k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2013 Share #101 Posted November 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly the point. It also indicates a flaw in the beta testing of the camera. I am amazed that Leica apparently doesn't have a testing lab with a fairly large number of cameras being automatically run through all usage patterns to identify and eliminate deficiencies. Just having a few beta testers won't get to the root causes of their problems I am afraid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 6, 2013 Posted November 6, 2013 Hi k-hawinkler, Take a look here Confirming the temperature problem.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share #102 Posted November 6, 2013 Quite true, due to the construction ( size and meterials) they will resist ambient temperature both heat and cold far longer Neverheless the trend of this thread is that this is a problem that needs addressing - and I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share #103 Posted November 6, 2013 I am amazed that Leica apparently doesn't have a testing lab with a fairly large number of cameras being automatically run through all usage patterns to identify and eliminate deficiencies. Just having a few beta testers won't get to the root causes of their problems I am afraid. We'll, if they had given me a camera in October 2012 this one would have been noted .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted November 6, 2013 Share #104 Posted November 6, 2013 We'll, if they had given me a camera in October 2012 this one would have been noted .... Well, that would have been great. But can they fix the problem? As far as I remember your usage pattern is pretty conservative and doesn't extend to all the operations permitted according to Leica's user manual. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted November 6, 2013 Share #105 Posted November 6, 2013 Personally, alongside a sensible engineering test bench analysis, I'd want Beta testers to be ultra critical and cruel. Not fans of the products and company. Adds bias, things get glossed over. The difference to the user between "functioning outside design parameters" and "literally shuts down when it gets near 40" are semantic. The COMPANY is responsible. Same feeling with the "you spoke to the wrong department" line of reasoning. He spoke to THE COMPANY and as such should have been handled or referred to a hander. I tire of the responsibility being placed on the end user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 6, 2013 Author Share #106 Posted November 6, 2013 Well, that would have been great. But can they fix the problem?As far as I remember your usage pattern is pretty conservative and doesn't extend to all the operations permitted according to Leica's user manual. Hmmm... The only thing I rarely do is use a flash - for the rest my cameras are well used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted November 6, 2013 Share #107 Posted November 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Exactly the point. It also indicates a flaw in the beta testing of the camera. The flaw could have been that many testers were testing it during the Winter. I am not sure what the down under tester tried it in hot temps, but in that area of the world he should have encountered temps above 40 degrees at times since it was their Summer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 6, 2013 Share #108 Posted November 6, 2013 The current known salient facts about this are: Almost all digital cameras advertise operating ranges of a bit below zero to 40 celcius. This is the ambient environmental temperature .... the camera innards must run much hotter than this.... No one states what happens above 40 degrees .... they just don't guarantee normal function Leica has stated that the black-outs it is looking into are temperature related and due to some temperature cut-out function being tripped. They have stated there will be a firmware fix ..... so it ought to be a software generated cut-out and not a hardware malfunction or design fault. The other selection of random cut-outs and lock-ups seem to be entirely different .... and have afflicted the M's predecessors as well. I suspect they are akin to the computer lock-ups you can generate by pressing enough keys simultaneously or running programmes concurrently that hog or access memory/functions in a way that generates error states or endless loops. These are well high impossible to predict and often take months of de-bugging to eliminate. Leica don't have 100's of software engineers like Nikon/Canon so it's not surprising there are a few residual problems .... and anyway few of their latest offerings have been entirely bug-free either ...... it's just that they have much more capacity to fix things quickly... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted November 6, 2013 Share #109 Posted November 6, 2013 Exactly the point. It also indicates a flaw in the beta testing of the camera. Beta testing is useful to find design flaws or systematic manufacturing problems that can't be found in lab testing or alpha testing. A temperature related problem, unless it is very hard to trigger by user input, is not such a problem. It is much easier to find and fix temperature problems in the lab, where you have precise control of the temperature and the user actions (which can be performed robotically if there is statistical variation). I want to return to the issue of safety margin, as it relates to this issue. We have seen that the M240 upper temperature margin is, at least for some samples, negative. What's a reasonable safety margin? I suppose if you asked five engineers you'd get six answers, but I have a couple of data points. When I worked at Hewlett-Packard in the late sixties and early seventies, before we released an instrument to manufacturing, samples had to perform within specs at temperatures fifteen degrees Celsius over the published temperature spec. When I ran the telecommunications development operation at Rolm in the seventies, we took that one step further. We required that every singe system we shipped perform without error for 48 hours at fifteen degrees C over the published spec. We did that partially to detect marginal components, and partially to induce early failures to work our way down the "bathtub curve" prior to shipment. I don't remember what IBM did, because after they purchased Rolm, I moved in the direction of research and advanced technology, and got away from shipping products. I can say, however, that in assuring that products met their specs and in applying generous safety margins, IBM was an even more conservative company than hp. Why did these companies go to such extremes to make sure that hardly any shipped products had a temperature-related problem? Basically, it was to save money. A field failure costs a lot more than one caught on the factory floor, because a field failure costs the company extra time spent by higher paid workers, and a field failure damages the company's and the product's reputation, affecting sales and thus profits. A factory tech earns far less than a top salesperson. And there's opportunity cost, too; every hour that your best salesperson is soothing ruffled feathers is an hour that she's not spending selling another customer. So it's not an issue that it costs money to go to extraordinary lengths to assure that temperature related problems are designed and tested out. It costs more to not do the testing. The 0-40C spec is tight for the intended use of the device. However, the reason that some other cameras with the same spec don't have similar complaints to those being registered in this thread is that they are designed with greater safety margins. And so should the M240. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 6, 2013 Share #110 Posted November 6, 2013 Beta testing is useful to find design flaws or systematic manufacturing problems that can't be found in lab testing or alpha testing. A temperature related problem, unless it is very hard to trigger by user input, is not such a problem. It is much easier to find and fix temperature problems in the lab, where you have precise control of the temperature and the user actions (which can be performed robotically if there is statistical variation). I want to return to the issue of safety margin, as it relates to this issue. We have seen that the M240 upper temperature margin is, at least for some samples, negative. What's a reasonable safety margin? I suppose if you asked five engineers you'd get six answers, but I have a couple of data points. When I worked at Hewlett-Packard in the late sixties and early seventies, before we released an instrument to manufacturing, samples had to perform within specs at temperatures fifteen degrees Celsius over the published temperature spec. When I ran the telecommunications development operation at Rolm in the seventies, we took that one step further. We required that every singe system we shipped perform without error for 48 hours at fifteen degrees C over the published spec. We did that partially to detect marginal components, and partially to induce early failures to work our way down the "bathtub curve" prior to shipment. I don't remember what IBM did, because after they purchased Rolm, I moved in the direction of research and advanced technology, and got away from shipping products. I can say, however, that in assuring that products met their specs and in applying generous safety margins, IBM was an even more conservative company than hp. Why did these companies go to such extremes to make sure that hardly any shipped products had a temperature-related problem? Basically, it was to save money. A field failure costs a lot more than one caught on the factory floor, because a field failure costs the company extra time spent by higher paid workers, and a field failure damages the company's and the product's reputation, affecting sales and thus profits. A factory tech earns far less than a top salesperson. And there's opportunity cost, too; every hour that your best salesperson is soothing ruffled feathers is an hour that she's not spending selling another customer. So it's not an issue that it costs money to go to extraordinary lengths to assure that temperature related problems are designed and tested out. It costs more to not do the testing. The 0-40C spec is tight for the intended use of the device. However, the reason that some other cameras with the same spec don't have similar complaints to those being registered in this thread is that they are designed with greater safety margins. And so should the M240. Jim Hi Jim. This is a nice explanation of how companies try and get components to fail. Very interesting. But, the M does not have component failure. Nor, does it have a heat issue that shuts the camera down just when it is hot. Leica seems to indicate that it is a temperature dependent mode that takes place under certain conditions (like after writing to the card - My inference ). I get the impression that changing the code will correct for the shut down that takes place when certain specific events are present because, the comment was made to me that, "The EVF problem in hot environment will be solved with the next Firmware-update." We all now have to wait and see... Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted November 6, 2013 Share #111 Posted November 6, 2013 Leica seems to indicate that it is a temperature dependent mode that takes place under certain conditions (like after writing to the card - My inference ). I get the impression that changing the code will correct for the shut down that takes place when certain specific events are present because, the comment was made to me that, "The EVF problem in hot environment will be solved with the next Firmware-update." Thanks, Rick. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. Is it that there is an internal temperature sensor in the camera, and the firmware looks at the temperature under certain circumstances, and shuts the camera down if the temperature exceeds certain limits? If that's the case, then it could be that the camera is failing below the specified maximum ambient temperature because the temperature sensor is inaccurate. Or it could be true that the rise of internal temperature over ambient is higher than the design specs. Or it could be something else entirely. If the temperature sensor is inaccurate, assuming that there's no systematic bias to the inaccuracy, spawning a new firmware spin with a higher threshold temperature could keep the cameras from failing when the ambient temperature is below 41 C, but the cost would be a greater probability of whatever harm the internal temperature shutdown mechanism is intended to prevent. If the rise of the internal temperature over ambient is higher than it it supposed to be, better power management in a new firmware spin could help, with the additional benefit of longer battery life. In any event, the fact that the shutdown is by design does not negate my argument for large safety margins. If the camera is spec to 40C, I think most of them should operate just fine significantly higher (15C higher is a nice number). That means that the camera shouldn't shut itself off until the ambient temperature is over 55C. It also means that whatever bad thing the overtemp shutoff is trying to keep from happening shouldn't happen until well over the shutoff temp. Others will look at things differently, I'm sure. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted November 6, 2013 Share #112 Posted November 6, 2013 Jim - I know much less than what would be needed to answer your question. The next two paragraphs are all I have been told: 1) Leica stated publicly (somewhere) that the 40 degree temp sensor was causing a problem in a temperature dependent mode. I believe that was the phrase they used. Maybe, someone can dig up that quote exactly. 2) Next, in an email a Leica employee that works with beta testers made the comment to me in a larger conversation about other problems (some we haven't discussed on the forum) that, the problems that were reported with the EVF and high ambient temperatures will be solved in the next firmware. The statement (#2) in the context of what we were discussing was so direct and matter of fact that, I inferred that the problem was already solved and we would have a fix in the next firmware. That linked with the earlier phrase of the temperature dependent mode lead me to infer that the software has different modes that can exist under certain conditions and they could be changed in the firmware... and the next firmware would include changes that solve the shut down of the EVF problem. I don't have any other information except, that I don't believe Leica would mind that I mentioned that I have been told that a solution is on its way for the temp issue in the next firmware. That is good news to me. The rest of the forum arm chair engineering speculation is somewhat interesting, but that is all it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimKasson Posted November 6, 2013 Share #113 Posted November 6, 2013 The next two paragraphs are all I have been told: 1) Leica stated publicly (somewhere) that the 40 degree temp sensor was causing a problem in a temperature dependent mode. I believe that was the phrase they used. Maybe, someone can dig up that quote exactly. 2) Next, in an email a Leica employee that works with beta testers made the comment to me in a larger conversation about other problems (some we haven't discussed on the forum) that, the problems that were reported with the EVF and high ambient temperatures will be solved in the next firmware. Thanks, Rick. You're right. We will just have to wait and see. I sure hope they don't just get the overtemp shutoff only to the point where it just barely meets the spec. I appreciate your candor. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 6, 2013 Share #114 Posted November 6, 2013 Yup Rick, That's what I was led to believe .... and that it was a software generated problem. I'm not aware that any other digital cameras actually have some form of temperatute related auto-shutoff ..... and either Leica have invoked some over cautious approach and implemted one which is causing more trouble than it is worth .... or it's an inadvertently incorporated software gremlin thats the culprit... Either way, the solution should be possible without any hardware modifications...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 7, 2013 Share #115 Posted November 7, 2013 Yup Rick, That's what I was led to believe .... and that it was a software generated problem. I'm not aware that any other digital cameras actually have some form of temperatute related auto-shutoff ..... and either Leica have invoked some over cautious approach and implemted one which is causing more trouble than it is worth .... or it's an inadvertently incorporated software gremlin thats the culprit... Either way, the solution should be possible without any hardware modifications...... Olympus has had it for a number of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 7, 2013 Share #116 Posted November 7, 2013 Since this is a really irritating problem and it would appear that Leica has a solution, given that it costs little to nothing to release an FW update, I would like to see it sooner rather than later. Even if some of the other planned updates are not ready for release, an interim FW update would be a great help to those of us living in hotter climes or planning to go there soon (Me!) Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philpopham Posted November 7, 2013 Share #117 Posted November 7, 2013 I am a "newbie" to Leica photography, returning to rangefinders after 30 years of SLR use, and now re-learning many of the skills that I have lost through using cameras that like to do everything for you. After a couple of thousand shots with the M (some of which were actually in focus), I experienced the frustrating LV/EVF problem yesterday on a warm, perhaps 30C, Melbourne afternoon. I am very grateful for the helpful discussion in this forum about possible causes. How forthcoming is Leica about future firmware updates, if that is indeed a solution to this problem? Or are we left to wait and hope? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted November 7, 2013 Share #118 Posted November 7, 2013 Welcome to this forum, philpopham ! Your camera ought to be one of the first ones to deserve a proper FW-upgrade. Be patient, it will there ... Best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted November 7, 2013 Share #119 Posted November 7, 2013 Welcome to this forum, philpopham ! Your camera ought to be one of the first ones to deserve a proper FW-upgrade. Be patient, it will there ... Best GEORG Georg, Maybe the time is approaching to stop being patient and forgiving of the many and grievous failures of Leica on the M240 project (lugs not being fixed, failing cameras, slow firmware updates, temperature problems, missing accessories, etc etc). I do wonder if many of us should be writing angry and strongly worded letters to the CEO, so that some action might be taken, rather than just anodyne and uninformative statements being issued. I imagine the dealers are as fed up as many of us owners are. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k_g_wolf ✝ Posted November 7, 2013 Share #120 Posted November 7, 2013 Well, who is writing the first letter then? Perhaps too late, Wilson, they might - long ago - have decided do it the US-way and read stuff straight away from here. best GEORG Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.