My problem summary; and a note to Leica

[John Camp]

Of the three major image problems -- streaking, green blobs and magenta cast -- I've decided after several days of shooting that I can actually live, for a while at least, with the streaking and green blobs, because I have to force them. I refuse to argue about this anymore, and I understand that some people can't live with these issues because they shoot a lot of bright lights against dark areas; but I would say that most people (say, 95%, which is a number I just pulled out of a place where the sun don't shine) can live with them quite easily. That's why Sean Reid and Michael Reichmann didn't notice them: the problems are encountered only in narrow circumstances.

The magenta problem is different; it can get you at any time, and is random. So if you shoot somebody wearing black, or a black umbrella, you may encounter a coating that reflects a lot of IR. In a crowd of people wearing black, like in a typical New York street scene, you may get an unfixable-by-any-means mixture of magenta and black. This has to be fixed. Since I use filters anyway, I would be willing to put a filter on my camera if that fixes the problem. I would prefer a permanent, internal fix, however.

I have some advice for Leica:

I know you're dealing with these problems, and I'm confident that you will provide either a firmware or hardware fix that will deal with the streaking.

But I would suggest that you're going to piss off a lot of people if you suggest that the only IR fix is to buy filters at full price. I use your most expensive 21, 28, 35, 50 (Noctilux and Summilux), 75 and 90mm lenses, plus the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50, and an old 50mm summicron. That's nine lenses (for which I paid ~ $20,000), and I don't want to change filters every time I change a lens. If I have to pay $900+ for good filters, just to get functional lenses, knowing that you're making an additional profit on each one, and the dealer is, I'm going to be very unhappy. I think you should make the filters available at **your cost,** and announce that soon. I don't expect you to go broke sending free filters to anyone who wants one, but I think an at-cost filter would be a fair solution.

And since these apparently won't be available immediately, I think you should publish a list of other maker's filters that will do the job, if there are any. That would show your good will and your intention to provide a fix, whatever it takes.

JC

 

[Erl]

John, you must be joking! You elaborate many reasons, all of which I agree with, why a fix (I mean FIX!) should be executed by Leica and then invite them to supply say,1/2 price filters as the means. I don't know what sort of photography you practice but such a method would be TOTALLY unacceptable to the majority of Leica users. The fix must be UNIVERSAL and permanent.

No quarter given. Fortunately, I believe Leica understand this situation and will deliver, eventually.

Cheers,
Erl

 

[Mark Norton]

That's why Sean Reid and Michael Reichmann didn't notice them: the problems are encountered only in narrow circumstances.

JC, Reichmann did notice them and there were picture of green blobs in a picture of an underground car park in the original LL review. Presumably Leica made him pull them, telling him the camera was faulty. Indeed it was, the problem is, there isn't yet a fix.

Before release, Leica hit behind "the firmware's not final". Now, they're hiding behind "the camera's faulty". Only now are they waking up to the fact that there are issues which need to be fixed and I don't get the apologists who are paying hundreds on filters to make the camera do something it should have done out of the box.

I do agree with you about the filters though - if that really is the only solution - and it will be a lot cheaper for Leica to go the filter route rather than the sensor upgrade route - Leica should do something like supplying the filters directly, at cost, preferably free - 5 free filters with an M8, for example. That said, I'd much rather have a sensor which does what it's supposed to. The filters smack of compromise.

 

[Ossifan]

I find this all rather depressing. I have been watching the M8 drama unfold with the hope that it would secure the future. I doubt I'll ever be much of a digital photographer (other than family photos because of convenience) and I very much enjoy the whole process of shooting, developing and printing B&W. I have an M6 TTL and an MP and a couple of really nice Leica lenses. I could probably never afford the M8. I find it a little depressing that the M8 is having problems. Someone suggested in another thread that Leica should have thought about a full size sensor and make it upgradeable. Perhaps that should be the fix. I don't know. In any case, I really hope this can be resolved to all of your satisfaction and that Leica will survive into the future.

Best,
Alex

 

[John Camp]

JC, Reichmann did notice them and there were picture of green blobs in a picture of an underground car park in the original LL review. Presumably Leica made him pull them, telling him the camera was faulty. Indeed it was, the problem is, there isn't yet a fix.

Before release, Leica hit behind "the firmware's not final". Now, they're hiding behind "the camera's faulty". Only now are they waking up to the fact that there are issues which need to be fixed and I don't get the apologists who are paying hundreds on filters to make the camera do something it should have done out of the box.

I do agree with you about the filters though - if that really is the only solution - and it will be a lot cheaper for Leica to go the filter route rather than the sensor upgrade route - Leica should do something like supplying the filters directly, at cost, preferably free - 5 free filters with an M8, for example. That said, I'd much rather have a sensor which does what it's supposed to. The filters smack of compromise.

Mark,

I wrote that note before I saw the Reichmann follow-up. Interesting follow-up it was.

I'm like you -- I really want a fix, but I've been through this before, with the Kodak DSLRs, and any internal fix is going to be very, very expensive. The first Kodak I had, the SLRn, actually had to be sent in for a sensor swap, and they charged you $1500, which they said was their cost. People sort of freaked out because, as with the M8, it was already an expensive camera.

From my experience with that, and all the screaming and bad-feeling that surrounded it, I would say that 1) "fixing" the sensor would be more expensive than simply swapping it out for a new one, because getting rid of the bad parts and adding new would be a highly difficult and sensitive technical problem; and that 2) a new sensor, being a new sensor, is going to be really expensive, and Leica will not pick up the cost. If they have already shipped say, 5000 cameras, and their price is the same as Kodak's, that would mean a loss to them of some $7.5 million...Instead, they will argue, as Kodak did, that the camera is performing "to spec," and will want the buyers of early cameras to pay much of the cost of what will be called (as it was in Kodak's case) an "upgrade."

If that is the case, I'd rather have at-cost Leica filters, if they're a complete solution to the problem (although that might also involve some C1 tweaks.) I'm hard on cameras, and use filters for lens protection anyway, so it wouldn't be a big penalty. I just don't want to pay ~$1,000 at retail for a complete set of filters. Like you, I accumulated a bunch of lenses in the run-up to the M8 launch. I need eight filters, if i put a filter on an old summicron that I still occasionally use; I probably wouldn't do that, but I'd still need seven. And I'd be willing to pay, say, $350-$400 for the seven filters, which would be about Leica's cost, I think.

JC

 

[JonasYip]

Mark] And I'd be willing to pay, say, $350-$400 for the seven filters, which would be about Leica's cost, I think.

The B+W 486 (UV/IR cut, recommended for digital sensors that are sensitive beyond the visible spectrum) retail for about $60 for the 46mm size. Seven of them adds up to pretty much that range depending on the sizes you need.

j

 

[John Camp]

The B+W 486 (UV/IR cut, recommended for digital sensors that are sensitive beyond the visible spectrum) retail for about $60 for the 46mm size. Seven of them adds up to pretty much that range depending on the sizes you need.

j

Where did you see that price? I need 3@46mm, 1@49mm, 2@60mm and @55mm. From the postings on some of the other forums, I got the impression that people had paid ~ $110 for the B+W 486. If they're less expensive than that, that'd be great.

JC

 

[JonasYip]

Hmm, you're right. At BHPhoto who I normally order from they do seem to be ~$100, perhaps because they have the "slim" version. They didn't have any in the 46mm size so I did a search and the only one that came up was at Adorama for $63 ( http://www.adorama.com/BW46UVIR.html ). That said, I've never ordered from Adorama so I don't know if there are "gotcha's" associated with that.

In any case it doesn't seem to be an item that many people have in stock... I thought about getting one just to see how it affects my RD-1 images, since the RD-1 is pretty IR sensitive.

Good luck with the M8 fixin'... I hope they work it out because I'd really like to have one at some point! My gut feel is that the only proper fix is at the sensor level, improving the IR filtering perhaps unfortunately at the expense of corner performance. Which would actually make the filter on the lens method perhaps not a bad alternative... hmm...

j