digitalfx Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share #141 Posted February 20, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would call it a bug when the conditions are clear under which the issue occurs. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk Pro I have only reporting bugs verified by multiple users. The following bugs are also verified by multiple users, yet some don't experience these: (I do find it odd that some of these "bugs" are not seen by everyone) -Continuous mode + EVF FW 1.3.4.0 Shooting with the Visoflex 020, Drive mode is set to Continuous, Image Review set to off. After exposing a burst of images, camera crashes and requires a battery reset. Discussion: http://www.l-camera-...e/#entry3212371 -Date/time issue Some users are reporting that date/time does not stick and images have the wrong data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2017 Posted February 20, 2017 Hi digitalfx, Take a look here M10- FW Requests/Bug Reports. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Cliff S Posted February 20, 2017 Share #142 Posted February 20, 2017 "-Exposure meter icon on display issue If Exposure Meter is set to Multi-field. The image info displays Center-weighted. Also the INFO screen displays the same wrong info." I think this has to do with the Rangefinder being center weighted and the LV being a choice of 3. Pressing the set button when LV is off displays Rangefinder info which is correct to show center weighted. When LV is on it correctly shows the selected metering mode. I believe this is how it's meant to work and not a bug 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 20, 2017 Author Share #143 Posted February 20, 2017 "-Exposure meter icon on display issue If Exposure Meter is set to Multi-field. The image info displays Center-weighted. Also the INFO screen displays the same wrong info." I think this has to do with the Rangefinder being center weighted and the LV being a choice of 3. Pressing the set button when LV is off displays Rangefinder info which is correct to show center weighted. When LV is on it correctly shows the selected metering mode. I believe this is how it's meant to work and not a bug Thanks Cliff, This is correct. From the manual: Exposure Metering Methods Depending on whether the Live View mode is being used or not, various metering methods are available to you. – If you are using the exposure meter: Strongly center-weighted metering. This method takes account of the entire image field, although the parts of the subject situat- ed in the center have more influence on the exposure value calculation than the areas at the margins. The light reflected by bright shutter curtain blades is captured by a photo diode and measured. – In Live View mode: Either spot, center-weighted and multi-field metering. In these cases, metering is done by the picture sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjxism Posted February 20, 2017 Share #144 Posted February 20, 2017 There is definitely problem with image orientation data in the files. The vertical photos turn horizontal in LR and Photos on multiple occasions, horizontal photos flipped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share #145 Posted February 27, 2017 [Naming Profiles] When naming a profile, the keyboard has the option to use . , - yet those characters cannot be used in a profile name. Is this a bug or are those characters just not allowed for some reason? And why are we limited to 5 characters?? Please allow more than 5 characters in the next update. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwesi Posted February 28, 2017 Share #146 Posted February 28, 2017 Assuming the base ISO of the M10 is 200, we should have the option to set a minimum ISO allowed in Auto ISO settings. At the very least it should default to the base ISO as the minimum rather than ISO 100. discussed here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268833-iso-100-on-m10/ Not sure why the base ISO is being shrouded in mystery. Is the engineering department fighting with the marketing department? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamboat Posted February 28, 2017 Share #147 Posted February 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) -Date/time issue Some users are reporting that date/time does not stick and images have the wrong data. Not sure this is a bug? My M8.2 started doing this after off-warranty and I put up with it. Finally sent it to Leica NJ. They replaced the ic plus the sensor. Fixed. But major repair. Based on my experience the M10 camera should be replaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted March 2, 2017 Share #148 Posted March 2, 2017 I was sure that my first firmware request for the M10 would concern a very, very unimportant topic. Though I found out that the request isn't necessary - for the M10 The new 1:5.6/28mm Summaron is coded. Since Leica doesn't enable manual lens detection for new lenses which are only delivered with 6-bit code, I was sure that I would't find a manual setting for the 28mm Summaron. The M9 has none - even when firmware 1.210 enabled automatic lens detection for the new lens. So I was surprised to find the 1.5.6/28 Summaron in the menue for manual selection of the M10, so that users of the uncoded old version can choose this. Cudos to Leica that they still think about users of "old glass"! It would be nice if the other digital M models from the M8 onwards would also get this possibility - since the Summaron shows some magenta cast if one does not use lens correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonanno Posted March 4, 2017 Share #149 Posted March 4, 2017 Yes, the aperture data (even if it is just estimated) in the EXIF data is often helpful... would like to see it restored on the M10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 5, 2017 Share #150 Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) In trying out Auto (i.e. motorized) exposure bracketing, the Exposure Compensation recorded in EXIF does not change, even though the exposures do. I.E. I made three bracketed exposures around a "base" exp. comp of -0.33 with a bracket of 0.33. The images are brighter and darker, as correct, but the EXIF for all three reads "-0.33" instead of "-0.66," "-0.33" and "0.00." - which of course are the "real" bracket exposures. Edited March 5, 2017 by adan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dempski Posted March 5, 2017 Share #151 Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) I am having infrared effects, much like the M8 did without a filter, turning black synthetic rain gear purple on the EVF, and presumably on prints. It's possible to go into live view, sweep across selection of black coats and jackets, and tell their composition. Is anyone else seeing this? I first noticed it at high ISO, around 6400. Are we back to infrared filters again? Edited March 5, 2017 by dempski Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2017 Share #152 Posted March 7, 2017 We have never been off them. Both the M9 and M240 have a pronounced IR sensitivity, albeit not as much in-your-face as the M8 The filtering of IR on the M8 is 50%, the M9 80%, the M240 70% and the M10 - ?? When IR intensity gets really high you will need IR cut filters on all of these cameras. The most obvious result without is of course the infamous magenta black, but in reality things like splotchy Caucasian skin tones, olive/yellow foliage in noonday landscape shots, overly yellow tungsten light, yellow/orange casts from open fires and in sunsets are all manifestations of IR sensitivity. There is a very simple reason: Legacy rangefinder lenses need as thin a filter in front of the sensor as is possible, otherwise edges and corners will deteriorate. Leica sensors will be on the very limit of what is acceptable and possible, as Leica designs them to be the very best option with M lenses. Result: Problems like cracked and corroded sensors, and an elevated IR sensitivity. Undoubtedly this will be the case for the M10 too. (well, not the corroded and cracked sensors, I suppose. Leica appears to have those problems under control) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted March 7, 2017 Share #153 Posted March 7, 2017 We have never been off them. Both the M9 and M240 have a pronounced IR sensitivity, albeit not as much in-your-face as the M8 The filtering of IR on the M8 is 50%, the M9 80%, the M240 70% and the M10 - ?? When IR intensity gets really high you will need IR cut filters on all of these cameras. The most obvious result without is of course the infamous magenta black, but in reality things like splotchy Caucasian skin tones, olive/yellow foliage in noonday landscape shots, overly yellow tungsten light, yellow/orange casts from open fires and in sunsets are all manifestations of IR sensitivity. There is a very simple reason: Legacy rangefinder lenses need as thin a filter in front of the sensor as is possible, otherwise edges and corners will deteriorate. Leica sensors will be on the very limit of what is acceptable and possible, as Leica designs them to be the very best option with M lenses. Result: Problems like cracked and corroded sensors, and an elevated IR sensitivity. Undoubtedly this will be the case for the M10 too. (well, not the corroded and cracked sensors, I suppose. Leica appears to have those problems under control) Agree 100% Which is why it confounds me that there is not a menu option (firmware update?) to correct the cyan color cast caused by use of an IR filter. I suppose the by including the menu option, Leica would be admitting that it's camera suffers from IR contamination. However, anyone that uses the camera will figure it out sooner or later. I am in the minority of forum members that would gladly use a filter to avoid IR contaminations. I am on the fence about getting a new camera. I have an irrational desire for full frame (use an M8 and film cameras now). However, the IR contamination issue without in camera correction like the M8 and M9 disappoints me. I know the standard response - I can use flat field correction ..... I don't want to fool around post processing stuff that should not be post processed. I do not have Lightroom and ACR is not compatible with the plugin. So, I am looking at changing my workflow.... Hopefully, Leica will include this option with a firmware update. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share #154 Posted March 7, 2017 I am on the fence about getting a new camera. I have an irrational desire for full frame (use an M8 and film cameras now). However, the IR contamination issue without in camera correction like the M8 and M9 disappoints me. The M8 and M9 did not have "in camera" correction for IR, nor is this really a viable option. If you want to completely solve the issue you need to use a filter, but frankly its not that big of an issue to begin with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted March 7, 2017 Share #155 Posted March 7, 2017 Read again. M8 and M9 have software to correct color cast caused by the us of IR filters on the lens. M240 and M10 do not. For now - Leica cameras require an IR filter to completely block IR contamination. Maybe thw M11 will fix this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 7, 2017 Share #156 Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Which is why it confounds me that there is not a menu option (firmware update?) to correct the cyan color cast caused by use of an IR filter. I suppose the by including the menu option, Leica would be admitting that it's camera suffers from IR contamination. However, anyone that uses the camera will figure it out sooner or later. I am in the minority of forum members that would gladly use a filter to avoid IR contaminations. I can tell you exactly when I decided to absolutely quit using IR-cut filters. When I very nearly brought down a concert because one of the musicians almost lost it when she saw a largish (55mm) pink sniper-scope-like IR filter on my 90 Summicron reflecting the stage lights at her from the audience. https://op1.ec.tc/365-240-ffffff/opplanet-atn-ps28-2-night-vision-rifle-scope-nvdnps-main.jpg There are some who live in a little bubble with their camera and don't pay attention to the people around them. That's not me - and I saw the constant double-takes and flinches and other reactions to the pink reflective glare from IR filters. Edited March 7, 2017 by adan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted March 7, 2017 Share #157 Posted March 7, 2017 Digital FX. You have an M10. I have looked through a lot of photos. It appears that the M10 IR contamination is better than the M240. Have you used both cameras? Have you noticed a difference? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2017 Share #158 Posted March 7, 2017 To which I might add that I find the cyan dift problems on the M240 and even M9 marginal for focal lengths of 28 mm upwards, especially on recent, more telecentric lenses. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2017 Share #159 Posted March 7, 2017 Read again. M8 and M9 have software to correct color cast caused by the us of IR filters on the lens. M240 and M10 do not. For now - Leica cameras require an IR filter to completely block IR contamination. Maybe thw M11 will fix this Not likely. Leica will always keep the IR filter as thin as they possibly can. The M8 and M9 have no software to correct for IR contamination. The M8 has software to correct for cyan drift and vignetting, the M9 only for vignetting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitalfx Posted March 7, 2017 Author Share #160 Posted March 7, 2017 Read again. M8 and M9 have software to correct color cast caused by the us of IR filters on the lens. M240 and M10 do not. For now - Leica cameras require an IR filter to completely block IR contamination. Maybe thw M11 will fix this Gotcha, see that now. But the M8 was a different problem altogether. It required an IR filter at all times. Is it really necessary on the M10 to have this option? It seems like you are just creating a bigger problem by using an IR filter as opposed to dealing with it in the few shots where it's actually an issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now