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

[rgacpa at yahoo.com (Bob Adler)]

Does that mean they show separation in the histogram; i.e., when you look at 
the histogram, the blue pixels show up in a different part of the X axis 
than the red?
 Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.rgaphoto.com




________________________________
From: Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>
To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
Sent: Sat, December 19, 2009 5:19:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] M9 Internal IR-Cut filter make the camera fragile to 
use?

Thom Hogan says that the 18mm and 21mm show colour shift:

*Leica*: quite a refreshing story, actually. They listened to M8 customers.
They looked for exploitable niches. They partnered with other companies
(Kodak and Adobe, for example) to provide things that they couldn't do on
their own (sound a bit like ASML in the *Economist* story?). I'll bet that
they can't build enough M9, X1, or S2 cameras to meet demand in 2010. They
still have issues they need to correct, though. Too many M mount lenses
still provoke red/blue shifts across the frame due to the thickness of the
infrared block filter. That keeps too many people from stepping over to the
M9, I think. For example, I might consider an M9 with an 18mm or 21mm lens
for landscapes, especially those I have to do long hikes to. But these
lenses absolutely seem to provoke the side-to-side color issues, so my
interest is immediately weakened.

See the whole article at:

http://www.bythom.com/2010predictions.htm

Cheers
Jayanand



On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Frank Dernie
<Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote:

> My WATE works fine on the M9. I always assume a lens with an exit pupil
> extremely close to the sensor will be too extreme to be compensated, so the
> 15mm CV almost certainly won't work, though I took a few shots with my 12mm
> and it seems not bad, I preferred uncorrected. Depending on the subject the
> shortcomings may not be noticed at all. It was pretty obvious that the 
> Zeiss
> 21mm f4.5 would be unsuitable for digital, thank goodness they have
> eventually said so, I think it is pretty unfair for Zeiss and CV to sell
> customers lenses suitable for film not digital and not make it clear on the
> packaging.
> Frank
>
> On 19 Dec, 2009, at 03:50, 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