Regarding new M11 2.0.2 firmware dust protection function feature.

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/10/2023 at 4:20 PM, Warton said:

I never use foto to tether or update firmware. I just occasionally use it to transfer the jpg to the phone. Even that it’s as rare as one out of thousand pictures odd.

I never care about the file names.

“unlisted bug fixes” means you don’t even know what they did if they did anything.

I never went with 2.0.1, so last point of “listed bugs” is invalid to me.

To be honest my suggestion is none of m11 owners should update to 2.0.1 or 2.0.2, it’s the most useless firmware so far. And I’m sure whoever did that is in a rabbit hole now because you will see 2.0.3, .4, .5….. endless coming to fix so-called unlisted or listed bugs.

2.0.1 came out for m11p, we m11 users are just guinea pigs. Leica made this half baked 2.0.x available to m11 owners to just patronize them. This is just a lamé game to make m11 users feel they are not forgotten

I’m waiting for 4.0 maybe couple of years down the road if I have sold m11 before then 

I bet you don't even turn on the camera. LOL

[Tailwagger]

I suppose you can put me in the whining category, but I'd hardly call losing random frames, something acknowledged by Leica, as something to simply shrug off.  

I turned off the auto shutter as years of running the M10 and R with the EVF instilled in me a reliance on turning the camera off to maximize battery use. The improved (and extremely welcome) battery life of the M11 has done little to dissuade me from that habit. So I have no real need for the feature. But I am also compelled to say that I have a growing concern that such features complicate the OS's locking and timing even further which in turn introduces new opportunities for screwups. As such my new policy is to generically disable any feature I do not see as essential. I'm grateful for any number of firmware upgrades to Leica cameras over the years and up to this point have typically upgraded to the latest firmware without a second thought.  But whereas I use to have confidence in the stability on offer in each update, my view on this has changed.

I find Leica's willingness to knowingly release flawed firmware extremely concerning.  I also find, after two years, continuing reports of lockups, overexposed frames along side the aforementioned file corruption, something I've now experienced twice within a week, deeply troubling.  All this lends credence to the assertion by the 'whiners' that we have become Leica's beta testers. While I wouldn't go that far, I do fear the company may indeed be falling into the trap of emphasizing ticking off the marketing department's checkboxes over ensuring the quality of the release.  As such, I view each new feature with a measure of suspicion and I certainly don't fault others for doing the same.  

 

 

[lct]

24 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

I find Leica's willingness to knowingly release flawed firmware extremely concerning [...]

So do i but i would not generalize personally. Firmware 2.0.2 works well for me as far as dust protection is concerned and i have experienced no lock up nor freezes since firmware 1.6.1. Never got an overexposed frame or a corrupt pic file either. I sure don't shoot as much as you do but i am not alone and i use the M11 the same way as my previous M's since the seventies. YMMV.

[Tailwagger]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

So do i but i would not generalize personally. Firmware 2.0.2 works well for me as far as dust protection is concerned and i have experienced no lock up nor freezes since firmware 1.6.1. Never got an overexposed frame or a corrupt pic file either. I sure don't shoot as much as you do but i am not alone and i use the M11 the same way as my previous M's since the seventies. YMMV.

It's great that you and many others have not experienced these issues, but that does not make them any less real.  I (and hopefully you) don't find that lack of personal experience particularly reassuring.  I can't recall any lockups since 1.6+, but I find it problematic that others still seem to run into them. Having spent many decades in software development, I'll simply relate that the most perplexing, difficult to deal with problems are those that don't surface regularly.  Further, that some have yet to encounter the error does not mean they wont.

To be clear, I'm not calling those who haven't seen the problems fan boys, but neither I am calling those who have gotten all uppity about them trolls.  As I said, I am concerned about what others have reported as well as what I have experienced for myself.  Lock ups are certainly annoying and certainly can result in the loss of a shot depending on the circumstances. But there are a million other reasons that one can miss a shot.  So while frustrating, personally I am not as bothered by this fault as some, likely due to having seen similar behavior on the 240 through 10-R (and Q/SL).  In that regard, the M11's is an improvement on earlier Ms in that with the new battery release it takes but a second to do a hard reset.

But, of late, we have seen a new set of problems emerge that had not, to my knowledge, been encountered with any previous M.  Ones that damage the image file in some way.  And that is a point of serious concern.  I have my own theory that in attacking the freeze issue, they wound up introducing a new race condition(s) that can result in image corruption. I won't go into any speculative detail, but suffice to say that freezes and data corruption often represent two different sides of the same problematic coin. 

As yet, I haven't lost what I would consider to be a crucial moment, but that by no means says that someone else hasn't nor that more than a few of us wont eventually. I get how many yet to see any issue could interpret the tone of some of these posts as overblown. But they problems do exist and that should be of concern to all here as there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is truly immune.  As such, I believe we all should be putting more pressure on Leica to resolve these issues or at least be far more transparent about how they believe we can avoid them in the interim. 

[LeicaR10]

Tailwagger,   I couldn't agree with you more about your last two posts.  The issues that I encountered with the M11, M11-M and M11-P became so frustrating that I simply gave up on the M11 cameras and went back to a M10-M as the sole M camera and use the M lenses on the SL2-S.  The file corruption sealed the sell off for me.  Right now, the SL2-S and M lenses are the most reliable camera for me.  No issues until the most recent SL2/SL2-S 6.0 firmware issue where Leica decided to move the best feature of the SL camera; the "Joystick" magnification function to the thumbwheel.  That was simply uncalled for and for some reason Leica thought nobody would mind the change.  The move caused a huge backlash to Leica demanding it be moved back and it may happen.  Why can't Leica simply make a highly reliable, minimum feature digital M camera and call it a day?  They would sell a lot more M cameras and stop trying to make the M camera into an Apple M.  Instead it seems to me, the M camera is turning into a bad apple....  Thanks for your posts.  r/ Mark

Edited December 13, 2023 by LeicaR10

[lct]

•

Edited December 13, 2023 by lct

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

[...] Why can't Leica simply make a highly reliable, minimum feature digital M camera and call it a day? [...]

Don't take it personally please but it is this sort of criticsm that worries me the most. I have the feeling that some good people here are entering a sort of fight against Leica because they don't like the M11 as it is, i.e. a modern camera that is not only a rangefinder but also a mirrorless camera. I don't deny the issues some of us are experiencing here but i wanted to recall that some people like me do approve that very modernity and have no problem whatsoever with this camera i consider my best M since my first M4 in 1971. It has its drawbacks of course, my M8.2 and M240 had some too, but nobody's forced to acquire an M11 if they prefer other cameras. Would be fine if M11 users could come peacefully on the LUF w/o reading day after day recurrent negative comments about their camera. Sounds sometimes like a sort of paranoia. I don't know for you but i go on RFF and dpreview from time to time and i can't seem to find such a negativity there, i don't understand why. I still like this good old forum i've been following since its debuts in 2002 so i will go on defending the M11 here, sorry for my opponents. I don't consider them trolls in any way, in reply to @Tailwagger above, i respect them much in spite of our disagreements but i would appreciate a bit of positivity sometimes if it is not demanding too much 😎

Edited December 13, 2023 by lct

[charlesphoto99]

10 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

Why can't Leica simply make a highly reliable, minimum feature digital M camera and call it a day?  They would sell a lot more M cameras and stop trying to make the M camera into an Apple M.  Instead it seems to me, the M camera is turning into a bad apple....  Thanks for your posts.  r/ Mark

Seriously... I won't touch the M11 with a 1000 foot pole, but if Leica made an M with the bells and whistles (personally I call them 'crutches') stripped away, lets say like a digital M6, or like an M10-D with a screen, and gave us instant start/wake up time with no bugs, I'd be all over it, maybe even trading in my beloved M10-R black paint. The cramming more and more into an M to make it a Sony is a path I understand they feel the need/pressure to go down, but imo it's a sad reality. I do think many casual users would be way better off with a PASM camera with an AF zoom, but it's their money. 

[Tailwagger]

29 minutes ago, LeicaR10 said:

The issues that I encountered with the M11, M11-M and M11-P became so frustrating that I simply gave up on the M11 cameras and went back to a M10-M as the sole M camera and use the M lenses on the SL2-S.

I understand where you're coming from and cant fault your decision.  Personally, despite the issues, I'm sticking with the M11 as, for a number of reasons, I prefer it to the 10-R which I continue to retain as a back up. 

As I've mentioned previously, MS doesn't rewrite all of Windows with intro of every new AMD or Intel processor, let alone some new mem controller in an Acer laptop or what have you. Similarly, I'd wager that large swathes of M11 code are running in the 10s as well (and Q and SL).  There certain to be differences, but the major aspects are most probably reused.  This is why I feel many are misguided as to the nature of regressions from a reliability standpoint. Blaming the new sensor, for example, seems a stretch given the same or at least a highly similar part is found in a number of cameras that do far and a way more real time computations than an M ever will.

I certainly could be completely wrong in singling this aspect out, but I'd posit that the key differentiator between the current M and previous ones is the loss of the reflective metering system.  Now that the sensor is live 24/7,  it has exposed, no pun intended, multitasking issues that heretofore were rarely seen as 95%+ of all users only ever entered LV by accident.  Most claim to have never, ever seen a lock up on their 10. But I have and the difference I suspect is largely down to the fact that all my Ms have been run nearly exclusively in LV for the past 10 years. 

It's my supposition that Leica removed the reflective sensor for legitimate reasons both related to performance and cost.  When they decided to go that way, they naturally assumed that the methodology and code they had employed for so many years, perhaps with a tweak or two, would serve just as well as it always had. But had it really?  This assumption coupled with the addition of several new computationally intensive features, ones which directly impact the processing pipeline (multi-res for example), not to mention more bits to shuffle about, faster more powerful processing, etc., seems to have wound up altering the landscape sufficiently to expose a set of previously unrecognized flaws in the live metering/viewing/photo pipeline implementation. 

Consider that M's LV model was first introduced with the M240 nearly a dozen years ago. Perhaps the engineers who penned that code are still working at Leica, but even if so, it's not likely they are still responsible for maintaining it.  It's more likely that a few generations of coders have come and gone in the interim and the current set of folks responsible no longer have a clear picture about the set of assumptions on which those earlier versions were based.  Over time... I experienced similar scenarios in my career... as the years pass by, more and more features/hardware changes/etc pile on top of those long forgotten suppositions.  Operational aspects that the original authors had never envisioned or at least felt no need to account for back in the day now wind up in the mix.  Sooner or later, some of the original premises get violated and what once seemed rock solid, starts to behave poorly. The current generation of coders get blind sided, are left holding the bag and now desperately scramble to right the ship (while simultaneously being force to provide all the latest feature requests that the market and management are demanding). 

What I am most disappointed by is not so much that there are problems, but rather that there is no option for users to roll back to an earlier version of the firmware if they choose to do so. I prefer to have the option of picking my poison rather than having it selected for me. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful after this latest mess that Leica has a better grasp as to the damage such issues cause to their reputation and will move to ensure that such debacles are minimized in future. We'll see. 

As for the Apple-ification of the M, I do feel for them in the sense that they face a difficult set of conflicting challenges.  They are forced to satisfy traditionalists but simultaneously must produce a camera that is at least close to state of the art from a sensor and feature PoV to attract new blood. But while balancing the desires of both camps is undeniably important, it needs to be recognized that failure to maintain relevancy while remaining true to the past is only one road to the dust bin; a lack of reliability and confidence in the product can be equally fatal.

But the M isn't quite dead yet. I still find much to love about that latest version, in spite of its flaws. Long live the M.

[marchyman]

16 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

Why can't Leica simply make a highly reliable, minimum feature digital M camera and call it a day?

This question is generating lots of responses.   Thank you for asking.

My take: they did.  It was called the M 262.  They didn't sell nearly as many as the M because more people wanted the added features in the M.  And they wanted the M10 even more.

[LeicaR10]

To All,  Thank you for sharing your thoughts above.   Interesting perspectives to be sure.   For me, I had to go back to the M10 variant(s) to get more reliability in the M cameras.  I kept hoping for things to improve with the M11 firmware.  In a number of areas, issues were resolved over time.  But as one gets older, time becomes more precious and seems to fleet faster with age.  Again, the file corruption issue was the deal breaker for me.  It appears to me, when one firmware update occurs, another bug(s) appear when there was no issue before; i.e. file corruption.  Yes, frustration to be sure.  The answer for me; go back to what works best for me; SL2-S and M10s.  If time permits, wait for the M12 and see what happens.  I have been a Leica user since my days at the university, nearly 50 years.  I have welcomed many technological improvements over the many decades of Leica use.  Yet sometimes, when one needs reliability over technology, sometimes, you have to make trade offs to get the job done right and ensure success.  I am certain Leica knows it has a number of problems with the M11.  I know they are working hard for resolution.  Yet, in some cases, the issues have remained for nearly a decade plus, such as the freeze issues. (I resolved that single issue for myself using the SD Card Formatter solution; etc, long ago)   I am not bashing Leica, they make many great products.  I have not given up on Leica by any means, just this one M camera.  Eventually, Leica will solve the M11 issues, but for now, I chose to go back to a M camera that works for me.  Others have different wants, needs, expectations (time might be on their side as well...LOL)  and that is their choice too.  Next time, I will stick to my sage Leica dealer/owner advice...wait 1/2 to a year after a new model comes out to resolve the bugs before buying.  A wise man indeed and really pretty simple advice to follow.  Last, sometimes keeping what works for you is good enough.   r/ Mark

[bcaslis]

17 hours ago, lct said:

Don't take it personally please but it is this sort of criticsm that worries me the most. I have the feeling that some good people here are entering a sort of fight against Leica because they don't like the M11 as it is, i.e. a modern camera that is not only a rangefinder but also a mirrorless camera. I don't deny the issues some of us are experiencing here but i wanted to recall that some people like me do approve that very modernity and have no problem whatsoever with this camera i consider my best M since my first M4 in 1971. It has its drawbacks of course, my M8.2 and M240 had some too, but nobody's forced to acquire an M11 if they prefer other cameras. Would be fine if M11 users could come peacefully on the LUF w/o reading day after day recurrent negative comments about their camera. Sounds sometimes like a sort of paranoia. I don't know for you but i go on RFF and dpreview from time to time and i can't seem to find such a negativity there, i don't understand why. I still like this good old forum i've been following since its debuts in 2002 so i will go on defending the M11 here, sorry for my opponents. I don't consider them trolls in any way, in reply to @Tailwagger above, i respect them much in spite of our disagreements but i would appreciate a bit of positivity sometimes if it is not demanding too much 😎

I have to completely agree with this. I've been shooting cameras for over 45 years but the M11 is my first Leica M. I have had freezes but not too many. I did have a couple of the unreadable DNG files. But to be honest the most negative thing I have found with the M11 is the outright hostility to it in the forum. At least for my copy it's not nearly as bad as this forum would make one to believe. If others have are having problems I have no issue with voicing it, but anyone who says anything positive about the camera gets shouted down.

[Tailwagger]

6 hours ago, bcaslis said:

I've been shooting cameras for over 45 years but the M11 is my first Leica M.

Frankly, as some of my longtime LUF friends such as @lct might have noticed, I've stayed off the forum for quite a number of months now as largely I've grown weary of the way modern debate is carried out (on all corners of the internet, not just here).  Rather than waste my time alternately defending or grousing about the M11, I've chosen to waste it in the futile pursuit of making a decent image or two with it instead.  It's only having run into issues with the latest firmware that I've returned to try to figure out what's going on. And I'll admit to being a bit grumpy about having to do so.  No worries, I'll be slinking off again quite soon. 

I feel compelled to note before flying out of here, and in the interest of historical perspective for those who've only recently entered the fray, that leveling fire and brimstone at the most recent M is not new behavior. AFAICT, it's a bit of a tradition to lambast each generational shift regardless. If you take a short trip back into the archives and read through the discussions on the 10-R in the months after its release, you'll perhaps gain some perspective. The howling and gnashing of teeth about that camera went on virtually until the appearance of the 11 (which much like the as yet mythical 12 had been anointed by the disgruntled as the coming savior of all that was holy). And of course, once there was a new subject to aim at, all that 10-R hatred morphed into adulation... which while perhaps a bit overblown these days, is far closer to correct as it is a fine camera. 

If you dig further into the archives, while the details will vary, you'll see exactly the same sorts of train wreck discussions for the 9, 2xx and even the vaunted 10.  Beyond the initial bout of overheating incidents, the 10 was criticized, among still other things, for being behind the times given it only sported only 24 Mpx. All the more hilarious in retrospect given the 10-R was subsequently trashed by many for having an excessive amount of them.  Point being that the castigation/revelation/redemption cycle has pretty much held sway around here back to the dawn of the digital M rangefinder. Some models have been treated a little more harsher than others, but there's no denying that they all have gotten a healthy dose of venom spit their way.

Perhaps the final chapter of the 11's story will be different... certainly the honeymoon hate period has gone on longer than with most and not without some justification.  But the hardware seems a tick more robust (for me at least... example: both my 10s RFs were out of alignment within months whereas the 11 is still perfect after 2 years) and as software can eventually be fixed, I expect in the end it too will ascend back into the realm of the beloved.  In the meantime, I'd try not to get to upset no matter which side of the trash or treasure debate you're on.  It's just a thing around here. 

 

 

[charlesphoto99]

10 hours ago, bcaslis said:

I have to completely agree with this. I've been shooting cameras for over 45 years but the M11 is my first Leica M. 

I've been shooting cameras for over forty five years as well, and Leica M's for about thirty of those. Professionally. My daughter's name is Leica. I feel I have a right to complain, as I think Leica can, and should, do better. And it's a unique platform that works best for me, and many others. But to me they've lost the plot from the basics that make the M an M. A camera in 2023 should not take five seconds to start/wake up. A camera in 2023 should not be randomly dropping RAW files, or burping up new 'features' just to see them disappear (see red frame lines thread). Who really needs or cares about CCA except maybe journalists who can't afford Leica as it is (nor can afford to miss a frame or have a freeze at an inopportune moment). Leica need to see that this race with Sony/Pana/Nikon/Canon etc is a losing one if you don't make your $10k camera body the best at what it historically has done best: manually adjusting shutter, aperture, and iso, and pressing the shutter to take a photo. In most cases, that's all that's needed. 

[Alberti]

On 12/10/2023 at 1:11 PM, jdlaing said:

Dust protection. 
 

Shutter closes. You remove the lens. Dust enters the throat of the camera and waits patiently. You mount lens. Shutter opens. Dust is still inside.

Brilliant idea.

Could it be that closing helps prevent oversaturation of the sensor? Though direct sunlight with an F/1.0 lens might well be like direct (sun)light. I know the M8 and M240 sensors did not ‘like’ that. More probably. It would help keep the saliva out from Leica owners looking at the sensor, accumulated in a Pavlov reaction . . . So a good idea always waer a mask. 😷

[colint544]

On 12/14/2023 at 2:04 PM, Tailwagger said:

it's a bit of a tradition to lambast each generational shift regardless

There is some fascinating debate on the forum, and there are many knowledgeable members. I've learned much on here.

I sometimes wonder though, if we wouldn't benefit from having a few more women as members.

[anickpick]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb colint544:

There is some fascinating debate on the forum, and there are many knowledgeable members. I've learned much on here.

I sometimes wonder though, if we wouldn't benefit from having a few more women as members.

Women who buy Leica cameras don't do it to write about problems in the forum, they do it to take pictures. We have to be clear about that: Women are aliens who breed with us, but apart from that, they don't have much in common with us.

Edited March 10, 2024 by anickpick

[jaapv]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:02 AM, Tailwagger said:

It's great that you and many others have not experienced these issues, but that does not make them any less real.  I (and hopefully you) don't find that lack of personal experience particularly reassuring.  I can't recall any lockups since 1.6+, but I find it problematic that others still seem to run into them. Having spent many decades in software development, I'll simply relate that the most perplexing, difficult to deal with problems are those that don't surface regularly.  Further, that some have yet to encounter the error does not mean they wont.

To be clear, I'm not calling those who haven't seen the problems fan boys, but neither I am calling those who have gotten all uppity about them trolls.  As I said, I am concerned about what others have reported as well as what I have experienced for myself.  Lock ups are certainly annoying and certainly can result in the loss of a shot depending on the circumstances. But there are a million other reasons that one can miss a shot.  So while frustrating, personally I am not as bothered by this fault as some, likely due to having seen similar behavior on the 240 through 10-R (and Q/SL).  In that regard, the M11's is an improvement on earlier Ms in that with the new battery release it takes but a second to do a hard reset.

But, of late, we have seen a new set of problems emerge that had not, to my knowledge, been encountered with any previous M.  Ones that damage the image file in some way.  And that is a point of serious concern.  I have my own theory that in attacking the freeze issue, they wound up introducing a new race condition(s) that can result in image corruption. I won't go into any speculative detail, but suffice to say that freezes and data corruption often represent two different sides of the same problematic coin. 

As yet, I haven't lost what I would consider to be a crucial moment, but that by no means says that someone else hasn't nor that more than a few of us wont eventually. I get how many yet to see any issue could interpret the tone of some of these posts as overblown. But they problems do exist and that should be of concern to all here as there is no evidence to suggest that anyone is truly immune.  As such, I believe we all should be putting more pressure on Leica to resolve these issues or at least be far more transparent about how they believe we can avoid them in the interim. 

If a large number of users have no issues and an equally large group have,  this points either to an usage issue (which I don’t believe, the groups are too diverse) or a hardware problem which cannot be resolved in firmware. 

[Tailwagger]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

If a large number of users have no issues and an equally large group have,  this points either to an usage issue (which I don’t believe, the groups are too diverse) or a hardware problem which cannot be resolved in firmware. 

It is not impossible that there is a contributing problem with the silicon, but IMPO, it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikely.  In the 10 years I've own digital Ms, I have never experienced a single corrupt file with any of them from 240, to M10 to M10-R to M11 until 2.0.2.  Thousands of frames on the M11 and then boom! Can not read, file corrupt.  I didnt change, the hardware didnt change. There is zero doubt this is a software problem.  Ok, but what about the freezes?

With every one of those Ms, every single generation... have never owned a 9...., I have experienced lock ups. Every single one!  I was thrilled when I read that the M11 had lost the bottom plate. No more having to pull it off, pop the battery and screw it back in.  Just a flick, pop and back in business. YEAH! 

So why me, and a few others, and not vast majority?  It was indeed a usage issue.  My cameras have always, well after the 1st year with the 240, run dual VFs.  I.e. Live mode 24/7 with an up time of about 0.9999. So in a way, I agree with you trying to pin it on the hardware. The key generational change was the loss of the traditional reflective metering. That resulted in everyone running effectively with sensor on continuously where previously most had not.  I have little doubt that switching to continuous metering off the sensor was the trigger that exposed these issues to a wider audience. And now that every M user, regardless of LV or not has the sensor active 24.7, more and more people are getting a taste of what a number of us had experienced on previous cameras. 

Imagine a lightly traveled road in the middle of nowhere that intersects a railroad track. The spot is remote so there are no signals. Every few years or so, in gloom of night or in the middle of a storm, the conditions and timing are just right and there's a collision.  Someone dies, but the powers that be chalk that up to the driver being an idiot, continue to assert that installing gates is too expensive and things are left as they are. 

Over the years, the local economy grows. A new e-car factory gets built.  100's of new families pour into the area. Rail use increases dramatically to deliver raw materials and ship out finished product. And, of course, the accident rate rises dramatically.  The original design of the intersection was predicated on a certain amount of 'information flow' in the form of people and goods.  The basic premise was violated and, without any substantive change, people die.

So local planners hastily scramble to install a set of new mechanisms to protect the public.  But there's a problem. Every now and again, for reasons that no one could determine, the gate comes down, but once the train had passed, it never comes up again unless someone hops out and manually raises it.  Until then, traffic was deadlocked waiting for a train that has already passed. One day some clever bloke realizes that the design is predicated on a switch to indicate the trains arrival.  If the train length is over a 1/4 mile, both switches on either side of the intersection trigger, the system gets confused and the gates remain down as a failsafe.  Simple fix in software.

The M11 is in a similar, albeit far more complicated, situation. Pathways that years ago were lightly traveled have become ever more congested over the years.  File sizes have increased and the volume of manipulations from shutter press to file complete has grown as well.  And so it turns out that every now again, a gate designed to protect against file corruption fails to lift and the camera locks.  And with 2.0.2, every now and again the gate lifts, when a train actually is coming and the file gets trashed.  I could be wrong, the likelihood is extremely high that a fix designed to prevent lock ups is responsible for causing the files to be trashed.  Occam's razor.  

 So I disagree. Loss of the reflective sensor changed the software landscape significantly. The problems encountered with the M11 scream classic OS critical section issues that can be resolved in firmware.  Whether or not Leica has the expertise and will to do so is a different question.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear