I spoke to Marc Williams this morning. He posted those examples of the M8 vs. 5D on photo.net. He feels the sharpness and definition that can be achieved with the M8 are extraordinary. The price for that is some loss of control in regard to color and corrections in rendering. He's undecided as to whether it's a worthwhile tradeoff. Paul On Nov 26, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 2006, at 11:29 AM, William Robb wrote: > >> From: "Bob Shell" >> Subject: Re: OT: Leica's M8 fixes >> >> >> >>> >>> Make Kodak pick up the tab. It's their fault. They knew what these >>> sensors would be used for. Besides, they have deeper pockets than >>> Leica. >> >> It sounds like Leica made a questionable decision regarding the IR >> cut >> filter. >> >>> From the dpreview article: >> "During the development of the LEICA M8, we made important design >> choices to insure that the camera delivers the quality in images the >> Leica M System is known for. Keeping the protective glass cover on >> the >> sensor as thin as possible on the one hand has the benefit of >> allowing >> the full potential of Leica lenses on the LEICA M8 to be utilized >> with >> respect to their sharpness and contrast rendition, but it also >> absorbs >> less of the infrared light.' >> >> I think Leica will have to suck this one up all on their own. > > I (obviously) hadn't read that. Hmmmm. Well, if they specified the > sensor be built this way, then it is their fault. I can't think of > any solution other than lens filters, then. > > Of course they could issue a new line of Digital M lenses with > internal IR filtration. Put DIGITAL on them in big bold letters and > up the price $ 200 each. > > Bob > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
