norm_snyder Posted June 23, 2018 Share #1 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thoroughly enjoying using the CL, but have encountered a file numbering problem. The camera started at L1000001, but upon reaching L1000999, switched to L1010001, continuing on from there. Once getting to L1010999, it moved to 1020000 (instead of the anticipated 1011000, 1011001...) and then proceeded to 1020001, 1020002 etc. I know how to reset the numbering on my M9 and MM, but the same strategy simply didn't work, and it continued, 1020002, 1020003, etc. Resetting the numbering in the menu changed the numbering to L1030000. Has anyone else encountered this? Any solution I'm missing? Is this a bug? Edited June 23, 2018 by norm_snyder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 23, 2018 Posted June 23, 2018 Hi norm_snyder, Take a look here Does the CL have a file numbering bug?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 23, 2018 Share #2 Posted June 23, 2018 It's a known bug. The SL does it too, or at least something silly and similar. Upgrades in L mount firmware (the SL has had several of them) will often forget the number on your most recent file and start you anew at directory 100, file number 1000001. The only way out of that seems to be the "renumber" option, which generates a new directory above any existing directory number. I find it embarassing that Leica can't do this simple task better than this. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share #3 Posted June 23, 2018 It's a known bug...I find it embarassing that Leica can't do this simple task better than this.Well, as a Leica user for many years, as well as digital Leica since the M8, this should be a familiar sort of experience to me. I guess I will (have to) live with it. Maybe there’s a Kolari mod Sony in my future. I hate the Sony menus, though. The CL has proven a great augmentation for my Ms and is brilliant with the 28 and 75 Summicron ASPHs at higher iso. Thanks, Scott. Maybe someone will figure out a workaround for filing, other than “date file created” in PS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 23, 2018 Share #4 Posted June 23, 2018 (edited) This has been complained about ad nauseam (by me in particular) since the M240 and afflicts every camera since as far as I am aware, and I've had a T, Q, TL2, CL and SL. It's been mentioned in every beta test that I have participated in since 2013. Leica cameras still cannot count past 999. It should change directories at 9999, as on the M9. The 'renumbering' facility is a joke. Someone at Wetzlar just doesn't care and can't be bothered to fix it, despite it being only a few lines of code. The last email I sent directly several years ago resulted in a reply from the firmware team stating they didn't understand what I was going on about. That says it all, really ...... Edited June 23, 2018 by thighslapper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 23, 2018 Share #5 Posted June 23, 2018 What is even worse, when you update your firmware, it will certainly start from “0” as it does with T!... so, all your folders and numbering of you’re shots get completely mess up. With T, I keep the last shot from the older firmware in my SD card, and start shooting with that shot when I have the new firmware. In general, the numbering keeps following. I hope it will work the same way whenever we have a new firmware for CL. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 24, 2018 Share #6 Posted June 24, 2018 Leica cameras still cannot count past 999. It should change directories at 9999, as on the M9. The 'renumbering' facility is a joke. Someone at Wetzlar just doesn't care and can't be bothered to fix it, despite it being only a few lines of code. The last email I sent directly several years ago resulted in a reply from the firmware team stating they didn't understand what I was going on about. That says it all, really ...... Actually, I took a look back at recent M10 and M240 files, and it seems that all M's are capable of counting on four fingers, and only the L-mount cameras are restricted to counting with only three digits, like Disney cartoon characters. This makes me suspect that those parts of the firmware are being written by different people, and it is rather likely that neither of them works in Wetzlar. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 24, 2018 Share #7 Posted June 24, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, I took a look back at recent M10 and M240 files, and it seems that all M's are capable of counting on four fingers, and only the L-mount cameras are restricted to counting with only three digits, like Disney cartoon characters. This makes me suspect that those parts of the firmware are being written by different people, and it is rather likely that neither of them works in Wetzlar. ..... which makes it even worse ...... someone is now aware of the issue but still can't be bothered to transfer the 'fix' to the firmware in the other cameras. ..... and don't mention the re-setting back to zero every time you install a new version of the firmware .... it does make you despair ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 24, 2018 Share #8 Posted June 24, 2018 I am thoroughly enjoying using the CL, but have encountered a file numbering problem. The camera started at L1000001, but upon reaching L1000999, switched to L1010001, continuing on from there. Once getting to L1010999, it moved to 1020000 (instead of the anticipated 1011000, 1011001...) and then proceeded to 1020001, 1020002 etc. I know how to reset the numbering on my M9 and MM, but the same strategy simply didn't work, and it continued, 1020002, 1020003, etc. Resetting the numbering in the menu changed the numbering to L1030000. Has anyone else encountered this? Any solution I'm missing? Is this a bug? I guess, when it reaches L1090999 it will go to L1011000 or L 2000001 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted June 24, 2018 Share #9 Posted June 24, 2018 Why does this matter? I've read people complaining about the file numbering for years and I still cannot fathom why it makes any difference at all. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted June 24, 2018 Author Share #10 Posted June 24, 2018 Actually, I took a look back at recent M10 and M240 files, and it seems that all M's are capable of counting on four fingers, and only the L-mount cameras are restricted to counting with only three digits, like Disney cartoon characters. This makes me suspect that those parts of the firmware are being written by different people, and it is rather likely that neither of them works in Wetzlar. I never considered that. If the software engineers wear those three fingered gloves like Mickey and Donald, I guess they’ll never be able to get a grip on the problem. Sorry...really sorry, but thanks to all for helping me not go crazy trying to do resets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 25, 2018 Share #11 Posted June 25, 2018 Why does this matter? I've read people complaining about the file numbering for years and I still cannot fathom why it makes any difference at all. because some of us with multiple Leica cameras are lazy and find having to renumber files an irritation. I use Namechanger with some shortcut presets but would prefer not to have to bother with yet another step in the processing pipeline. A nice, logical and reliable numerical sequence from LX000001 till the day I dump the camera would suit me fine. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted June 26, 2018 Share #12 Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) because some of us with multiple Leica cameras are lazy and find having to renumber files an irritation. ... Hmm. I mostly don't even bother renumbering anything. I consider the numeric portion of the file name as part of an identifier. When I move my files from camera to computer, I have Lightroom (or an Automator script) prefix all file names with the date drawn from the capture time. EG: LX000831 taken today becomes 180626-000831. They sort in the correct order whether viewed in Lightroom by capture time or file name or in the Finder on macOS by file name. It doesn't matter to me which of my Leica or other cameras a photo came from when poking about in the file system .. that information is easily found in the metadata. Edited June 26, 2018 by ramarren Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 26, 2018 Share #13 Posted June 26, 2018 I've got about 15 years of digital files that I sometimes need to pull from. I haven't captioned or keyworded, don't have a DAM set up because I'm not making money from them, so I guess I am just as lazy as Thighslapper. When I do go back into the files, I find the jpeg which I saved or one related to what I want, and then go locate the raw file from the camera and date information on the file in a compressed directory for that camera and date. It isn't super-quick, but I always find things, and simple file numbers helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted June 26, 2018 Share #14 Posted June 26, 2018 LOL! I keyword my files because I'm lazy, and it make it much much easier to find things. For instance, just yesterday I visited an old friend with whom I"d once gone to San Simeon for a pleasant day of photography and banter. I couldn't remember which camera I used, or even exactly what year it was, even though I had one print from the session sitting on my bookshelf. I opened Lightroom and did a search for "San Simeon" in the Metadata. Three seconds later, all fifty scans of the Minox exposures that I shot in San Simeon in 1997 popped up so that I can now make him a nice little set of five prints as a gift. I'd scanned all my Minox negatives in 2010 and transcribed all the data from the film envelopes into the IPTC fields. Also popped up the hundred or so digital exposures from my trip there on my partner's birthday about eight years ago. I certainly never made any money from stuff like this, but being able to find photographs easily is important to me. I have over 700,000 photographs in my archives... No amount of filename numbering is going to find things as easily. It took me a day or two to scan all of my Minox negatives for the archive, and probably an half hour to input all the data on the film envelopes... I think that's a reasonable time-cost to be able to find things most of a decade later, and two decades after I made the photos! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted June 26, 2018 Share #15 Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) Well ..... as usual there are multiple ways of skinning a cat ..... I have all my files prefixed by the camera used ...... we are now up to L14 ....... and I know that L1 was my first M9, L8 my Monochrom and L14 the CL ....... and everything is stored in yearly folders. If I had any sense and a bit more commitment I suppose I should add keywords and sort out something more sensible ...... but often continuing a system .... even if not perfect ..... is better than trying to retrospectively restructure all the data ...... which often ends in tears .... Edited June 27, 2018 by thighslapper Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 27, 2018 Share #16 Posted June 27, 2018 Only up to L8 here. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim-St Posted June 27, 2018 Share #17 Posted June 27, 2018 I ... have encountered a file numbering problem. The camera started at L1000001, but upon reaching L1000999, switched to L1010001, continuing on from there. Once getting to L1010999, it moved to 1020000 (instead of the anticipated 1011000, 1011001...) and then proceeded to 1020001, 1020002 etc. Has anyone else encountered this? Any solution I'm missing? Is this a bug? It's a known bug. I don't think it is a bug, exactly. Panasonic cameras have done this for years. All my Panas since I first used a TZ10 back in 2010, through GF1, GX7, LX100 and GX80 have numbered like this. I'd guess it's something that's crept into Leica along with some borrowed Panasonic firmware. Which would suggest Leica customises Pana firmware, rather than writing their own from the ground up... Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted June 27, 2018 Share #18 Posted June 27, 2018 For me, it is all a matter of organization. I have different folders for different cameras. For each camera, I have different folders for different subjects. Therefore, when the numbering starts all over again after each firmware upgrade and I have the same numbers that I already had, it completely screws up my order and my organization. So, not easy to find my shots when needed.... As simple as that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 27, 2018 Share #19 Posted June 27, 2018 I don't think it is a bug, exactly. Panasonic cameras have done this for years. All my Panas since I first used a TZ10 back in 2010, through GF1, GX7, LX100 and GX80 have numbered like this. I'd guess it's something that's crept into Leica along with some borrowed Panasonic firmware. Which would suggest Leica customises Pana firmware, rather than writing their own from the ground up... Jim I haven't owned Panasonic. Do they count on only three fingers as well, leaving one digit unused? It would make perfect sense for Leica to write only the parts of their firmware that they feel affects image quality. I've long felt that Leica doesn't take any engineering pride in lowly firmware. EXIF bugs and things like the frame counter are the last items to get cleaned up in a new model. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norm_snyder Posted June 27, 2018 Author Share #20 Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) Multiple posters, multiple workarounds. Oh, well, I can also search by approximate date. Of course, this is only useful if someone wants an old file (including me) and knows what year, or what time of year the photo was taken. Like Thighslapper, I have used prefixes...L1..... (M8), L8.....,L9.... (two MMs), L4..., L5.... (different M9s at different times). I figured I would go back to L1...,since it would not be a problem, 12 (!) years having past since the M8 purchase. The only reliable solution I’ve been able to find is two Acetaminophen or Ibuprofen. The fact that Panasonic’s do this (my LX1 didn’t), too, doesn’t mean it’s not a bug. Edited June 27, 2018 by norm_snyder 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