Black Frames

[sblutter]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has happened to me a few times - as I recall upon 'waking' only.  A quick on & off solved it

 

What a drag - 65 shots lost!

[Steve Ricoh]

If the camera says 2.0.2.5 it is 2.0.2.5. However, there are often variations in firmware if , during normal development of  production, a piece of hardware was replaced by another version of the same. In a normal user firmware update such routine production developments are taken into account, but if a camera receives for instance a new shutter of slightly different firmware requirements, the present firmware needs to be dapted. I would not think twice about this.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

If you refer to my message of the 24/6/16, Leica state they performed a firmware update followed by a software adjustment (note the different terms being used by Leica, not my made up words). When the camera was returned by me for repair it already had 2.0.2.5 loaded, so it's not an unreasonable assumption that the first step was to update the firmware to 2.0.3.0 (note the word 'firmware'). But then the company applied a software adjustment (note the word 'software'). The camera now says 2.0.2.5, so what's going on?

 

I think your interpretation is that the new replacement shutter doesn't work with 2.0.3.0, so Leica reinstalled 2.0.2.5. 

If this is correct, it's interesting to say the least and may explain why some users report black frames after the last firmware update to 2.0.3.0!

What is certain, I will not attempt a firmware update myself. But I would place a small bet (metaphorically speaking) that a new release of firmware will be released at some future date.

[jaapv]

No, I think they never updated. They just installed the version of 2.0.2.5 that is appropriate for your hardware configuration. Should you wish to update to 2.0.3.0 (there is no obligation to do so, you know) it should adapt to the correct configuration automatically.

[Steve Ricoh]

More than one version of 2.0.2.5 ? How would a configuration management system cope with more than one version with the same identity (unless there are further digits not visible to us, Joe Public.

 

if my camera does have a tailored version, why was I not issued with a warning (in the repair scedule) to NOT update to 2.0.3.0?

 

I doubt you have the answer, Jaap, however I'm awaiting a response from Leica Customer Care (I'm in correspondence with a certain gentleman from Leica who said he will respond tomorrow).

Edited June 27, 2016 by Steve Ricoh

[jaapv]

It has happened before, when Leica switched motherboard manufacturer. It is not an individual tailored version. The camera records the iterations of hardware it contains.

[Steve Ricoh]

I'll see what Leica say. The person I'm in contact with is out of the office, response expected tomorrow, hopefully.

 

But for the moment, if Leica chose not to update to the latest (2.0.3.0) I certainly won't until the company advises further.

 

PS I'm still uncertain what you're saying Jaap. Are you suggesting it was updated to the latest 2.0.3.0 but due to hardware changes, in this case the shutter, the camera somehow reports a different version, as if the hardware is a modifier to the recorded firmware.

 

Guessing is not helpful so I'll shut up until I know for certain.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No, I think you are still on 2.0.2.5, and the correct version for your camera. I do not think updating would pose a problem.  But by all means do ask Leica to be sure.

[Steve Ricoh]

Yes, I agree, but I don't have the benefits of the latest update, eg the battery warning. Unless Leica forgot to apply the latest firmware (unlikely) there must be a good reason. But if 2.0.2.5 is the correct version for my camera, is it locked in time, as it were, meaning I can't apply any future updates. You won't know for sure, unless you have Leica industrial knowledge.

 

I find it interesting. But the good news the camera hasn't missed a beat so far, since the shutter was replaced.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Yes, I agree, but I don't have the benefits of the latest update, eg the battery warning. Unless Leica forgot to apply the latest firmware (unlikely) there must be a good reason. But if 2.0.2.5 is the correct version for my camera, is it locked in time, as it were, meaning I can't apply any future updates. You won't know for sure, unless you have Leica industrial knowledge.

 

I find it interesting. But the good news the camera hasn't missed a beat so far, since the shutter was replaced.

That has never been the case. Any future update will take the hardware variants - and there are quite a few over the years of production- into account.

[Steve Ricoh]

That has never been the case. Any future update will take the hardware variants - and there are quite a few over the years of production- into account.

 

So should I conclude that Leica are somewhat behind in making 2.0.3.0 compatible with all M240 hardware variants?

[jaapv]

Who knows. At one time there were two different firmware updates for two different motherboard variants. The next update was merged again into one.

[Steve Ricoh]

Who knows. At one time there were two different firmware updates for two different motherboard variants. The next update was merged again into one.

 

Which model of camera are you talking about? 

[jaapv]

Oh- I have to look that up when I find time. It might have been the M8.2. There was a silly but funny thread at the time; a prospective buyer had contacted Leica whether there would be a newer model in the near future. Leica said "no". When he found out, just days after buying the camera, that Leica had switched motherboard suppliers and needed an separate firmware for the next version of the motherboard he could not be persuaded that this was normal production development and had nothing to do with new and upgraded cameras, he screamed the place down and was initiating legal action. Unfortunately he suddenly disappeared and nobody ever found out how it all ended. The next firmware update was merged into one, of course.

[Steve Ricoh]

Thanks Jaap, I must give you credit for the speed of your response to posts - top guy!!

[Steve Ricoh]

Just received an email from Leica Customer Care saying the installation of 2.0.2.5, post repair (shutter replacement), was an oversight, and that I'm ok to update to 2.0.3.0 myself. I'm in no hurry to do that having read others experiences reported in the M240 /MP240 and M246 sub-forums. Or maybe I'll get my dealer to do it and if it goes 'feeding organs' up, they may then provide a loaner.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Steve Ricoh]

As anyone who has followed this thread will know my M240 has had a new shutter installed following Leica's confirmation that the original shutter assembly was defective.

 

Guess what, I was out shooting today and the camera made an irregular shutter sound and recorded a 'black frame', ie no exposure.

 

To say I'm annoyed is somewhat of an understatement - the camera is only 8 months old and I've only had it 6 of those, since Leica had it for 2 months replacing the shutter.

 

I will be talking to the supplying dealer to understand my options. It's useless if you can't rely on a camera to take pictures.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jto555]

Hi Steve, I have the "Blace Frame" issue over two bodies. So I am hoping that it is a firmware issue. Body one was got three years ago and already has had the shutter replaced, body two was got at the start of the this year.

 

As for reliability, I photographed a wedding last week and shoot about 1,800 hundred photographs and neither camera missed a beat. If the camera misses one frame then I am not too worried as I shot batches of two or three at a time, (for microexpressions). However I will be sending one camera and lens in for adjustment (for the umpteen time) so I will get Leica to check out the shutter while it is there.

 

In the meantime I will just shoot away and hope for the best. 

[Steve Ricoh]

Hi Steve, I have the "Blace Frame" issue over two bodies. So I am hoping that it is a firmware issue. Body one was got three years ago and already has had the shutter replaced, body two was got at the start of the this year.

 

As for reliability, I photographed a wedding last week and shoot about 1,800 hundred photographs and neither camera missed a beat. If the camera misses one frame then I am not too worried as I shot batches of two or three at a time, (for microexpressions). However I will be sending one camera and lens in for adjustment (for the umpteen time) so I will get Leica to check out the shutter while it is there.

 

In the meantime I will just shoot away and hope for the best. 

 

I suspect it's a hardware issue, the shutter assembly. Could be a quality issue (it's a bought out sub-assembly I believe, Leica source and fit) or a design issue. One of your cameras (body one) is on its second shutter and possibly heading for a third, and the other body (body two) is heading for a replacement too. I suspect it's a systematic problem. I'm disappointed Leica don't own up to the issue - if my suspicions are founded they should. These cameras aren't the cheapest, are they, I thought I was buying into the Rolls Royce' in terms of photographic equipment, but I'm having second thoughts, sadly!

[jto555]

You could be right, but I hope not. If you are and my body one is heading for its thrid shutter it would not look good for the the M240 in the long tearm. Unless Leica retifies the issue and replaces the shutters with a much longer lasting assembly. Could this be the 240 owners "M9 CCD glass replacement/recall" equivalent?

 

 

I forgot to add, I sent a sequence of shots that ended with a black frame into Leica and they are not sure but it could be the shutter.

Edited July 11, 2016 by jto555

[Steve Ricoh]

I've just spoken to the supplying dealer of my M240 and I'm informed the camera keeps an error log, This is consistent with the message I received from Leica when I pushed for an update. I was informed that a defective shutter error had been recorded and hence the company replaced the shutter and returned the camera - it was away for 8 weeks.

 

Just replacing the shutter assembly is unlikely to be the solution if there's a systematic defect with sub-assembly. All they're doing is replacing one defective component for another with potentially the same issue. But how likely is it that Leica will improve the design/or improve the quality of the shutter, i.e. a 'new' version and recall/or replace defective shutters? If the M240 and its derivatives are on the run-out of the product life cycle, the priority is going to be some way down the list given the importance of getting the next digital M to market.

 

By the way, I don't think it's a longevity issue, the shutter assembly can fail fairly early from my experience (less than 2000 actuations for shutter 1 and no more than 300 for shutter 2).