Jump to content

Remaining/new bugs in FW 2.0.1.5


Guest roey

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can even have a complete set for summer/winter daylight saving time etc.

 

... and when you want to change a setting in a User Profile, you have the pleasure of loading the saved profiles for each different time zone (x 2 for summer/winter time), making the changes, and resaving them.

 

The ultimate in convenience!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I refuse to believe that everybody at Leica is that stubborn.

They have an idea of what is best, and haven’t we all? If you think their idea is wrong you have to argue your point. Is there any other way?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a bug you only need to demonstrate its existence and an engineer will try to eradicate it.

 

 

And that is exactly why engineers are not, or should not be designers.

 

,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction of the non-linearities in the analog to digital conversion pipeline, to remove the green shadows and extend the useful dynamic range of the camera by more than 1 stop.

 

I've written a tool to post process the M's raw files, but the corrections could be done in firmware (most of the corrections I'm doing are via a small lookup table that is eminently suitable for implementation in an embedded system): http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m-type-240/337638-correcting-green-shadows.html

 

If anyone has any Engineering contacts at Leica I'd be happy to share my algorithms.

 

This is great, if I knew the correct person at Leica, I would petition them myself. I would love to see this implemented, what an improvement.

If I had a Mac, I would be first in line to test your code. Thanks for taking the time to figure this out!!

 

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it works as designed, it’s a feature; otherwise it’s a bug.

Designs can have bugs, too.

 

 

The way profiles work is by design, even when there are valid reasons to question this design. The distinction is important ...

When it doesn't work as it should then it's a bug. Making a scholastic difference between errors made by engineers and errors made by designers will lead us nowhere. I don't care whether an engineer or a designer is to blame. After all, it's quite possible that the design originally was fine but the programmer implemented it improperly. Do we know? Do we care? To me as a user, it's a bug, and it needs to be fixed—as simple as that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is the whole point: it does work as it should, so it is not a bug.

That nearly everybody dislikes the way it works and that there are far better ways of handling time zones does not make it a bug. It makes it a design flaw, or design blunder if you are sufficently riled up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! Who in their right mind would use camera profiles to manage timezones!

Camera profiles should be used for managing settings for say, different lenses or shooting conditions etc. A very odd "feature" if you ask me...

 

 

It’s a feature. Arguably an ill-considered feature but a feature nonetheless. The idea of course is that when you often travel between, say, Berlin, New York, and Tokyo, you set up profiles for each of these places and thus switch between time zones by switching profiles. Now obviously most of us would use profiles for quite different purposes where storing the time zone is more of a nuisance than a boon, but there you are. If there was a bug it would be a bug in the reasoning of whoever thought about this feature.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest roey
So it is a design error. Settled. Once fixed, the code will be cemented into Leica standards, and that is good.

 

I believe we had arrived at this conclusion a year ago in a different thread on this forum. I guess everybody just assumed that Leica would fix a mistake/bug/error/whatever that is as egregious as this one and stopped discussing it. Apparently Leica mistook silence for agreement. So I guess this is far from settled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest roey
If you think their idea is wrong you have to argue your point. Is there any other way?

 

But how? I would love to argue about this with the product manager/owner. Posting on this forum doesn't seem to do the trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, the problem with this discussion is that those that want to draw the distinction that it is not a bug, end up sending the message to Leica that some users want the behavior changed while others find it not a bug.

 

Then, we end up with a menu choice that offers both the buggy version and the logical one. Much like what happened with the AUTO ISO bug that caused the camera to not work like the M9 and not work right as a new feature. Remember, when you switched to Manual shutter speeds, the camera returned to the previous ISO, but continued to display AUTO instead of the previous ISO. That was a bug and basically was the proof that the design was supposed to continue on in AUTO when Manual shutter speeds were chosen. Members rationalized how this new bug was technically a feature and the virtue of the new feature took on a life of its own. A bugs life!

 

Because of the distraction of a few on here that wanted to insist it was a design feature (crippled AUTO ISO) and not a bug, Leica assumed that they should provide both; New Feature (bug) and the corrected bug fix (AUTO ISO IN MANUAL), both as options. It was so perverse as to be comical. I sense we are going to see a solution that provides both as an option if we keep going this way (arguing whether it is a bug or feature).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest roey

I hear you.

 

At least this time nobody has stated that "the feature" is a good idea. All they have been arguing is semantics.

 

One can hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<snip>

BTW this is what frustrates me about this forum: The total absence of any official communication from Leica. Clearly Leica employees are reading at least some of what is being discussed here. From time to time the admin throws in some bits of semi-official information. Other than that we are left with speculation, rumors, and whatever individuals have heard from somebody at Leica (who might or might not have been qualified in the subject matter).

 

I don't think I've ever seen a product forum where the supplier took part. It would be a full time job to read it all leaving no time for the poor chap to be trained in the product and official company policy as to what can be revealed and how to word it. Then there's the team of lawyers to proof read his contributions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

… BTW this is what frustrates me about this forum: The total absence of any official communication from Leica. ...

Not quite so. Take a look at this thread about Maike Harberts - Leica's Product Manager's official communication about the T and stating about this forum that "the feedback from the practical experience of our enthusiastic customers is priceless for Leica.". It is reasonable to assume that Leica pays similar attention to other products discussed here.:)

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been said that user profile issues such as the time zone should be addressed in the next FW update.

Glad to hear that. Now let's hope the next update won't be such a long time coming as the last one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has attracted comment elsewhere, but processing pics today in LR5 [latest version] with non-coded lenses, but set for manual recognition, if you go into Enable Profile Corrections you just see a few names like Apple, Canon, Nikon, Tamron etc – no Leica!

 

Going back a few days those same lenses could be called up in a Leica list if required. Have yet to fit a six-bit coded lens to see if this is the same (mine are nearly all pre-asph vintage, uncoded).

 

Also, the skies in AWB now look far too greenish, particularly with v4 35 Summicron. But using a white disc and the 'grey card' option gave even less realistic colours. You can fiddle about in LR to correct, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...