barjohn Posted March 8, 2007 Share #221 Posted March 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi John, I'm probably being stupid here (not for the first time I might add :-), but what are we supposed to be looking for with these shots? This was to show how clean the shots with the new firmware 1.092 are at various ISO values. If you go to digital camera reviews web site and look at the ISO shots of other cameras you will appreciate how clean these are if you aren't already aware of this. This is from DNGs with no more than default noise removal in LR. The JPGs from the camera look even cleaner. By the way these were shot with the 50 cron and a 486 filter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8, 2007 Posted March 8, 2007 Hi barjohn, Take a look here New Firmware 1.092 thoughts/ Read instructions. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest V64 Posted March 8, 2007 Share #222 Posted March 8, 2007 David--I've wanted to do the same with my Leica digicams' cards but been afraid to since the camera names them NONAME. Have you been renaming cards with the M8 for a while with no difficulties? It's clunky to have to do it repeatedly from the computer as you say, but if it works, that's good news. --HC HC Yes it does work (I use a MAC) - at least I have not had any problems! I also think that a Format is a Format no matter where it is done - MAC or M8! (As long as you know which FAT ... to specify!) - but I have have not tried it, since there seems so much else waiting to go wrong, that it would create uncertainty when it does. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 8, 2007 Share #223 Posted March 8, 2007 This was to show how clean the shots with the new firmware 1.092 are at various ISO values. If you go to digital camera reviews web site and look at the ISO shots of other cameras you will appreciate how clean these are if you aren't already aware of this. This is from DNGs with no more than default noise removal in LR. The JPGs from the camera look even cleaner. By the way these were shot with the 50 cron and a 486 filter. A lot of times colors will also shift with increased ISO's and this looks very good that they hold on very well. ISO 1250 is a lot better. I have to be honest color and noise have really gotten better here. I know we have a few issues still but this is very encouraging right here . This is a good test. Jamie I will ad the auto ISO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidigital Posted March 8, 2007 Share #224 Posted March 8, 2007 Less noisy higher ISO performance with 1.092 than earlier firmware. That is one of the first things I noticed also. That, with the minor tweaks to color, are very exciting updates. This is outstanding progress as Leica keeps ratcheting up the image quality quotient. Now, about those cyan corners ... Kurt Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted March 8, 2007 Share #225 Posted March 8, 2007 1. The fine line between exposure lock and firing the shutter has always been a little tricky. Is that supposed to be "factory adjustable?" Or could it be loosened up in future delivered bodies? 2. I agree, that self-timer starts the countdown at the slightest touch, but hasn't it always? Can some timid soul who is still running 1.09 or 1.06 please check? scott I use the 2 sec self timer all the time when I'm on a tripod in lieu of a cable release. It has always been hair-triggered. It was designed this way presumably with tripod use in mind - you can start it with a minimum of vibration. It's annoying if you're in the habit of touching the shutter button to turn the screen off - but I've gotten used to it. On my updated M8 running 1.092 exposure lock works as it is supposed to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted March 8, 2007 Share #226 Posted March 8, 2007 Menu scrolling by itself and jumping two lines with one click also noticed by me, but ONLY with the SET menu, not the MENU menu Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 8, 2007 Share #227 Posted March 8, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Steve thanks that one they know about. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 8, 2007 Share #228 Posted March 8, 2007 I haven't heard it mentioned here before but on my original hardware M8 the vertical stripe that used to be approx 2/3 across the frame in high iso shots is now completly gone. (see here: ) 1250/ 1/60th DNG pushed +4 in lightroom _mike I assume the lens cap was on? This one was supposed to be fixed right away, and I can't see it either in 1.092. I think it is gone. But I notice that you still have vertical broad bands of uneven noise intensity (as before). Do they show up in very dark scenes? Do they go away at shutter speeds less than 1/30, where the dark field subtraction kicks in? scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpe Posted March 8, 2007 Share #229 Posted March 8, 2007 I did a careful before/after comparison of 1.9 and 1.92 at ISO 1250 and 2500 last night with both RAW and JPG under fairly nasty lighting conditions (the kinds of conditions you need these high ISOs): tungsten light lit from overhead in a typical home. I could not see any improvement in noise. The quality of the photos looked almost identical to my eye. The camera got the white balance just about right with both versions of firmware. Maybe in cases where the WB is off 1.92 does a better job and ends up with less noise as a result. In my case, however, I saw no changes. This is in stark contrast to my RD1. When I installed the RD1 firmware update the noise was much better at ISO 1600. It was a smaller noise pattern that disappeared in the shadows and looked much more film like. I'd like to see that on the Leica. The first image is a 100% crop of an ISO 2500 shot with 1.9 firmware. The second was shot with 1.92. Both are RAW files processed in ACR with all noise reduction settings set to their lowest values. JPGs taken from the camera also looked comparable to each other. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/17992-new-firmware-1092-thoughts-read-instructions/?do=findComment&comment=194113'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 8, 2007 Share #230 Posted March 8, 2007 Brian-- Two things here.... First, there's a noise floor beyond which you have to expose to see any difference at ISO 2500. If you can't expose that high, then I suggest pushing 1250 or even 640 in post for better results. Secondly, and related to the first, if you're underexposing in tungsten light the blue channel is going to destroy the detail of the other channels. It's usually noisiest anyway. So with 2500 ISO it's critical to "expose to the right" more (which is why the blob problem was so bad at first; you're going to blow the "lights" usually when you're exposing for subject detail. Hope that makes sense to you. On normally exposed subjects, especially in non-tungsten light, I've seen a big difference in the chroma (colour noise), but even with tungsten, and proper exposure, there seems to be an improvement here (as John's colour chart test shows!) @ Guy--thanks a million on the auto ISO shift! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 8, 2007 Share #231 Posted March 8, 2007 Thanks Jamie and thanks to all that did partcipate in this thread it kept everything together which we can look at and see what the issues are instead of all over the forum and we have double and triple posts. So thanks to the forum members for being helpful in there responses . I wish i could say all will be fixed but i can only deliver the messages from you the end users of the M8 and i can say that i am not just throwing this at the Leica booth and walking away either, my visit does have some structure and purpose. I'm leaving the laptop home but will give highlights on Monday and hopefully some solutions. Hopefully I will see some other forum members there as well , I know Uwe and i are going to meet up and chat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpe Posted March 8, 2007 Share #232 Posted March 8, 2007 Thanks for the tips, Jamie. That makes perfect sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 8, 2007 Share #233 Posted March 8, 2007 Guy: While making your list for Leica, it would be nice in both the M8 and DMR firmware if they would write the lens info to the exif. We get the lens mm with coded lenses, but not the lens name in the lens field. This si the same with both the DMR and the M8. For example, when shooting with the 21-35mm on the DMR it should show 21-35mm in the lens field of the exif. When shooting with a lens on the M8 it could use the focal length +fstop in that field. Such as 50mmf1 for the Noctilux. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 8, 2007 Share #234 Posted March 8, 2007 Both are RAW files processed in ACR with all noise reduction settings set to their lowest values. JPGs taken from the camera also looked comparable to each other. Brian: You need to try them with at least the standard noise reduction turned on. Which version of ACR are you using and are you choosing the ACR 3.6 calibrations or embedded? Robert Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 8, 2007 Share #235 Posted March 8, 2007 Guy: While making your list for Leica, it would be nice in both the M8 and DMR firmware if they would write the lens info to the exif. We get the lens mm with coded lenses, but not the lens name in the lens field. This si the same with both the DMR and the M8. For example, when shooting with the 21-35mm on the DMR it should show 21-35mm in the lens field of the exif. When shooting with a lens on the M8 it could use the focal length +fstop in that field. Such as 50mmf1 for the Noctilux. The M8 doesn't know the lens stop effectively used. Edmund Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 8, 2007 Share #236 Posted March 8, 2007 The M8 doesn't know the lens stop effectively used. Didn't the pre-release ones estimate it using the sensor on the top of the camera and the inbuilt meter? Maybe I imagined that - anyhow, accurate to a stop would be enough for me :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianpe Posted March 8, 2007 Share #237 Posted March 8, 2007 Robert -- These were done with ACR 3.6 and the ACR 3.6 calibration profile. In hindsight the embedded profile probably makes more sense if Leica made modifications. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 8, 2007 Share #238 Posted March 8, 2007 Didn't the pre-release ones estimate it using the sensor on the top of the camera and the inbuilt meter? Maybe I imagined that - anyhow, accurate to a stop would be enough for me :-) Do you happen to know where this info is written into the Raw ? Edmund Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 8, 2007 Share #239 Posted March 8, 2007 The M8 doesn't know the lens stop effectively used. Edmund I meant the max aperture of the lens. With just 50mm in the exif, it could be any of four lenses, Noctilux, Summilux, Elmarit, or Summicron. If it had the space in the Exif, I would also be happy if they just put the lens name, such as 50mm Summicron. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevez4 Posted March 8, 2007 Share #240 Posted March 8, 2007 Guy, Kindly include in the laundry list: 1.There should be a menu item that allows for "with filter shots" and another for without filter shots. 2. The shutter should be better damped. Both very important to photojournalists. Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.