Leica S2 delayed and possible price?

[Paratom]

I didn't realize the M8 had been fixed. No IR filters needed anymore? No 6 bit coding anymore? No crop frame that turns a expensive W/As into a normal field of view? No more focus shift from the 35 Lux? No more freakin' specular highlight reflections ruining images from having to use the IR filter? Wahoo! Maybe I can return to using my M8 for the reasons I originally paid through the nose for.

Get real :ROTFL:

Focus Shift is something which has nothing to do with the camera, but the lens. In my experience very few lenses of the Leica M system show thisproblem to an extend that it is problematic. I would say its actually mainly the 35/1.4asph and the (old?) Noctilux.
There are other very good alternative lenses in this focal length.
Focus shift is nothing which can only be found in Leica lenses.

I have no problem with the IR filters, I see it as a fix- and I believe a Leica lens with a filter seems to still deliever better IQ than many other lenses without a filter. Yes, in theory any additional piece of glass doesnt help, but in reality I dont see any negative effect, with one exception: With the wate I get here and then a small reflex in the image. This might (eventually) be better without the filter.
Sensor size..yes, full frame would be nice - but if you own the Wate than you have from 21mm FOV up to 135mm FOV and that works for me.
the 28/2.0 as a 38mm lens and the 50asph as a "65mm lens" work very well for me too.
Personally I dont feel any "flaws" with the M8, but thats maybe just me.
Maybe I am lucky to, because my 2 year old M8 and my M8.2 have never died and allways worked fine.

Tom

 

[Steen]

As a side note: with regards to the IR color shift I've seen it in captures from many cameras, also in some captures from my Nikon D50 (a newer camera than D70) and at least once with my Canon 5D as well. I was right now able to go back to some captures from march 2005 and find these two D50 crops as an illustration. The items in the pictures all belong to me and I assure you that to the human eye they are as black as black can be.

 

[fotografz]

Focus Shift is something which has nothing to do with the camera, but the lens. In my experience very few lenses of the Leica M system show thisproblem to an extend that it is problematic. I would say its actually mainly the 35/1.4asph and the (old?) Noctilux.
There are other very good alternative lenses in this focal length.
Focus shift is nothing which can only be found in Leica lenses.

I have no problem with the IR filters, I see it as a fix- and I believe a Leica lens with a filter seems to still deliever better IQ than many other lenses without a filter. Yes, in theory any additional piece of glass doesnt help, but in reality I dont see any negative effect, with one exception: With the wate I get here and then a small reflex in the image. This might (eventually) be better without the filter.
Sensor size..yes, full frame would be nice - but if you own the Wate than you have from 21mm FOV up to 135mm FOV and that works for me.
the 28/2.0 as a 38mm lens and the 50asph as a "65mm lens" work very well for me too.
Personally I dont feel any "flaws" with the M8, but thats maybe just me.
Maybe I am lucky to, because my 2 year old M8 and my M8.2 have never died and allways worked fine.

Tom

Okay Tom, please allow me to temper my response to all this. I am not a Leica basher, and have expended a lot of my hard earned cash over the years to buy and use Leica products both M and R.

So, my responses are not that of a non-user just dissing the brand based on someone else's experiences ... they were all my own experiences ... and they were traumatic for me and my Leica dealer who fought hard to get things fixed. No other experience with any other system were as high in expectations based on previous M history, or as bad and disappointing once in hand ... obviously, I am not alone in this feeling.

I also still have my M8 and a slew of lenses along with a good measure of hope to use them all to good purpose. However, like Peter A said, the conditions have to be "Fat" ... unfortunately where his application is 90% in those conditions, mine are not. When they are "Fat", it's hard to beat for its size. Yet, I can't help thinking this is a really expensive "fair weather system" that survives in my bag out of hope rather than reality.

I fully accept that the M optics are class leaders ... it's why I paid the long dollar to own them (currently: 24/2.8ASPH, 28/2ASPH, 35/1.4ASPH, 50/1.5ASPH, 90/2.8, and a hunt for a clean 75/2AA). Previously owned the WATE, 50/Nocti, 75Lux and 90AA. The WATE was a fine optic, but IMO to slow in max aperture for a low ISO camera ... and slow in working speed with the cumbersome finder ... for my traditional use of a rangefinder. I DO resent that my mainstay 35/1.4 ASPH has the field of view of a 50mm ... and that a 35 mm field of view @ f/1.4 will cost me $6,000. I also keep getting my previous experiences reinforced ... I just purchased a 75/2 that when tested that was clearly back focusing on my recently calibrated M8 (that is fine with all my other M lenses including the 50/1.4ASPH). I refused "service" and sent the lens back without paying for it.

That you have no issue with the IR filters simply tells me that you use the system in conditions different from mine ... I've always used an M for wedding work, and some of my best work was with my M6/M6TTL/M7s ... and it is disappointing that M8 work had to be narrowed to fair weather conditions only ... because of the specular light reflections issue so ubiquitous at weddings as well as many commercial event applications like trade shows and gala events. In my gear bag, the M8 has been relegated to a dilettantish tool amongst the hard working tools that deliver bread to my family's table ... where once the M system was the standard by which all others were measured.

So In conclusion, I agree with you ... its fine for you and others, and not fine for me and others depending on shooting conditions.

However, hope springs eternal. I keep trying to make it work because the "rangefinder way" is unique in the way it makes one think and shoot ... with little getting in the way of a pure focus on content and unfolding events ... and without a rangefinder in the lead, I honestly do believe my work has suffered a bit ... and have observed that in others who left their M behind for a DSLR.

Thanks for your patience.

-Marc

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The real issue is not just the blacks it is the IR bleed that effects other colors as well in the overall image. Foliage is actually a big issue because of the IR content it throws off. So yes it is obvious in the blacks but it will effect the overall color in just about everything.

 

[fotografz]

The real issue is not just the blacks it is the IR bleed that effects other colors as well in the overall image. Foliage is actually a big issue because of the IR content it throws off. So yes it is obvious in the blacks but it will effect the overall color in just about everything.

That has been my experience also. However, as I have been trying to get back to using a M for my work, I've tended to position the camera as much for B&W as for color.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

And the interesting thing is many folks like the IR bleed for B&W work.

 

[TimWright]

Don't really understand the issues with the IR filters. I use them and have had no problems. Aren't most of the MF systems also devoid of IR filters on the sensors and require filters? The last 2 weddings I did I was only allowed to shoot with the M8 during the ceremony and no flash. The Canons were deemed too loud. I use both cameras M8 and 5D or 1Ds3 and get great results with both.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

No all MF backs have IR filtration embedded in the cover glass and actually so does the M8 but the M8 is just not strong enough so to get the most accurate color on the M8 you need the external screw in IR filters. All DSLR's have IR filters as well built into the cover cover glass. Nikon at one time had the same issue as the M8 forget which model but it was also not filtered enough. This is the issue with the M8 it is there but the strength is not enough to take care of the IR bleed reason for a pretty specific filter. B+W will work but they are a little strong reason for over correction in the very wide angles of lenses on the M8. The Leica IR filters are actually weaker and tuned exactly to the firmware . Reason I have said anything under 21mm use a Leica IR filter. Like the WATE , Leica 21 and even the Zeiss 18mm to get clean corner bleed you need the Leica filters. TRUST ME I have done a zillion tests on this issue and the M8. Obviously if you use the filters on all your glass you basically get back to a state of normal containment of the IR bleed. Just like a Canon or Nikon or any other camera on the market. Bottom line the IR filter on the M8 sensor glass was and is underpowered and Leica thought this in the engineering process it would keep there lenses as sharp and resolve the best as possible. They did not count on the bleed that would happen and main reason for all of this was the lens element is so close to sensor it actually could have affected lens degradation. Leica as people forget who they really are is a lens company and the output of the lenses is paramount. Where the mistake came was not counting on the weakness of there IR filtration. Reason you are using external IR filters. There is no other way except to actually put this in every lens made. Something they can't do because of film based use. But I HIGHLY recommend the use of the Leica IR filter, remember I was a beta tester on this stuff and even though you can use a B+W filter if you look very closely to images compared with the Leica and B+w filters there is a difference towards a more green effect with the B+W but 99 percent of the people do not actually notice it or NEVER did the comparison tests.

 

[jlm]

the negative filter issues are due to adding another layer of glass in front of the lens

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Exactly Jim but for shooters like Jim that shoot a lot of IR stuff. It is a blessing, and he does great work with it. I know Jack pretty much kept his M8 for B&W work and IR.

 

[TimWright]

I have used the Leica IR filters on all my lenses since they became available. The first couple of months I was shooting stuff where the filters didn't matter. Maybe I am thinking of the AA filter on medium format?

 

[Paratom]

I also recommend using the original IR filters for everything 35mm and wider.
Plus I recommend to use the J.M.-filter holder for the wate since I think it is less prone to reflections compared to the original Leica-filter holder for the wate.

No all MF backs have IR filtration embedded in the cover glass and actually so does the M8 but the M8 is just not strong enough so to get the most accurate color on the M8 you need the external screw in IR filters. All DSLR's have IR filters as well built into the cover cover glass. Nikon at one time had the same issue as the M8 forget which model but it was also not filtered enough. This is the issue with the M8 it is there but the strength is not enough to take care of the IR bleed reason for a pretty specific filter. B+W will work but they are a little strong reason for over correction in the very wide angles of lenses on the M8. The Leica IR filters are actually weaker and tuned exactly to the firmware . Reason I have said anything under 21mm use a Leica IR filter. Like the WATE , Leica 21 and even the Zeiss 18mm to get clean corner bleed you need the Leica filters. TRUST ME I have done a zillion tests on this issue and the M8. Obviously if you use the filters on all your glass you basically get back to a state of normal containment of the IR bleed. Just like a Canon or Nikon or any other camera on the market. Bottom line the IR filter on the M8 sensor glass was and is underpowered and Leica thought this in the engineering process it would keep there lenses as sharp and resolve the best as possible. They did not count on the bleed that would happen and main reason for all of this was the lens element is so close to sensor it actually could have affected lens degradation. Leica as people forget who they really are is a lens company and the output of the lenses is paramount. Where the mistake came was not counting on the weakness of there IR filtration. Reason you are using external IR filters. There is no other way except to actually put this in every lens made. Something they can't do because of film based use. But I HIGHLY recommend the use of the Leica IR filter, remember I was a beta tester on this stuff and even though you can use a B+W filter if you look very closely to images compared with the Leica and B+w filters there is a difference towards a more green effect with the B+W but 99 percent of the people do not actually notice it or NEVER did the comparison tests.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Agree Tom I just folks to understand that about 24 and wider you really want to use the specific Leica brand since the B+W are a little heavy on the green in the corners.

On the WATE i agree was actually the first person to have that filter holder John made along with Mark Norton who actually started the idea.

 

[TimWright]

I use them on all my Leica glass, easier than remembering to turn it off and on. I also use the JLM wate filter adapter but do find it vignettes very slightly.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes Tim in reality it turned out to be the best practice was just buy all the damn filters leave them on and forget about it.

Is yours with just the glass filter only and no frame. Not sure what John made after the original version if any. Curious on the vignetting

 

[TimWright]

Yes Tim in reality it turned out to be the best practice was just buy all the damn filters leave them on and forget about it.

Is yours with just the glass filter only and no frame. Not sure what John made after the original version if any. Curious on the vignetting

Have to check to be sure but I am pretty sure it is the with glass only. I remember there was some discussion about it but it is so minor that it doesn't bother me. I generally like to have a filter on my lens after having nicked a front element once so even if they were not needed I likely would have put something on anyway.

 

[ptomsu]

But I HIGHLY recommend the use of the Leica IR filter, remember I was a beta tester on this stuff and even though you can use a B+W filter if you look very closely to images compared with the Leica and B+w filters there is a difference towards a more green effect with the B+W but 99 percent of the people do not actually notice it or NEVER did the comparison tests.

This was the reason WHY I went for Leica ONLY IR Filters from the very beginning.

 

[fotografz]

Don't really understand the issues with the IR filters. I use them and have had no problems. Aren't most of the MF systems also devoid of IR filters on the sensors and require filters? The last 2 weddings I did I was only allowed to shoot with the M8 during the ceremony and no flash. The Canons were deemed too loud. I use both cameras M8 and 5D or 1Ds3 and get great results with both.

Okay, I guess I need to show the problem.

When you shoot available light images that have specular highlights in the frame ... the IR lens filter often causes double reflections of the specular hot spots elsewhere in the captured frame ... often across a face or some other detail that's near impossible to correct in post. This can sometimes even happen with regular filters on fast lenses ... so when shooting stuff like this I always remove the lens filter ... which I can't do with the M8 because of the IR bleed issue.

Here's one I kept from a whole series I tossed out ... this was the least damaged frame. I tried to minimize the effect by converting to B&W becuase the color was much worse. Still, the client noticed it and wondered if I could fix it. I just trashed the image from her set, and used a shot from the A900 of the same subject in its place. Not one of these M8 wedding reception shots was usable.

My M8 is completely updated and the lenses have Leica IRs on them. This was a shot with the 35 Lux ASPH.

 

[TimWright]

Don't recall ever seeing that sort of thing with any of my M8 stuff but then I don't have that lens. Mostly use a 24 or 28. Have you had this with other lenses as well?

 

[carstenw]

I have also seen it, on several lenses. The WATE is notable here, and was the lens which made people notice the problem, IIRC. It isn't often there in my shooting, and so it doesn't bother me, but for a pro like Marc, if you can't rely on the camera, you might as well not use it, especially since weddings often have light sources all over the place, and in the frame. I hope Marc at least has some fun with his M8 on his own time.