X Vario Firmware Update Recommendations

[2wk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know we got one update, for which I am grateful. There are a few things that are still on my wish list that could be simple additions.

 

#1 please Please Please please Please.......An option to leave the self timer On!

Probably not on everyone's list, but I was shooting hundreds of still life's the other day and having to turn on the self timer every single time is crazy.

 

This could easily be altered in the menu.

- SELT TIMER OFF

- Self timer On 12s

- Self timer On 2s

- On for one shot 12s

- On for one shot 2s

 

I'm sure Leica could even come up with a better way of implementing it.

 

#2 During a long exposure, I would really appreciate a countdown timer.

The back LCD is on and there is plenty of real estate to include a timer of the current exposure.

 

#3 Allowing the movie button to be configured as a custom button. I would love to assign this to the Film Mode, or even AF light on/off, metering mode etc.

 

#4 I still don't understand why I can't shoot in only Raw mode.

 

That's is. Short list from me. I do love this camera

[wda]

I agree with your proposals.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guytou]

I shall also add the possibility of being able to make a break of whole page in the menu. Line by line is boring...

It could be simply made by an impulse of the thumb wheel of the thumb for example.

I think that it already exists with the X 2.

 

Guy

[tragicyclist]

My request for firmware update:

 

Lock for the video button - I've lost count the number of times I've set video record running by mistake

 

[Manoleica]

My request for firmware update:

 

Lock for the video button - I've lost count the number of times I've set video record running by mistake

The Video button is the biggest drawback - as mentioned other tweaks would be nice..  Keep Wishing""

Edited April 17, 2015 by manoleica

[waloszek]

Admittedly, my list for potential firmware and hardware updates is a little bit longer:

http://www.waloszek.de/lxv_design_err_e.php

http://www.waloszek.de/lxv_func_err_e.php

A few of my items can also be found in this thread (I found another one in a recent thread about choosing the DLux 109, T, or X Vario - someone mixed up the lens rings...).

Best regards, Gerd

[Manoleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The other day I saw a hatchback + 3 doors.. I did not buy it and then find the relevant forum & complain.. With the XV the only real issue to my mind is the Video button..

Menu's etc. will never I repeat never please everybody.. It's a great photographic tool. it produces the 'goods' - If before buying the camera you did not look into the + or -'s 

depending on your requirements why ask Leica to update/tweak/reprogram.. It is as it is....... (cat amongst the pigeons) 

Edited April 17, 2015 by manoleica

[dunos]

The other day I took requirements from a client for enhancements and fixes to an existing software application. That's the funny thing about software (and firmware), it has the ability to be changed and updated as fixes and enhancements become known. This can be used as a way to tie a customer to an eco-system rather than go elsewhere to a supplier who can provide those things.

 

I agree that you should buy for what it does and what it is at the point you buy... but that doesn't prevent you from giving suggestions to the manufacturer or even compiling a wishlist. I wish I would win the lottery... it won't happen (since I never buy a ticket)... but it doesn't stop me from daydreaming or discussing with my fiancee what we would do with the jackpot.

 

There is only one major enhancement I would make to the firmware... that being the ability to keep the screen and camera turned on indefinitely. I miss so many shots because the screen has gone to sleep (and it won't take a shot until it has woken back up).

[wda]

An additional suggestion concerns AF. Having suffered random total AF focusing failures, despite receiving focus confirmation signals in camera, tweak the feedback so that no confirmation is shown  or heard if the focusing is not sharp anywhere. I have ruled out camera shake in extensive trials. My XV is currently in Wetzlar for investigation.

[barjohn]

An additional suggestion concerns AF. Having suffered random total AF focusing failures, despite receiving focus confirmation signals in camera, tweak the feedback so that no confirmation is shown  or heard if the focusing is not sharp anywhere. I have ruled out camera shake in extensive trials. My XV is currently in Wetzlar for investigation.

This is a known problem which Gerd and I discussed in numerous threads.  Leica NJ first acknowledged the problem and then after consulting with Wetzlar denied the problem existed.  I spent almost 6 months with my camera in either NJ or Germany with them never wanting to acknowledge the problem, even went I sent them evidence of what was happening.  Up until now, I haven't revealed how I resolved the problem with Leica in hopes that Leica would have fixed this issue by now with a firmware release.  I finally had to sue Leica in Small Claims Court in California.  For those unfamiliar with Small Claims Court, in California you can sue for up to $10,000.  The company you sue cannot engage legal counsel but must send management to defend the company.  If they fail to appear you can obtain a default judgement which you can then enforce on any asset they have in the state or any other state.  In California, they have a retail store in Los Angeles so the judgement could be easily enforced here or in NJ at their facility in NJ as the states have reciprocity on enforcement of judgements via sheriff's offices.  If the company loses they can also appeal which starts a new trial where attorneys can be engaged but this is an expensive proposition for a company and the negative publicity can cost far more than just settling.  This is one of those cases, that I believe would be fairly easy to win as the camera is clearly not performing as expected and at it should, especially at this price.  In my case, Leica decided to refund my money in exchange for my dropping my law suit.  Had they decided to fight, I was fully prepared.  Even if they elected to lose in Small Claims and to appeal to Superior Court, I am confident I would have prevailed.  Of course, I have the advantage of being an attorney, having a sister that is an attorney and numerous attorney friends, so my legal costs would have been relatively small and theirs would have been quite large.

 

If other customers that suffer these long periods without a camera and continue to have cameras that are not fixed would take Leica to Small Claims Court, it wouldn't be long before Leica started addressing and fixing these issues.  Instead, I see thread after thread, some over a thousand entries long with people complaining about lock ups and numerous other issues but never doing anything about it.  Meanwhile the defenders here NEVER blame Leica but instead blame the user or the SD card or the technique or lack of user knowledge or anything else including the kitchen sink rather than just acknowledging that Leica has both hardware and software engineering problems that it frequently doesn't resolve or takes years to resolve, neither of which is an acceptable response for a company claiming to produce a superior top quality product.  Frankly, when it comes to electronics and software, Leica would have been better off sub-contracting to Panasonic, Olympus, or Sony for the internals and instead focused on the body design/engineering and the lens design and engineering where they are clearly better.

 

In any case, I wish you luck and if that fails, you now know what to do.  

[dkCambridgeshire]

This is a known problem which Gerd and I discussed in numerous threads.  Leica NJ first acknowledged the problem and then after consulting with Wetzlar denied the problem existed.  I spent almost 6 months with my camera in either NJ or Germany with them never wanting to acknowledge the problem, even went I sent them evidence of what was happening.  Up until now, I haven't revealed how I resolved the problem with Leica in hopes that Leica would have fixed this issue by now with a firmware release.  I finally had to sue Leica in Small Claims Court in California.  For those unfamiliar with Small Claims Court, in California you can sue for up to $10,000.  The company you sue cannot engage legal counsel but must send management to defend the company.  If they fail to appear you can obtain a default judgement which you can then enforce on any asset they have in the state or any other state.  In California, they have a retail store in Los Angeles so the judgement could be easily enforced here or in NJ at their facility in NJ as the states have reciprocity on enforcement of judgements via sheriff's offices.  If the company loses they can also appeal which starts a new trial where attorneys can be engaged but this is an expensive proposition for a company and the negative publicity can cost far more than just settling.  This is one of those cases, that I believe would be fairly easy to win as the camera is clearly not performing as expected and at it should, especially at this price.  In my case, Leica decided to refund my money in exchange for my dropping my law suit.  Had they decided to fight, I was fully prepared.  Even if they elected to lose in Small Claims and to appeal to Superior Court, I am confident I would have prevailed.  Of course, I have the advantage of being an attorney, having a sister that is an attorney and numerous attorney friends, so my legal costs would have been relatively small and theirs would have been quite large.

 

If other customers that suffer these long periods without a camera and continue to have cameras that are not fixed would take Leica to Small Claims Court, it wouldn't be long before Leica started addressing and fixing these issues.  Instead, I see thread after thread, some over a thousand entries long with people complaining about lock ups and numerous other issues but never doing anything about it.  Meanwhile the defenders here NEVER blame Leica but instead blame the user or the SD card or the technique or lack of user knowledge or anything else including the kitchen sink rather than just acknowledging that Leica has both hardware and software engineering problems that it frequently doesn't resolve or takes years to resolve, neither of which is an acceptable response for a company claiming to produce a superior top quality product.  Frankly, when it comes to electronics and software, Leica would have been better off sub-contracting to Panasonic, Olympus, or Sony for the internals and instead focused on the body design/engineering and the lens design and engineering where they are clearly better.

 

In any case, I wish you luck and if that fails, you now know what to do.  

 

Your costs would have been small if you'd won … but there is also the other side of the coin i.e. what if Leica's attorneys had been engaged and you'd lost … and Leica claimed their costs? Who knows how much you might have been liable to pay out if Leica successfully appealed? 

 

Probably prudent for the average user to consider alternative remedies e.g. a polite letter requesting a refund or another camera or an alternative camera … I know someone who settled for the latter when offered an X2 to replace an X1.

 

And let's also remember that most XV cameras are perfectly OK and do not suffer from alleged focusing anomalies. Actual complaints are few.

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

[waloszek]

John & wda, thank you for reports. I myself have decided to discuss this issue no longer in this forum. Some posters seem to have it and blame the camera, some do not have it and blame the users. So I see no point in discussing this here any further...

 

Just recently, I sent my camera to Leica for sensor cleaning. In an accompanying letter, I noted the issue and added numerous sample photos on a DVD for illustration. No reaction from Leica in this respect. When I posted this outcome in this forum, a poster noted that perhaps Leica has fixed this issue "secretly." I do not believe in this, but I will see after a while... Anyway, I have decided to live with this issue - and this was my last statement on it from me here...

 

Best regards, Gerd

Edited April 24, 2015 by waloszek

[barjohn]

dunk,

 

You either don't understand the law in California or don't understand US law.  Basically it goes like this.  If Leica lost in Small Claims Court it could settle or appeal.  If, it chose to appeal, it would be a trial de-novo (a new trial).  In that trial, Leica could engage legal counsel, something they could not do in Small Claims Court.  However, even if they won, they would NOT be entitled to attorney fees or legal costs.  They just would not have to repair my camera.  In other words they would have prevailed in defending that there was nothing wrong with the camera.  In the process, they would have been subjected to discovery motions in which they would have had to make various management and technical people available for depositions as well as internal documents and emails.  Very few companies want to expose themselves to this extent, especially over a few thousand dollar item, it just doesn't make good business sense.  To tie up your executives for hours or days and your engineers and technical people not to mention have to produce the requested documents and emails would far exceed the cost of the camera.  It is one thing to fight when you are being sued for millions of dollars and quite another to fight over a few thousand dollars.  Leica management may or may not be smart but I doubt that they are stupid.  All of this assumes that the trial was limited to a UCC Claim on selling a product that is not suitable for the intent that it was purchased and that intent is reasonably inferred or actually stated.  In this case it is to take high quality images.  However, in the new trial, I would no longer be limited to the UCC claim but could expand the claims to include an allegation of fraud or negligence in that I could allege that Leica actually knew the camera had a defect and tried to hide that defect from me and the public at large.  This would open them up to both actual damages and punitive damages and legal costs (see what happens when car manufacturers try and hide defects and are later discovered).  In any case, it is unlikely that Leica's legal counsel would advise them to take this course of action.  I realize that in some countries the losing party in a civil suit is liable for the winning parties legal expenses but that is not true in the USA.  However, when a tort is alleged, if the party alleging is able to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence they are almost always awarded legal costs.  Under contract law including the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), each party is responsible for their own legal costs unless specifically provided for in the contract or specific statute whose violation is alleged.

[jlindstrom]

For the hell of it I sent mail to Leica support about the GPS not working with X Typ 113. The support confirmed this is the case.. it's a clear firmware defect as this is mentioned in the documentation etc.

 

I don't really mind that much, since it doesn't cause me any hassle, but I'm surprised this kind of thing slipped through beta testing & all and into production. This would be a case for the small claims, aince the cameras been out for a year now and nothing has been done to fix this. It's a feature that's been promised & use instructed in the manual and yet doesn't work.. and you pay dearly for the evf to enable it.

 

Anyway, doesn't concern me much.. but I do hope they bring out firmware to fix this. Both XV and X deserve updated firmware for sure.