Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/09/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]According to the marketing BS (alright OK...) the filters have a more precise cut-off than those in the cameras, which tend to be IR only. Whether this is of any consequence will obviously vary from camera to camera and lens to lens, depending on transmission characteristics. They illustrate with and without shots which are sharper and more contrasty with. Being marketing pics they would be though wouldn't they. Frank On 9 Sep, 2009, at 10:12, Steve Unsworth wrote: > According to the leaked brochure and the Popflash ad, they've moved > the > filter onto the surface of the sensor, so what benefit would having > a second > one on the lens give as far as limiting bandwidth? > > Steve > > > On 8/9/09 18:56, "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> wrote: > >> There is actually no reason not to use the IR/UV filters on the M9, >> other than the standard objection to filters in general. In principle >> bandwidth limiting the light getting through to the sensor will >> make a >> sharper image with a non-apo lens, though I don't know by how much... > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information