New Firmware 1.092 thoughts/ Read instructions

[hammam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olivier, I do not think that is a fair comment. Leica is tweaking the firmware to give the best possible result with the filters they are supplying. That is their obligation, not to accomodate any other brans. The cast you notice is less than the variation one sees between different digital camera's in black rendering and is easily avoided by using the right C1 profile.

 

If it is not fair, I will stand corrected. But Leica is supplying complimentary filters now (if they actually do it one day), just to make up for the obligation to use IR cut filters. But what about in two, three years from now? Will I HAVE to buy Leica filters (when we all know the ridiculous prices of anything Leica) just to get decent blacks? THAT, I think is not fair, and this is what reminds me of Nikon tactics. Maybe they don't do it on purpose, but I feel they shouldn't do it AT ALL, and they should tweak firmware towards some sort of general IR cut efficiency, no matter the brand of filter. Heck, why not different settings available according to the brand used? A couple more menu lines.

 

Again, what I am saying is that there IS a very visible difference in IR cutting efficiency with the Heliopan filter between firmware 1.09 and 1.092.

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

Olivier, I'm confused as to how a firmware change can affect IR sensitivity. If that were possible, surely we wouldn't need the filters in the first place - they could just tweak the firmware? Maybe I'm missing something.

[Woody Campbell]

Could you post the same images in color Woody? Thats what I also would be interested.

 

Here are color versions. The M8 is the same image processed in c1 with the default color noise setting and the soft sharpening default. The 5D is the same image as above.

 

M8:

 

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!

 

5D

 

[Jamie Roberts]

Olivier, I'm confused as to how a firmware change can affect IR sensitivity. If that were possible, surely we wouldn't need the filters in the first place - they could just tweak the firmware? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Steve--the firmware can't affect the IR sensitivity of the sensor, but it can certainly affect the overall colour balance.

 

So let's say the earliest M8 DNGs / JPEGs were balanced towards more magenta and less green. Maybe that's mostly what you saw on RAW converters that had a basic DNG interpretation and no custom profile (and that's certainly the way ACR used to deal with M8 DNGs--remember Carsten's dark magenta self-portrait!?).

 

Obviously, if Leica (and Adobe) tweak the colour response to be more balanced overall, the colour will shift a bit, even those colours (reds) that are affected by the filters.

 

So that slight shift, and the difference in black level (exposure) can easily account for the difference seen here. There may *even* be a slightly different colour profile in the 486 filters that Leica is also keeping in mind, or it may just be a side effect of having a more neutral mapping to begin with.

 

Does that make sense? This is why I don't want to re-do any profiling till I'm satisfied than Leica has most of their colour settled with the M8.

[robsteve]

Thanks, Robert, I just called them and, indeed, they have a couple of 486. I had them reserve one for me, just to see the difference, if any, with the Heliopan.

 

They have had some since December. When the first few IR issues came out in November, I emailed the Canadian B+W distributer and asked about the availibility. When the distributor replied, he said he had just got the same email from Camtec. He immedialtely ordered all he could get from Germany plus put an order in for the sizes that had to be made. Thanks to Camtec, the stock of 486 filters in Canada was ordered well before it was known we will all need them.

 

I also mentioned this numerous times when they came into stock in December and I got my 39mm filters from Camtec/Leica Boutique in Montreal.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

@Olivier--I don't think Leica is tweaking the colour to be less accurate (or tuned for a filter). In fact, I think the colour without a filter has improved quite a lot.

 

I think they're fine-tuning the actual DNG matrix with Adobe (would be my hunch); I've heard from some folks I trust that their experience with LightRoom and ACR is much better with the new firmware than the old (I don't use 'em, so I really don't know).

 

JPEGs seem better to me, too (and I'm not talking about AWB, though the settings are servicable to me), but I don't shoot a lot of JPEGs for anything but proofing.

 

@John--Scott is mostly right about C1 Pro (which, yes, I use), except that all cameras have the banding and pattern noise controls (at least, all my Canons do It's not an M8 thing).

 

I'd personally never work with the C1 default noise processing off except in completely unusual cirmunstances; you're not losing any printable detail when it's on, and part of C1's algorithm works for subtle pixel pattern noise, colour dithering, etc...

 

If you want a sharper output look from C1, using "standard sharpening" / focussing as high as 200/3 and you'll have razor sharpness with phenomenal detail.

 

ISO 1250 and 2500 is much improved in this workflow, and it's probably due to lower colour noise overall (similar to a LAB blur of the AB channels). I can even "push" 1250 into places I really, really couldn't before. If I get a moment or two I'll post something...but just try underexposing 1250 and adjusting in post. It's definitely better, and 2500 pushed 1/3 stop is better than it used to be by a fair bit too.

 

@ Robert--I've never been able to find a Canadian dealer with IR cut filters in stock. I'll have to call around again!

 

EDIT: Woody--just saw your proof points; with black and white of course you won't see an improvement in chroma noise

 

I also think you need to sharpen the 5d more, and also that you can bring back M8 detail with sharpening without gaining noise (the equivalent of Noise Ninja in RAW); try it and see what you think; I don't think you'd get that many artifacts in terms of overall printable detail.

 

BTW--I'd be happy to be wrong here--live and learn, as they say! I just find I like losing noise at the RAW stage rather than deal with it later.

 

 

Jamie your hitting it. Leica has optimized the DNG file for there IR filter or the 486 and yes ACR and LR are much better , i suspect Adobe along with C1 has been working with Leica on tweaking the color which i think is much better with the IR filter on. Face it folks like it or not the IR filter needs to be on all the time it is not just the blacks but IR affects every color under the rainbow under ALL lighting conditions. i have not taken them off since November. Leica is simply improving the DNG file to match better to the IR filter. Heliopan is not the same filter, which was said several times in the past. The noise is without a doubt better even ISO 640 which is the highest i usually go but i do push to 1250 sometimes.

[Guest magyarman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olivier, I'm confused as to how a firmware change can affect IR sensitivity. If that were possible, surely we wouldn't need the filters in the first place - they could just tweak the firmware? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

No, you nothing miss. Firmware only can make change to colour balanced. Exakticly same like colour profile, is can fix up some oba no all, and is can change for worst some others colours. Leica suppose make it two possibility from menu: tell camera is IR filter, tell camera is no IR filter. If when tell camera is IR filter, camera make colour so will be ok with Leica IR filter oba no Heliopan, this understandibly. Oba, when tell camera is no IR filter, if will be some other fix up colour like half of way, this very bat. I thing suppose be when tell camera is no filter, looks same like was M8 before 1,092. In this way will be work Heliopan filter same good like was.

[Guest magyarman]

So that slight shift, and the difference in black level (exposure) can easily account for the difference seen here. There may *even* be a slightly different colour profile in the 486 filters that Leica is also keeping in mind, or it may just be a side effect of having a more neutral mapping to begin with.

 

Does that make sense? This is why I don't want to re-do any profiling till I'm satisfied than Leica has most of their colour settled with the M8.

 

Ok, Jamie, so you thing possibility some profile will easy fix up small differents for people what have already got many Heliopan filters?

[sandymc]

Re the color balance, Leica significantly changed their color matix info in V1.092:

 

Old color matrix

ColorMatrix1:

0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775

-0.3086 1.1390 0.1921

-0.0971 0.2791 0.6609

ColorMatrix2:

0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775

-0.3086 1.1390 0.1921

-0.0971 0.2791 0.6609

 

V1.092 Color Matrix

ColorMatrix1:

1.0469 -0.5314 0.1280

-0.4326 1.2176 0.2419

-0.0886 0.2473 0.7160

ColorMatrix2:

0.7675 -0.2195 -0.0305

-0.5860 1.4118 0.1857

-0.2425 0.4007 0.6578

 

This should change the color rendering of any DNG aware Raw processor....

 

Sandy

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Exactly Sandy everything has been shifted in the DNG and they also did with there jpegs in camera

[Guest sirvine]

Woody,

 

I know this is interpretation on my part, but I like the zero-noise-compression M8 image over the 5D. When you get up close, the M8 noise starts looking a little fuzzy and dispersed, but in prints or online output that same noise has a more three dimensional quality than any other digital camera I've used.

 

In particular, a few things about your images:

 

1) The foreground snowfall is much more clearly rendered on the 5D. On the M8, you can barely tell it's snowflakes and not just some dirt on the sensor! This could be due to the difference in DOF due to the aperture you used for each?

 

2) Take a look at the top edge of the roof overhang and the little metal "fence" there. On the M8, this shows the sharp detail and three-dimensional rendering that is missing on the 5D. Compromises...

 

3) Noise reduction, even minimal and sophisticated, ruins the quality of the M8 image completely. This is my opinion of course.

 

Generally, I find the noise on the M8 to be one of its greatest assets, which is a new concept for me when talking about digital cameras. If you haven't brought home your own shots and pushed them in post-production, you'll have a hard time understanding what I mean. Although this small JPEG does it no justice, take a look at the "noise" around the church steeple in this image. See: solsphere This is detail that was literally extracted from the shadows, and it looks like Richard Estes came over to my house to paint it in there for me.

[Woody Campbell]

Here is my last take messing around with these images. Here is the M8, no sharpening or noise reduction in C1, processed with the Noise Ninja plug-in in PS:

 

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!

 

The point of all of this is that there are plenty of tools available manage the trade-off between accutance and noise in high ISO M8 files. The 5D has a built in compromise that looks soft to me (without totally eliminating color noise).

[wparsonsgisnet]

Woody, I like it with the noise reduction at the end.

 

I always use noise reduction as the last step in my workflow, using Neat Image in my case.

 

I don't use any sharpening as I haven't found a way to do it without seeing artifacts. The M8 is nice and sharp, for me. Since I do portraits a lot, sharpening seems extra destructive, making skin edges look artificial.

 

Nice info. thanks.

[barjohn]

The 5D looks smoother but it sure gives up a lot of detail to get there. Looking at the brick in the upper left side, the 5D looses all of the edges and sharpness while the M* amkes them look 3D. Any chance you could do an indoor scene (staged setup with controlled lighting) so we can see how it compares in that situation? (Both Color and B&W crops would be nice)

[wparsonsgisnet]

The 5D looks smoother but it sure gives up a lot of detail to get there. Looking at the brick in the upper left side, the 5D looses all of the edges and sharpness while the M* amkes them look 3D. Any chance you could do an indoor scene (staged setup with controlled lighting) so we can see how it compares in that situation? (Both Color and B&W crops would be nice)

 

Sean Reid did a comparison with the M8-beta he had last fall and essentially concluded that the Canon had the edge in noise, but that the M8 had it in detail.

 

Noise is easily removed to the degree that it is acceptable without demage to the image. It's a no-brainer to me.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bill I completely agree with Seans assestment of the 5d and M8 , there is no question the M8 holds the detail better. Noise canon does better but you give up detail. i rather have the detail shot myself than work the noise

[eronald]

Olivier, I'm confused as to how a firmware change can affect IR sensitivity. If that were possible, surely we wouldn't need the filters in the first place - they could just tweak the firmware? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Sooner or later they will change the hardware, I guess, to solve the IR problem.

 

Edmund

[barjohn]

Bill I completely agree with Seans assestment of the 5d and M8 , there is no question the M8 holds the detail better. Noise canon does better but you give up detail. i rather have the detail shot myself than work the noise

 

I have seen and read Sean's review, I was looking to see the effect of the new firmware.

[wparsonsgisnet]

I am not expecting an in-camera hardware fix for the IR problem.

 

That would mean giving up the thin cover glass over the sensor. Is it not true that the thin glass both contributes to detail and save a tiny bit of room in the body to allow these short-back lenses to be used?

 

I'm not in the club that's upset about the IR filters -- not based on what comes out of this camera!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest V64]

Guy,

 

Just updated to 1.092 (from 1.091), every thing seemed OK, but for one problem.

 

When I 'Deleted all files' on my SD Extreme III 2Gbyte card it showed the progress bar as complete, but the camera was 'frozen' - it would not switch off or respond to any buttons. Removed Battery, replaced it and then Formatted the Card, all OK - a test pic was Ok and was deleted OK.

 

One comment - I always like to give my Cards a (unique, personal) Volume Name. Leica suggests/demands that all cards are formatted 'in camera' - and gives the card a default Volume Name of 'NONAME', and no facility to change it.

 

So I have to remove the card and use my Mac to change it. This seems a very amateur way of doing things, not at all what I would expect of a professional piece of Firmware.

 

David