New firmware for m10 arrived

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any signs better high ISO performance? With less "vertical and horizontal stripes may become visible, especially in large, uniformly bright areas. . .” as Leica put it.

 

Not that I see - shadow banding ("horizontal stripes") still just barely starts to appear at ISO 12500, same as before.

 

Realistically, high-ISO image quality boils down to physics, and there is not much that firmware can do to fix it. Especially since stronger NR results in eating some detail and loss of resolution - abhorrent to "sharpest-lenses-in-the-world"-dependent Leica.

 

Once upon a time, as digital tech was maturing, new algorithms and ideas for NR were coming along every day, so new firmware could improve noise effects. E.G. M9 improvement (slight) over M8 with essentially the same CCD architecture. But these days, that tech is fairly mature, and is usually "as could as can be" right from the first firmware version.

[tonyniev]

I just tested the estimated/extrapolated aperture EXIF ...wonderful addition, it was right on.

[Bill W]

I just tested the estimated/extrapolated aperture EXIF ...wonderful addition, it was right on.

 

That was my finding as well. I took several shots and mad not of what my aperture setting was and the date matched. Pretty cool.

[Rollin]

Not that I see - shadow banding ("horizontal stripes") still just barely starts to appear at ISO 12500, same as before.

 

Realistically, high-ISO image quality boils down to physics, and there is not much that firmware can do to fix it. Especially since stronger NR results in eating some detail and loss of resolution - abhorrent to "sharpest-lenses-in-the-world"-dependent Leica.

 

Once upon a time, as digital tech was maturing, new algorithms and ideas for NR were coming along every day, so new firmware could improve noise effects. E.G. M9 improvement (slight) over M8 with essentially the same CCD architecture. But these days, that tech is fairly mature, and is usually "as could as can be" right from the first firmware version.

 

I'm glad Leica does not cook the RAW data, but can always hope there is software improvement of the interpretation of the sensor signal to RAW data conversion.

[mdemeyer]

Posted a bug in the Firmware Bugs thread.  Rather than re-post it here, I'll direct you there and request that someone confirm it for me.

 

Thanks.

[jdlaing]

I'm glad Leica does not cook the RAW data, but can always hope there is software improvement of the interpretation of the sensor signal to RAW data conversion.

A. Leica uses .dng and not a proprietary raw file.

 

B. What gives you the impression the files are not “cooked”?

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A. Leica uses .dng and not a proprietary raw file.

 

B. What gives you the impression the files are not “cooked”?

 

 

DNG is just a container format (bucket). The DNG format is proprietary as well, but it is open in the sense that the specifications are available to the public, and anyone can use it royalty free. The data inside the container can still be proprietary raw data (anything you want to put in the bucket). And it probably is, otherwise Adobe's raw converter would not need to add specific support for the camera to support it.

 

From the Adobe DNG specification:

Proprietary Data

Camera manufacturers may want to include proprietary data in a raw file for use by their own raw converter. DNG allows proprietary data to be stored using private tags, private IFDs, and/or a private MakerNote.

[jaapv]

They are not proprietary, as the DNG is of the TIFF family. it would make little sense to output DNG for the sake of future-proofing the files and making them universally accessible -and to avoid having to write their own raw converter- and then lock them inside the DNG by using a proprietary format.

Adobe needs to add specific support as the format is so widely specified that only part is used for each camera. Thus Adobe provides a DNG converter which will eat any file and convert it to an universal DNG.

[jaapv]

I'm glad Leica does not cook the RAW data, but can always hope there is software improvement of the interpretation of the sensor signal to RAW data conversion.

All raw data are processed in the camera before the raw is written. For any camera.

 

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html

[Jeff S]

All raw data are processed in the camera before the raw is written. For any camera.

 

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/raw-is-not-raw.html

I miss Ctein on TOP.

 

Jeff

[LBJ2]

I just tested the estimated/extrapolated aperture EXIF ...wonderful addition, it was right on.

 

Agree. Wonderful addition and hope other mirrorless camera brands like Sony would implement something similar to support manual, uncoupled lenses. 

 

So far my tests results in natural light are not 100%. I've tested with both the 35 Lux/FLE and 50 Lux on the M10. Both tests were performed in natural daylight which might be the reason for the inconsistent estimates. But so far, close enough! 

[LBJ2]

Very much enjoying the new single image/one by one delete function too. Another one of those feature nits I missed on the M10. For me, equals a much improved workflow. 

[pico]

Very much enjoying the new single image/one by one delete function too. Another one of those feature nits I missed on the M10. For me, equals a much improved workflow. 

 

Given all the cautions against deleting in-camera I wonder if that's a vote of confidence from Leica.

[jaapv]

However, I know all the cautions against deleting and I have been doing it since 2002, without incident.  Maybe a spot of Internet hype?

[LBJ2]

Given all the cautions against deleting in-camera I wonder if that's a vote of confidence from Leica.

 

I'm still somewhat of a Leica Rangefinder newbie so maybe not familiar with some Leica customs. For me the more I can do in-camera the better. One less second I save from PP/computer time is a positive  ​ 

[jdlaing]

However, I know all the cautions against deleting and I have been doing it since 2002, without incident.  Maybe a spot of Internet hype?

Me too. No problems here.

[Jeff S]

For me the more I can do in-camera the better. One less second I save from PP/computer time is a positive ​

I’m the opposite, not wanting to spend field time evaluating pics instead of looking for the next pic. Just like my film M days. There’s plenty of time later for PP. And after toiling away in 4 darkrooms since the 80’s, PP and printing is now a piece of cake by comparison. I also shoot roughy the same amount of pics per outing using digital as I did in my film days, always judicious.

 

I’d be fine if the delete function was removed. Different strokes...

 

Jeff

[adan]

There is a difference between deleting pictures now and then, even a large number - and thinking that "Delete All" used over and over, can substitute for good solid card reformatting once you've copied everything to other storage (computer, iPad, etc.).

 

The second can lead to a build-up of invisible "garbage" on the card - which eventually leads to card errors.

 

(Except, one of the very early M9 firmwares did cause problems with "incidental" deleting (half-pictures, overlapped images - fixed eventually.)

 

Delete the occasional shot of your foot, or missed moments or focus - no problem. If you want to "empty"  the card for reuse - format it every time.

[happymac]

I cannot see any reason to delete an image from the card in your camera (except 512 MB users...). Keep them all and decide at home on your computer‘s display, which pictures are worth to be kept and which aren‘t.

Edited July 2, 2018 by happymac

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pedaes]

I cannot see any reason to delete an image from the card in your camera (except 512 MB users...). Keep them all and decide at home on your computer‘s display, which pictures are worth to be kept and which aren‘t.

 

I guess we all work differently and there is no absolute right way, but I do delete the odd "shot of your foot' as adan describes, as even if deleted via LR in will keep being re-imported to LR as it will not be recognised as a duplicate, and therefore I, personally, find it simpler to delete the odd rouge shot in camera.