Reading mode: Light Dark

give Leica more time to find ALL the bugs and not just the black issue

Go to last post
D

Dimitri_60

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
I completely agree that Leica needs to find a solution to the black issue.

However, would it not make more sense for them to wait another month
or two, before having new owners ship all the M8s back? Just in case
some other bug is discovered by new owners? I'm not saying there will
definitely be more bugs, but who knows?

Just my $0.02
 
Although the IR sensitivity was the main dealer for me (I returned my M8 for a refund after three

days trying to use it this past week), the issues of streaking (bands emanating from bright light sources in the frame, especially at higher ISOs), and "ghosting" (green reflections of bright light sources) have been well documented.

Although, under ideal conditions, the M8 (with Leica glass) produces some truly stunning images, the aforementioned defects wouldn't be tolerated by owners of any other camera at this price level.

We Leica owners are an enthusiastic, and perhaps overly forgiving bunch, but to fix these defects, Leica will need time - perhaps months. Unlike some other over-the-top fans, I could not justify buying $200 US hot mirror filters for my small M glass collection just to confidently use the camera.

My M7 will do just fine until a true fix is announced and proven. Then, I will re-order the M8 mark 1 (or whatever they will call it)
 
I'll get along fine with the 5D for digital, and the M4 and M6 for film. I'm not spending $4800 for a camera that may or may not deliver the correct colors, simply because of the material some article of clothing is made from. And those ghost reflections are horrendous.

The $4800 can collect interest in my back account, not Leica's. When they get the camera right, they'll get my money.
 
agree

One can get a set of 5D with a very good lens and do much much better job then this

Leica should learn a lesson from the Kodak 14n
 
I'm wondering if the ghosting effects reported are limitted to specific lenses.

Perhaps it is an internal reflection bouncing back to the sensor. I've had this happen once with my Canon 1DII using a Russian Zenitar 16mm fisheye for street scenes at night. An image of a neon sign was reproduced in reverse, opposite to the sign. I assume it is the result of a reflection off sensor then back to the rear element and back to the sensor. (If this is causing the problem for Leica, I don't see how it can be fixed for the lenses that cause the problem.

I've heard of this with other camera lens combinations. (Nikon and or Kodak 14n I think.) I've never seen it happen with my other lenses or Canon 5D or 1Ds and I've shot hundreds of streetscenes at night. I'm buying a Canon 15mm fisheye so I plan to do a comparison and see if I can reproduce this effect.

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
Before I returned the M8, I did some tests with my 1D2 and 5D to confirm that shooting with bright point source lights in the background wasn't a problem with all digital cameras (it isn't).

During one test, I did notice a "ghost" in one of the 1D2's images. Then, while looking through the viewfinder and changing the lens angle, I noticed the "ghost" moved. I attributed this to internal lens reflections. I think I was using the Cano 24-70 f/2.8 at the time.

Of course, the obvious problem is that, with a DSLR, you'll see the reflection and can change your composition to eliminate it, but with a rangefinder camera you can't.
 
I fully agree that Leica should fix all bugs before shipping anymore cameras. Although I don't own a Leica, I cannot imagine spending $500 let alone $5k for a camera with these kind of fundamental issues.

The only way for Leica to salvage its reputation is to put an immediate halt to all shipments and withdraw existing cameras from dealer shelves until the problems can be sorted out. As well it should contact all existing M8 customers and have these cameras shipped on its own dime back to the factory for adjustment and/or sensor replacement. Has anyone heard if this is what they plan to do?

Although an embarrassing and expensive proposition, the alternative of asking owners to purchase some sort of IR lens filters for various lenses is an absolutely ludicrous band aid solution that would permanently harm their reputation. Can you say Contax?
 
. . . that even in its official statement acknowledging the problems that they carefully avoid saying that the cameras already shipped will be repaired at no additional cost to the owner?

When I had the "discussion" with my dealer and insisted on a refund, he first had to call Leica USA to "get permission" to authorize the return. (after all, he didn't want to be stuck with it in his inventory).

When I asked him if Leica even tried to have him reassure me that they would repair in an no cost, there was dead silence . . . .

That was when I knew I made the right decision.
 
JAM said:
Of course, the obvious problem is that, with a DSLR, you'll see the
reflection and can change your composition to eliminate it, but
with a rangefinder camera you can't.
Click to expand...
The reflecion you saw was simply an internal lens reflection issue so you can spot it while shooting. This is normal for any lens as flare from a light source can't be totally eliminated with even the best coatings. This is not what I had with the Zenitar as the neon sign was completly recorded in detail in mirror image. I don't know if this is possible to generate with internal lens reflections alone. I don't recall seeing it at the time, but I wasn't looking for it either. I have a hard time picturing how an internal reflection could have accurate focus.

If a reflecion occurs from light bouncing off the sensor then back to the rear of the lens and back to the sensor, you'll only see it in the image. And I can imagine such a reflection happening as it is that of the focused subject on the sensor simply being reflected direcly back as with a mirror. (Especially if the curve of the rear element helps keep the reflection in focus.)

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
They must also wait for "Customer feedback" in order to detect issues?! Incredible! I always think, such expensiv camera will be at the top of performance. If not, how they could justify the price??
 
WestView said:
The only way for Leica to salvage its reputation is to put an
immediate halt to all shipments and withdraw existing cameras from
dealer shelves until the problems can be sorted out. As well it
should contact all existing M8 customers and have these cameras
shipped on its own dime back to the factory for adjustment and/or
sensor replacement. Has anyone heard if this is what they plan to
do?
Click to expand...
I think what is not said is that Leica may not have a clue how to fix these problems whether they want to do it for free or not. If some sort of adjustment was possible, they probably would have done that before releasing the camera.

As for sensor replacement, replace it with what sensor?

Leica was on unexplored ground when they undertook this project and remain there trying to solve it. Who knows if they have the resources to figure it out and implement a solution?

The funny thing is that there was a post a few months ago from a guy who pushed up the mirror on his 5D and shot full frame using a 13 or 15mm Voigtlander lens. Pretty good results on full frame with not even that much vignetting. (This should be correctable.) So unless Canon really has some unique technology going for it, I'm not sure why Kodak and Leica had to jump through hoops to get the M8 working just this well.

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
I think Canon should fix the M8 out of pity. Just take the sensor and electronics from the 5D, stick it in the M8 and go. Ithis should work a lot better than what they've got now.

Canon benefits by making money off of every M8 sold and the "prestige" of having their technology chosen by Leica. (They may not need this.) I wouldn't think there'd be any negative impact on Canon Dslr sales. Yet photojournalists who are used to Canon Dslrs would be happy adding Leica rangefinders to their arsenal. Canon could service this market without having to design and build a new system. (Which probaly doens't have enough market to be justified.)

If you consider that the cost of a Leica M film camera and a Canon 5D cost less than an M8, there should be plenty of profit to go arond. There'd be minimal up front cost to Canon and Leica would find a solution with minimal cost or worry too. I think it is a win/win situation for both. What's Henry Kissinger working on today?

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
I've looked at some of the green blobs and other reflections and now that I really think about it, I can't see how that specific problem would happen from an image reflecting off of the sensor then back to the lens and then back to the sensor.

The reason is that all of the posted examples were mirrored horizontally exactly opposite the center of the frame. Whereas optical reflections would happen diagonally. So it seems there must be some kind of image processing problem rather than an optical problem. (Maybe this is fixable through firmware.)

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
HI Alan

it's already an issue with the 5d - put those lenses right back there next to the sensor and it'd be much much much worse.

As far as I can see the leica problem stems (at least partly) from trying to keep the sensor assembly as thin as possible so that the rear element of the lenses don't touch the shutter (which is as far back as possible).

The very notion that you could stick a 5D sensor in there is clearly a non starter. . . . . but then maybe you were having a jolly jape!

kind regards
jono
AlanG said:
I think Canon should fix the M8 out of pity. Just take the sensor
and electronics from the 5D, stick it in the M8 and go. Ithis
should work a lot better than what they've got now.

Canon benefits by making money off of every M8 sold and the
"prestige" of having their technology chosen by Leica. (They may
not need this.) I wouldn't think there'd be any negative impact on
Canon Dslr sales. Yet photojournalists who are used to Canon Dslrs
would be happy adding Leica rangefinders to their arsenal. Canon
could service this market without having to design and build a new
system. (Which probaly doens't have enough market to be justified.)

If you consider that the cost of a Leica M film camera and a Canon
5D cost less than an M8, there should be plenty of profit to go
arond. There'd be minimal up front cost to Canon and Leica would
find a solution with minimal cost or worry too. I think it is a
win/win situation for both. What's Henry Kissinger working on
today?

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
Hi Alan

I can see your point - let's hope your right and they can fix it quickly with a firmware update.

It's so nearly a perfect camera - so nearly!

kind regards
AlanG said:
I've looked at some of the green blobs and other reflections and
now that I really think about it, I can't see how that specific
problem would happen from an image reflecting off of the sensor
then back to the lens and then back to the sensor.

The reason is that all of the posted examples were mirrored
horizontally exactly opposite the center of the frame. Whereas
optical reflections would happen diagonally. So it seems there
must be some kind of image processing problem rather than an
optical problem. (Maybe this is fixable through firmware.)

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
Click to expand...
--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk
 
In all fairness, Leica had quite a challenge on their hands to even get a sensor to work at all in the M body. The issue seems to have something to do with the close distance from the rear of the lens to the sensor plane. If light hits film at a severe angle, it makes little difference - the grains will still be "exposed". The beauty of the M film system was always exceptional quality lenses than could be "fast" (e.g. 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux) without also being huge.

But if light hits photosites at these angles, bad things happen - severe vignetting, etc. Leica and Kodak came up with the idea of adding micro lenses at angles approximating the angle from the lens to conduct the necessary light to the photosite. This was no small feat.

Just putting in a 5D sensor won't cut it - or maybe I should say - would cut it - the light that is.
 
Jono Slack said:
HI Alan
it's already an issue with the 5d - put those lenses right back
there next to the sensor and it'd be much much much worse.

As far as I can see the leica problem stems (at least partly) from
trying to keep the sensor assembly as thin as possible so that the
rear element of the lenses don't touch the shutter (which is as far
back as possible).

The very notion that you could stick a 5D sensor in there is
clearly a non starter. . . . . but then maybe you were having a
jolly jape!
Click to expand...
No joke see this:

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/15mm_test1f.html

If there is any vignetting, that would be easy to eliminate with raw image processing just as Leica does. Canon seems to already have the technology in their cameras for full frame shooting without odd color shifts or software correction.

--
Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top