Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]First off, an 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