Jeff S Posted June 10, 2021 Share #161 Posted June 10, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 1 minute ago, Gobert said: I would suggest to buy one and agree with the dealer to make some test shots and process those before finally accepting the camera. All reputable dealers have return policies. Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 10, 2021 Posted June 10, 2021 Hi Jeff S, Take a look here M10M gate coming?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted June 10, 2021 Share #162 Posted June 10, 2021 Not only that, a few weeks after purchase your have the choice of return, replace or repair by law in case of faulty goods. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobert Posted June 10, 2021 Share #163 Posted June 10, 2021 But your legal position is always stronger, and makes life easier, if you explicitly mention and agree on the potential issue before purchase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 10, 2021 Share #164 Posted June 10, 2021 Dealer returns for full refund (typically 7 days) require no explanation, although of course one will want to share, especially if exchange is preferred. Jeff 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 17, 2021 Share #165 Posted June 17, 2021 (edited) M10M with April 2021 manufacture showing the issue. It's subtle, but visible even without adjustments if the subject is an even tone like the sky. I'm not seeing a dark line, only this slight difference in exposure between two halves of the frame. This sure seems like something Leica should try to fix in firmware. Light red filter used, plus substantial use of dehaze, clarity and contrast added to the sky in Capture One, but it was still visible in the unedited image. If I were to make a large print from this, it would be clearly visible (it's less noticeable sized down for web here). I don't think Leica's excuse that this only happens when the image is heavily processed holds merit – Editing to produce an Ansel Adams-looking sky is a reasonable use of a monochrome camera. 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! 1:1 crop adjusted in Photoshop to make the line easier to see: Edited June 17, 2021 by hdmesa Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 1:1 crop adjusted in Photoshop to make the line easier to see: ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/316688-m10m-gate-coming/?do=findComment&comment=4221870'>More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 17, 2021 Share #166 Posted June 17, 2021 It looks like the calibration used to bring the two halves of the image into agreement is not good enough. Try shooting some images of a grey card and bracket the exposure values. -4, -2, 0, +2, +4. Try at different ISO settings. If the left/right agreement changes, that should indicate the issue is the calibration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted June 17, 2021 Share #167 Posted June 17, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 58 minutes ago, hdmesa said: M10M with April 2021 manufacture showing the issue. It's subtle, but visible even without adjustments if the subject is an even tone like the sky. I'm not seeing a dark line, only this slight difference in exposure between two halves of the frame. This sure seems like something Leica should try to fix in firmware. Light red filter used, plus substantial use of dehaze, clarity and contrast added to the sky in Capture One, but it was still visible in the unedited image. If I were to make a large print from this, it would be clearly visible (it's less noticeable sized down for web here). I don't think Leica's excuse that this only happens when the image is heavily processed holds merit – Editing to produce an Ansel Adams-looking sky is a reasonable use of a monochrome camera. 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! 1:1 crop adjusted in Photoshop to make the line easier to see: Here's an $11K camera. Please be careful though how you edit, we only allow certain artistic freedoms before our defunct engineering starts showing at the seams. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted June 17, 2021 Share #168 Posted June 17, 2021 Update on my situation, I am demanding a refund from Leica. I am not convinced a 6 month trip to Wetzlar will resolve the issue. There is a fundamental engineering flaw here and the camera should never have been allowed out the door. I've lost all faith in those that evaluate these cameras and give glowing reviews without having done a truly thorough job. Reminds me of the M8 fiasco all over again. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 18, 2021 Share #169 Posted June 18, 2021 54 minutes ago, jplomley said: M8 fiasco Excuse me? One of the most succesful digital cameras Leica ever built which saved trhe company and an anomaly in the camera world for the number in use after all these years... It is very hard to place the word "fiasco". And six months is hyperbole, to put it mildly. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 18, 2021 Share #170 Posted June 18, 2021 On 6/10/2021 at 5:36 PM, Jeff S said: Dealer returns for full refund (typically 7 days) require no explanation, although of course one will want to share, especially if exchange is preferred. Jeff Two weeks by EU law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMF Posted June 18, 2021 Share #171 Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, hdmesa said: This sure seems like something Leica should try to fix in firmware. Yes, this seems like this is something that Leica could (should be obligated) to fix with firmware. I’m assuming Leica must have eyes on this forum? Perhaps the first challenge will be to get them to acknowledge that this issue exists. . Edited June 18, 2021 by RMF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 18, 2021 Share #172 Posted June 18, 2021 2 hours ago, BrianS said: It looks like the calibration used to bring the two halves of the image into agreement is not good enough. Try shooting some images of a grey card and bracket the exposure values. -4, -2, 0, +2, +4. Try at different ISO settings. If the left/right agreement changes, that should indicate the issue is the calibration. Anything that affects contrast will affect the visibility of the difference between the halves. I can shoot the light gray ceiling in my house and see it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 18, 2021 Share #173 Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) 54 minutes ago, RMF said: Yes, this seems like this is something that Leica could (should be obligated) to fix with firmware. I’m assuming Leica must have eyes on this forum? Perhaps the first challenge will be to get them to acknowledge that this issue exists. . Someone already got a response from Leica and posted about it earlier in the thread. It sounded like Leica already knows about it and brushed it off as expected behavior due to the way the sensor is manufactured. The challenge is getting them to see it as an issue they need to fix. Edited June 18, 2021 by hdmesa 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted June 18, 2021 Share #174 Posted June 18, 2021 1 hour ago, hdmesa said: Someone already got a response from Leica and posted about it earlier in the thread. It sounded like Leica already knows about it and brushed it off as expected behavior due to the way the sensor is manufactured. The challenge is getting them to see it as an issue they need to fix. That would have been me. Three sensor artifacts with my copy, only one acknowledged by Leica (as posted), but remarkably not as a defect. I’m a fraction away from dumping every last bit of Leica kit at this point and moving to another system. My 25 year relationship with this manufacturer is close to the end. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 18, 2021 Share #175 Posted June 18, 2021 16 minutes ago, jplomley said: That would have been me. Three sensor artifacts with my copy, only one acknowledged by Leica (as posted), but remarkably not as a defect. I’m a fraction away from dumping every last bit of Leica kit at this point and moving to another system. My 25 year relationship with this manufacturer is close to the end. My Q2M did not have this split-exposure issue, so the problem is specific to the M10M sensor. Thinking I will return the M10M and put the money toward a 28 Lux for my M10-R. I'm guessing the demosiacing process from the Bayer color filter array on the M10-R more effectively hides or negates the split-exposure issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted June 18, 2021 Share #176 Posted June 18, 2021 6 hours ago, hdmesa said: My Q2M did not have this split-exposure issue, so the problem is specific to the M10M sensor. Thinking I will return the M10M and put the money toward a 28 Lux for my M10-R. I'm guessing the demosiacing process from the Bayer color filter array on the M10-R more effectively hides or negates the split-exposure issue. Thankfully, I’ve had no such issues with either my M10-R or SL2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobert Posted June 18, 2021 Share #177 Posted June 18, 2021 I sincerely believe that the issues are incidents, which doesn’t mean that Leica hasn’t to solve them. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 18, 2021 Share #178 Posted June 18, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gobert said: I sincerely believe that the issues are incidents, which doesn’t mean that Leica hasn’t to solve them. What does that even mean and how does what you believe have anything to do with this? I can reproduce this issue at-will. It shows up on an any even-tone background with added contrast, sometimes being visible with no adjustments. Edited June 18, 2021 by hdmesa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted June 18, 2021 Share #179 Posted June 18, 2021 Leica Miami has asked Leica Germany and Leica USA for a response with a link to this thread. Maybe this will be a more official response than what jplomley received and reported earlier. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobert Posted June 18, 2021 Share #180 Posted June 18, 2021 8 minutes ago, hdmesa said: What does that even mean and how does what you believe have anything to do with this? I can reproduce this issue at-will. It shows up on an any even-tone background with added contrast, sometimes being visible with no adjustments. As I’ve written before in this topic: I pushed LR to the extremes with several pictures, but I cannot reproduce it. 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