Occasional unreadable dng

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yet another dropped shot this morning, my second in a couple of hundred frames.   At this point, with the failure rate around 1%, I am extremely displeased.  In fact, near f-ing furious. 1% is not rare. Rare is a million dollar winning lottery ticket.  One in a hundred is not rare. Claiming otherwise is completely disingenuous.

It is 100%, not 99%, unacceptable to knowingly release firmware that will inevitably lose frames. IN-F-ING-EXCUSABLE.  Any half way professional outfit would have immediately apologized, rolled the software back and not released any new versions until the problem was put to bed. .Being okay with letting a "rare" problem out into the field to wreak random havoc is not something I'd expect from a company concerned with excellence.  Funny how the profitability is up and reliability is down of late.  Regardless, up until now, I had been supportive of being patient with Leica given the difficulty of producing error free, stable software... particularly so during a pandemic. No more.  The way this has been handled demonstrates incompetence, not difficult circumstance, and deserves no further sympathy what so ever.  

Unlike the last time, where the file size was zero, this time it was actually about 10MB or so larger than the frames of the same scene.

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!

  

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lct]

7 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

[...] It is 100%, not 99%, unacceptable to knowingly release firmware that will inevitably lose frames [...]

+1

[Crem]

On 12/9/2023 at 7:33 AM, Tailwagger said:

It is 100%, not 99%, unacceptable to knowingly release firmware that will inevitably lose frames. IN-F-ING-EXCUSABLE.  Any half way professional outfit would have immediately apologized, rolled the software back and not released any new versions until the problem was put to bed.

  

I couldn't say it better myself. It's a great camera with buggy software and a development team that doesn't seem to care much about customers (let us downgrade firmware!). This pushed me over the edge to sell my M11 and stick with my extremely reliable M10-R. We are treated like beta testers since it sure seems like Leica doesn't do much internal testing.

[charlesphoto99]

IMO the CPU and/or RAM of the M11 is right on the edge, and Leica will be going around in circles with fw not trying to step off it, introducing issues elsewhere as they come up with fixes. The only M camera that would get me to consider moving on from the 10-R would be one similar to the M11, but stripped down without wifi, CCA, live view, Visoflex, jpegs (except what's needed for preview) and any other bells and whistles that don't contribute to actually making a RAW image  with the rangefinder and have the camera work as robustly as it should (instant wake/start time, no corruption, freezes etc). And then call that one the true Professional model. All this other crap they keep cramming into the camera is just a race against Sony.

 

[Crem]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

IMO the CPU and/or RAM of the M11 is right on the edge, and Leica will be going around in circles with fw not trying to step off it, introducing issues elsewhere as they come up with fixes. The only M camera that would get me to consider moving on from the 10-R would be one similar to the M11, but stripped down without wifi, CCA, live view, Visoflex, jpegs (except what's needed for preview) and any other bells and whistles that don't contribute to actually making a RAW image  with the rangefinder and have the camera work as robustly as it should (instant wake/start time, no corruption, freezes etc). And then call that one the true Professional model. All this other crap they keep cramming into the camera is just a race against Sony.

 

The M11 hardware may very well be pushed to the edge, but that's still not a valid excuse. I write software for a living and I can tell you that many of the M11 problems I've had are likely due to the following:

1. A lack of manual and automated firmware testing. Testing isn't cheap, but is a well understood problem for everything from web to embedded software. I have no idea if they automate testing at all, but my guess is not much. From what I've pieced together they do some amount of manual testing with a small group of forum members (the secret forums here on LUF) and I think I heard using Leica Akademie members too. I have no insider knowledge, but it really seems like they don't have a proper testing strategy. Bugs have plagued the M11 on and off since launch and for roughly two years now. Before I sold my M11 I had random red frame lines, random corrupt DNGs, and the occasional crash on firmware that is 2+ years old and should be rock solid by now.

2. Leica likes to launch unfinished products (and firmware updates). Usually this happens because product managers (or higher ups) force software people to stick to some deadline that makes no sense. The software people can't say "no" and prevent the software release. Thus customers end up being beta testers and the engineers fix bugs using customer complaints. That is unless they are pulled off the project to work on something else.

My guess is the firmware team at Leica is understaffed and under resourced. That's fine if the firmware is simple (M10?), but not if they want to build complex firmware and make the M a lot more like a Sony/Nikon/Canon/Fuji with lots of features.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Crem

[Ulli Mueller]

I have the same problem on my M11 (firmware version 2.0.2), an occasionally corrupted DNG File on a high-quality SD Card (SanDisk 128GB Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-II). I can't exactly pinpoint when it started, but I'd say one or two firmware updates ago. I typically have one corrupted DNG file per session, and so far it always has been the first shot. All the corresponding JPGs have been okay. Fortunately I could salvage the respective DNGs from internal memory. I never had a corrupted raw file ever on any other camera system. Quite disappointing and scary. Hoping for a response from Leica soon. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/11/2023 at 5:20 PM, Crem said:

The M11 hardware may very well be pushed to the edge, but that's still not a valid excuse. I write software for a living and I can tell you that many of the M11 problems I've had are likely due to the following:

1. A lack of manual and automated firmware testing. Testing isn't cheap, but is a well understood problem for everything from web to embedded software. I have no idea if they automate testing at all, but my guess is not much. From what I've pieced together they do some amount of manual testing with a small group of forum members (the secret forums here on LUF) and I think I heard using Leica Akademie members too. I have no insider knowledge, but it really seems like they don't have a proper testing strategy. Bugs have plagued the M11 on and off since launch and for roughly two years now. Before I sold my M11 I had random red frame lines, random corrupt DNGs, and the occasional crash on firmware that is 2+ years old and should be rock solid by now.

2. Leica likes to launch unfinished products (and firmware updates). Usually this happens because product managers (or higher ups) force software people to stick to some deadline that makes no sense. The software people can't say "no" and prevent the software release. Thus customers end up being beta testers and the engineers fix bugs using customer complaints. That is unless they are pulled off the project to work on something else.

My guess is the firmware team at Leica is understaffed and under resourced. That's fine if the firmware is simple (M10?), but not if they want to build complex firmware and make the M a lot more like a Sony/Nikon/Canon/Fuji with lots of features.

As I said before, Leica will buy outside expertise with large optoelectronic companies like Panasonic and Zeiss, making them Independent from hypothetical understaffing. I think the basic problem is trying to cram Sonikon type features into a 1954 concept. 

[Guest]

On 12/10/2023 at 12:31 PM, Crem said:

I couldn't say it better myself. It's a great camera with buggy software and a development team that doesn't seem to care much about customers (let us downgrade firmware!). This pushed me over the edge to sell my M11 and stick with my extremely reliable M10-R. We are treated like beta testers since it sure seems like Leica doesn't do much internal testing.

Problem is upstream of testing: The developer (it is not unrealistic that we are talking about an individual …) has not fixed this issue not because of lack of motivation, or a lack of user complaints (= involuntary testing).

Embedded software design is a rare talent, often not covered substantially in most universities. “Real time” is hard. Anybody with the right skills would likely leave Europe, let alone Wetzlar, to work for a Silicon Valley company at 5-50x the salary?

My proposed solution: Expand joint venture with Panasonic and/or Sigma. Keep Leica’s contribution to user experience design. Not allowed to write code. Caveat: Would likely only help with 2025 or later generations of cameras, can’t fix shipping ones or advanced prototypes.

[jaapv]

Leicas design is teamwork. There are separate groups per model. Leica has an extensive mutual technical cooperation contract with Panasonic, announced a few years ago to replace the previous more restricted one. 
I still think that the problems arise from the ambition to shoehorn 2023 technology into a 1954 camera design. It should be noted there are very few such problems with cameras like the X and TL CL series nor with the SL and Q, no more than the large brands 

[jaapv]

To elaborate on this theme. I am not Leicas CEO, nor do I own a CEOs armchair, but I would, apart from attempting to iron out the M11 bugs, bring out a back to the basics “75 years M” model in 2024 as a separate niche line,  regard the M11 as a M240 successor, and radically redesign the M12 to be a small SL with a rangefinder and no specific M shape ( of course some superficial M styling)  to get out of this dichotomy. And bring back a CL2. 

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

[...] radically redesign the M12 to be a small SL with a rangefinder and no specific M shape [...]

If you mean sans M mount thanks no thanks. If you mean with M mount why changing the shape?

[pgk]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I still think that the problems arise from the ambition to shoehorn 2023 technology into a 1954 camera design.

Sony A7 cameras shoehorn more tech into as small a package.

[charlesphoto99]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Sony A7 cameras shoehorn more tech into as small a package.

No mechanical shutter or optical viewfinder. Those take up a lot (most) space in an M. 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

Sony A7 cameras shoehorn more tech into as small a package.

When were the mechanicals and body  of the of the A7 designed? 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, lct said:

If you mean sans M mount thanks no thanks. If you mean with M mount why changing the shape?

Where did I say anything about the mount? If you design  an M rangefinder is it not obvious that it will use M lenses which implies an M mount?  The non-M mount argument belongs with the EVF-M  discussion. Completely beside the point in this thread.
Change the shape because a camera is not either body or electronics. The two must be designed together in order to get the best integration. In a vintage body design that is near-imposssible to achieve

[pgk]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

When were the mechanicals and body  of the of the A7 designed? 

Still much higher specified.

[jaapv]

Of course. But given the character of an M camera, all this electronic frippery is only crammed in to attract new customers. Much better to offer it in a suitable package.

The M11 is living proof: Built to the limit (or maybe just beyond?) of the possibilities of an RF camera on a vintage fundament, it has become temperamental. The other proof is the A7: built as a holistic design from the ground up, it is rock-steady.

[UliWer]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

I am not Leicas CEO, nor do I own a CEOs armchair, but I would, ...

You are not???

I was always sure you were or at least you had the armchair.😄

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Where did I say anything about the mount? If you design  an M rangefinder is it not obvious that it will use M lenses which implies an M mount? [...]

I was just asking. Your referred to a "small SL" which sounded a bit confusing to me. Glad your non-CEO's opinion meets my own expectations on this point 😉

[lct]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

[...] Change the shape because a camera is not either body or electronics. The two must be designed together in order to get the best integration. In a vintage body design that is near-imposssible to achieve [...]

Curious to see how a rangefinder with an M mount would look like if it has not the shape of other M cameras. Won't happen if you ask me but i may be wrong.