SD Card Tests with and without M9

[dwbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please don't patronise me.

 

That wasn't clear to me. I thought that it was Robert who was doing the de-bugging and you were commenting that when you do certain things with your camera, it breaks down. The implication, as I read it, was that you did this regularly.

 

I apologise for not understanding what you were doing and I also apologise for only a being a very reasonable fellow most of the time. I will have to try much harder than I do now.

 

I will leave you to it and wish you well. As I have said before, it does seem to affect only a very small number of users, so you may have a long job on your hands.

 

Andy, this is a long in tooth ongoing issue on the forum you see. The contention (and we think soon to be confirmed by Leica) is actually that it is a global product defect that affects all M9's, maybe under certain operating conditions, maybe using only certain cards. Important here (and frustrating for the debuggers) is that everything points to it NOT being user error.

 

The constant implication (not by you) that it's somehow the users fault, that we're forcing it to crash with silly button pressing is patronising at best. I lost important wedding shots by just using the camera normally.

 

There's a level of sneering by some leading to over-reaction of others. Understandably.

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

That's not what I said and I have already apologised.

[Robert_M]

Robert,

 

A small side comment on your earlier posting.

The M8 and the M9 have both the same speed limit of 2 pictures/second.

The M8 Sensor is well documented and has two simultaneous outputs to transfer pixels.

 

The M9 sensor has physically the same pixels, only much more of them, almost twice as much.

Since it is not possible to read out pixels twice as fast, it can only be achieved by having 4 output channels instead of 2. So the frame is not divided in 2 but in 4 parts.

 

But since the whole picture is processed inside the camera before anything else, I think that SD card problems cannot reflect any of this internal subdivision and that "one will see some artifact related to this symmetry" is not related to this.

 

The prove that the picture is completely processed inside the camera before writing to the SD card lies to my opinion in the fact that you can shoot a number of pictures without an SD card. When the SD card is inserted in a later stage, everything is nicely written to the SD card.

 

Hans

 

 

In the past, I've tried searching around for information and spec sheets on the Kodak ccd used in the M9. I have not found that information and I expect I won't. Typically, those specs would be secured under joint IP and NDA agreements since the sensor is specific to the M9. However, one can find ccd sensors at the Kodak site which are very close in specification. You can look around the Kodak site for information, they put a considerable amount out there. The following link is a ccd which is very close to the M9 sensor (without the micro-lens array).

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/fullframe/KAF-10500LongSpec.pdf

If you care to read through all this, you will see the readout times and that the output is indeed in 2 halves NOT 4 sections. I haven't investigated the M8 sensor specs so I can't give you a detailed comparison. I'd assume that the pixel readout speed of the M9 is faster than the M8 if the total readout time is the same. That is reasonable, considering the advance in technology.

 

To illustrate what I mean about the 2 halves, I've done a quick search of this forum for some examples. (1) A link at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/139694-do-i-see-centrefold-problem.html by jaapv contains some large image files (so I didn't try to copy here) which show a subtle change across the central line of the image. (2) A link at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/190991-banding-bei-langzeitbelichtungen-keine-reaktion-von-3.html I have copied below. The link is about noise but you can clearly see the central division between the 2 sensor halves. The sensor division is visible because each half is going through a different amp and ADC, with different noise and different non-linearities, and different gain errors. Remember, this is down in the noise. (3) This link http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/138577-m9-image-fault.html again shows the 2-fold symmetry of the sensor system. In this case, something is wrong in the processing if that is visible for those light conditions.

 

None of these artifacts are the type which can be related to the SD card or the file writing task. Again, there are 2 halves not 4 sectors.

 

 

RM

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!

[Robert_M]

Hi RM,

 

Excellent work and thanks for the extra information as well.

Aside from testing more cards in the M9, is there anything else you would recommend we collectively should do at this time?

A short No or Yes as an answer is fine. If Yes, what is it?

 

Best, K-H.

 

Well, more testing of cards is interesting in that it might lead to a specific type of card. But, it might be fruitless since my current tests through the camera have failed always.

 

What would be useful in the short term for us is to understand if there is a reliable work around to avoid the problem. Again, there may not be one that is sure fire. Your very simple question is actually hard to answer.

 

RM

[Jamie Roberts]

Robert, can you clarify your test procedure a little bit?

 

Essentially, you're using your M9 as a removable drive from a computer host and then filling up the card with what? Data from the computer test program?

 

Is that true, or am I missing something?

 

If so, are you actually exercising the data processing path on the M9 to the SD card or only testing its built-in USB host controller (in a way probably never envisioned by Leica--from computer to M9)?

 

Or are you actually trying to fill the card with pictures from the M9?

 

Sorry--I've read the long posts and I just don't understand (and I'm just trying to understand).

[k-hawinkler]

I just received within the hour a Panasonic PASD8GBU1 8GB SDHC-UHS-I Memory Card and a

Delkin Devices DEMCRU30 USB 3.0 Universal Memory Card Reader from B&H.

 

I formatted the new card in the M9 and took 18 compressed DNG shots of 18.3 MB each.

Then I attached the M9 via USB connection Mass storage to my MacBook Pro.

I then copied uncompressed M9 DNG files of 36.4 MB each to the M9 until the memory card was full.

It turned out 44 MB free space was still left on the memory card inside the M9.

Writing speed was about 4 to 5 MB/s

 

I then disconnected the M9 from the USB.

The M9 LCD display indicated there was still space for 2 images on the card with current settings.

I successfully photographed two additional images that showed up just fine.

 

I then took the memory card out of the M9 and stuck it into the Delkin Universal Memory Card Reader.

I drag-dropped then all files into a folder on my MacBook Pro.

All files were successfully copied with a sustained data rate of about 33 MB/s.

All images showed up fine on my MacBook Pro.

 

Of course, this doesn't prove there aren't any intermittent problems.

 

However, I have demonstrated filling up the memory card inside the M9 until there wasn't enough space left for even one image.

(44 - 2•18.3) MB = 7.4 MB free space left.

Actually, my Mac indicates LEICA M9, 7.92 GB, 7.3 MB free

No problem.

 

I just formatted the card in the Delkin with writing zeros to it, sustained write speed 22.4 MB/s.

 

K-H.

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just received within the hour a Panasonic PASD8GBU1 8GB SDHC-UHS-I Memory Card and a

Delkin Devices DEMCRU30 USB 3.0 Universal Memory Card Reader from B&H.

 

{snipped}

 

I very strongly suspect you will enjoy that card with the M9, though I'm curious to see how the "UHS-1" version works

 

I've filled up the older versions many, many times on the M9 without a problem. In fact, the only time I experienced an issue with the M9 was with a brand-new card Hoodman card when it was newly formatted and nearly empty (with the old firmware). I've never used the card since and never had the issue return.

[k-hawinkler]

I strongly suspect you will enjoy that card with the M9. I've filled them up many, many times without a problem.

 

 

Hi Jamie,

 

My sincerest thanks to you. Without your posts and explanations I would have never investigated these Gold cards. But one glance at the specs was enough for me to get really excited as I am familiar with the underlying technology, just in a different context.

 

So, again many thanks. Do you have any other such gems we need to get educated about?

 

With best regards, K-H.

[t024484]

Hi Robert,

 

The Kodak link in your posting is indeed quite close to the M9 because it is the M8 Sensor.

The M9 has the same physical pixel dimension as the M8, so the M9 is probably something like a dual M8 sensor. I find it hard to believe that Kodak developed a whole new and much faster technology for a relatively small company like Leica.

 

The absolute maximum readout frequency for the M8 chip is 24 Mhz.

Leica has gone as far as approx. 20 Mhz, already quite close to this maximum. To keep the same picture readout time for the M9 as the M8, two channels would have to go to 9/5*20 = 36 Mhz, way beyond the maximum of 24 Mhz.

 

In case of having 4 outputs, frequency drops 4,5/5 * 20 = 18 Mhz.

Since digital processing after the A/D conversion also corrects for differences in the amplifiers, it can happen that you get vertical lines.

This is no prove for the amount of readout channels only that there are more than 1.

 

But apart from this, all I wanted to say in my previous posting is that during writing to the SD card, the image is no longer divided in parts because digital corrections have been performed on the whole picture, and because of that, the picture will be written to the SD card in one go.

 

That the result on the SD card is incorrect at times, could be because writing to or reading from the SD card is not fail safe, but it could just as well be an internal process that goes wrong and because of that faulty information is written to the SD card. I have not seen a clear evidence yet that the SD card to M9 interface is the cause of the problem. This could be the reason why it takes quite some time for Leica to find the cause of the problem.

 

Hans

[Jamie Roberts]

Hi Jamie,

 

My sincerest thanks to you. Without your posts and explanations I would have never investigated these Gold cards. But one glance at the specs was enough for me to get really excited as I am familiar with the underlying technology, just in a different context.

 

So, again many thanks. Do you have any other such gems we need to get educated about?

 

With best regards, K-H.

 

You're very welcome Karl-Heins (did I spell that right?), I hope they work as well for you as they do for me! If they made CF cards I'd buy those too.

 

As for other points of knowledge, this is more of a hunch from experience; I can't afford to have the M9 lose shots at a wedding.

 

As an aside, in truth, my Nikon D3 is giving me more trouble than the Ms these days. There's something about the older 85mm AF lens on the D3 that messes up electronic communication with--you guessed it--the cards in the camera, even though it has one of the fastest data processing paths ever! The camera locks, with a "CD error," in the LCD, and I have to pull the CF cards and sometimes the battery to get it to be useful again. The camera then starts numbering every shot at "0001"-- and it only happens with that one model lens, and then only intermittently. Now that's annoying!

 

Gotta love digital cameras...nothing like relying on computers for reliability (which is why there's always an M6 and M3 in my bag or nearby)

[anupmc]

...I put the M9 in mass storage read mode for the USB. This mode is common for most all devices that use SD cards. In this mode, the device acts like a USB drive so the only thing the device (M9 in this case) is doing is handling the read/write interface with the SD card. My purpose was to establish the read/write speed of the M9 as it handles the SD card. This should be a spec which is available and known, but I've never seen it.

 

...

Finally, I conclude that the M9 writes at roughly 4 MB/s and reads at 6 MB/s. So, buying faster cards won't speed up your picture acquisition speed but it will help your downloading to a computer later if you use the card directly in the computer and not the USB port to the M9. But others have already concluded this. I have just quantified what that write speed limit is (I think).

 

 

..

 

Interesting tests you've done Robert.

 

That said, as Jamie has pointed out, it's a mistake to assume that the speed at which one can write into the SD card mounted in an M9 (via a Computer sending files over the USB) actually correlates to the speed at which the M9 itself writes images onto the SD card. They're obviously different hardware paths and firmware algorithms in play between the two writes. The USB write path would not be optimized in anyway, whereas the M9's own write path would be highly optimized. So, your guesstimate of 4MB/s, 6MB/s R/W is only for USB-to-SD on the M9.

 

In fact, the M9's technical specs states "approx. 2 pictures/s". Since the largest uncompressed DNGs are 36MB, it's safe to assume the M9 has a write speed of at least 72MB/s (or 576Mbps - half the speed of a typical Gigabit Ethernet port)... perhaps a little less when you factor in the buffer.

 

So, your figures are a couple of magnitudes off

[k-hawinkler]

Interesting tests you've done Robert.

 

That said, as Jamie has pointed out, it's a mistake to assume that the speed at which one can write into the SD card mounted in an M9 (via a Computer sending files over the USB) actually correlates to the speed at which the M9 itself writes images onto the SD card. They're obviously different hardware paths and firmware algorithms in play between the two writes. The USB write path would not be optimized in anyway, whereas the M9's own write path would be highly optimized. So, your guesstimate of 4MB/s, 6MB/s R/W is only for USB-to-SD on the M9.

 

In fact, the M9's technical specs states "approx. 2 pictures/s". Since the largest uncompressed DNGs are 36MB, it's safe to assume the M9 has a write speed of at least 72MB/s (or 576Mbps - half the speed of a typical Gigabit Ethernet port)... perhaps a little less when you factor in the buffer.

 

So, your figures are a couple of magnitudes off

 

 

Hi,

 

USB-to-SD on the M9 is indeed a very limiting path.

BTW, aren't you confusing the speed with which the M9 writes to its buffer with the speed with which the buffer writes to the SD card?

To measure these speeds, just shoot 7 images in C-mode and see when the red LED stops blinking. That's when it's finished writing to the SD card, no?

Where did I go wrong?

 

Best, K-H.

[anupmc]

...BTW, aren't you confusing the speed with which the M9 writes to its buffer with the speed with which the buffer writes to the SD card?

To measure these speeds, just shoot 7 images in C-mode and see when the red LED stops blinking. That's when it's finished writing to the SD card, no?

Where did I go wrong?

 

Best, K-H.

 

You're quite right K-H, good catch. Obviously we don't have SD cards on the market today that can write at those speeds (which also explains the need for the largish buffer).

[Robert_M]

Hi Robert,

 

The Kodak link in your posting is indeed quite close to the M9 because it is the M8 Sensor.

The M9 has the same physical pixel dimension as the M8, so the M9 is probably something like a dual M8 sensor. I find it hard to believe that Kodak developed a whole new and much faster technology for a relatively small company like Leica.

 

The absolute maximum readout frequency for the M8 chip is 24 Mhz.

Leica has gone as far as approx. 20 Mhz, already quite close to this maximum. To keep the same picture readout time for the M9 as the M8, two channels would have to go to 9/5*20 = 36 Mhz, way beyond the maximum of 24 Mhz.

 

In case of having 4 outputs, frequency drops 4,5/5 * 20 = 18 Mhz.

Since digital processing after the A/D conversion also corrects for differences in the amplifiers, it can happen that you get vertical lines.

This is no prove for the amount of readout channels only that there are more than 1.

 

But apart from this, all I wanted to say in my previous posting is that during writing to the SD card, the image is no longer divided in parts because digital corrections have been performed on the whole picture, and because of that, the picture will be written to the SD card in one go.

 

That the result on the SD card is incorrect at times, could be because writing to or reading from the SD card is not fail safe, but it could just as well be an internal process that goes wrong and because of that faulty information is written to the SD card. I have not seen a clear evidence yet that the SD card to M9 interface is the cause of the problem. This could be the reason why it takes quite some time for Leica to find the cause of the problem.

 

Hans

 

 

 

The link I put up was just one of many representative CCDs in the Kodak line that are similar. I didn't mean to imply that it is the one which is the basis of the M9 sensor. In fact, the M9 sensor is Kodak # KAF-18500 and according to both Kodak and Leica literature, it was specifically developed for the M9. The Leica literature says this as does Kodak. See for example KODAK CCD Image Sensor Powers New LEICA M9 Digital Camera . Again, I doubt one will find the spec sheet for this specific part number since it will be protected by NDA and IP agreements.

 

Take a look at Kodak Image Sensor Solutions - Full Frame CCD for a list of various Kodak designs

 

I have no doubt that the volume is high enough for Kodak to specifically modify an existing ccd layout to develop this model for Leica. I do have some familiarity with the industry since I'm employed in a firm developing high end, large light weight optics for imaging. I also have 2 children employed by one of the leading firms which produces custom IR array sensor chips and cameras. I do have some sense of what is available and what it takes to get a new variation.

 

As far as I know, all of those Kodak ccd arrays use an architecture with 2 halves and 2 readout paths for the ccd. I've not heard of any 4 quadrant designs. If you look at KAF-39000 on that list http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/fullframe/KAF-39000LongSpec.pdf you will see that it is the size of 2 M9 sensors on a single chip. It is 2x the area of the M9 sensor, has about a 1 fps frame rate and still uses the 2 halves architecture. I could well imaging (but I don't know) that the M9 sensor uses some of the same development and tooling masks. One could speculate that a scaled down version of that ccd (by 1/2 area) would allow a 2 fps rate.

 

Again, look at the example images I posted. When something is wrong at the sensor readout level, one will see a left/right division in the image. When all works correctly, there is not a division detectible.

 

If you have any reference or firm information on a 4 quadrant design for a Kodak ccd sensor, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

 

 

 

RM

[Robert_M]

Robert, can you clarify your test procedure a little bit?

 

Essentially, you're using your M9 as a removable drive from a computer host and then filling up the card with what? Data from the computer test program?

 

Is that true, or am I missing something?

 

If so, are you actually exercising the data processing path on the M9 to the SD card or only testing its built-in USB host controller (in a way probably never envisioned by Leica--from computer to M9)?

 

Or are you actually trying to fill the card with pictures from the M9?

 

Sorry--I've read the long posts and I just don't understand (and I'm just trying to understand).

 

Jamie,

 

I am using the M9 in a mode that was indeed envisioned by Leica. Pages 158-159 of the user manual explain hooking up the M9 in mass storage mode. To quote Leica: "In addition, it is always possible to operate the camera as an external drive ("bulk storage")" (p.158). Leica set up the access nicely on this since they allowed both mass storage mode and PTP mode. I understand there are some cameras which only use PTP mode and want the user to go through their software. The Leica design intent here is good and I praise it.

 

In essence, my test is using the M9 no differently than a $20 USB SD card reader. Yes, it is testing both the USB interface to the M9 and the M9 to SD card interface. I don't believe it is using anything else. So the test isolates a single area of the camera electronics. Trouble is, the M9 fails (and a $20 card reader does not).

 

You can get more info on the test program by doing a web search. There is a considerable amount of info out there on the program and how to use it. There are even some videos showing the test being done on cards. The program is essentially writing and reading to all memory locations to verify the memory card.

 

RM

[Robert_M]

K-H,

 

I don't believe that your test is the same as I did with filling the SD card directly through the M9 via USB interface. I also have had no trouble filling the SD card with real M9 images through picture capture in the camera. My general photo mode is to fill the card completely and I've done that with a large variety of card, including the ones in the second test which failed in the direct write mode. I have to admit that I'm one of those guys from the film days who would always put 38 slides (and mounted) on a 36 frame roll of film.

 

I think we need to find a direct test for you which uses MacOS. I haven't found the right program to recommend yet. I only have access to one such machine (mini Mac with Snow Leopard) and my wife tries to keep my fiddly hands off her computer....:rolleyes: So I'm not as familiar with going that OS route for testing.

 

More later....

 

RM

 

 

 

To all,

 

In any case, let's keep in mind that Leica knows and acknowledges that there is problem at the SD card interface in the M9.

[Robert_M]

Interesting tests you've done Robert.

 

That said, as Jamie has pointed out, it's a mistake to assume that the speed at which one can write into the SD card mounted in an M9 (via a Computer sending files over the USB) actually correlates to the speed at which the M9 itself writes images onto the SD card. They're obviously different hardware paths and firmware algorithms in play between the two writes. The USB write path would not be optimized in anyway, whereas the M9's own write path would be highly optimized. So, your guesstimate of 4MB/s, 6MB/s R/W is only for USB-to-SD on the M9.

 

In fact, the M9's technical specs states "approx. 2 pictures/s". Since the largest uncompressed DNGs are 36MB, it's safe to assume the M9 has a write speed of at least 72MB/s (or 576Mbps - half the speed of a typical Gigabit Ethernet port)... perhaps a little less when you factor in the buffer.

 

So, your figures are a couple of magnitudes off

 

 

 

 

I completely disagree with the interpretation laid out above.

 

1) The 2 fps speed refers to the images going into the camera buffer. Once that buffer fills, the SD card write speed limits the frame speed. There on many others on this forum which have commented on this extensively. One can try it oneself to verify.

 

2) My test does indeed come up with the same 4 MB/s write speed to the card that the camera would does on its own. BTW, that is B=Bytes not bits, in case there is any confusion by anyone.

 

3) Want to test the write speed using the camera alone? OK, put in a card and format the card using the M9's FORMAT OVERWRITE mode. This will write to each memory location, ie it will write to the entire card (presumably a zero). I suggest that you do this with a smaller card. At 4 MB/s, you will need 1000 sec (about 16 min) to complete the task for a typical 4GB SDHC card. That will verify the speed for you. BTW, I did try this with a 16 GB SDHC card and yes it took over an hour to complete the task!

 

RM

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

In essence, my test is using the M9 no differently than a $20 USB SD card reader. Yes, it is testing both the USB interface to the M9 and the M9 to SD card interface. I don't believe it is using anything else. So the test isolates a single area of the camera electronics. Trouble is, the M9 fails (and a $20 card reader does not).

{snipped}

 

Ok, thanks--I will check the program out.

 

The problem really is though, that you've introduced a strange variable into the "fail condition" and you're only exercising the tiniest part of the image data path to card write, and the test is probably simply relying on whatever your OS tells you about the M9 masquerading as a hard drive (I haven't checked the tool yet, but I'm betting it doesn't include its own OS or non-OS hardware level diagnostics).

 

I love Windows, but it's flaky as heck when it comes to removable USB devices. My Macs are better, but not by much.

 

See--I have lots of $20 card readers--and $50 card readers, for that matter--that have failed with Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows XP and, yes, with Leopard and Snow Leopard, too. That goes for CF, SD and other types as well.

 

So the M9 failing to write completely when it's working as a "card reader" means either 1) there's a problem with the M9, as you surmise, filling cards when connected as mass storage (which btw isn't the same, necessarily, as when it isn't OR 2) there's a problem with the way the OS reports the card storage to the tool (which may be due to formatting among other things) OR 3) there's a problem between the two systems, that has no effect on the ability of the M9 to write to SD cards.

 

Consequently, I don't think you can reach the conclusions you've reached that quickly.

 

Since K-H and you have had different results so far, I'd suspect that something is amiss in the method.

 

Please understand I'm not saying the M9 doesn't have issues writing to some SD cards--or even to all SD cards under some conditions (that I haven't run into yet).

 

I just don't think your test is exercising enough of the image processing and writing chain to have much bearing on the diagnosis, though of course, you may turn out to be exactly right with more data and different tests.

 

BTW--I haven't heard Leica report the issue is at the hosted SD card interface with the M9. If you have information you can make public, please do.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Chipkahn]

I apologize for starting a new thread but I think my reasons are valid. I've done extensive testing of SD cards over the last few days, both with and without going through the M9. In the end, I believe I can point to definitive evidence of an M9 problem and where it is. But I'll make the reader patiently read through a post or two first before getting to the punch line. (No, I really don't have aspirations to be a mystery novelist but I do enjoy a good read ).

 

My reasons for a new thread are:

1) The main post on this problem is now 778 posts long and some of the lazy readers of this forum have expressed that they don't want to read all that. So I'll make it easy.

2) The big thread has evolved into an argument between a couple factions. As one member put it recently "To be honest, I am giving up trying to prove anything to anyone in this thread anymore, it is futile and a complete waste of energy. I'll leave them to drink the Kool-Aid." I think he may have a point.

3) I believe I have relevant real data to present here and don't want to bury it in that long post.

 

So enough of the commentary, I'll stick to the factual presentation.....

I have a fairly large collection of SD cards since I tend to use them for other temporary storage needs, not just camera needs. I figure, it is more useful to buy SD cards and use them as USB drives when necessary rather than just buy SD cards for cameras, and USB thumb drives separately. Anyway, you get the idea. So I went about systematically testing all the cards I had available (excluding some I didn't want to erase the contents) and see how they measure up to spec and if they had any evidence of the phantom, highly rumored, cause of all evil "fake card". (excuse my sarcasm, I'll try to stick to the facts...).

 

Using a laptop PC running Windows XP, I used the program h2testw_1.4 to test the cards. As I pointed out in another thread, this program tests for read speed, write speed, memory errors, and false claims of performance (ie false card size claims). One can do a web search and find this program for free download. I highly recommend this program as a diagnostic tool which is simple to use.

 

Just for reference, ALL the cards I've purchased and tested were acquired from highly reliable retailers. They are all retailers who would be purchasing directly from the manufacturer. There is no reason to doubt the origins of the cards. The cards were purchased at various times from about 2006 to the present. A couple of the cards are old enough that they don't even mark the speed rating. A couple are less than 1 month old. All cards were SDHC except for the 2 SD cards noted in the comments.

 

In the jpg below, I've summarized the results of the read write tests. In all cases, the cards the cards had the full memory size expected and had no errors in read or write.

 

Conclusions: All cards met or exceeded their marked specification. There is no evidence of anything other than what they claim to be. You will note that SD manufacturers advertise non-industry standard speeds, such as "up to 15MB/s speed". In all cases, these claims are overblown and only apply to the optimal read (not write) speeds. I refer the reader to do a wikipedia search for a more extensive article on these standards and advertising claims.

 

I also note that SanDisk used to vastly exceed their specifications during the Ultra II era. Their current Ultra cards still well exceed the spec but not by as much.

 

In short, there is no evidence that these are nothing but legit cards which conforms properly to any advertised specification. BTW, it was card # 12, 13, and 15 on this list which caused me an anomalous event. Cards #5, 6, and 14 I have not yet tried in the M9.

 

I expect that others who do a similar analysis of cards from big retailers will find the similar results. There is nothing unusual about my findings.

 

RM

 

I read the thread for awhile. I think I understand the conclusion, but I may be missing something, is there a way to avoid the crashing before Leica comes up with some big solution?

[Robert_M]

Jamie,

 

You are certainly right about the stability of Windows (or lack of). I will certainly try repeating these tests on another OS system when I find the right tools and the time. I hope to find some time this weekend to try that.

 

You are right that this test only examines the USB and SD interface and bypasses all the image processing. But that is the virtue (and intent) of the test. When diagnosing problems, it is much easier to isolate one parameter at a time for tests. That is why I can rule out some of the other functions in coming to my conclusion.

 

I don't think that K-H's procedure is testing the same thing, as I explained in a post above.

 

In post #17 of this thread, I summarized what I know about Leica being aware of the problem and working on the issue. Please take a look at that.

 

Regards,

 

RM