dpattinson Posted September 15, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the M9 is doing a more in-depth kind of formatting. My hunch is that its doing that help reduce possible problems when shooting. Probably correct - I assumed that was the nature of the M8 speed-up. Going from full reformat to blow away the MFT and leave the data on the card. Still, 34s is a bloody long time to wait to take the next shot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Hi dpattinson, Take a look here My 'Glitch Report' so far. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted September 15, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 15, 2009 I leave all interpretation to the viewer. Middle class hypocrisy is my interpretation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted September 15, 2009 Middle class hypocrisy is my interpretation. Sir, the moral high ground is all yours. Enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 15, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 15, 2009 Sir, the moral high ground is all yours. Enjoy. I would like to but I'm not sure I much like the view from up here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 15, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 15, 2009 Oh my ... so soooooon ... thanks for sharing your experiences. Much appreciated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrice Posted September 15, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 15, 2009 I think the M9 is doing a more in-depth kind of formatting. My hunch is that its doing that help reduce possible problems when shooting. God I hope not, I was using a demo M9 tonight at our Leica event and I noticed it was full so I started formatting the card and then thought oh I'd better make sure it's ok (was standing next to the Leica product manager) and after asking he said "oh no please don't format it we're collecting shots from all the launches nationally" and I started sweating buckets and asked him if I should pop the battery and stop it (no other way) and he said not to worry he'll recover them later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 15, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 15, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Tim: regarding the stripe - are you using C1? I ask because in the demo camera I worked with, several C1 users, including the Leica rep, saw lines with associated hot pixels. In the pix I shot with the same camera, I got the same two hot pixels (and faint lines) in the jpegs - but they are NOT there in the corresponding DNGs as processed by Adobe Camera Raw (2005 edition). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #28 Posted September 15, 2009 Tim: regarding the stripe - are you using C1? I ask because in the demo camera I worked with, several C1 users, including the Leica rep, saw lines with associated hot pixels. In the pix I shot with the same camera, I got the same two hot pixels (and faint lines) in the jpegs - but they are NOT there in the corresponding DNGs as processed by Adobe Camera Raw (2005 edition). I've been using both LR2 and C1 recent update and am fairly sure that this one was developed in LR2 but I will check when I get back with that machine and file! I should have thought to check that though. Doh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 15, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 15, 2009 Like I have said before, the pixel density is the same between the M8 and the M9, why would anyone expect there to be significant difference in noise for the M9? I think the marketing is raising the expectation thru the roof. If there's any improvement, I would expect it to be incremental rather than revolutionary (like the Nikon D3). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #30 Posted September 15, 2009 Like I have said before, the pixel density is the same between the M8 and the M9, why would anyone expect there to be significant difference in noise for the M9? I think the marketing is raising the expectation thru the roof. If there's any improvement, I would expect it to be incremental rather than revolutionary (like the Nikon D3). I get that but I would have thought for example that given that the chip is two years or more fresher, there might have been a stop or so of improvement. I mean, the 5DII has notably better high ISO, and is now a few months old.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted September 15, 2009 Tim: regarding the stripe - are you using C1? I ask because in the demo camera I worked with, several C1 users, including the Leica rep, saw lines with associated hot pixels. In the pix I shot with the same camera, I got the same two hot pixels (and faint lines) in the jpegs - but they are NOT there in the corresponding DNGs as processed by Adobe Camera Raw (2005 edition). This was from DNG uncompressed and developed in LR2.4 with ACR 5.4.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 15, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 15, 2009 Just tested my M9 it takes 6 seconds to format Ultra on FW 1.002. Any good? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted September 15, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 15, 2009 Just tested my M9 it takes 6 seconds to format Ultra on FW 1.002. Any good?This is similar to the M8 formatting time but still way too long, as you do not need to format at all. I have formatted my SD & SDHC cards (cumalitive for all 4) about 3 times over the past 2 years and that was related to a firmware foul up (continuous numbering which did't work properly in the first 2.xxx firmware). No in camera formatting was applied for the past ½-year or so and I have had 0 problems. Edit: and no formatting in the computer/card reader either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 15, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 15, 2009 Yea it's hypocrisy .............or just embarrassed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted September 15, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 15, 2009 This is similar to the M8 formatting time but still way too long, as you do not need to format at all. What is this life if full of care We have no time to stand and stare? 6 seconds is too short... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share #36 Posted September 15, 2009 Yea it's hypocrisy .............or just embarrassed Hmmm... I am genuinely interested in this bizarre view that blanking out faces is censorship. I published the photo to show the phenomenon of a stripe in DNG decoding. Otherwise the shot is totally unremarkable other than that it is of private people on private property, which is why I blurred their faces. So in your world (and presumably that of Wattsy, your co-inquisitor) there is something bourgeois about that decision. Let's start with the fact that your own profile shot shows two headless figures wearing armadillos over their genitals. Now I assume that given the fashionable mildly bondage look of the shot, we should consider the hiding of either faces or genitals in the shot to be not censorship but, rather, art. Next: I happen to have tens of thousands of frames shot and stored. I have published in total probably a thousand on the internet, leaving many thousands more 'censored'. Would you like me to post the balance? Another rationale for your rather superior tone might be that since I have published many pictures of strangers before (actually, not so many but that seems to be your implication) it is hypocritical of me to only censor the faces of friends. If that is your point (and I have to say that if you're going to take a pop at people then you might as well do it in detail rather than lazily) then I'd be mildly interested to hear you make explicit the bits of the argument you have left implicit. After all, if you are willing to publicly reiterate an accusation of hypocrisy then you should be willing to defend your case. But as I say I'd only be mildly interested - because in truth I really posted all this to show the stripe, rather find myself sniped at with undergraduate level philosophy... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 15, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 15, 2009 Nice try but your post just doesn't cut it with your simplistic response........ maybe it is that yellow stripe of yours. Enjoy Tash babe.......bydie byes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 15, 2009 Share #38 Posted September 15, 2009 What's with the censorship, you post images of strangers without blocking out the faces........? I just find this very surprising are you kidding me? Are you that bored...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted September 15, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 15, 2009 Who are you?......... then again don't reply as I am not that interested:) or if you feel it is necessary humour me please Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 15, 2009 Share #40 Posted September 15, 2009 Who are you?......... then again don't reply as I am not that interested:) or if you feel it is necessary humour me please Who I am is of little relevance, the relevant problem at hand is that not only are you a lousy troll, you are an arrogant lousy troll. The combination is far too charming to ignore. I think I'll take you under my wings until you are able to think coherently on your own again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.