More firmware updates for the M8?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally, I think 16-bit could be a challenge, it may require significant memory I supposed apart from speed.

 

This misunderstanding comes up regularly whenever firmware updates are discussed, and I hope you'll forgive me for reminding everyone that the M8 captures 16bit (or really 14bit) natively, exactly like the M9. The camera down-samples the data for speed of writing to the card - nothing else.

The initial cameras immediately preceding release were capturing 16bit - these were actually preview samples sent to LFI, for instance. The downsampling update was made exactly prior to the camera launch.

In other words, no upgrades or new electronics are needed for the camera to use all the bits that are captured. Only the write-times are problematical - but in theory should be covered by the buffer, if multiple exposures are needed.

[Advertisement]

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

[ArtZ]

This misunderstanding comes up regularly whenever firmware updates are discussed, and I hope you'll forgive me for reminding everyone that the M8 captures 16bit (or really 14bit) natively, exactly like the M9. The camera down-samples the data for speed of writing to the card - nothing else.

The initial cameras immediately preceding release were capturing 16bit - these were actually preview samples sent to LFI, for instance. The downsampling update was made exactly prior to the camera launch.

In other words, no upgrades or new electronics are needed for the camera to use all the bits that are captured. Only the write-times are problematical - but in theory should be covered by the buffer, if multiple exposures are needed.

 

I think 16bit shooting DNG only should be OK. I guess the problem can arise when people shoot DNG + JPG (even 8bit DNG + JPG takes a lot time). Leica could just add an option in the firmware "16bit DNG" and when this option is activated, JPG is desactivated. Leica are you reading???

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

no problem to shoot only DNG,most of us is what we do,there is zero reason to shoot jpeg +DNG as it only fills up the card and hard disk with same but vastly inferior image-meaning the jpeg.If someone needs jpeg for any reason instantly can download the "INSTANT jpeg FROM RAW" free software and have instantly hundreds of jpegs from his raw files.

 

1/unlock the 16 bit DNG.

 

2/program the interval iso 80-250-400-500-800-1000 to improve the IQ and functionality of the camera in action.(should have been done two years earlier).

 

3/iso change with the useless protect button

 

4/ev change outside menu

 

5/i dont see very vital the manual lens selection although will be very welcome.

 

most probably the existing capacity can handle all that ,but again to avoid anymore excuses from the "sales" i 'm willing to accept charges if more power is needed for the above and camera has to travel in Solms.

[john_newell]

This misunderstanding comes up regularly whenever firmware updates are discussed, and I hope you'll forgive me for reminding everyone that the M8 captures 16bit (or really 14bit) natively, exactly like the M9. The camera down-samples the data for speed of writing to the card - nothing else.

The initial cameras immediately preceding release were capturing 16bit - these were actually preview samples sent to LFI, for instance. The downsampling update was made exactly prior to the camera launch.

In other words, no upgrades or new electronics are needed for the camera to use all the bits that are captured. Only the write-times are problematical - but in theory should be covered by the buffer, if multiple exposures are needed.

 

I'd forgotten that. I'd easily trade write speed for 14-bit.

[AbbeyPhoto]

Without wishing to be provocative, what is it that people hope to get from uncompressed Raw files? Having done some comparisons with my Nikon D3 I am of the opinion that there is no visible difference that would justify the reduction in speed (one of the M8's drawbacks as it is) and increase in file size. There may be a theoretical difference, but if you can't see something then it isn't there. The M8 has it's limitations, but image quality and dynamic range (the two areas that might theoretically be improved) are hardly a problem - in real-world tests I've done my M8 has a noticeably better DR (around 0.5-0.75 of a stop) than the D3.

 

'More' doesn't always equal 'better'

[Johnny_Johnson]

in real-world tests I've done my M8 has a noticeably better DR (around 0.5-0.75 of a stop) than the D3.

 

Interesting. DXO Labs found the D3 to be one stop better than the M8 at base ISO and two stops better at 600 ISO and above. I doubt though that it has anything to do with bit depth - probably just newer technology.

 

Later,

Johnny

[john_newell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Without wishing to be provocative, what is it that people hope to get from uncompressed Raw files? Having done some comparisons with my Nikon D3 I am of the opinion that there is no visible difference that would justify the reduction in speed (one of the M8's drawbacks as it is) and increase in file size. There may be a theoretical difference, but if you can't see something then it isn't there. The M8 has it's limitations, but image quality and dynamic range (the two areas that might theoretically be improved) are hardly a problem - in real-world tests I've done my M8 has a noticeably better DR (around 0.5-0.75 of a stop) than the D3.

 

'More' doesn't always equal 'better'

 

The potential flexibility to draw more information out of the files at some future date. In terms of benefits today? Nada.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

if someone cannot see diferences between 8 bit and 16 bit i would recomend to experiment

with other Raw converters and try better monitor.

Someone should look in the very low light variations-tonality-and in the high lights area on a top monitor and print in a high end workflow in realy large sizes.

 

1/ interval iso steps 80-250-400-500-800-1000,that will be very easily visible diference in any monitor and any Raw converter.Less noise.

 

2/ ev quick adjustment will also improve greatly the image quality as it will help in better controlled exposure and less clipping up or down.

 

3/quick iso change will vastly improve image quality by having the most ideal iso for depth of field control,blur control and image noise and Dynamic Range for the given situation.

 

lets not focus in the bit DNG thing-if the camera can do it let us decide if we need it or not-creativity is very individual and something that thousands of people see as not vital in the hands and mind of one can become

 

a super tool that others will follow later.Letting some space to grow something new is a good attitude.

[SJP]

The point is that Leica have done something very sneaky with their DNG conversion tables, instead of cutting the files in half via a linear table which would lead to dramatic loss of DR, they have used a logarithmic table wich means that you do not lose DR in the low light regions. You lose in the highlights but the human eye is not very good in seeing subtleties in the higlights. About one year ago there was a discussion on this and someone even started further optimising the conversion tables (which killed his M8 ultimately and it had to to Solms for reanimation). Bottom line the M8 DNG compression is very sophisticated, and you lose very little information (i.e. it is not visible, or at least that was the conclusion at the time).

 

Interestingly the thread even contained a tweaked firmware version which somehow seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth (as has the thread itself). They were going to get feedback from Leica on this before reanimation would occur.... long decision making process.

[jsrockit]

Free up the totally useless "S" mode on the shutter speed dial and do the most useful with this wasted position - make it a completely user programable mode.

 

How is this useless?

[AbbeyPhoto]

Interesting. DXO Labs found the D3 to be one stop better than the M8 at base ISO and two stops better at 600 ISO and above. I doubt though that it has anything to do with bit depth - probably just newer technology.

 

Later,

Johnny

 

Just been playing about with the DXO graphs, and the D3 is rating better than pretty much everything.

 

The results they show are purely theoretical, in the real world my simple tests (shoot the same scene with both cameras) showed more detail in both shadows and highlights with the Leica, which is what I was looking for. There could be lots of reasons for that, and it was all done at base ISO (where DR performance is best)

[jaapv]

Without wishing to be provocative, what is it that people hope to get from uncompressed Raw files? Having done some comparisons with my Nikon D3 I am of the opinion that there is no visible difference that would justify the reduction in speed (one of the M8's drawbacks as it is) and increase in file size. There may be a theoretical difference, but if you can't see something then it isn't there. The M8 has it's limitations, but image quality and dynamic range (the two areas that might theoretically be improved) are hardly a problem - in real-world tests I've done my M8 has a noticeably better DR (around 0.5-0.75 of a stop) than the D3.

 

'More' doesn't always equal 'better'

Indeed you won't see a significant (but opinion on that can differ, see Vikas' post, and he is right) difference on RAW conversion, but once you start doing some extensive postprocessing the uncompressed files will hold up better. I don't think tests done on a Nikon are valid. Both compression an RAW format are totally different from DNG.

[Just Alex]

1. Exposure compensation via the dial

2. Protect changed to ISO

3. Record RAW images as uncompressed full bit images

 

If I wanted autofocus (even more electronics to go wrong) or 10 frames/second (making the camera 50% bigger with added batteries) I'd buy a DSLR.

 

I dont want great jpegs at the expense of great raw files and I don't want every lens in Leica history added to firmware at the expense of good raw files.

 

What about a raw converter which added colour and shading corrections to the DNG on your computer? The camera would only need to embed the lens used and not all the corresponding corrections. The software could be as simple as Adobe DNG converter requiring only a couple of seconds per file and would allow the limited firmware memory on camera to be used for making updates which actually improve the shooting experience and quality of raw file.