Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter, you have saved yourself a lot of $$$ and come to the same conclusions I have ;-) Cheers On 17/11/2006, at 18:56, Peter Klein wrote: > (Apologies to Lennon and McCartney for the subject line) :-) > > I don't own an M8 (yet?) I learned a long time ago to never buy > Version 1.0 of anything that contains or controls a > microprocessor. It may not be "right," but it's a sad fact of > life today that early adopters are beta testers who are paying for > the privilege. > > But so far, I'm optimistic about the long-term prospects of the > M8. I base this optimism on some very critical perusal of other > people's posted examples, including some full-sized RAW files. > > At the risk of sounding glib, I have a suggestion for M8 buyers > currently in a purple-tinged funk. Set the M8 to in-camera black > and white, and shoot it that way--at least until Leica announces > its fix and policies. This will temporarily remove the source of > irritation until you know what the future holds. It will also give > you a chance to appreciate the camera's good qualities without > distraction. > > The IR issue is a problem, yes, but we already know that it can be > fixed with an IR cut filter over the lens. And look what you get > in return. When I look closely at M8 files, I see edges that look > like edges. I see details that, as I magnify them, don't smear out > *before* I can see the individual pixels. When Sean Reid says that > the M8 can draw like a medium-format film camera, believe him. > This quality is the result of no anti-aliasing filter and a thinner- > than-usual IR filter, plus great lenses. That IR filter needs to > be thinner than in DSLRs due to the higher angle of incidence > inherent in RF lenses. > > It was a real-world trade-off, and personally, I think it was a > good trade. A filter on the lens can remove IR, but no filter can > add details removed by the camera design. One of the things that > has bothered me about every DSLR I've tried (including the one I > currently own) is that slightly soft look that turns every fine > knife-edge into a slightly blurred gradient. Sharpening helps, but > often at the result of an artificial look that screams "digital" to > me. If the M8's better acutance comes at the price of needing to > mount a filter on my lenses, maybe I'll decide to grin and bear it. > > How Leica handled the issue is another matter. The M8's IR problem > is understandable from a technical standpoint. There may have > been some "groupthink" blindness at Leica, plus a need to release > the camera no matter what due to financial and organizational > issues. Regardless, the "magenta surprise" was bound to create > Internet firestorms and conspiracy theories once the images were > out there for all to see. > > Now, what's done is done. How Leica handles the resulting anger > and apprehension will probably determine the M8's success or > failure. Rightly or wrongly, people feel betrayed, and that is > what the movie industry calls box-office poison. I think Leica's > actions next week will be *more* important than whether some black > polyester turned purple this week. > > If I were Leica, I would buy up a sizable stock of IR filters, and > give away a couple with every new M8 sold, retroactively--whether > or not the customer buys coded lenses. I would also implement a > menu-entry system for lenses, similar to the Nikon D200. Why? > Because the better the M8 can handle *all* the M and LTM-mount > lenses each potential customer already owns, the better it will > sell. I suspect this will mean Leica will sell a few less lenses > next year, but they will sell many more M8s. And they will > probably sell more lenses in the long run if the M8 is a success. > > --Peter > (watching and waiting like the rest of you) > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information