Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of uhoh7's message #13924088 « First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action »
  

uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 ). I have loved it ever since (OK v3 I returned for v2). I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that. That front filter work and Fred's ZM 35 modding...real history

OK, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn. But, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:59 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 ). I have loved it ever since (OK v3 I returned for v2). I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that. That front filter work and Fred's ZM 35 modding...real history

OK, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:59 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 ). I have loved it ever since (OK v3 I returned for v2). I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that. That front filter work and Fred's ZM 35 modding...real history

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:56 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 ). I have loved it ever since (OK v3 I returned for v2). I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:53 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 ). I have loved it ever since. I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:51 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best 8612 :cool ). I have loved it ever since. I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:51 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

Like the rapidwinder, what Michael caused Illija to make possible was historic. It changed my life. I hated that camera until it came back with the v1(which was the best). I have loved it ever since. I have seen enough to know Sam and Astro, with NK have taken the full step. The rest is software. That is serious history. The camera at my house right now, succeed or fail, it's trying something never done. Shoot me, I love that.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:49 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these new mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:33 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise. But unlike your claims about these mew mods, I really had been there. I think I had the second camera. Not because I was so smart, just because I was so desperate.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:32 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

Maybe I was not grateful enough for your sideways testing? That was not personal, I'd had the mod already for months, I Knew who was responsible for it, and I'd tried my best to share my experience and credit them, Michael and Illija. You made big thread and made some tests. I never said a discouraging word. I never learned anything new because I'd already been experimenting with my stuff for months. I did forget to turn my camera sideways, instead I put distant details in a corner. Other people were greatly helped by your tests. I've never thought otherwise.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:27 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes. If you can teach me a new way to reach M240 performance with A7x, you can spell my name upside down and backwards, I would still want to kiss you.

PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:19 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that. Instead, it's about my bad spelling as a veiled insult. Yikes.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:14 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 06:04 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.

This thread is full of new information nobody here knew, least of all me, back when you "been there done that". It's a real shame you don't see or appreciate that.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:59 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:51 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess, like marking territory,


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:50 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings? It would have to be a personal motivation, I guess.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:48 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me. Why would I distract that quest with my own half-baked misgivings?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:44 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry. I guess I could join the discussion of front end filters to school them all about how it's not for me, but for some reason I love what they are trying, even though it's not for me.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:38 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. You can hold a camera sideways, no doubt about that, but I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides. Very silly expectation on my part, sorry.


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:34 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen outside astrophotography forums. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:32 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Links. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:30 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? Looks. please, many would love to see them. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:30 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Why is Leica the only one to put the IR cut IN the coverglass, and forget the filter stack? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:27 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steep ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:25 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. It was Leica's fundamental strategy to deal with the steps ray angles on M-wides. Why do you think the M8 had the thinnest cover of any digital camera ever made? Critical spec to Solms, but irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 05:25 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. Irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.

I am not the smart guy. I am the annoying, persistent guy


Feb 16, 2017 at 02:36 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. Irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You have seen actual samples of any modded A7rii? You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.



Feb 16, 2017 at 02:34 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. Irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether. We should be able to get some idea of what they are by comparing a number of lenses on the v2 and the utv1 (Ultra-Thin Version 1)

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.



Feb 16, 2017 at 02:31 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. Irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether.

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?


PS photo forums are full of one line dismissals of everything from camera types to images to whatever. I care about this subject and I have put alot of time into trying expand our knowledge and share it, not because I want to be the smart guy, but because I love my M wides. I may get excited, but I don't want to mislead anybody, especially myself , and I never hold a grudge. I may fire back at a post sometimes. Then it's over. And I am ready to amend any view on good evidence from anyone, as I have done many times in this forum. Yes, I'm a little passionate, please don't take it personally. It's beyond a character flaw, it's a condition, I must live with, and people around me deal with, but it has also pushed me to explore and learn.

So, please, don't let my "issues" blunt what matters, which is what other people are contributing here, like Sam, NK, Astro, Illja many others who I have tortured via email and messaging to learn and confirm.



Feb 16, 2017 at 02:29 AM
uhoh7
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action


hiepphotog wrote
I usually don't nitpick people spelling my name wrong, but coupled that with the condescending tone throughout is not a really nice approach to respond to anyone.
So, we want to use words like "condescending"? Really? You can spell my name any way you want, I meant no disrespect in my spelling sorry.

Yes Charlie, I do understand these are different mods from Taiwan. I voiced my skepticism cause I have gone through this process once myself. I have done the most extensive test out there (stock A7RII vs. mod vs. M9) with a bunch of lenses. The Kolari mod was v2 (same thickness as v3 but different IR response)
You have gone this process? Been there done that? You pulled your coverglass? Mod what? You mind to tell us what camera you had the mod on ?

My main skepticism is until I see some slanted infinity shots, direct comparison between a stock and mod A7RII at WO (center and corner crops at least), I would not be so worked up about it. It seems like you're on a war path to cast aside any skepticism around here.
Vague non-specifc critique without reference, or any evidence of reading the thread, I follow up on. Anyone is free to back up any contention.

With all these different filters, physical thickness is not a good way to communicate. If we want to be more accurate, I would like to see some optical thickness of these filters. But beyond that, regardless of what their optical thickness is, if the result is better, I don't really care how they do it. Retaining the original WB response is also the major point to me as well. Until I see some controlled, well-done test, I will always have my doubt. Been there, done that.
You've done it all, but I'm the condescending one, right?

The actual physical thickness of the glass is not a good way to communicate? Seriously? That is the most fundamental measurable aspect we have have. Irrelevant to you, I guess.

Optical thickness? To get the precise refractive index you have to know exactly the glass type, and even then, you are relying on the manufacturer to provide that. Unless you know of a way to easily measure?

Since the glass choice of M240 and Kolari is proprietary, knowing the exact "optical thickness" is basically impossible. Ideally we would know it. In the case of the NK mods and Leica there is likely very little difference in "optical thickness" since these are absorptive IR cuts of similar thicknesses which set out to the same job as the schott benchmark S8612 which the M9 original employed at .8mm. The NK performance certainly suggests both of those IR choices are if anything, of less optical thickness. The new glass Illija has found is quite different, and it may have different refractive properties altogether.

You can't be bothered to even acknowledge a completely new mod technique, or images which show detail of the A7 filter stack not seen in this forum. You knew about the clear glued coverglass of the A7? Funny you never mentioned it. You don't seem curious or to encourage any exploration past your own experience. Which is fine. No law says you have to. I would think you would be alot more interested in new possibilities and cheer on those working to improve A7 performance with Leica wides, but what do I know?





Feb 16, 2017 at 02:00 AM





  Previous versions of uhoh7's message #13924088 « First Sighting: A7rii Thin filter in action »
 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.