
fish_shooter wrote:
The old metal Leica finders were nice but I have heard of more than one slipping off the flash shoe and smashing on a sidewalk. I have a CV 35mm finder to use on the M3 and it is quite OK, whereas the the Leica 35 finders are too collectable. I gather the CV finders in general are quite good.
Tom
BTW, I have read that the M8 shoe may be of a different size. I have not yet been able to personally verify this This may be an important consideration with 3rd party as well as Leica brand finders.
Tom
Jack Flesher wrote:
Sigh....... I think they could have easily put the thicker IR cut filter in front of their sensor in the first place! On the off chance it actually did cause sensor CA (which I doubt it would), that could be easily fixed with firmware and/or coding for raw conversion. But obviously others disagree with me
Cheers,
I don't understand why you disagree on this one. Have you seen the R-D1 pictures posted on the Leica forum where the same lens was compared on the M8 and R-D1? In spite of having a smaller crop factor, the Leica images eliminated some pretty dramatic image problems. *That* is why a thicker filter is not desirable. Ghosts of lights in the corner areas were the worst issue.
Edited by carstenw on Dec 19, 2006 at 06:34 AM GMT
fish_shooter wrote:
If you have two conventional black and white filters of the same type (e.g., Wratten 25) lying about you can do a simple experiment. Hold up one in front of an illuminated blank wall or plain surface, now hold up the second one so it partially covers the first. Looking through the overlapping portion, it will appear darker than the non-overlapping portion. Two thicknesses versus one.
Have you actually tried it? The overlapping portion looks the same because they both cut the same portion of the spectrum. It's a great way to illustrate the difference between CC and spectral cut filters, with CC the density doubles, with cut filters there's no difference how many times the same portion of the spectrum is removed.
Each filter to the right passes progressively a subset of the filters to its left.
Except the green, which blocks much of red, so between it as the #29 not much is passed.
The M8 also doesn't seem to distinguish much between the #25 and #29, it seems to have somewhat peculiar red sensitivity. To the naked eye two deep reds are quite different.
Also, it seems to pick up IR off the paper underneath.
we spend to argue about Resolution, Detail and Sharpness, we may as well just agree on the definition first.
This may be an important consideration with 3rd party as well as Leica brand finders.