Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I remember the issue on the M8 to be.... the coating has thickness, if the angle of incidence of the light rays pass at different angles ( like in WA lenses) then the effect is different ( because the rays of light are passing through different thickness of coating), and therefore there is possible image degradation/warpage dependent on wavelength and focal length and image content. None of which can be calibrated out. However, the other (Leica) spin was that it improved image quality compared to not have the filter..... which is theoretically true, so why, on a reflex camera that is trying to be the worlds' best, include the filter? If you wish to produce the very best, why bother with an element that has negative effect on the image, that could be left off? Customer (M8) whining/complaints from the lens filters? It is a very practical response.... and I must applaud Leica for fixing it..... Note: The DMR has an IR filter. Apparently users like the DMR ...... so why not follow success? Frank Filippone red735i at earthlink.net Most digital cameras have had this from the beginning of digital photography. It is OK with lenses made for reflex cameras or specifically designed for digital sensors. It is unsuitable for rangefinder type wide angles. That is why the M8 does not have it. Frank >> >> For those that follow these things, the S2 will have a permanently >> mounted >> IR filter in front of the sensor ( actually bonded to it). >> >> I want to read through the rest ... there is a lot of info in the >> blog.....