New Firmware 1.092 thoughts/ Read instructions

[Jamie Roberts]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well your also asking a sensor to handle a 12 stop or more range too, now i am not so sure any sensor can do that. Sensors will never match what our eyes can handle . There is a point of no return too. But it still is something for them to look at no doubt. I wonder if we are expecting too much sometimes. In normal situations i have never seen this after about 11,000 shots.

 

Hey Guy--I'm really with Mark on this one; for weddings and events this is a near-show-stopper, because very bright light sources (halogens, etc...) are everywhere "just out of frame," which means they're always going to be "barred".

 

So I don't expect the sensor to "handle it" in any photographic sense or with any detail, but I do expect graceful degradation without serious artifacts from a $5k digicam.

 

One of the things I like the most about Leica's digicams and lenses is the ability to shoot into the light; it really sets them apart from the run-of-the mill stuff.

 

So I *really hope* they fix this one; it's just another version of the streaking they originally had, except I see this at low ISOs too.

 

@ Mark--as far as a "two month" development cycle goes, you need to remember that there were likely 1) vacations and holidays--both from the time of year and from the push to release the m8 and 2) focus on analysing and fixing the faulty hardware.

 

So I hope Leica fixes this in the same timeframe as the cyan fix. To me, it's actually more important, since I can more easily fix the vignette in post than I can the yellow / green bar (from dark pixels--is that right Mark?) just out of the frame.

[marknorton]

It is better to recover underexposed shadows than to have overexposed highlights. The M8 seems to be better than most at shadow detail. And wouldn't a hardware fix on cameras that show this effect be more elegant than tweaking the firmware to correct something that should not be there in the first place?

 

Jaap, I agree, but the way to fix this in hardware is to replace the sensor with one which does not allow light to bleed into the reference pixels and Leica are not about to do that. I'm sure they've brought it up with Kodak and it would be interesting to know whether the light is reaching the reference pixels through the front of the sensor or laterally through the "live" pixels.

 

My firmware fix involved doing the noise reduction second exposure behind a closed shutter when this situation is recognised and using the black reference pixel values out of the second exposure to replace those in the first.

[eronald]

Mark:

 

The problem is not the camera, but the shade is not installed on your lamp correctly

 

Matk, you have a centerfold problem on your camera.

 

Edmund

[j. borger]

And wouldn't a hardware fix on cameras that show this effect be more elegant than tweaking the firmware to correct something that should not be there in the first place?

Please no....... i will not send mine in again for something i never encountered in thousends of normal shooting situations....

[wparsonsgisnet]

1. I wish we could see what the iso setting is, as well -- however, it's a memory jog when the first pic taken tells you what the setting is. It's a *big* step in the right direction for me. Also -- I asked Sean to relay to the Gnomes that the silver bar was distracting -- glad it's gone.

 

2. I thot I saw that at least one other poster who also has to touch the shutter release to get the camera to complete the On cycle.

 

3. I am using Ridata 150x 2GB cards. They are 1/2 the price of the Ultra II's and in general I would agree with anything Guy said, but no one seems to be having any trouble with them (including me).

 

4. With regard to shooting both jpg and dng -- this has saved my bacon 3 times! It's a free backup (well, almost free, the 2gb cards are costing me less than $40 and I get 138 pairs of images on them). In two cases, the dng has not written to the disk, but the jpg has; in the other case, the dng did.

 

Now, the pix that got saved wouldn't have been printed by Ansel, but the thought is what counts. SD cards are cheap, lost images are invaluable. The client probably wouldn't spot an image that originated from a (hi-res) jpg as different from one that originated from dng's, as long as I didn't spill the beans.

 

Also, as Mark says, I can dump the jpg's to the client immediately for review. When I do a shoot, I take a laptop and burn a cd (actually 2 -- remember I'm a charter member of the Always Have Two club) at the end of the session and send the client off with images.

 

(...love this camera...) !!!!

[marknorton]

Mark--as far as a "two month" development cycle goes, you need to remember that there were likely 1) vacations and holidays--both from the time of year and from the push to release the m8 and 2) focus on analysing and fixing the faulty hardware.

 

So I hope Leica fixes this in the same timeframe as the cyan fix. To me, it's actually more important, since I can more easily fix the vignette in post than I can the yellow / green bar (from dark pixels--is that right Mark?) just out of the frame.

 

Jamie, I take your point and there was also the reported 'flu epidemic as well...

 

Yes, it's the dark pixels which provide a "black" reference and therefore track the live pixels with changing temperatures, differing sensitivities from row to row and especially with sensor ageing.

 

If you mess up what the firmware thinks of as black, all the live pixels based on that reference will be messed up as well and the bars appear green because there are twice as many green cells in a Bayer matrix as there are red and blue.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

I have a delay before I can get pictures with the play button that I could track down to the SD card with 4G I'm using. If you look at the top display, it takes a short while before the no. changes from 0 to the no. of remaining shots. With my 4G it takes longer, my SanDisk come up after a blink. Maybe that's the effect Bill got. Bill, do you have a larger, somewhat slower SD card?

 

Best regards

 

Karl-Heinz

 

Karl-Heinz, I am using a 150x Ridata 2gb card. It seems as fast as the Sandisk Ultra II's I was using initially.

 

BTW, I wanted to see what the actual write time was, so I shot 10 continuous shots and watched to clock to see how long it took for the camera to return control to me -- 47 seconds. If I make that 50 for the 10 shots, that turns out to be a 5-second write time.

 

All in all, I wouldn't have minded a bigger buffer. I keep filling it up during photo shoots and having to wait to recover. Mind you, it's not keeping me from sleeping, but if the actual write time is around 5 seconds (2 files, of course, totalling 13mg) then more buffer wold be nice. Surely we're not talking much money here -- what, $10 extra cost in hardware?

[marknorton]

Matk, you have a centerfold problem on your camera.

 

Edmund

 

Yes, that seems to be a side-effect of the banding. Doesn't happen normally....

[dhoelscher]

It settled down, yes, because I reverted to firmware 1.09.

 

Isn't it also interesting that in the instructional PDF for firmware 1.092, it specifically warns against reverting to 1.09 from 1.092 ????

[wparsonsgisnet]

...

If Bill took some of his ballet shots and caught a spot light at the edge, he'd get precisely the same effect.

 

and, he'd be pissed.

 

Thanks Mark for remembering that I posted a shot showing theater spots aiming right into the lens....

[wparsonsgisnet]

Yes, that seems to be a side-effect of the banding. Doesn't happen normally....

Oh, is *that* what he meant?

[marknorton]

Yes, Bill, not THAT sort of centrefold, LOL!

 

The good news with the hardware fix is that bright lights in the frame are well handled, it's this thin band around the image which is the problem.

[jaapv]

Please no....... i will not send mine in again for something i never encountered in thousends of normal shooting situations....

Only for cameras that exhibit this defect - mine don't.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Isn't it also interesting that in the instructional PDF for firmware 1.092, it specifically warns against reverting to 1.09 from 1.092 ????

 

This bothers me a bit -- let's hope that Leica didn't know this when they removed 1.091 from the website.

 

If they did, they really needed to tell us not to revert if we were likely to suffer dropouts (whatever that means).

 

I know Leica doesn't understand marketing; they are merely the best lens makers. I think they need to hire a v-e-r-y sensitive person to handle all their public information releases.

 

Did I say I like this camera? It's the cat's pajamas!

[jaapv]

Jaap, I agree, but the way to fix this in hardware is to replace the sensor with one which does not allow light to bleed into the reference pixels and Leica are not about to do that. I'm sure they've brought it up with Kodak and it would be interesting to know whether the light is reaching the reference pixels through the front of the sensor or laterally through the "live" pixels.

 

My firmware fix involved doing the noise reduction second exposure behind a closed shutter when this situation is recognised and using the black reference pixel values out of the second exposure to replace those in the first.

 

I have a feeling this happens on some cameras and not on others. That argues for some variation (tolerance issue?) in the assembly of the sensors.

[photolandscape]

Another day, another firmware update.

 

Software being quirky, and having read the postings on 1.092 thus far, I'm wondering whether it is really worth upgrading until they get into future updates, even waiting for 1.10?

[Jamie Roberts]

I have a feeling this happens on some cameras and not on others. That argues for some variation (tolerance issue?) in the assembly of the sensors.

 

Jaap--it only happens under very specific conditions, but I think it's pretty widespread, personally. I don't see how this could affect some cameras and not others.

 

The light has to be a point source, high intensity. It has to be right on the border of the active frame, and trying to set that up can be tricky (which is why Mark's 'long light' is such a good test light).

 

I don't know if it varies by color temp; haven't tried it yet.

 

BTW--the shutter is definitely clickier at the beginning of the shot. Not annoyingly so, but it's there. I'm glad it's on purpose.

[Jamie Roberts]

Karl-Heinz, I am using a 150x Ridata 2gb card. It seems as fast as the Sandisk Ultra II's I was using initially.

 

BTW, I wanted to see what the actual write time was, so I shot 10 continuous shots and watched to clock to see how long it took for the camera to return control to me -- 47 seconds. If I make that 50 for the 10 shots, that turns out to be a 5-second write time.

 

All in all, I wouldn't have minded a bigger buffer. I keep filling it up during photo shoots and having to wait to recover. {Snipped}

 

Ok, I've done some (gross) measuring with the new firmware.

 

As a long-time RAW shooter, I thought it was only Canons that used the RAW+JPEG to chimp. But Leica is doing it too... so here are some thoughts:

 

1) If you use RAW + JPEG, you are looking at the JPEG in chimp mode. To chimp, it's way faster to look at the JPEG than an on-the-fly conversion from RAW.

 

2) If you use RAW + JPEG, write time isn't noticably increased on a fast card

 

3) If you use RAW + small JPEG, you will not be able to zoom in when you chimp as much as a higher res JPEG. That's ok; I'm usually checking critical exposure, not focus, for me, so small JPEGs are perfect

 

4) Bill--if you take a burst of 10 shots, the camera returns control to you much faster than you're counting at 40 some odd seconds--you should be able to take more shots as the buffer clears; you don't have to wait to shoot...

 

BUT you have to wait to chimp till the entire buffer is cleared, so if you're shooting continuously, shoot RAW plus JPEG and increase the review time a bit; the camera will always flash the first shot in the sequence up before it resumes writing.

 

This is an important difference, shooting is given priority, and that's the way it should be!

 

If you keep filling the buffer, eventually you will get the 'writing data' message, but that's not a particularly bad thing. Then you have to wait a few seconds to squeeze another shot off. So unless you have something super-spectacular going on, you're better to shoot in 'bursts' and always have a little buffer left.

[35mmSummicron]

Jamie, i can pretty much replicate this problem at will (and i recall WB doesnt matter) not sure if its possible to fix via firmware, but if it is, slightly disappointed to hear it is not in 1.092. knowing this problem exists in the M8 i try to remember to avoid situations that provoke it, but thats a rather big compromise in my opinion.....

 

/a

 

 

Jaap--it only happens under very specific conditions, but I think it's pretty widespread, personally. I don't see how this could affect some cameras and not others.

 

The light has to be a point source, high intensity. It has to be right on the border of the active frame, and trying to set that up can be tricky (which is why Mark's 'long light' is such a good test light).

 

I don't know if it varies by color temp; haven't tried it yet.

 

BTW--the shutter is definitely clickier at the beginning of the shot. Not annoyingly so, but it's there. I'm glad it's on purpose.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Andy--couldn't agree more; I hope they fix it soon.