M8 Magenta Cast

[jani]

The enlarged current homepage image is a 792x500 jpeg. At that size, I can't imagine how you could tell what camera or sensor size took it. Surely the web isn't the ultimate destination for Michael's best work; if it were, why does he spend so much time and money on printers? IMHO, any picture on the web (even with a good monitor) is effectively a thumbnail.

I have to agree with Jan.

Another point is that much of Michael's work still makes for good web "thumbnails" simply because they're usually well-composed, interesting and/or captivating images.

That doesn't change much with the medium, and it is far more important than whether he took the picture with an S30, an X-Pan, something with a P45 attached, or cropped it out of an old drum scan from his Pentax 67.

I originally prepared to post a bunch of sample links from Michael's work to see if Jeff could tell the P45 images from the P&S images, or the film from the digital, but I thought it was a silly idea. Now I'm not so sure.  But perhaps Jeff is better served by browsing through the old images himself and see how difficult it is to tell the camera without having the article text as an aid.

Comparing 1:1 pixel crops is an entirely different matter, of course; that's pixel-peeping.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think that Sean Reid may have explained the issue pretty well. DSLRs have by necessity wide angle lenses of retrofocus design. In a retrofucus design the rays exciting the lens are close to perpendicular to the sensor. In a rangefinder design the rear of the lens can be very close to the sensor, so rays can hit the sensor from very large angles. It may be the case that dichroic infrared filters are not working very well at large angles, which has also has been discussed/demonstrated in Mr. Sean Reids article.

Leica could of course build lenses which are optimized for digital sensors, that is more SLR-like lenses. These lenses would probably get bigger, heavier, more expensive. Off axis performance would probably also suffer.

Sean Reid actually indicated that the Epson RD1 also shares the same problem,although possibly to a lesser extent.

In my view the issue is that Leica has made a technical decision which benefits their  optics from the performance aspect. I think that Leica should have warned their customers that front mounted IR-cut off filters would be needed in certain cases.

For most Leica customers the Leica design may be just fine. Image quality is supposed to be very good. I also presume that many Leica customers already have lenses that can be used on the new M8. For some applications, like wedding photography, the implications of the weak IR cutoff filter may be catastrophic. Leica should have informed their customers about the issue.

Should Michael Reichmann refrain from issuing a review? No, I don't think so! Michaels review are much about user experience and not about deep technical analysis. Michael felt that there was something funny with color reproduction "Leicachrome", but he felt that this was more like a profile/raw conversion issue. It's quite obvious now that some of the problems can be corrected using better color profiles.

I was eagerly waiting for the M8 review and I'm glad that Michael has published it. There may be some customers who bought this camera and got problems with IR-related coloring artifacts. I feel sorry for those customers, but I think that their problems will be solved, even if it with additional cost and inconvenience.

It is also quite obvious that most Leica customers are are users who already have an investment in Leica equipment. For those users I think that the M8 is great news.

Best regards

Erik

I refer to the defective M8; the DMR has no such issues. Which makes the whole story of how this design got past the in-house testers even more puzzling.

And let me be clear: I own a M8. The conversion of Leica mechanical to Leica digital is very good, but the sensor lets the product down. With a sensor re-engineered to deal with the IR and banding this would be an unbeatable product. As it stands I can unreservedly recommend it to landscape and urban daytime shooters, in particular to those who like black and white. Anyone  who needs a color-accurate camera for use in artifical light should either use filters or wait for the sensor to be fixed.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Quentin]

I'm curious if the fact Leica have temporarily stopped shipment to dealers signals a hardware fix, not some firmware or software fix.  New IR filter, perhaps?

Quentin

[Carsten W]

I'm curious if the fact Leica have temporarily stopped shipment to dealers signals a hardware fix, not some firmware or software fix.  New IR filter, perhaps?

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The latest information is that the hardware changes are to deal with the 'streaking' issue, not the IR sensitivity. That will be dealt with by a combination of firmware updates, colour profile updates, and IR filters on the lenses.

This could all be completely wrong, but that is the latest.

[vgogolak]

The latest information is that the hardware changes are to deal with the 'streaking' issue, not the IR sensitivity. That will be dealt with by a combination of firmware updates, colour profile updates, and IR filters on the lenses.

This could all be completely wrong, but that is the latest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That does see the direction, since the IR sensitivity increases detail andsharpness and IR capability that some want.

Unlike other filters, this one seems also not to degrade th Visiblelight image.

[mcfoto]

I'm curious if the fact Leica have temporarily stopped shipment to dealers signals a hardware fix, not some firmware or software fix.  New IR filter, perhaps?

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
Here is a press release.
www.pdnonline.com/pdn/prodtech/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003438498
The IR filter was too thin, how much is this camera??? They are going to fix it.
Thanks Denis

[pixman63]

The IR filter was too thin, how much is this camera???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The IR filter was kept thin as a deliberate design decision. Discussions of this issue elsewhere have noted that an increase in thickness of just 0.25mm would result in reduced image quality, in the corners especially. Doubtless if Leica had opted for that from the outset the self-appointed experts would be criticising the M8 for its poor corner sharpness.

These are matters that affect all digital cameras. The various Canon full-frame models have been criticised for poor corner sharpness when using wide-angle lenses. The Epson R-D1, as has been noted earlier in this thread, also suffers from a milder form of the IR magenta effect (and a pretty hefty dose of vignetting with certain wide-angle lenses). Nikon's D2H shows the magenta effect similarly to the R-D1, as do some at least of the earlier Nikon bodies; the D100, D1X being ones I'm aware of.

Surely the point here is that colour casts - although undoubtedly an annoyance, in particular fo those users who shoot regularly in conditions likely to induce the problem - can be corrected by use of filters, or colour profiling, or a combination of the two. Inferior image quality can not be retrieved. Make your choice.

[BernardLanguillier]

Doubtless if Leica had opted for that from the outset the self-appointed experts would be criticising the M8 for its poor corner sharpness.

Surely the point here is that colour casts - although undoubtedly an annoyance, in particular fo those users who shoot regularly in conditions likely to induce the problem - can be corrected by use of filters, or colour profiling, or a combination of the two. Inferior image quality can not be retrieved. Make your choice.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87803\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My guts feeling is that many a Leica M8 users are pretty new to digital. I could be wrong.

From this standpoint, when you come from a film background, and are told that digital is better, you might not be prepared to compromise, even if the negative impact ends up being pretty small.

The whole issue is IMHO pretty much a matter of poor expectations mgt. Leica is by the way probably only partially responsible for this.

Photographers as a group are somehow placing unreasonnable hopes in digital technology. Like a small scale instantiation of the belief that technology - seen as a black box - will save the World. Things are always more complex when you try to look inside the box, but why would a Leica M6 film photographer be interested in looking inside the digital box?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

My guts feeling is that many a Leica M8 users are pretty new to digital. I could be wrong.

From this standpoint, when you come from a film background, and are told that digital is better, you might not be prepared to compromise, even if the negative impact ends up being pretty small.

The whole issue is IMHO pretty much a matter of poor expectations mgt. Leica is by the way probably only partially responsible for this.

Photographers as a group are somehow placing unreasonnable hopes in digital technology. Like a small scale instantiation of the belief that technology - seen as a black box - will save the World. Things are always more complex when you try to look inside the box, but why would a Leica M6 film photographer be interested in looking inside the digital box?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many of the M8 issues have nothing to do with digital. I don't think I can be called a newcomer to digital

I just used the M8 as a tourist camera for a few days.  Here are my experiences:

The camera is small enough to be dropped in a small pack. However, I couldn't take the charger (too large for my single backpack).

The battery lasted as long as the 2GB card. I don't think a more capacious battery or a smaller charger would be that hard to make. I would have bought a spare battery except I can't get one.

People like the M8, it is not as attention grabbing as an SLR.

Color and color balance are completely random. Auto color balance mostly doesn't work.

Manual focusing a 75 is tiring. After a while you really don't want to do it.

The finder is horrible to use. More light please. There is no way to predict framing for the 75mm.

When I came back, I had a lot of misframed pcitures, a lot of slightly unsharp images, a lot of magenta colors. And a couple of black and white keepers whose quality was basically the same as that of an old 35mm shot.

Frankly, if Canon could put a Rebel sensor and electronics and some AF in the Leica box with an optical viewfinder, I would prefer it. For now the M8 is the only game in town in that form factor.

Edmund

[Ray]

Frankly, if Canon could put a Rebel sensor and electronics and some AF in the Leica box with an optical viewfinder, I would prefer it. For now the M8 is the only game in town in that form factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Edmund,
A negative review from someone who owns the camera tends to have a lot of credibility. Many of us tend to be biased in favour of the equipment we own and sometimes too forgiving of its faults.

It all sounds like a big mess to me.

[Ray]

Comparing 1:1 pixel crops is an entirely different matter, of course; that's pixel-peeping.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86202\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's the only way to do it, pixel-peeping or not. 100% crops of 240 ppi images viewed on a monitor at 96 dpi (or slightly more) are generally representative of a huge print. It would be difficult for any differences to remain hidden.

I've heard claims that two 100% crops that look identical on screen (at minimum jpeg compression) can look different when printed, but I'm skeptical.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I've heard claims that two 100% crops that look identical on screen (at minimum jpeg compression) can look different when printed, but I'm skeptical.

And with good reason. If it's the same on-screen (assuming a good quality, properly profiled monitor), the prints will be the same, as long as the same printer, paper, and settings are used for both. If there conditions are not met, meaningful comparisons are not possible.

[dlashier]

Frankly, if Canon could put a Rebel sensor and electronics and some AF in the Leica box with an optical viewfinder, I would prefer it. For now the M8 is the only game in town in that form factor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As I'm sure you know, there's no way the Rebel sensor would work in the box because of the angle of incidence. I'm amazed that Leica was able to create this camera at all - a few years ago they (and others) said it would never be possible. But I think I'll wait for the M9

- DL

[BernardLanguillier]

Many of the M8 issues have nothing to do with digital. I don't think I can be called a newcomer to digital

I just used the M8 as a tourist camera for a few days.  Here are my experiences:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not new to digital, but probably new to Leica aren't you?

Regards,
Bernard

[eronald]

Not new to digital, but probably new to Leica aren't you?

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87984\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard -

How did you guess ? I have indeed very little experience with Leica as I only owned 2 of them before the M8, and only 5 lenses. The lens I used most then was an 85 mm Canon 1.8, and the lens I use now is a 75 Summilux 1.4. I haven't used a Leica for 15 years, thankfully, as I sold my M4P in exchange for a Hassy (best photo decision I ever made).

A friend has remarked that the M8 monochrome images look like old Tri-X. The texture is wonderful.

I'd say that the M8 is suitable mostly as a moderate Wide Angle camera, and will supply 35mm equivalent imagery, whereas the Canon 1Ds and 1DsII I own and use for publication and gallery prints will supply Medium-format equivalent images. Note that with some retouching I obtain decent 13x18 prints from my Nokia N93 3 Megapixel camera phone with its Zeiss lens.

The M8 needs a better auto white balance so images come up looking good out of the box, an updated finder which sucks in more light, accurate frame lines (where is the 75 ?), a more capacious  battery, a small charger, ISO that can go up to clean 3200 ISO, and maybe -please, please-   a full-frame sensor.

The M8 is a good expensive camera that could be much better, which competes with much cheaper ones that are very good (Rebel, D200) and expensive  ones that are quite extraordinary (5D, 1Ds).

And yes, the images do have the "Leica texture" and the camera can indeed go anywhere.

Edmund

[hankg]

Leica had to deal with a problem that DSLR makers don't have. RF wide angle lens rear elements sitting so close to the sensor. The extreme angle that light rays are hitting the sensor evidently causes more then just vignetting problems, it complicates dealing with the IR issue.

Even with the IR cut filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the filter, users are encountering color shifts to cyan at the edge of the image with wide angle lenses as a result of the IR filters. Read Reviews has an eye opening set of images from a wide range of 28mm lens in his latest review showing varying degrees of cyan shift. Putting a stronger IR filter in front of the sensor would make this color shift problem even worse. It is a very difficult problem, which is why Leica has had to settle on the solution that they have. It remains to be seen if there is some more elegant technological solution to the problem possible in the near future.

So for those who think nothing short of a full frame sensor that functions like a Canon DSLR will do for a Digital Leica M, don't hold your breadth.

Hank Graber
www.hankgraber.com

[eronald]

I can understand that Leica had a difficult problem - but why if they were aware of the magenta cast problem didn't they supply the filter solution at launch ?

Judging from the fact that the camera was released with defective performance, I would conjecture that the "difficult problem" was known to engineering in the same way as the O-ring issue was known to the Discovery launch team.

Are the days when cameras just worked permanently behind us ?

Edmund

Leica had to deal with a problem that DSLR makers don't have. RF wide angle lens rear elements sitting so close to the sensor. The extreme angle that light rays are hitting the sensor evidently causes more then just vignetting problems, it complicates dealing with the IR issue.

Even with the IR cut filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the filter, users are encountering color shifts to cyan at the edge of the image with wide angle lenses as a result of the IR filters. Read Reviews has an eye opening set of images from a wide range of 28mm lens in his latest review showing varying degrees of cyan shift. Putting a stronger IR filter in front of the sensor would make this color shift problem even worse. It is a very difficult problem, which is why Leica has had to settle on the solution that they have. It remains to be seen if there is some more elegant technological solution to the problem possible in the near future.

So for those who think nothing short of a full frame sensor that functions like a Canon DSLR will do for a Digital Leica M, don't hold your breadth.

Hank Graber
www.hankgraber.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[hankg]

Cameras like cars are now as much computing devices as mechanical devices. Like computers and the software that they depend on cameras are now subject to impossibly short product cycles and sorting out problems and bugs with early adopters.

It's likely Leica's engineers were aware of the IR problem but were not aware of the real world implications of the solution they chose. Many photographers who initially tested the cameras were enthralled by the M-like nature and image quality of the camera but missed spotting the IR problem. So it's no suprise that engineers may have not properly gauged the effectiveness of the compromise they chose. I have plenty of experience working with programmers and engineers who are brilliant at what they do but clueless about the application side implications of what they produce.

Had they been able to start with a clean sheet of paper they could have avoided the problem by going with an R mount rangefinder using retrofocal wide angle lenses -but the whole point was to provide a solution for existing M lenses so they were faced with a much tougher technical hurdle. It's unfortunate the release played out the way it did. Had they announced a year ago that they had solved the quality problems associated with RF digital but it would require a IR cut filter many who are pissed off now may have been lining up to buy one. Managing expectations is more important in sales then the actual products final specs.

Hank Graber
www.hankgraber.com

[eronald]

I give Leica a plus point for actually getting a product out the door.
They get a minus by selling me a camera that needs to be sent back to base for a fix.

My suggestion is they find themselves a better bunch of testers next time round, and not use the reviewers or final clients as testers - the first are too indulgent, and the second too valuable to lose.

Also, it would appear that some M8 cameras do not have the banding problem - which leads one to wonder whether the "repair" will not be a band aid put in place on the faulty units. Basically I'm seriously worried whether my "repaired" M8 will not be a permanently unsaleable "first batch" albatros.

Edmund

Managing expectations is more important in sales then the actual product.

Hank Graber
www.hankgraber.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[dlashier]

Are the days when cameras just worked permanently behind us ?

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=88235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup, it was called "film".

- DL