Jump to content

M8 Feature Options


Guest guy_mancuso

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

A poll with a very short list of features for a popularity contest would sort this out. Express the poll in terms of the results desired, not how to do them. That's not our job.

scott

 

you guys would do well to remember this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

This is after fixes and 1.10 folks not to be confused here the fixes have to come first but they know whatneeds to be done. i have notseen anything new since the laundry list.

 

Scott i agree we should pick 5 items for features and do it in 12345 order of importance. i am just trying to get the features in than maybe we can vote . Sorry if I sound a little pissy this morning have a really bad headache

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the # one thing Leica could do and is possibly the easiest for them to implement is in camera menu of the lens coding. And it would possibly free up a large portion of their service staff TO work on the sudden death syndrome, etc. Of course many powers there probably only see the $ signs and not the reward they should be giving to longtime M users. I think they would win big kudo points if they relented on this one. And the blinking light is good idea, but how would the camera know if the light should blink or not?

 

Not sure about the second stage shutter iso/ev setting. I think a continuous push on the "set" button bringing up a seperate menu is preferable (if that is possible). The shutter release on the M8 is finicky enough - half the time I try to use the ev lock I end up accidentally taking a picture. Leica really should have put an extra button in the middle of the scroll wheel to use for custom set functions. Oh well, next time.

 

I doubt Leica's gonna implement a seperate 8bit/16bit choice anytime soon - if ever. Too many amateurs loaded with cash buying this camera and this would be far too confusing for them (and Leica). It's sad as it's supposedly a pro camera but we know not so many pros relying on Leica anymore.

 

I think pushing for easily implemented firmware changes vs a whole overhaul of the imaging parameters is the best bet for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest sirvine

There are some aspects of the camera's physical design that are just plain dumb. The lack of a center button on the wheel and the dedicated "protect" and "delete" buttons are just silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.........

 

George my head hurts on the 10 bit linear thing. You guys decide on that one. i think personally 16 bits option and call it a day. i could care less about storage space on a card since we can use 4gb cards that is still 200 RAW 16 bit images on a card but buffer will slow down

 

Guy, I am happy with optional 8/16 bit coding if there are enough people who want it. But I did go through the explanation of the way Leica does it, and it seems like a very original idea. Just make certain that we have proof of the need for this.

 

And, ugh, sorry about your head hurting. I can understand. Being honest about the thing being confusing is one thing. Asking for impractical tenbit things just makes us look . . . well, you know . . . .:)

 

Cheers and all . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

So In order 1243567

 

1. Lens selection option "in menu" Generic 15, 21,24,28,35 otherwise with coding it is automatic regardless of setting

2. Optional 16 Bit setting or 10 bit Linear be better . Leica opinion

3. EV/ISO option with controls of either arrows or wheel , protect or set buttons. Whatever is fast and confirmed. Idea flash in VF what was set when confirmed

4. Full name of lens in EFIX data sample 50mm summilux 1.4 as it is read by the coding

5. B&W review when selected B&W jpegs

6 Warning of non coded lens

7. 15mm F4, 24mm 1.4 or F 2 , 28 1.4 ( some really fast wide angles )and than a line of lenses like the 28 2.8 that will be less costs like a 75 2.8 , 90 2.8

8 Travel charger smaller

9 SDNC compatable or new standard This is not a leica call per say but industry standard

 

Hows that I changed it a little. Let's go from here now. Like the arrangement and thoughts. This is a working document and can change according to members. Just being a admin person here. LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, ugh, sorry about your head hurting. I can understand. Being honest about the thing being confusing is one thing. Asking for impractical tenbit things just makes us look . . . well, you know . . . .:)

 

Cheers and all . . .

 

Others (not you) are discussing this subject with some detail in other thread. Even more, you point to that other thread and suggest to avoid it here. Your only contribution to that discussion there has been to write "OK". I think you have problems even in understanding what "posterization" is (Leica Digilux 1 Review). Maybe your sight is not as good as in the old times. Well, you know . . .

 

If you have technical comments about this subject, we would like to read them here: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/20079-official-response-leica-laundry-list-6.html

 

OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruben, Ruben, no need to lose your temper. Just look above please. You jumped in here saying the 16 bit coding was un-ncessary and we should ask for 10 bits. And you did that after Scott and I explained to you why that tenbit scheme makes little technical sense.

 

This rather sudden request of yours is what I responded to here. And of course your suggestion that I did not participate in that stream is rather misleading. I mean not true.

 

Then you get to my eyes and quote a 2002 stream of messages discussing posterization on the, gosh, Digilux-1. Which I had and most of the people who criticized it did not.

 

Please Ruben, have you read the explanation of how Leica does the 14 to 8 bit conversion? Do you understand the cleverness of this scheme? Can you show any images where the Leica solution produces unacceptable results?

 

What I am saying, again, is that 1.) I think the Leica scheme is imaginative and I have not seen a proven need for more bits, 2.) If you can prove a need for more, then we could ask for alternate sixteen bits=two bytes mode but we must recognize that writing this will take twice as long, reading this will take twice as long and the cards will carry half of what they carry now, 3.) if the majority here asks for more bits then let us not embarass ourselves with a hard to handle tenbit scheme.

 

So please, have a sip of something pleasant, whatever you like and relax. But don't try to bully me. I am way too old for that. (And have been working with computers since 1957.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso
Guy, now that at least one other person has jumped on my bandwagon, how 'bout #7 includes a wide lens at f1.4?

 

 

Bill i had it one the first page , it was my screw up. A admin i am not ROTFLMAO

Link to post
Share on other sites

So In order 1243567

 

1. Lens selection option "in menu" Generic 15, 21,24,28,35 otherwise with coding it is automatic regardless of setting

2. Optional 16 Bit setting or 10 bit Linear be better . Leica opinion

3. EV/ISO option with controls of either arrows or wheel , protect or set buttons. Whatever is fast and confirmed. Idea flash in VF what was set when confirmed

 

I vote to put 3 at the top of the list in terms of immediate payback in useability. Then 1, then 2, and lose the 10-bit stuff. Optional 16 bits Leica can relate to; 10 bits will have them ROTFLTAO.

 

4. Full name of lens in EFIX data sample 50mm summilux 1.4 as it is read by the coding

5. B&W review when selected B&W jpegs

6 Warning of non coded lens

 

4 they are already doing. The lens maximum aperture is in my EXIF, and I suspect the product code is as well, although my tools don't read it out. This stuff is in the firmware, so the only question is whether it goes into an easy to decode field or a MakerNote, which is semi-secret.

5 should be optional b/w review, without having to write JPEGs.

 

7. 15mm F4, 24mm 1.4 or F 2 , 28 1.4 ( some really fast wide angles )and than a line of lenses like the 28 2.8 that will be less costs like a 75 2.8 , 90 2.8

8 Travel charger smaller

9 SDHC compatable or new standard This is not a leica call per se but industry standard

 

I'd change the order, and make lenses a separate topic -- "you want to make some more money with lenses, it's a business decision and only you know the cost of developing these, but here's what we would jump to purchase..." Personally I hope that the success of the Elmarit 28/2.8-asph (if it was correctly priced and makes oodles of money) will generate more small, less expensive lenses that do not block the viewfinder as much as the 'luxes and wide angle Summicrons do, and which are optimized to higher levels of performance over the 15mm radius while still supporting full frame use...

 

Chargers need work (perhaps also so does the battery meter circuits in the camera, but that will be an unannounced improvement in later models). So they should just keep improving them, as well as offering additional models for travel and an external power option through the USB port...

 

SDHC support will happen. The way we should ask is by determining how many of us want to use 4GB+ cards at full download speed. SanDisk and Lexar are trying to do this within the standard, Transcend I believe uses a hack and makes it look like the smaller cards. At 190 dng files per $40 2GB card, I'm not particularly upset about this one, but a year from now, when the 4GB cards are $40, I'll care. And the 1000 shots a day "never delete on the street" contingent probably needs the 4GB cards already.

 

HTH

 

scott

Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to George et al, I have read the description of the 14-to-8 bit conversion and am generally happy with the results I am seeing from the M8.

 

As a minimalist, I think it would be terrific to have all 14 bits without touching them (raw). What could be wrong with this -- except that the buffer still isn't big enough (what have you done for me lately).

 

Guy, Can we add a larger buffer to the wish list? The limit of 10 keeps biting me during dance photog sessions. If storing all 14 (or 16, if they do it by word) uses up the buffer (now we're at 5 instead of 10?), then we may want a bigger buffer.

 

I find it interesting that I still get 10 pix in the buffer, even tho I am shooting dng + hi-res jpg. By my count, that's 20.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Bill I'm afraid a larger buffer may require a larger processor which is hardware related. I'll differ to the engineers here but I am pretty sure on this one. This is one area going 16 bit may choke a little, from a DMR owner we are pretty aware of this one but I think overall the M8 processor is faster regradless of bit size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy:

 

Just one more thing to add for me -- it;s cosmetic, but easy to do. Put the word "Leica" in cursive script back on the top plate of the camera. I had missed it for years, made the cameras look naked without it. Then they put it back atop the MP, and the camera looked classic again. I thought they would continue this with new models, but was so disappointed when I pulled my M8 outta the box, and there it was (wasn't) -- naked top again! :mad:

 

I'll bet many others on the forum think the same.

 

Live long and prosper,

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

You jumped in here saying the 16 bit coding was un-ncessary and we should ask for 10 bits. And you did that after Scott and I explained to you why that tenbit scheme makes little technical sense.

 

You have "explained" nothing (Another joke?). I seriously doubt you even can read properly, or maybe you are insulting by fun. But not to me George. Look for another one. Go to play elsewhere. You are what is known as a troll. You jumped in there and here saying nothing, arguing nothing and contributing with nothing. Well, you know...

 

I ask for a non-linear encoding solution that saves space and processing/storing/writting time. It is a great idea. A 16-bit file doesn't need any encoding like this, and it is unnecessary in the sense of unique valid alternative to non-linear 8-bit encoding. The discussion is about the optimal level of that non-linear encoding solution. Scott says 10 or 12 bits encoding and storing would take more time. I argue that it is true in absolute terms, for that particular set of operations, but maybe not true in relative terms (it would have a moderate marginal impact in the total processing/storing time). I hope this is clear now to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...