Remaining/new bugs in FW 2.0.1.5

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks. I read the entire document of this de-facto standard (latest 2010 version) and I am convinced there is no valid reason in 2014 to stick to it. There probably wasn't any good reason in 1998 either...

 

We think of a 4 years old PC as obsolete technology, and this software standard is still requiring usage of 8.3 filenames after 4 decades ... This should be enough to ignore it.

 

Numbering conventions are not technology and should be as stable as possible to maintain continuity.

[CheshireCat]

Numbering conventions are not technology and should be as stable as possible to maintain continuity.

 

Numbering conventions are technology. Check the definition.

 

In this case, the DCF numbering convention is doing more harm than good. You will agree it is totally useless, as you recommended to ignore it by means of another tool that overwrites filenames during the import process using a smarter naming convention.

[Advertisement]

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

[CheshireCat]

What bug would that be? The camera adds one to its internal counter for each picture taken, adding 1 to the folder number when the image number rolls over, and calculates the maximum of the internal counter and the highest number of the card whenever a new card is inserted, adjusting the internal counter if required. And that is all it takes, plus lots of card swapping.

 

The bug is blindly following what the specification recommends without handling error conditions (yes, not handling errors is a bug).

Note that in all technical specifications there is a difference between the terms "should" (i.e. recommended) and "must" (i.e. mandatory).

What you described is the recommended behavior, i.e. whenever the image number rolls over, it is recommended to add 1 to the higher folder number.

The "recommended" word is critical here ! It means that in case of errors, the camera is allowed by the specs to use a lower folder number that is not already present. Indeed it is very likely that the user had deleted most of the previously created 900 folders.

And this demonstrates that this is a bug, and that the specification is lacking proper details about error handling (and therefore is a bad specification).

 

Even with this bug, in the most unfortunate conditions, hitting the problem would require at least 900 card swaps, all between different cameras, without ever formatting the card.

Edited July 29, 2014 by CheshireCat

[jaapv]

Numbering conventions are technology. Check the definition.

 

In this case, the DCF numbering convention is doing more harm than good. You will agree it is totally useless, as you recommended to ignore it by means of another tool that overwrites filenames during the import process using a smarter naming convention.

BWV 244 = Matheus Passion is technology??

[thighslapper]

Having read several pages of this drivel I still cannot understand how a design feature explicitly explained in the manual can be a 'bug'........

 

The 10k watershed occurred a couple of weeks ago ....... and I did precisely what LCT suggested and carried on with L101... in the numbering with the well known dodge of reseeding with a re-formated card and an old image renumbered with the computer.

 

Apart from having to batch rename a few dozen files it passed unnoticed and without the demented hysteria that seems to have afflicted some users......

Edited July 29, 2014 by thighslapper

[Rick]

 

The 10k watershed occurred a couple of weeks ago ....... and I did precisely what LCT suggested and carried on with L101... in the numbering with the well known dodge of reseeding with a re-formated card and an old image renumbered with the computer.

 

 

How did you possibly endure the getting of your hands dirty with such a menial task of resetting the camera to L101? That task should have been taken care of by those incompetent Leica software engineers... scalawags, all of them!

[CheshireCat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BWV 244 = Matheus Passion is technology??

 

The BWV numbering system is, because there is some logic behind it, although very trivial. It is also a de-facto standard .

 

IP addressing and E.164 numbering systems are better examples.

[pop]

The BWV numbering system is, because there is some logic behind it, although very trivial. It is also a de-facto standard .

 

(There is "some logic behind" X ==> X is technology) AND (There is "some logic" behind CheshireCat's posts in this forum)

 

==> CheshireCat is technology

 

[CheshireCat]

(There is "some logic behind" X ==> X is technology) AND (There is "some logic" behind CheshireCat's posts in this forum)

 

==> CheshireCat is technology

 

 

Nice try . Although your final statement should be "CheshireCat's posts are a technology".

 

But logic is a necessary but not sufficient condition

[jaapv]

The BWV numbering system is, because there is some logic behind it, although very trivial. It is also a de-facto standard .

 

In that case it is useless and should be replaced immediatelty. There is much better technology available, this is outdated by 63 years.

[CheshireCat]

In that case it is useless and should be replaced immediatelty. There is much better technology available, this is outdated by 63 years.

 

It solves the problem of uniquely identifying a composition (e.g. there are 4 different "Prelude and Fugue in A-"), and even makes it possible to identify the type of composition (although requiring a LUT).

 

But it has some issues, and I can think about at least one numbering system that is better than this de-facto standard

However, replacing BWV does not make much sense now, as Bach is unfortunately not going to write any more compositions.

Edited July 30, 2014 by CheshireCat

[jto555]

I found another bug.

 

I was shooting indoors at 3200ISO and then moved outdoors and shots at 800ISO. After a few shots and at a lens change, I got a camera crash where I had to pull the battery out to clear the crash.

 

No biggie, I worked on but then to my horror all the shots from that point on were blown out. The camera had reverted to 3200ISO. Thankfully I had bracketed and had a one stop 'underexposed' shot which was now a one stop over exposed shot to rescue me.

 

I hate flakey firmware (2.0.1.5)!!! :mad:

[thighslapper]

How did you possibly endure the getting of your hands dirty with such a menial task of resetting the camera to L101? That task should have been taken care of by those incompetent Leica software engineers... scalawags, all of them!

 

yes ......I had contemplated sending it back it Wetzlar to insist that they did it for me ..... but as I would only have had my MM, M9P, XV and T to rely on till it came back I was too frightened to send it.

[steveBK]

So I have the new firmware

I set AUTO ISO in M mode - ON

 

Used it on a few outings and it behaved like I wanted like my old M8.

 

Today suddenly it won't adjust ISO when I put shutter into a specific setting like 125.

It shows meter read out or arrows&dot, and leaves ISO at 200, as it was my last setting.

 

So it's basically ignoring the above ISO option and reverting to old pre-FW behavior.

The menu item is still present and set to ON.

 

Tried turning off/on. Tried pulling battery.

Not tried reset as I'm our shooting at moment.

 

Is there any other setting that can cause conflict or have I stumbled on a bug?

[lct]

Have you been using an user profile?

[steveBK]

Have you been using an user profile?

 

Nope

Set to ---

Default profile

 

Never set one up specifically

[lct]

I have no explanation to suggest sorry but i would set up a profile, save it to the card, do a reset and import the profile from the card if i were you.

[steveBK]

I have no explanation to suggest sorry but i would set up a profile, save it to the card, do a reset and import the profile from the card if i were you.

 

Thanks for the idea

Gave that a shot and didn't work

Post reset bug continues on both default and exported/imported user1 profile.

 

Will try more invasive stuff when I get home tonight.

Maybe try and reimport firmware, try my other battery / fresh SD card, etc.

Hope this doesn't turn into a second trip back to leica.

[steveBK]

Now I noticed that the Auto ISO is behaving as set in LV mode.

Don't know if it was working before reset as I never use LV.

 

Still having issue in non-LV...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[steveBK]

OK, apologies, this was 100% me confusing myself.

 

Very hazy sunshine + fast glass = ISO 200 no matter what shutter speed you pick.

As soon as I got indoors and started playing with the camera again, I realized it was working fine.

 

I haven't played with an M8 in over a year, but did it register +/-/circle meter readings when in manual shutter+auto ISO mode? I think this was confusing me today. I seem to recall little display when in that mode in M8, with maybe an overexposure warning if anything.

 

This is what I get for shooting so little the last few months.