M10- FW Requests/Bug Reports

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

I have used all 4 digital M's and the m240 had the worst colors and for the most part that is resolved in the M10...although I don't think this was all an IR issues. Honestly I think you are making this out to be much bigger than it is. Leica has come a long way since the M8 which was the only camera that had a big issue with IR. All cameras struggle with IR at some point, none are perfect...and the M10 is no exception, but it's controlled enough that it's not a big enough problem that it should be any cause for concern...and certainly not a reason to avoid upgrading.

 

If you are going to use any professional digital camera today you need to use software to get the best out of your negatives. I'd suggest you invest in LR, it's simple to use and very fast. It has the added benefit of helping you organize your images at the same time.

 

I haven't used an IR filter since the M8.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[lm_user]

I like ACR and Photoshop. I just downloaded a trial version of LR. no comment yet - need more time to learn

 

I plan to leave IR filters on lenses and let LR flatfield correction fix any cyan corners.

[digitalfx]

I like ACR and Photoshop. I just downloaded a trial version of LR. no comment yet - need more time to learn

 

I plan to leave IR filters on lenses and let LR flatfield correction fix any cyan corners.

 

 

Why? Totally unnecessary and going to the opposite extreme to solve your assumed issues. You are actually going to create more issues than you resolve.

 

Re ACR and Photoshop...the core tool is exactly the same...but using PS vs LR is like using an Anti Aircraft gun to execute your uncle

LR is more suited for the task of basic processing of images whereas PS is for more advanced manipulations. If you like PS, you will love LR. LR is simply a digital darkroom, and excels at this alone.

[lm_user]

Why? To avoid the issue Dempski bought up and Jaapv confirmed about 10 posts ago.

 

If I use the camera and find it unnecessary - then I may change my mind. This is the challenge with buying a $6600 camera sight unseen

[pico]

The DNG compression on the M9 was not the same as the M240. [...]  The M9 was lossy.

 

Does anyone have an authoritative citation from Leica affirming this?

.

[pop]

Does anyone have an authoritative citation from Leica affirming this?

.

Technical data, M9:

Data formats DNG (raw data), choice of uncompressed or slightly compressed (by non-linear reduction of color depth), 2 JPEG compression levels.

Technical data, M (Typ 240):

Image file formats: DNG (RAW data uncompressed or lossless compressed), JPEG

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I plan to leave IR filters on lenses 

 

 

Why? To avoid the issue Dempski bought up and Jaapv confirmed about 10 posts ago.

 

If I use the camera and find it unnecessary - then I may change my mind. This is the challenge with buying a $6600 camera sight unseen

 

 

 

What I meant was why would you use an IR filter on the camera all the time to resolve an issue that is rarely noticeable? You will only create new issues.

[lm_user]

I doubt my ability to predict when it will be necessary in advance. Hate to get home and have regrets. I like 1 consistent work flow that always works

 

I messed up a family Christmas card photo because I left off a IR filter ( forgot to put it back on after shooting color film).

[carlosgavina]

I doubt my ability to predict when it will be necessary in advance. Hate to get home and have regrets. I like 1 consistent work flow that always works

 

I messed up a family Christmas card photo because I left off a IR filter ( forgot to put it back on after shooting color film).

 

From the Manual:

 

Leica UV/IR filters specially developed for use on the Leica M8 and M8.2 should not be used on the Leica M as they can cause color shifts at the edges of pictures, particularly when using wide angle lenses. 

 

 

This is taken from an M-D manual (so M240, M262 sensor), there's a big probability to be the same with the M10.

Edited March 9, 2017 by carlosgavina

[Guest Leicanew]

It seems that my new M10 isn't happy with the Visoflex from my T.

 

After lots of tests and many SD card formatting required, I think I found what triggers a problem that leads to files not saved properly and SD card errors; With the GPS enabled (on), the camera's buffer slows down considerably so if the play button is pressed while writing, the image isn't saved and the SD card appears as full. A black image/s with its file number/s is just what can be seen instead of the image/s taken and the SD card appears full with the left image number showing 0000.

 

Only a format on a computer (I use SD Formatter from SD org) followed by a format in the camera leaves the card ready for action again. Full camera reset didn't make a difference.

 

With the GPS disabled (off) or without the Visoflex attached, the camera seems to behave normally with a faster buffer and no issues so far.

 

If this is a bug (which seems to be as the error shown on a second SD card), I hope this is sorted in the next firmware round...

 

Thanks for reading

Edited March 13, 2017 by Leicanew

[SiOnara]

EVF bug:

 

I've noticed a little bug maybe with the EVF.  When I first mount it on the M10 and turn it on the EVF does not automatically switch on when I put my eye to it.  If I turn the camera off and on again then the EVF works correctly.  

[wlaidlaw]

Strangely a very similar EVF/GPS/continuous shooting bug/crash was also present on the M240 a couple of FW versions ago and they cured it on that with an update. 

 

Wilson

[jaapv]

From the Manual:

 

Leica UV/IR filters specially developed for use on the Leica M8 and M8.2 should not be used on the Leica M as they can cause color shifts at the edges of pictures, particularly when using wide angle lenses. 

 

 

This is taken from an M-D manual (so M240, M262 sensor), there's a big probability to be the same with the M10.

Well, I use them regularly on the M240 and they still have to cause the first colour shift.

[UliWer]

When a coded Leica M lens is attached to the M10, the camera automatically switches to "Auto Lens Detection", even if a different lens had previously been entered in "Manual M Lens detection". 

This makes sense, since it avoids using a wrong manual code for a coded lens.

 

Though here is a certain bug happening with this function:

 

If one uses a lens which does not fully cover the sensor for reading the 6-bit-code, the function to switch to "Auto Lens Detection" reacts and overrides a manually chosen lens detection. This is relevant for certain screw-mount lenses which need an adapter for M bayonet. One example is the old 1:5.6/28mm Summaron. It needs an adaptor with a spareout to avoid blockage when the lens is focussed. This spareout does not fully cover the sensor for reading the 6-bit code.

 

The list in the menue for manually avaiable lens detection contains the 1:5.6/28mm Summaron (new type), which is nice in principle as you can use this setting for the old lens. But the function to switch a manual lens detction to "Auto" prevents to use this setting in practice. I tried it first in rather dark surroundings - and it worked. You could manually choose your settings for the lens from the list and you could use Live View.

 

Today I realized that this does not work under all circumstances. With bright daylight the uncovered sensor for the 6-bit-code reacts  - even if it does not recognize any certain 6-bit code. There is no other lens detected, Live View does not work, but you get a warning on the display that there was no lens attached. This should only happen when you choose "Auto Lens Detection", but not when you you choose a certain lens manually from the list in the menue. Otherwise the entry for the 1:5.6/28mm Summaron in the "Manual M lens detection" list of the M 10 was practically useless.

 

 

So my wish was that Leica changed the function which causes the switch from "Manual" to "Auto Lens Detection":

 

Switching to "Auto Lens Detection" should only happen, when the camera detects a certain defined 6-bit-code which belongs to a certain lens; else it should stay on "Manual-M Lens Detection" - even if the sensor for the 6-bit-code is not fully covered.

 

I hope this can be achieved by a Firmware update.

Edited March 18, 2017 by UliWer

[UliWer]

The metering lock by half pressing the shutter release only makes sense for automatic metering.

 

When you choose manual metering and half press the the button release one may see a little red spot or some partiicle of a red LED in the viewfinder. This shows that half pressing the button release triggers some function when it shouldn't. This may lead to unnecessary power consumption and should be avoided.

[Guest )-(]

Just adding a +1 for the Aperture Estimate to return to the standard EXIF info. I found this feature useful in previous M digital bodies. I always understood it was just an estimate, it was always fooled by ND filters and the like, but it still provided a useful reference point for remembering the actual Aperture used and especially for filtering Lightroom catalog based on lens/aperture settings. 

[digitalfx]

Is this a defect, a bug, hardware issue or related to heat management?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/270741-horizontal-lines-on-m10-at-iso-2500-plus-hot-pixels/

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/269258-m10-solid-green-line/

 

 

Im not so sure this would be considered a bug, but it needs to be addressed so adding it to the list. I am able to see the issue on occasion, but so far I haven't been able to repeat the issue regularly so I'm wondering if its heat related and only occurs when the sensor gets hot?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[adan]

Here's a weird one - related to Uliwer's #174 above. Still using the original firmware - 1.0.2.0

 

Today I had a 90 Summicron with hand-coding mounted. Obviously the hand coding was sloppy, but two things happened:

 

1. The M10 switched automatically to Auto Lens Detection - and reported that I had a 35 f/1.4 mounted. Even though the 28/90 lines were (correctly) visible in the finder.

 

2. It was impossible to manually select the correct lens (90mm f/2)

 

Number 1 says to me that the M10 firmware no longer uses the frameline setting as part of the auto lens detection (as in the M8/M9) - probably so that flipping the restored frameline lever on the front will not influence the camera's lens detection. It simply reads the 6-bit dots exclusively.

 

Number 2 is, of course, so that if something resembling lens coding is detected, the camera will automatically avoid using a manual setting.

 

To me, this is not fully thought through, and I think the firmware needs a reboot to remove option number 2 (even though it would be useful to me if all but one of my lenses were officially coded, and I'm sure to others). And/or option number 1

 

For the simple reason that there are some lenses that will automatically "self-code" due to screw heads or other mount artifacts being read as 6-bit dots. The most obvious being the single-bit 90 Tele-Elmarit-M black dot, which often gets read.

 

Correctly - if you have a 90 TEM, but also incorrectly, if you mount a 28 Elmarit of certain vintages. Either will be ID'd as a 90mm, and the 28mm will show significant uncorrected edge problems.

 

The lens-detection menu must under no circumstances lock out the option to manually select a lens ID.

 

Additionally, the firmware must under no circumstances automatically ID a lens that is incompatible with the frame-line setting. If the 35/135 frame is not keyed in - there cannot be a 35/135 lens mounted, and the camera should not ID such a lens as in use, but simply report a miscoded lens as "UNCODED."

 

I'm sorry, Leica, but these are engineering choices you made in 2006 - and you must remain consistent in how you implement them, until such time as you do away with the whole IR-6-bit system altogether.

 

Of course, If Leica chooses to make either of those user-definable menu selections, then we can all set up our camera to suit our needs.

 

e.g. submenu setup choices:

 

"Autodetection overrides manual detection Y/N?"

 

"Frameline tab/lever position affects auto lens detection Y/N?"

[digitalfx]

1st question would be why haven't you updated the FW?

 

The framelines are mechanically set by the lens flange and have nothing to do with the coding.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Let's check your knowledge, digitalfx.

 

You are aware that the M8/9 - at least - had a microswitch connected to the frameline actuators, that provided a signal to the lens detection system, that was used for lens detection along with the 6-bit codes? And thus, for example, would prevent a 90mm lens from ever being detected as a 35mm.

 

Scroll down to the last picture in post #9 of this thread: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/21079-anatomy-of-the-leica-m8/

 

... to see the M8's 3-way microswitch that transmits lens type (28/90, 50/75, or 35/135) to the lens detection circuitry - in addition to the IR 6-bit data.

 

As to what I do or do not do with firmware upgrades - frankly that is none of your business nor your concern. But as it happens, I've been in the field for 2 weeks (so far) shooting, and will get around to a firmware upgrade when I have the time.

 

If you have specific knowledge that newer firmware addresses the behaviors I mentioned, let us know.

Edited March 27, 2017 by adan