kdriceman Posted December 29, 2013 Share #121 Posted December 29, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) it is a problem if you want a minimum shutter speed higher than 1/500 sec Yes, and why settle for "the maximum ISO you need" if the scene will allow a lower ISO setting and the camera can automatically select the ISO ? This thread is really quite silly. If people don't want to use auto ISO the easiest thing to do is to just not choose auto ISO. But many of us like the option and are accustomed to using it with the M9, our Canons, Sonys, etc... So why not include the option... ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 29, 2013 Posted December 29, 2013 Hi kdriceman, Take a look here Auto iso coming.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted December 29, 2013 Share #122 Posted December 29, 2013 ...This thread is really quite silly. If people don't want to use auto ISO the easiest thing to do is to just not choose auto ISO. But many of us like the option and are accustomed to using it with the M9, our Canons, Sonys, etc... So why not include the option... ? That's not quite the issue, I believe. The M9 has a function which is called "Auto ISO". So has the M (Typ 240). Unfortunately, the functions do not work the same way. That automatically splits the Leica community into fractions which have to attack each other fiercely if only verbally, one hopes: - The old way is the only correct way. - The new way is the only correct way. - Both functions are flawed and thus scarcely usable, if at all. - Both functions can have their uses, depending on situation and preferred shooting style. - The point is moot because real photographers don't use Auto. - I don't care either way. - What's an ISO and what's auto about it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 29, 2013 Share #123 Posted December 29, 2013 I don't want to dictate anything to anybody, i just fear that having both features will complicate the simple that's all. Don't fix it if it ain't broke is my motto but i hope to be proved wrong obviously. It shouldn’t be very complicated - just adding the M9 implementation to the thumbwheel choice as “Auto-ISO priority” or something like that would do the trick - and fix the display bug that the camera shows the ISO selected of course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 29, 2013 Share #124 Posted December 29, 2013 It shouldn’t be very complicated - just adding the M9 implementation to the thumbwheel choice as “Auto-ISO priority” or something like that would do the trick - and fix the display bug that the camera shows the ISO selected of course. I hear you Jaap but i'm not a techie so until proven otherwise i tend to share what thighslapper said below. ...Altering the coding to implement this is easy ...... but checking that it doesn't cause some god-awful cock-up with the rest of the firmware isn't... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 29, 2013 Share #125 Posted December 29, 2013 I didn’t say that it would be without its difficulties to write, I meant the end result would -should- not add much complication for the user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted December 29, 2013 Share #126 Posted December 29, 2013 I hear you Jaap but i'm not a techie so until proven otherwise i tend to share what thighslapper said below. I am a "techie" and I can assure you that this is a trivial fix. If it is not for Leica, then digital is not for Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 29, 2013 Share #127 Posted December 29, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...the end result would -should- not add much complication... ... this is a trivial fix. If it is not for Leica, then digital is not for Leica. Your careful wordings speak volumes my friends. Do you think it is actually a trivial fix for Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonil Posted December 29, 2013 Share #128 Posted December 29, 2013 Your careful wordings speak volumes my friends. Do you think it is actually a trivial fix for Leica? Well, they are doing it now right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted January 1, 2014 Share #129 Posted January 1, 2014 I am a "techie" and I can assure you that this is a trivial fix. If it is not for Leica, then digital is not for Leica. I suspect that the firmware engineering is done by an outside contractor (aka "manufacturing partner") likely Jenoptik. Can anyone confirm? IIRC Jenoptik design and manufacture the electronics. In that case, the triviality of a firmware modification doesn't enable its timely delivery as one might hope. The contractor relationship amplifies overheads such as of formal specification, project management etc. and the resulting burden stifles agility and innovation -- and nothing is trivial. This effect is more visible with firmware than hardware, as the user-evident revision cycles are at a higher frequency with firmware, particularly when products are rushed to market and firmware updates are needed to address deficiencies/defects for products already in the field. If Leica are going to design digital cameras where the firmware is central to the functionality and user experience, then to be at their best they need to have the firmware design and development in-house. To achieve product excellent with the M, they can no more expect to outsource firmware development than they could have expected to outsource the development of the range/viewfinder system for the M3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 1, 2014 Share #130 Posted January 1, 2014 Ummm.. no It is not outsourced afaik. The last Jenoptik firmware was the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModernMan Posted January 2, 2014 Share #131 Posted January 2, 2014 Ummm.. no It is not outsourced afaik. The last Jenoptik firmware was the M9. So, for clarity, you're saying that Leica develop the M240 firmware in-house? That would be confidence-inspiring from my perspective. Is Jenoptik doing the electronics for the M240? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted January 2, 2014 Share #132 Posted January 2, 2014 . . . Do you think it is actually a trivial fix for Leica? Yes, it is ( I mean, it should be) a trivial fix. Once they know what they want to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulsydaus Posted January 2, 2014 Share #133 Posted January 2, 2014 How do people use the "auto iso" in manual shutter mode as it is implemented right now? I just don't see how one would use is. Can somebody just give me an example? I think that's the whole issue; currently there is no deterministic or logical behaviour. The poster above summarises the concept well when Auto ISO and manual shutter speed would be useful. However before the fix arrives, I would advise manually setting the ISO, then occasionally checking the histogram review between shots... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdannn Posted January 2, 2014 Share #134 Posted January 2, 2014 For those of you who want Auto ISO in MANUAL mode, send an email to : technicalinfo@leicacamerausa.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bab Posted January 7, 2014 Share #135 Posted January 7, 2014 I would venture to say Leica did not write their own firmware, or should I say the color part of it...if they did they need to fire the entire department. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2014 Share #136 Posted January 7, 2014 What is wrong with the colour? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted January 10, 2014 Share #137 Posted January 10, 2014 Any updates on this, still coming, right? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
drdannn Posted January 10, 2014 Share #138 Posted January 10, 2014 Any updates on this, still coming, right? The more emails we send to Leica about this the better. Send email to : technicalinfo<at>leicacamerausa.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
intermediatic Posted January 11, 2014 Share #139 Posted January 11, 2014 The more emails we send to Leica about this the better. Send email to : technicalinfo<at>leicacamerausa.com Wow, thanks! I can't believe how hard it has been to get this email from the forum. Naturally I wrote right away. What is this brand trying to be, Ferrari? It's just supposed to work. That should be Leica's motto, not let's make something for the twee little aged fellow who likes something quirky to keep his mind nimble, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 11, 2014 Share #140 Posted January 11, 2014 Too bad that this aged fellow have been faster to write than to teach some newbies here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.