tashley Posted January 5, 2010 Share #21 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I experienced such a defect on Epson RD1. In effect the seller preferred that I keep the camera for free rather than return to him. The repair is only via the total exchange of CCD and electronics. This is a pixel row failure due to faulty electronic circuits. It will become worse and worse with usage. It is easily diagnosable via taking a single picture at max ISO with the cap on the lens at a long shutter. Thanks for that advice - I have also been told that it's just a case of 'there will always be one dead pixel out of so many million and the software has to be able to find it and map it out' - apparently Olympus are the best at this... however I prefer your way: it doesn't work so I should get a new camera. If they give it to me for free, that's even better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Hi tashley, Take a look here Does Leica Have a Problem? . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
telewatt Posted January 5, 2010 Share #22 Posted January 5, 2010 Thanks for that advice - I have also been told that it's just a case of 'there will always be one dead pixel out of so many million and the software has to be able to find it and map it out' - apparently Olympus are the best at this... however I prefer your way: it doesn't work so I should get a new camera. If they give it to me for free, that's even better ..and you can send me the old one for some cents... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 5, 2010 Share #23 Posted January 5, 2010 All sensors have bad pixels and bad columns. The specifications for the M9 and S2 are not published but the M8 sensor required < 2500 bad pixels, < 30 clusters of bad pixels and < 10 bad columns where "bad" is defined in each case. It's exactly analogous to the stuck pixels we used to get on TFT screens which (in my experience) are rare today as manufacturing methods have improved. As Tim says, the camera goes through a process at manufacture to identify them so that it can "heal" the raw data by interpolating across the defects. All well and good, providing the process of identifying them is sufficiently thorough - taking account of different ISOs and lighting conditions - and there are no ageing effects in play which create additional defects over time. That might, for example, require a burn-in period to get the chip to stabilise and Leica will have developed a process - maybe with Kodak - to put the sensors through so that, in practice, bad pixels and columns are not visible. It sounds like Tim's camera needs to go through that process again or that the process itself needs to be refined to judge the performance more critically; the danger of simply getting a new camera is that it too will have been subject to the same overly lenient process and may show defects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 5, 2010 Share #24 Posted January 5, 2010 Mark, thank you, very interesting insight, I did know there were a number, but did not realize that the numbers would be that large. Im guessing that each camera must have a calibration file in firmware somewhere to deal with this. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 5, 2010 Share #25 Posted January 5, 2010 Mark, thanks lot for the post OT a bit, but all this pixel peeping is making me miss the relatively care-free days of film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 5, 2010 Share #26 Posted January 5, 2010 Mark, thanks lot for the post OT a bit, but all this pixel peeping is making me miss the relatively care-free days of film I had a similar feeling about 18 months ago and shot and both developed and had developed a few rolls. The dust'n'scratches problems were at least as irritating as the digital counterparts. There was also quite a lot of noise at medium and higher ISO! It sure felt good though, for a few months, but nostalgia soon faded in the face of the realities of the process Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 5, 2010 Share #27 Posted January 5, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... but nostalgia soon faded in the face of the realities of the process Instead of pixel-peeping, the relatively care-free days of film where marked by dust-peeping, scratch-peeping, waterstain-peeping, air bubble-peeping, fingerprint-peeping, film-curvature peeping, grain-peeping, lack of details in the shadows-peeping and/or scanner dynamic range-peeping. I shot some film a few months ago, and then remembered why I don't want to do that anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 5, 2010 Share #28 Posted January 5, 2010 The best thing about the fim days was that every photography conversation didn't involve mandatory comparisons to the D3x. There was no strobist blog churning out armies of clones DIYing their way through formula lighting techniques. Plus, there was no such thing as 352 page flickr galleries filled with car show girls. Water spots and dust problems were the good ole days Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 5, 2010 Share #29 Posted January 5, 2010 Yeah, whenever I turn up to a test shoot or whatever and there's a 'model' and lighting laid on, I want to scream 'get me a dark room with a small window and Billy Idol or Marianne Faithful' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted January 5, 2010 Share #30 Posted January 5, 2010 I experienced such a defect on Epson RD1. In effect the seller preferred that I keep the camera for free rather than return to him. The repair is only via the total exchange of CCD and electronics. This is a pixel row failure due to faulty electronic circuits. It will become worse and worse with usage. It is easily diagnosable via taking a single picture at max ISO with the cap on the lens at a long shutter. I had that problem in my M8, and the CCD and electronics were replaced at Solms. The camera developed this "known" problem after months of use, but into the warranty period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted January 5, 2010 Share #31 Posted January 5, 2010 There were one nice thing about film though. EVERY camera "could" have the same sensor, regardless of make and age. Still I don't miss some of the problems too much. actually they were not much problems, we shot, dropped off the stuff, 135, 120 or 4x and the lab delivered clean chromes next morning. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted January 6, 2010 Share #32 Posted January 6, 2010 There were one nice thing about film though. EVERY camera "could" have the same sensor, regardless of make and age. Still I don't miss some of the problems too much. actually they were not much problems, we shot, dropped off the stuff, 135, 120 or 4x and the lab delivered clean chromes next morning. . just, sometimes they were not soooo clean, full of scratches, finger prints etc. why bother anymore? p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 6, 2010 Share #33 Posted January 6, 2010 A little update... I gave Leica a copy, yesterday afternoon, of a DNG file taken at ISO1250 showing a column defect from a bad pixel that wasn't mapped properly (see higher up this thread) and this morning I received by email a small (600kb) FW update which, when installed, fixed the problem completely. Tim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpattinson Posted January 6, 2010 Share #34 Posted January 6, 2010 A little update... I gave Leica a copy, yesterday afternoon, of a DNG file taken at ISO1250 showing a column defect from a bad pixel that wasn't mapped properly (see higher up this thread) and this morning I received by email a small (600kb) FW update which, when installed, fixed the problem completely. Tim nice I wonder if they could automate that... you email a DNG to a specific address, and an automated process picks it up, does the appropriate analysis and emails back the firmware patch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlam Posted January 6, 2010 Share #35 Posted January 6, 2010 A little update... I gave Leica a copy, yesterday afternoon, of a DNG file taken at ISO1250 showing a column defect from a bad pixel that wasn't mapped properly (see higher up this thread) and this morning I received by email a small (600kb) FW update which, when installed, fixed the problem completely. Tim This is really interesting. It suggests that Leica has kept the defect profile of every camera they make and what they just did was to add the additional column defect to the profile of your camera and sent it to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 6, 2010 Share #36 Posted January 6, 2010 Yes, certainly interesting if they have developed a method for analysing a DNG and returning a firmware file to update the camera. Certainly beats returning the camera to have it done. Tim, any sign that the firmware update is newly developed for your camera (for example dated today or with a filename which includes your camera serial number)? You'd expect any such update to prevent my defects updating your camera, for example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted January 6, 2010 Share #37 Posted January 6, 2010 Yes, certainly interesting if they have developed a method for analysing a DNG and returning a firmware file to update the camera. Certainly beats returning the camera to have it done. Tim, any sign that the firmware update is newly developed for your camera (for example dated today or with a filename which includes your camera serial number)? You'd expect any such update to prevent my defects updating your camera, for example. It had my name in the filename - now that's what I call personal service! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted January 6, 2010 Share #38 Posted January 6, 2010 It had my name in the filename - now that's what I call personal service! ..fine! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted January 6, 2010 Share #39 Posted January 6, 2010 It had my name in the filename - now that's what I call personal service! nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 6, 2010 Share #40 Posted January 6, 2010 just, sometimes they were not soooo clean, full of scratches, finger prints etc. why bother anymore?p Just try being more careful! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.