Peter Branch Posted October 14, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 14, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) For some years with Leica M cameras I've used the numbering format: Mxxxyyyy. This resulted in a sequence starting at M1000001 which ran up to M1009999. To keep the SL files distinct I've used the format Sxxxyyyy starting at S1000001, but the camera only runs up to S1000999 and then jumps to S1010001. Thus leaving the 4th numerical digit unused. Has anyone else experienced this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 14, 2016 Posted October 14, 2016 Hi Peter Branch, Take a look here Image Numbering. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted October 14, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 14, 2016 I don't know about that, but you're in trouble if you buy an S camera. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted October 14, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted October 14, 2016 I don't know about that, but you're in trouble if you buy an S camera. Jeff Indeed - but the camera does not allow the numbering format to have letters in the first two positions - and I'm so unlikely to buy an "S" that I shall sleep comfortably just using S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 15, 2016 Share #4 Posted October 15, 2016 Yes, it has been reported by everyone who cares about numbering in the camera. And dismissed as silly by those who let LR or some other ingesting program do their file numbering. I'm in the first category. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2016 Share #5 Posted October 15, 2016 If I do any renaming at all I use "File Rename Pro" on a Mac. I would be happier if the first 3 digits of the filename produced by the SL could be set to my initials as it was with other cameras I have owned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted October 15, 2016 Author Share #6 Posted October 15, 2016 Yes, it has been reported by everyone who cares about numbering in the camera. And dismissed as silly by those who let LR or some other ingesting program do their file numbering. I'm in the first category. scott Worse - it puts the new number sequence in a new folder - so downloading into my PC is that bit more time consuming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted October 15, 2016 Share #7 Posted October 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...... yes and at one stage it reset the numbering when you formatted a card in the camera as well ..... (no idea if fixed as I gave up in-camera formatting as a result) ...... and with every firmware upgrade it resets the numbering as well. The image numbering algorithms in the firmware must be the least complex part of the code ...... how Leica cannot sort this out eludes me ...... or why then cannot allow it to be user configurable for that matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2016 Share #8 Posted October 15, 2016 or why then cannot allow it to be user configurable for that matter. That would be my preference 3 letters to start an underscore and then the numbers. Make that unaffected by formatting (if possible). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 15, 2016 Share #9 Posted October 15, 2016 .... The image numbering algorithms in the firmware must be the least complex part of the code ...... how Leica cannot sort this out eludes me ...... or why then cannot allow it to be user configurable for that matter. My hunch is that Leica didn't write the code that puts files away on the cards, but bought a solution from elsewhere. My Fuji X-Pro2 also jumps to a new folder and restarts the numbers every 999 shots. They have an excuse -- every file starts with the same four letters "DSCF", which you can't change. In past new camera models, the firmware bugs involving card-handling and EXIF content have been among the last stuff to get fixed. They don't keep you from taking pictures, so other things get prioritized higher. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted October 15, 2016 Share #10 Posted October 15, 2016 My hunch is that Leica didn't write the code that puts files away on the cards, but bought a solution from elsewhere. My Fuji X-Pro2 also jumps to a new folder and restarts the numbers every 999 shots. They have an excuse -- every file starts with the same four letters "DSCF", which you can't change. In past new camera models, the firmware bugs involving card-handling and EXIF content have been among the last stuff to get fixed. They don't keep you from taking pictures, so other things get prioritized higher. scott On the XPro2 you can change the prefix. I have two of them and each has a different prefix so I don't get crossed numbers. However you can change 4 digitas in raw and only three in jpeg, which is weird. And yes, I wish Leica would allow more digits to reduce folder jumping when downloading files. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 15, 2016 Share #11 Posted October 15, 2016 I do my file naming/numbering in LR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted October 15, 2016 Share #12 Posted October 15, 2016 What is the difficulty in assigning unique picture/file names to one camera or even more than one camera (a clustering concept). Is it word length? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 16, 2016 Share #13 Posted October 16, 2016 On the XPro2 you can change the prefix. I have two of them and each has a different prefix so I don't get crossed numbers. However you can change 4 digitas in raw and only three in jpeg, which is weird. And yes, I wish Leica would allow more digits to reduce folder jumping when downloading files. Gordon I didn't know that, and am about to get a second Fuji body, so it will come in handy. The argument that I use is that the SL shouldn't fail on something that the Ms through the M240s did properly. But the SL's user interfaces are derived from the S. Does the S have this problem? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.