Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/18

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

Subject: [Leica] (no subject)
From: schneiderpix at mac.com (Robert Schneider)
Date: Sat Nov 18 22:07:06 2006

First off, anti-alias filter is not the same as an infrared cutoff  
filter.  The DMR does not have an anti-alias filter (neither did the  
Kodak 14/n and 14/c), but the DMR clearly has adequate infrared  
filtration -- it doesn't have the color shifting of the M8.

You wrote: "If you are a fashion or product photographer who needs  
exact colors, you would not be using a Leica M anyway."  One person's  
opinion.  Leica Ms certainly have been used for fashion work in the  
past (Jeff Dunas leaps to mind).  And if you are actually saying that  
fashion and product photography are inappropriate uses for a Leica  
rangefinder, then why stop there?  It can be argued cogently that  
35mm is a ridiculous format for landscape photography, architecture  
photography, high-quality portraiture, jumbo enlargements, etc.,  
etc.  But 35mm cameras (and their digital equivalents) are used for  
these purposes everyday.

More to the point, however, I shoot weddings.  I would LOVE to have a  
digital rangefinder camera to supplement (and in many cases supplant)  
my two Canon 5Ds.  Wedding couples usually aren't fashion editors or  
fabric manufacturers, but very few couples I've worked with would be  
happy with purple tuxedos and other odd-colored clothing (and skin)  
in their wedding photos. The fact that my $5,000 German rangefinder  
camera is "supposed to" produce images that way will carry little  
water when the unhappy newlyweds complain about their funky photos.

I have quality-destroying UV filters on all my lenses, Leica, Canon,  
Xpan, etc., so I am certainly not averse to another layer of glass on  
my optics.  But telling photographers that they have to shell out  
$150 per filter for each M lens they own just to get their camera to  
work the way it is intended to work strikes me as grotesque.

To me it's simple: If the camera's above-average infrared sensitivity  
is not documented in the M8 instruction manual, if the need for an  
infrared cutoff filter when photographing people wearing clothes is  
not documented in the M8 instruction manual, then the camera is, in  
fact, defective.  It does not function as it was intended to function.

I am astonished that many people who bought this camera are making  
excuses for Leica rather than storming the gates in Solms.  A  
serious, EXPENSIVE, digital camera from any other manufacturer would  
have its users howling for blood, or at least a permanent, internal,  
non-half-assed fix.

If the Canon D30 or EOS1d had come to market with imaging defects on  
the order of those in the Leica M8, I suspect that Canon might not be  
the alpha dog in the digital realm.

IMO, YMMV, IOKIYAR, YYSSW, etc., etc.

rs

-------------------
Tina Manley wrote:

And he said that he has done that with many other reviews when he's
run into a problem that the manufacturers promise to fix with a later
software or firmware upgrade.  He says that his mistake with Leica
was not getting a promised date for the fix.  He says he won't make
that mistake again.  I, for one, trust Leica to come up with an
acceptable fix.  They know that their reputation for durability and
reliability (therefore the future of the company) is on the line. I
also think that the problem has been greatly exaggerated.  If you are
a fashion or product photographer who needs exact colors, you would
not be using a Leica M anyway.  For photojournalism - Leica M's forte
- the M8 is the best digital camera I've found.  The lack of an IR
filter is actually an advantage, not a fault.  Leica purposely left
the anti-alias filter out for sharper results straight from the
camera.  All digital cameras that include the anti-alias filter
require software fixes for the softness.  Leica requires software
fixes for the color since they don't have the filter.  If I had to
choose between better sharpness and better color fidelity, I would
choose sharpness any day.  Leica did, too.

Tina

Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA



Replies: Reply from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] (no subject))
Reply from s_gregory1 at mac.com (Scott Gregory) ([Leica] (no subject))