Any news for DMR firmware update?

[Guest rubidium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I for one have simply given up. Rather than become more frustrated month after month, I've conditioned myself to accept the firmware I have and get on with life.

[Advertisement]

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

[rsolomon]

Visited Leica NJ today for a part for my Digilux 2 so i just had to ask about the DMR firmware update......

 

two words from leica.... "no update"

[paulmoore]

I loaded the 1.2 the week it came out.. it's been so long that I have become accustomed

to the shortcomings...and have forgotten that I was waiting for 1.3 though I would happily accept a nice discount and first in line on the digital r10 if solms wants to make-up.

[rsolomon]

now that might play

[robsteve]

Visited Leica NJ today for a part for my Digilux 2 so i just had to ask about the DMR firmware update......

 

two words from leica.... "no update"

 

Does that mean there will be not update, or no update on the status of the firmware update?

[bono0272]

The Hong Kong Leica replies 'don't know' on the DMR firmware update last week.

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the question i asked .... what is the current stauts ofthe firmware.... i took ni update to mean there is no status update..... as in no new information....

 

i interpert this to be just as bono got from Hong Kong "dont know"....

 

what is amusing is that i received the "dont know" a few months ago while visiting in NJ... and now thats in Hong Kong. So my guess is Bono should expect a "no update" in a few months from now and some new phase providing no value will come from NJ.

 

i really love leica, but i am maturing through my emotional attachement to the m

[bono0272]

Actually the Hong Kong Leica said "Solms does give any information or direction on the status of the new DMR firmware". So the people there just replied "don't know".

 

Anyway, if the firmware needs to be updated, we customers do not care who (Leica or Imacon or third party) will do the update, but we just want it done. Business conflicts between Leica and Imacon are not our concerns.

 

To be a responsible company Leica should at least say something on this issue. If there will be no update, just tell us the truth and ask the DMR users to wait for the next R digital. (whether the DMR users will pay for the new R is another issue)

[rsolomon]

i wonder the real reason they wont say anthing on this topic..... surely someone knows the answer....

[Guest rubidium]

i wonder the real reason they wont say anthing on this topic..... surely someone knows the answer....

 

Indeed, this is the most baffling aspect of this issue. It's understandable, though regretable, that Leica made the decision to upgrade firmware and experienced unforeseen problems of some sort that delayed, and continued to delay, the release. It's understandable, though regretable, that Leica made the decision not to upgrade the firmware and expect DMR owners to live with 1.1 or 1.2.. It's NOT understandable, nor acceptable, that they simply remain silent for a year. As with any matter of brand loyalty, poor communication - or, as in this case, the complete absence of communication - does not make good business sense. Especially for a small company. Loyalty involves parity: Most consumers that have become loyal to any brand are generally willing to stand beside the company and weather the occasional storm, so long as they can take comfort in the fact that the company is out there standing next to THEM.

[robsteve]

The silence may be as simple as trying not to affect the sales of any new DMRs which may be in stock at dealers.

[gogopix]

and remind me again, what is the problem with the DMR firmware?

 

I know we would all like new features, but I continue to use my DMR and don 't see any restrictions (actually haven't thought about, too busy playing with some neat new lenses!)

 

regards

[rsolomon]

Victor

i get your point - shooting Raw @ 100 iso, in good light and i agree, unfortunatly this is litterally looking at the word only in ideal conditions....not realitiy

 

addtionally, there are a host of issues that can be addressed with a firmware upgrade....afterall leica realizes this as a fact, and i say that because leica put out V1.2 (but basically recalled) and at one point was working on a V1.3..... (probably will never hit the street) ifthey really beleived V1.1 was ideal why a 1.2 and 1.3 ??

 

 

There are many..many ..many threads on the concerns/items to be addressed and make this wonderful peice of harware work to it's fullest.

 

 

but lets levelset here -- leica knows a firmware upgrade is needed....

[mgcd]

Sorry Richard, like Victor I do not see what the problem is. And using the DMR in RAW is NOT only in "ideal" conditions. I constantly use mine with great results in ever more challenging lighting situations.

 

Cheers,

[rsolomon]

Conrad

then why did leica put out a V1.2 of fimware? certainly not for the users/customers, but I think because leica themselves realized gaps that should be fixed. With all respect .... because a particular user doesn't use a function or a setting that should not be intereperted as "it's working".

 

ie, two examples..

 

if you had a lens that was supposed to have a workng apeture to 1.4 but was stuck and would not open beyond 2.8, BUT you always shot at 2.8 and above anyway would you say that lens worked properly ?

 

if you had a camera that did not operate in shutter priority mode but you never used that mode would you consider the camera fully functioning?

 

 

the DMR is similar, there are features and fuctions that are not opereting up the potential of the hardware, some of them are: profiles (fixed in V1.2), auto white balance, high iso noise, jpeg quaility.

 

And while i can get outstanding results from the DMR i want these features to work with outstanding results also. Leica put these functions in the DMR so i think they should make them work to the best of the hardwares limitiations, not the firmware's limititation.

 

Today the DMR is limited by the firmware - and this is leica's responsibility. I am a customer who bought a leica product, i was expecting "the full leica experience" - i got it with each lens i own, i got it with the R9, i got it with other R cameras, i didn't get it with the DMR.

[Thomasru]

I was thinking of buying a DMR for my R8 (I also own a M6TTL) but the more I read about the Leica digital merry -go -round I think my best bet is to get a Canon EOS-1Ds. Yes full frame 17.2 million pixels. Am I being impatient !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hdg]

Since nearly two years I am working with my R9+DMR plus a lot of nice Leica-lenses. I have upgraded from V 1.0 to V 1.1 to V 1.2 without any problems.

In the meantime I have made more than 10000 dng-pictures. You have seen some of them. I am very happy with my camera and the picture quality, too.

 

But what do you think of the R10? As the lenses should be the same the sensor size will be (probably) the same. This is an optical Leica-problem.

 

Regards Hans

[rsolomon]

ofcoruse my opinion

i think the R lenses will continue to work just fine on the R10, worst case (and i wouldn't think so) there will be an adpater for the R10 and current lenses..

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[gogopix]

I was thinking of buying a DMR for my R8 (I also own a M6TTL) but the more I read about the Leica digital merry -go -round I think my best bet is to get a Canon EOS-1Ds. Yes full frame 17.2 million pixels. Am I being impatient !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Not impatient, but aphorisms suchs "throwing the baby out with the bath water" and "cut off your nose to spite your face" come to mind. If, after all the discussions and diffences (not the least of which is DR) you still feel the Leica is better for you, then why would a few gaps bother?

 

If some of the Canon features are important (e.g. high ISO) then you would be best off there, AND you could still use Leica glass.

 

Really, there are those who want at least to TRY for the excellence in products and are willing to live with some disadvantages and even grief) [Rolls Royce, Mercedes, Rolex, Patek Phillip, Ferrari, leather etc are higher maintenance. usually than a Ford Taurus, polyester and Timex!]

 

From the size of the market it is clear Leica owners are in the strong minority. It takes pains. Then we get an image we swear could NOT be gottn from a lesser system and we pat ourselves on the back.

 

But that is not everyone's cup of tea. What I think grieves many of us is the perception that we don't demand Canon behavior from a Leica -- it is, just, well, what it is.

 

Ya pays your money and ya takes your choice.

 

But I do applaud your taking the time to think it through, and down deep, I suspect you would rather be in the Leica camp!

 

I really do wish you well in your decision whatever it is.

regards

[Guest rubidium]

... Rolls Royce, Mercedes, Rolex, Patek Phillip, Ferrari, leather etc are higher maintenance. usually than a Ford Taurus, polyester and Timex! ...

 

Spot on! Your statement is a reminder of something I learned 18 years ago when I bought a Porsche: "Expensive" ,"high end", "high performance", "exotic", and similar qualifiers DO NOT necessarily imply "closer to perfection". I suppose it was natural for me to believe otherwise until I actually owned one of these things.