[Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?

[bryanwi at bryanwi.com (Bryan Willman)]

I don't know about the fragility or lack there of of the IR filter.

I do know this:

1. 21f1.4 works well.   In some extreme cases - notably apperature
shadow with sun at an angle - you get funny color separation - instead
of one aperture shapped highlight, you get 3 of different colors.  (Can
I attach a .jpg to email on this list?  That would demo.)  It doesn't
much bother me.   Lots of shots, this lens is a winner.

2. I've shot pix with the 12mmf5.6, and for my very limited test, they
looked fine.   I've not tried a careful test.  Might change my mind.

3. I've also shot with an 8mm fisheye (in nikon mount, put on a nikon F
to M adapter) and the M9 gets the full image circle, and I didn't see
anything weird on first glance.  Again, might change my mind.

Both #2 and #3 will require more testing.

4. [WARNING ON - I measured MY stemar very carefully, and my M9, and
concluded there was clearence.   I accept no liablity if you have one
that goes too deep and creams your shutter. END]

My stemar fits and works on the M9 (only really boring test images so
far) - the RF works.  The light meter, as expected, is hopelessly
confused, but with a digital camera "guess and histogram" allows
exposure to be found quickly.  Nothing damaged.  And I've not seen
anything too weird in the corners.

If people are really interested in this, I'll try to write/post more
about it later.

NOTE: The stemar fits and 'works' on an M8, but you get the right 2/3's
of the left image, and the left 2/3's of the right image, so making an
actual stereo image is very very hard, and setting it up in the finder
is impossible.   This all goes away with the full frame M9.


So, when you think about "works" with the M9, there are really THREE
different levels of works.

A. Can you mount the lens on the M9 body without damaging the body, the
lens, or both?  Some of the lenses the Leica lists as "do not use" seem
to be prime candidates to whack the shutter.   This is really cut and
dried.

B. Can you make a picture which is good enough for your particular
purpose, with or without some tolerable amount of fixup in photoshop,
etc.?   One suspects that the Zeiss 21 is mismatched with the micro
lenses so badly that it's just a huge pain to use, especially when there
are other 21's that seem to do much better.

C. Is the lens adequate for some very exacting technical purpose?

I'm not a fashion photographer.  The science and documentary photos I
make are all about content, not color shifts.   So C. doesn't affect me
much.   Therefore lenses that I think 'work fine' might make some people
crazy.

Finally - given enough data, one would *think* that software could fix a
lot of this up.   Is there a consensus on what the best software for
these tasks is?   (If you know the focal length and virtual pupil, and
maybe have a guess at subject distance, and you know a lot about the
sensor (at least somebody does) - a good degree of post correction
should be possible, no?)

Of course, IR filter cracking would be really bad.

bmw


 

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bryanwi=bryanwi.com at leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bryanwi=bryanwi.com at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Tina Manley
Sent: Saturday, 19 December, 2009 09:59 AM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile
to use?

At 12:29 PM 12/19/2009, you wrote:

>The answer to the 21 SA on the M9 would be interesting... anyone have a
lens
>and a M9 to try it out?
>
>
>Frank Filippone

I have the M9 but my 21 is the Elmarit 21/2.8.  Would that do?  I 
also have the Voigtlander 12mm that I've used on my M8s and M9 with 
no problems.  I'll see if I can find some samples.  The 12mm is in 
the city and I'm at the farm today.  I have the M9 and 21 here.

Tina

Tina Manley
www.tinamanley.com 



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information