M9 Firmware Update - When and what may we expect?

[mjh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But without the IR filter menu item, I would still be left waiting for the M10 which I presume will have a more modern chip that will be at least as insensitive to IR as Canon's last 2 generations of FF

Is IR still an issue with the M9? I didn’t think so. The M9 is now on a par with most DSLRs out there. Canon uses an even more strict IR-blocking filter that is a sandwich of an absorption and a dichroic filter. Leica is unlikely to use a dichroic filter in a digital M as that would only exacerbate the issues with red or magenta fringing, and on the other hand what problem would be solved if they did?

[adan]

High priority for me:

 

Improving corner color correction patterns when using WA lenses - red corner drift. Especially off-center drifts.

 

Lower priority:

 

Changing review processing to load hi-res images in background without having to start zooming in (M8 style).

 

Reading camera serial # into EXIF (useful if one is tracking problems in two or more bodies, but obviously not critical while some people still are waiting to get ONE body).

 

Lower the LCD display contrast. I realize it has been made "snappier" to be more visible in sunlight, but it is now even worse for judging exposure than the M8 was - and sometimes histograms are just too slow for photojournalism.

 

Totally off the wall, and verging on "bespoke firmware" - I'd kind of like to be able to choose a specific lens correction from the menu of lenses as the default "uncoded" correction. I have only one uncoded lens, a 35 f/1.4 pre-ASPH, and it would be nice for the camera to correct for that lens if it senses no lens coding, rather than a generic (or no) correction. Sort of a "make new default" sub-option when choosing "35 f/1.4" (or whatever lens any particular user's preference is) from the menu.

 

Bottom line: I'd rather the camera put the available processing power into taking pictures, rather than running the firmware. I suspect that's Leica's philosophy, too.

[jonoslack]

Hi Earl

If Leica upgraded the firmware with correction for cyan drift with front IR filters (UV+IR=ON setting in menu a la M8) it would at least make the camera usable for me.

 

I really don't think there is any possibility of this happening. It was discussed at some length, as I understand it the problem is that for 28mm and wider, it really isn't possible to do, and for 35mm and longer it really isn't necessary (you can use IR filters without a problem). I don't believe the sort of filter that Canon uses would be remotely possible either. The one thing which cannot be fixed is the variation of the angle of incidence at the edge of the sensor - this would STILL be an issue with a new sensor. The stronger the filter, the more resolution you are going to lose at the edges in fixing the compensation.

 

On the other hand I've not come across anybody using the camera who has had an issue with IR sensitivity - sure, sometimes you can see it, but unlike the M8, on those very rare occasions (for me it's one shot out of around 10,000) it's perfectly simple to fix.

 

I don't understand why you think this is a deal-breaker (Sean Reid, Michael Reichmann and dPreview all consider it as a done deal and a successful compromise - and if they think it's okay, why would Leica change it?). So, If you do think it's a deal breaker, I think you can be sure that your deal is broken.

 

There may be an M9.2 with different framelines and a sapphire crystal back, but I'd be astonished if they brought back the top LCD, and very surprised if they didn't offer an upgrade option for these goodies.

[Guest roey]

Changing review processing to load hi-res images in background without having to start zooming in (M8 style).

 

They may have omitted this feature from the M9 in order to improve battery life. The M9 needs to process 80% more pixels but uses the same battery as the M8. I agree, this would be a desirable feature, but not if it reduces battery life noticeably.

[adan]

Roey - you may be quite right.

 

And actually, improved battery life is one of the firmware "upgrades" that Stephan Daniel specifically said Leica is already working on (in his Luminous-Landscape video interview). Adjusting the code to make more efficient use of processing.

[george_b]

The M9 seems to struggle to format cards, which have had any data on them or a file structure. If you have access to a Ricoh camera (this may work with other cameras as well but I know it works with Ricoh) and format the SDHC card with the Ricoh, you should then find it will format in an M9. The M9 usually formats most new cards without a problem.

 

Wilson

 

What happens if you format them in an M8 initially?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You get errors.

[erl]

You get errors.

 

That's not good! I can see the possibility of problems when using an M8 as backup or parallel with an M9. Needing to 'separate' cards when working is risky.

[jaapv]

I keep them in different pouches. In practice I do not find that a problem. But I am used to separating my M8 cards from my DMR cards anyway. On my last trip I had to keep track of M8, M9,DMR and Digilux 3 cards, plus Dlux4 and video cards of my wife

[wlaidlaw]

That's not good! I can see the possibility of problems when using an M8 as backup or parallel with an M9. Needing to 'separate' cards when working is risky.

 

It's not an ideal situation. I am separating mine by size. I use Extreme III 8GB's for the M8 and Ultra II 16 GB's for the M9 but sooner or later I will mix them up in error. I have not tried to see if the M8 will format a card previously used in the M9 (not brave enough).

 

Wilson

[Ario Arioldi]

I'm used to format any card immediately after iserting it in the camera. So I do not have any problem moving cards from M8 to M9 or viceversa.

I do hope the in the near future the formatting time in the M9 will be the same as in the M8.

Cheers,

Ario

[jonoslack]

I'm used to format any card immediately after iserting it in the camera. So I do not have any problem moving cards from M8 to M9 or viceversa.

I do hope the in the near future the formatting time in the M9 will be the same as in the M8.

Cheers,

Ario

 

HI Ario

I'm sure that this is the right answer (it's what I do as well).

Let's hope that the formatting time is reduced - it does seem likely.

[mjh]

Let's hope that the formatting time is reduced - it does seem likely.

I would certainly think so. Formatting a card should just write a fresh, empty file system to the card, then create the standard DCIM folder etc.. This should be a matter of seconds at most and it should not make a difference what was on the card before. After all, formatting doesn’t erase anything (except part of the file system).

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

 

On the other hand I've not come across anybody using the camera who has had an issue with IR sensitivity - sure, sometimes you can see it, but unlike the M8, on those very rare occasions (for me it's one shot out of around 10,000) it's perfectly simple to fix.

 

Unfortunately the latter is not true, any more than it was true for the M8. Any global correction skews other colours as well to some extent. The only way to truly fix it is to lasso the IR-skewed areas and correct them independently of the rest of the photo. I shot the M9 in a theatre performance and I had more than two hundred shots which I would've had to fix each and every one, had I not had the foresight to shoot my 5DII as well.

 

I don't understand why you think this is a deal-breaker (Sean Reid, Michael Reichmann and dPreview all consider it as a done deal and a successful compromise - and if they think it's okay, why would Leica change it?).

 

My decisions are based on my observations in practise, not the opinions of web-celebs. If a camera can't produce files that my clients like, without me wasting hours in post that could be spent shooting another job, then it's not the camera for me. If my mainstay use didn't magnify the incomplete IR blocking, or if I was buying it strictly for my recreational photography, then perhaps the compromise would be successful for me as well.

[noah_addis]

I know many are still waiting for their M9, but that's no reason we shouldn't get a firmware update soon. Personally, I'm hoping for an update VERY soon. Here are the priorities in my opinion:

 

1. Fix bug involving user profiles and JPEG saturaiton settings.

 

2. Fix image quality issues, if there are any (I'm thinking of the wideangle color casts, but I've yet to experience them myself with 28/2 or 21/2.8).

 

3. Speed up card formatting.

 

4. Speed up image preview/zooming.

 

5. Add the ability to get B&W previews in DNG only.

 

6. Software keylock for back buttons (Maybe push two buttons while turning dial to turn keylock on and off).

 

With these minor improvements the camera would be damn near perfect for my needs. The first two are necessary in the next update, the others can wait but are important to have within the next few months.

[jaapv]

I think, Earl, that you are looking at a compromise, and like most compromises, it cannot satisfy everybody. What I understand from Leica's explanation, the M8 had a 0.5 mm filter, which was clearly too weak, the ideal filter for a near-100% IR blocking would have been 1.0 mm thick, but would have deteriorated image quality, so Leica settled for 0.8 mm, which was just thin enough to keep the image intact, and put Leica "in the top 30%" (whatever that may mean) of IR blocking on digital cameras.

[UliWer]

... I shot the M9 in a theatre performance and I had more than two hundred shots which I would've had to fix each and every one, had I not had the foresight to shoot my 5DII as well.

 

 

 

....

 

Can you show an example or two? I am really interested about the performance of the M9 as far as blocking the IR-magenta-shift is concerned.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

I think, Earl, that you are looking at a compromise, and like most compromises, it cannot satisfy everybody. What I understand from Leica's explanation, the M8 had a 0.5 mm filter, which was clearly too weak, the ideal filter for a near-100% IR blocking would have been 1.0 mm thick, but would have deteriorated image quality, so Leica settled for 0.8 mm, which was just thin enough to keep the image intact, and put Leica "in the top 30%" (whatever that may mean) of IR blocking on digital cameras.

 

That sounds like a good summation. In my case it's quite true, the old addage "A miss by an inch is a miss by a mile." (Anyone feel free to substitute metrics if you like )

 

Can you show an example or two? I am really interested about the performance of the M9 as far as blocking the IR-magenta-shift is concerned.

 

I had no idea at the time that it might come in handy to have some examples, and I simply reformatted the card in another camera once I'd handed the M9 back to the lad who lent it to me. All I can say is that whilst not as garishly purple as an unfiltered M8 (think, Jack Nicholson's outfit as The Joker), the blacks were clearly not black, and had a noticeable magenta tinge. Enough so that the client pointed it out, noting the comparison with the 5DII shots.

[wattsy]

Can you show an example or two? I am really interested about the performance of the M9 as far as blocking the IR-magenta-shift is concerned.

 

Yes, I'd like to see these as well but I think we are both wasting our time asking. I don't doubt that the IR 'contamination' could still be a problem under certain lighting conditions but I'd like to see "Earl" post an example so we can gauge the extent of the problems he's been having.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

I had no idea at the time that it might come in handy to have some examples, and I simply reformatted the card in another camera once I'd handed the M9 back to the lad who lent it to me. All I can say is that whilst not as garishly purple as an unfiltered M8 (think, Jack Nicholson's outfit as The Joker), the blacks were clearly not black, and had a noticeable magenta tinge. Enough so that the client pointed it out, noting the comparison with the 5DII shots.

 

I'm surprised you didn't also bump into an elephant on your way home.