M10- FW Requests/Bug Reports

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

As to what I do or do not do with firmware upgrades - frankly that is none of your business nor your concern. But as it happens, I've been in the field for 2 weeks (so far) shooting, and will get around to a firmware upgrade when I have the time.

 

 

 

Sorry I ruffled your feathers...it was a simple question not an indictment.

[Guest Leicanew]

It seems that my new M10 isn't happy with the Visoflex from my T.

 

After lots of tests and many SD card formatting required, I think I found what triggers a problem that leads to files not saved properly and SD card errors; With the GPS enabled (on), the camera's buffer slows down considerably so if the play button is pressed while writing, the image isn't saved and the SD card appears as full. A black image/s with its file number/s is just what can be seen instead of the image/s taken and the SD card appears full with the left image number showing 0000.

 

Only a format on a computer (I use SD Formatter from SD org) followed by a format in the camera leaves the card ready for action again. Full camera reset didn't make a difference.

 

With the GPS disabled (off) or without the Visoflex attached, the camera seems to behave normally with a faster buffer and no issues so far.

 

If this is a bug (which seems to be as the error shown on a second SD card), I hope this is sorted in the next firmware round...

 

Thanks for reading

 

 

 

I'm glad to report that replacing my (brand new) Sandisk 128Gb 95mb/s SD card for a different one, a new Lexar pro 64Gb 300mb/s, seems to have sorted the M10 erratic behaviour so far.

After a first slow start and worrying ever lasting first image saving (similar to its old habits), the camera is now happily performing as desired/expected.

There is obviously something not right about this camera's interaction with storage cards but I'm relieved and happy to finally being able to enjoy and learn to use my new camera...

[Advertisement]

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

[olgierdc]

Leica M10 + SF58

 

Setup: SF 58 in TTL Mode, Camera A mode + Auto ISO 100-1600.

 

When camera wake up from sleep mode the first photo is dark because ISO is always 100 instead for example 500. Second photo has correct exposition with correct ISO.

 

Has anyone noticed such bug?

[olgierdc]

In White Balance menu there is option Color temperature - for a directly settable color temperature value. 

But setting Kelvin temperature is not always enough. It should be possible to set tint green-magenta. This can be done as shown by the colorimeters.

[UliWer]

I don't know if others made the same experience:

 

After deleting single exposures in the camera the shutter could not be activated, but the display showed the notice: "SD-card cannot be read". After taking out and replacing the card it started to work again, but the problem came back after some shots. Other functions of the camera - live view, measuring exposure, review etc. - worked properly. The SD card was a Transcend SDHC 32 GB 90 MB/s which took more than 800 exposures without any problems.

[adan]

I've had the shutter button go inert 2-3 times - out of ~2000 exposures so far. Possibly after deletions, but I wasn't paying attention. Didn't see that notice in any case. Was able to see metering indications in optical finder even with release frozen. Will look more closely if (when) it occurs in future.

Edited April 20, 2017 by adan

[Rob L]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My M10 has a bug with the 6 bit reader. I have a Summicron 35mm v4 and it reads it as a 35 1.4 Summilux. The dot patterns are not even close, very different. All 7 of my other lenses are read properly and my manual coded lenses work fine ( camera remembers the last setting for un-coded lenses. Any thoughts? I have cleaned the reader and the coding on the lens is perfect. My other bodies read it fine.

[jdlaing]

My M10 has a bug with the 6 bit reader. I have a Summicron 35mm v4 and it reads it as a 35 1.4 Summilux. The dot patterns are not even close, very different. All 7 of my other lenses are read properly and my manual coded lenses work fine ( camera remembers the last setting for un-coded lenses. Any thoughts? I have cleaned the reader and the coding on the lens is perfect. My other bodies read it fine.

Check the coding to see if it is painted correctly here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/leica-lens-codes/

[adan]

Rob - is your 35mm v.4 coding done by Leica? Are you getting incorrectly colored corners (wrong lens profile being used)?

 

The M10 6-bit reader is definitely "fussier" about the quality of 6-bit codes (the Sharpie ink spot I put on my 35 v.4 is read fine by my M9, but not by the M10 - or the M240 for that matter) - but it is not a bug so long as Leica's authorized coding is recognized.

 

That being said, there can always be a bug in the lens-recognition database - either a code is incorrectly ID'd overall (wrong corrections - major problem), or simply that the character string "name" was wrongly typed in when the table of lenses was built in the firmware. The camera "knows" you used a 35 v.4 - but the look-up table says "call this lens a '35 f/1.4 Summilux' " in the LCD info , and in the EXIF on your computer.

[Rob L]

Thanks Alan! I have a Chinese replacement flange and I coded it myself (beautifully done I might add). I have 2 of these and they both work fine on my M-P 240 and M-D 262. I have not shot the lens on the M10 to see if the corners are off, I will try that. It seems like if it was your last option, that all M10s would be exhibiting this?

[adan]

There are lots of - imponderables.

 

The M 6-bit detectors all use infrared light to sense whether a 6-bit spot is black or white, so the exact ink or paint used for black spots may make a difference (infrared reflectance/transmission characteristics of the pigments - whether it looks black or white in visible light doesn't count). The M10 sensor may (or may not) now use a different wavelength of IR.

 

Which could explain why it ignores my Sharpie-pen spot - the black ink isn't "black" enough under IR light.

 

My own sense is that because the M10 offers a new feature (if the lens detection is set to manual for an uncoded lens, the camera will automatically switch back to auto-detect if it detects a coded lens is mounted, and then back to manual if it detects an uncoded lens - which allows one uncoded focal length to be used transparently with coded lenses, without menu fiddling), Leica has simply made the detection (hardware, or firmware tolerances) much less error-tolerant.

 

It used to be that the M8/9 would detect a dirty mount screw in the area where the 6-bit dots are installed - as a single black 6-bit dot (a Tele-Elmarit-M 90mm). A nice "gift" if one used an uncoded 90 TE (or any 90 - if one wasn't picky about EXIF data) where that happened. But it would mess up the M10's autoswitching if the system were still that undiscriminating. And it was a problem even on the M8/9, if one mounted a 28mm lens - whose single dirty screw might ID it as a 90mm, resulting in cyan picture corners.

 

Leica, of course, won't consider that a bug - unless it happens with their own official factory coding (or coding upgrades for old lenses). 3rd-party or do-it-yourself coding "is not our responsibility."

__________________________

 

If it is a database error, then all M10s (with the same firmware) should (as you say) exhibit the same thing - WITH the 35 v.4. Depends on how many people have ever bothered to get their 20-40-year-old 35 v.4s upgraded for digital, and have got an M10 yet, and have tried their 35 yet, and post on this forum, etc. etc. Time will tell.

 

BTW - if your lens is being detected as a plain vanilla 35 f/1.4 (not ASPH) - that makes a database mistake more likely (and your pictures probably look fine). The 35 'cron v.4 and the 35 Summilux pre-ASPH have extremely similar optical designs (except for the larger aperture), and thus need just about exactly the same corrections added to remove cyan stains at the long ends of the picture.

 

It's quite possible "cut and paste" was used in writing the firmware, to copy the 35 'lux corrections and tagging into the slot for the 35 v.4 Summicron - and then someone simply forgot to change the lens name in the Summicron slot. A bookkeeping error. Faulty lens IDs popping up in the EXIF data has occurred several times over the history of the 6-bit system.

 

Images below from Erwin Puts' .pdf monograph Leica-M lenses: Their Soul and Secrets

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 23, 2017 by adan

[adan]

BTW - from the point of view of this thread - this MAY WELL be a bug, and Leica should at least check their M10 firmware to see if a labelling mistake crept in for this lens.

[Rob L]

Thank for your thoughtful replies Alan! But neither my M-P 240 or my M10 even have the pre ASPH 35 Summilux as an option under the manual code list, only the ASPH Summilux? So it does not appear to be in the data base at all?? I may need to just put the stock flange back on and use this lens in manual code mode, but then it will go uncoded on my M-D 262 if I keep that camera, which I am planning to do and sell the M-P 240.

BTW - The photos taken with the Summilux code look fine to me.

[adan]

Well, you're right. The M10 no longer lists the pre-ASPH Summiluxes as manual choice menu options. My M9 does - "35 f/1.4 11869/11879/11860"

 

I'd call that a bug in its own right ( )

[jdlaing]

Thank for your thoughtful replies Alan! But neither my M-P 240 or my M10 even have the pre ASPH 35 Summilux as an option under the manual code list, only the ASPH Summilux? So it does not appear to be in the data base at all?? I may need to just put the stock flange back on and use this lens in manual code mode, but then it will go uncoded on my M-D 262 if I keep that camera, which I am planning to do and sell the M-P 240.

BTW - The photos taken with the Summilux code look fine to me.

My M240 P lists the 35 Summilux 11869/11870/11860 under the manual selection. Firmware 2.0.3.0

[adan]

My mistake - should be 11869/11870/11860 like jd says - too late to edit my original post (and just shows how easy it is to "typo" something that may end up in the EXIF.)

[mweiner]

digifax said:

-Auto review-hold issue

When "HOLD" is selected in Auto Review the image remains until you touch the shutter a second time. On the M240 and M9, this functioned correctly and the image remained only while "holding" the shutter release down. The implementation on the M requires a 2nd step. Is there a reason for this change? I much prefer the hold and release concept for this new function, the added step is unnecessary and slows down shooting.

 

+1 on that.  I really miss it.  It's not just the second step to release it that is a problem; it's the missing ability to decide which shots to review immediately -- without dealing with the 'Play' button.

[digitalfx]

digifax said:

-Auto review-hold issue

When "HOLD" is selected in Auto Review the image remains until you touch the shutter a second time. On the M240 and M9, this functioned correctly and the image remained only while "holding" the shutter release down. The implementation on the M requires a 2nd step. Is there a reason for this change? I much prefer the hold and release concept for this new function, the added step is unnecessary and slows down shooting.

 

+1 on that.  I really miss it.  It's not just the second step to release it that is a problem; it's the missing ability to decide which shots to review immediately -- without dealing with the 'Play' button.

 

 

 

exactly. The original method was a perfectly implemented option that offered great value. It allowed the operator on a shot by shot basis to decide instantly if they want to review and for how long and them immediately continue shooting. I hope this is simply a bug and will be fixed soon.

[kcnarf1]

Unlike my other coded lenses, my Noctilux f/.95 does not set for auto detection on my new, just received M10. It does, however, as aways, set for auto detection on my M240. I can't set it for manual detection, because it is not on the manual detection list. I have therefore manually set it for the Noctilux f/1, but do not know if that is a temporarily sufficient work-around.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[digitalfx]

Unlike my other coded lenses, my Noctilux f/.95 does not set for auto detection on my new, just received M10. It does, however, as aways, set for auto detection on my M240. I can't set it for manual detection, because it is not on the manual detection list. I have therefore manually set it for the Noctilux f/1, but do not know if that is a temporarily sufficient work-around.

 

 

This isn't a bug...sounds like your camera has a fault or the coding on the lens has some damage and is not reading on the M10...Id suggest you bring it back to the dealer and have him test their lenses.