Jump to content

DMR firmware


roberth
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guy_mancuso

I am hoping and this is a stretch. The same firmware /software company that is doing the M8 took on the task of going back and reworking it for the DMR so they both have the same firmware/software package. Okay that is a stretch but I can certainly hope that is true. Right now my opinion on Imacon is pretty freaking bad. All this time to update the firmware , not sure who's fault it really is but it leaves me with a bad taste . i have 2 DMR's and i along with others deserve better service on this issue. Sorry as big of a supporter as i am of leica and the DMR this is getting under my skin pretty bad. Call it what you will and blame whoever you want, i just want results PERIOD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same for me

 

I still enjoy my DMR, but frankly speaking 1.2 cannot be the final solution.

 

I want faster boot time, faster ready time, better WB and real support of EXIF data with all info from Zooms.

 

If this is not happening I will start using my C and N gear again - and who knows, C has meanwhile a very attractive range of lenses in the high end area which are by no means behind the Leica galss, especially combined with the CMOS sensors of FF bodies.

 

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy - I had the same thought about whomever is doing the Digital M firmware doing the DMR firmware upgrade. Honestly, while I'm plodding along with version 1.1 it is now time to get the firmware upgrade we deserve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I am using V 1.2 without problems. But it seems I am the only one. As my DMR has the production No. 88 I suppose this is one of the real "hand made" and "hand adjusted" devices. The only thing is I cannot use further is my Epson P-2000 because it needs Fat 16 - files (and it did not understand the dng-files). So I am looking for another image tank meeting these requirements. May be there is one shown at the Fotokina, Cologne at the end of the next month.

 

I have contacted Solms because of a corrected V 1.2 but they told me they have no idea. If there are problems I better should go back to V 1.1.

 

Regards Hans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I am using V 1.2 without problems. But it seems I am the only one.

 

Regards Hans

 

No Hans, you aren't the only one - I've been using V1.2 without problems since I installed it when it was issued just after my DMR/R8 was returned from Solms - I'd had the usual problem of getting the DMR to 'talk' to the R8 (one of the early, 1997, series) and the camera had to have its contacts changed and the firmware updated.

 

As far as I can see, the only major problem with V1.2 is that the preview images are rather washed out - but then I only use them for checking composition and sharpness rather than colour fidelity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I am currently using version 1.2 but the colour balance issue on the screen and the poor white balance are not the most irritating faults for me.....

 

The issue I don't like about the firmware of the DMR (both 1.1 and 1.2) is the inaccuracy of the highlights notification. Would I be correct saying that the red highlight indication should show when all three colour channels have reached 255 and not before? I find this problems restricts the dynamic range available.

 

I would appreciate others thoughts.

 

Julian

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the highlight warning came on when all three channels clipped then it is possible that any one other channel may be severely clipped. This is why ( I find ) looking at the histogram in seperate colour channels is important.

Lets say that you are photographing a scene that is predominantly blue, if we wait for every channel to clip before showing highlight clipping then we could be severely clipping the blue channel well before the red channel reached 255.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans & John -

 

The only problem I've had with V1.2 is the warmer color on the DMR screen. So like you, I've not not had any serious problems. However, I still want a version 1.3.

 

I agree! The more sophisticated, accurate and reliable the firmware can be made the better

 

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...