Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/12/20

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?
From: dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:42:15 -0500
References: <8c8849060912180102j3e923072n699bfa64072e7442@mail.gmail.com> <4563F7F7-54B0-434F-BE00-17FFAC3C1E15@ameritech.net> <36172e5a0912181442w147b5244rbc2debf41f2c6dc1@mail.gmail.com> <634544D3-95D0-4A72-AF0F-91C2B8AB76EE@ameritech.net> <36172e5a0912181950h5e8faea5i4555f72307297462@mail.gmail.com> <7BFAA2CB-E2F6-41C2-B8E7-3D5DD46D7E7C@ameritech.net> <697603.39657.qm@web86708.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

Frank:

You're right that Leica has no obligation to do it.  

Despite the lack of a legal or moral imperative to do so, I think you'll see 
Leica address this issue as a matter of self-preservation.  People like 
wide-angle lenses (as is evidenced by the explosion of wide-angle lenses on 
the market), and not everyone is going to shell out $13K for an M9 and a 
WATE.  So should Leica forego all of the money as people start bailing for, 
say, the Nikon D3xs and the 17-35 Nikkor?  My suspicion is that Leica will 
find a way to make every last Super-Angulon, Biogon, Heliar, etc., work so 
that it can keep its M9 volumes up.

Kodak addressed radial shifts on the SLR/x series by having users shoot test 
exposures at a couple of apertures - and the camera itself did the 
computations on a one-time basis and created profiles (like Cornerfix but 
without involving a computer).  Since this technology (and programming) has 
been out there for something like 6 years, it's surprising that it didn't 
make it into the M8 and M9.

And the cat has long been out of the bag - bending the laws of physics using 
signal processing was already done in the M8 and is already done to a high 
degree in the M9.

Regards,
Dante

On Dec 20, 2009, at 2:25 PM, FRANK DERNIE wrote:

> A few simple points. The fact that Leica customers used to use non Leica 
> lenses on their film bodies does not mean -all- of them will work with 
> with their digital bodies for the reasons that have been quoted very many 
> times over the years.
> When Puts did his lens tests on the 15mm CV lens Leica were not only still 
> only making film cameras but had made it clear that most RF lenses were 
> not suitable for digital.
> After much pressure from the market Leica have made a brave, and IMO 
> successful, attempt to resolve these issues. It leaves a tiny number of 
> lenses both Leica and other makes, most designed when digital was unheard 
> of, that are not compatible.
> They cannot repeal the laws of physics. Compensation for colour errors and 
> vignetting can be made up to an extent, though it has other implications 
> on dynamic range.
> Most of my life the widest lens used on an M was 21mm, now we have the 
> 16mm WATE.
> I don't know what the winging is about. The vast majority of M mount 
> lenses work brilliantly, a tiny number are incompatible.
> There is no colour shift on the compatible lenses, so stick to using them.
> If there is a non-Leica lens which needs correction software to work on 
> the Leica then its manufacturer should supply this to its customers. It 
> has bugger all to do with Leica.
> Frank
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net>
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Sunday, 20 December, 2009 15:18:55
> Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to 
> use?
> 
> Geoff:
> 
> I'm sure it will eventually be fixed in firmware.  Both the radial and 
> asymmetrical shifts were issues that Kodak had on its own cameras.  My 
> point was that the M9, like the M8, was released to "it's perfect" 
> cheerleading by hardcore Leica enthusiasts - and that again, waiting for 
> the 2010 production run (or firmware, more likely) is starting to look 
> like a good idea (for the same reason you wouldn't buy a car the first 
> year a new platform comes out).  Of course, with Leica's "let's spend as 
> little as possible" development budget for M cameras (and now digital Ms), 
> it could take a while.
> 
> Leica will fix this color shift problem because it has to.  One of the 
> three major selling points of the M9 is that "wides are truly wide" (the 
> other two are resolution and the ability to use your old lenses)  But when 
> you get to 21mm and below,* if the "wides that are truly wide" are limited 
> to are newest-generation lenses in the $5,000-6000 range, this is not a 
> very compelling point.  And buying a new lens defeats the "re-using old 
> lenses" justification: once you are buying a new camera and new lenses, 
> you might as well be cross-shopping other systems.
> 
> And let's not all be intentionally blind about the fact that Leica sells 
> (and historically has sold) bodies *because* people have collections of 
> other manufacturers' lenses (or because those were available).  That's the 
> only reason why manual lens coding made an appearance on the M9 - because 
> all Leica lenses that could be used with the cameras could be coded.  So 
> that leaves?  Cosina, Konica, Zeiss... Leica has, historically, had a 
> symbiotic relationship with other optical manufacturers, whether 
> authorized or not.  C.f. the 1950s, when the only way Leica could sell 
> cameras in the United States was to combine them with Japanese lenses that 
> were subject to a lower duty.  There may have even been no post-war IIIc, 
> IIIf, IIIg, or M3 without that.   Then there was the Minolta CL/CLE 
> arrangement.  Then the modern question: why did Leica allow Erwin Puts to 
> publish, on Leica's web site, a Leica lens book that included the 15mm 
> Cosina lens?
> 
> Best,
> Dante
> 
> *I know from experience that a 15mm CV works fine on an M8 as a "21mm" 
> lens, and I haven't seen any systematic complaining about the 12mm as a 
> "16mm" lens on that platform.  Any focal length longer than that is either 
> correctible by taking a step backward or getting one focal length shorter 
> (for a couple of grand, max...).
> 
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:50 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
> 
>> OK then Dante. That would be a problem with those Cosina Voigtlander 
>> lenses
>> then, not Leica ;-) No worries.
>> I'd also seen a comment from PopFlash that Zeiss are not recommending 
>> their
>> ZM 4.5 21 on the M9 (but all other ZM lenses OK). I understand that the
>> latest free Cornerfix works well with that one (as it does with the
>> asymmetric overcorrection that has been reported with some samples of the
>> Elmar 18. I read that Leica engineers have seen the testing and samples
>> reported on that. Perhaps it will be addressed in the next firmware 
>> release.
>> 
>> I sold my ZM 18 (and that 21) a while back so I can't comment from
>> experience on those. I'm happy with 24 as my widest now on the M9 (which 
>> is
>> why I had the 18 for my M8).
>> 
>> 
>> 2009/12/19 Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net>
>> 
>>> The 12mm and 15mm lenses are the ones causing consternation.
>>> 
>>> Dante
>>> 
>>> On Dec 18, 2009, at 5:42 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mine works fine including with my 24 and 28 wide open. The biggest
>>> problem
>>>> that people are reporting is simply that there aren't enough to go 
>>>> around
>>>> for all of the orders so far.
>>>> On the cover glass problem, there are six reports currently (from the
>>>> thousands of cameras delivered thus far), which is six too many of
>>> course.
>>>> Too early for the cause or causes to be determined. One camera was
>>> replaced
>>>> on the spot by the dealer (lucky customer that the dealer had another)
>>> and
>>>> one that was returned to Solms was repaired in 2 days. I hope the other 
>>>> 4
>>>> customers can soon report similar rapid resolutions.
>>>> 
>>>> 2009/12/19 Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net>
>>>> 
>>>>> Bear in mind that replacing the sensor glass on an M8 requires a
>>>>> board-level replacement ($1,800) - so if this situation occurs with the
>>> M9,
>>>>> and you don't catch it in-warranty, you could be in for a world of 
>>>>> hurt.
>>> I
>>>>> don't think Leica changed any of its procurement practices.  I suspect
>>> that
>>>>> it simply lacks the clean room necessary to replace the glass to Leica
>>>>> cleanliness standards and can pass the massive cost of what should be a
>>> $300
>>>>> repair to the end user.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh yeah... M9, perfect the day it was released, no teething problems,
>>>>> investment for the ages, etc.  So we have red shifting, complaints 
>>>>> about
>>>>> wide-angle lenses, complaints about incomplete IR blocking, and now
>>> broken
>>>>> cover glasses.  Every manufacturer of everything has problems early in
>>> the
>>>>> production run.  It's unrealistic to expect that a digital camera 
>>>>> pushed
>>> out
>>>>> the door in 18 months would be any different.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And as my father said, "every car looks like a classic the year it 
>>>>> comes
>>>>> out."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dante
>>>>> 
>>>>> ____________
>>>>> Dante Stella
>>>>> http://www.dantestella.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> NO ARCHIVE
>>>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers
>>> Geoff
>>> http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



Replies: Reply from douglas.sharp at gmx.de (Douglas Sharp) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
In reply to: Message from jsjgroups at gmail.com (Jerry Justianto) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)
Message from frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE) ([Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to use?)