Issues for Leica to Address

barjohn

barjohn

Established
Local time
1:15 AM
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
198
After reading so many posts on several different forums about M8 issues I thought I would consolidate them into one thread that Leica engineers could look at rather than chasing through all of the posts. I also included a few desireds as a separate issue. Perhaps others can add to the lists any issues I missed or new features they would like.

Additionally, I wonder if anyone has done the following test for hot pixels:
I shot with the lens cap on at B for 10 sec, then 8, 4, 2 and 1. In reviewing the images, they would first appear with lots of hot pixels all over the sensor, then about 2 seconds later all black. Same thing with every shot. It is as if it shows you the unprocessed image and then the processed image. However when I loaded them in C1 and viewed both DNGs and JPGs they were all black. Anyone else tried this?

Finally, the good news is that looking at the list 80% or more is likely to be fixable in software.

Issues to be addressed by Leica on M8 (Things to be fixed)
1. Camera lock up, i.e. dead camera unable to reset or obtain normal function
2. Battery charging and charge level indicator error (calibration?)
3. Continuous shutter recocking
4. Lock up on sensor clean if shutter not pressed quickly enough
5. Vertical streak on some images at some ISOs
6. Some lenses having mounting problems (Summilux 35 & WATE)
7. Auto White Balance and preset WB
8. Variety of SD card incompatibilities especially HC (4GB and greater)
9. Transferring files to PC and files recognized as TIFF instead of DNG
10. Back focusing on some lenses and not others
11. Cyan color shift on wide angle lens with use of IR filter
12. Improved detent on Off-Single-Continuos-Self timer switch
13. Inconsistent LCD display level (brightens and dims)
14. Shifting changing LCD image, shows one image for a few seconds then shifts to a processed version of image
15. Quality Control issues with dirty sensors, deffective sensors with column of dead pixels, RF Alignment, etc.

Desired New Features (Enhancements)
1. Ability to select lens in use from menu for uncoded lenses or lenses like WATE
2. Ability to select apeture for Exif recording or have camera specify estimated apeture based on sensors
3. Have camera recognized as a file device rather than M8 device to make transfers with multiple applications easier


I posted this on the Leica Users Forum for Leica to see. Anyone think of anything I missed? I would like to know what others see with the hot pixel test described above.__
 
Has anyone else tried the hot pixels test? I know on the R-D1 you had a function that would do a black frame subtract to map and eliminate hot pixels. It appears to me that the M8 is doing this for any long exposure. What concerned me was the apparent number of hot pixels. I only saw a few on the R-D1 whereas it looked almost like a starry sky with the M8.

Can someone else try the test and let me know what you see?
 
John,
Is this for sure a hot pixel test or are you assuming anything with the shift on the LCD? On a slightly different note but pertaining to one of your points, images chimped back look better for a second and then... poof... images show more noise on the camera's LCD monitor then on my computer/prints. I never before now saw this as an issue and I'm still not so sure I do.

T
 
Ted, I wouldn't call it a major issue but it is something that should be addressed and fixed in the firmware.

When you look at the list (I left off IR ssue as it is resolved as far as Leica and most of us are concerned) the real deal killer is the dead or going dead camera that is probably due to a crash of some kind in the firmware/OS. How it is triggered is the mystry that if we knew the answer we could avoid if possible. The other possibility is infant mortality but I am inclined to blame the software based on what I have seen with my camera. Most of the other issues are annoyances or inconveniences and I am really hoping 1.10 addresses them so the debate will be more about the ugly picture you took than the camera you took it with. (Of course I realize the latter statement would never apply to you :) but it would to me.)
 
Oh I take lots of ugly shots- I'm scraping the barrell as I need to get out and have a weekend of shooting. It's gotten so bad that I even posted a drunk fest from the Goat Hill Tavern last Friday night : )
 
John, Thanks for the great list. I was starting to compile one so I'd know when it's time to buy an M8 -- when I stop reading about new occurrences of problems on the list. You saved me a lot of fishing around through posts on this forum and on the Leica User Forum. Only problem I can see is that simply to state that the IR problem is "solved" is going a bit far. If the M8 ends up with the IR problem still there, what's Leica going to do, provide an IR filter with each lens they sell? Even if they did that, having to put a filter on every lens you use probably would put off enough people to make the M8 a lot less than successful. In the long run, it's an issue Leica is going to have to address.
 
Even though I still and will always view the need for IR filters as a preposterous patch for an inexcusable oversight (or blunderous compromise, depending on which side of the spin you sit) I have changed my position in that I no longer believe it is the worst fault the M8 has. Right now, that would be the numerous lockups, crashes and glitches being reported with increasing variety and frequency. But I do believe that those and the IR filter travesty do have the same origin: inept leadership. Inept in orchestrating the various outsources complicit in the M8's development, inept in releasing the product prematurely with inadequate testing, and inept in not halting production and testing for and solving all these issues once and for all seeing as how they did a recall anyway. If Leica had multiple service facilities around the globe and/or enough production units to make swap-outs, that might be different. To have these cameras making repeated trips to Solms punctuated by extended stays in the factory is cost-ineffective both in real money to Leica as well as in the erosion of customer goodwill--the latter being Leica's lifeblood.
 
I agree with Ben. To overuse an already overused word, the problem is that digital changed the whole camera paradigm. Before digital we lived for decades with a static, well known equipment paradigm. Some manufacturers worked to produce cheap cameras under that paradigm. Leica always worked to perfect the small details of that paradigm, and produced what was almost certainly the best camera on the market under that paradigm. With digital it's not enough to be a "perfector." You have to be an innovator if you want to stay with the rapidly evolving technology. Leica's a lot like IBM back in the days when microcomputers were beginning to hit the market. They didn't really take the micro seriously, which is why Bill Gates is where he is today. Seems to me Leica hasn't really taken digital seriously. It's going to cost them. I hope they can survive and produce the beautiful thing they set out to produce with the M8, but they're going to have to get with it quickly.
 
rsl said:
John, Thanks for the great list. I was starting to compile one so I'd know when it's time to buy an M8 -- when I stop reading about new occurrences of problems on the list. You saved me a lot of fishing around through posts on this forum and on the Leica User Forum. Only problem I can see is that simply to state that the IR problem is "solved" is going a bit far. If the M8 ends up with the IR problem still there, what's Leica going to do, provide an IR filter with each lens they sell? Even if they did that, having to put a filter on every lens you use probably would put off enough people to make the M8 a lot less than successful. In the long run, it's an issue Leica is going to have to address.
Click to expand...

My guess is that when someone develops a 0.5mm IR filter that works effectively Leica may retrofit cameras that have been sold and change in future production runs. The problem is that when you look at the Kodak sensor response profiles it would appear that the IR filter works. In practice we know it doesn't. Leica probably started work using the specifications provided by Kodak and pre-production samples that may have behaved like the Kodak literature. The problem may not have manifested itself until the sensor went into large scale production where Kodak could not maintain the properties of the pre-production samples. I have seen this type of thing happen before. Small quantity runs and large production runs can yield very different results.

Let's say that Leica had sold 10,000 units by the time a solution is found and the cost of the sensors was $600.00. Just the cost to replace the sensors excluding shipping and labor would be $6 million. For a small company it is unlikely they could afford such a hit. My guess is they would charge to replace the sensor.
 
Last edited:
barjohn said:
My guess is that when someone develops a 0.5mm IR filter that works effectively Leica may retrofit cameras that have been sold and change in future production runs. The problem is that when you look at the Kodak sensor response profiles it would appear that the IR filter works. In practice we know it doesn't. Leica probably started work using the specifications provided by Kodak and pre-production samples that may have behaved like the Kodak literature. The problem may not have manifested itself until the sensor went into large scale production where Kodak could not maintain the properties of the pre-production samples. I have seen this type of thing happen before. Small quantity runs and large production runs can yield very different results.

Let's say that Leica had sold 10,000 units by the time a solution is found and the cost of the sensors was $600.00. Just the cost to replace the sensors excluding shipping and labor would be $6 million. For a small company it is unlikely they could afford such a hit. My guess is they would charge to replace the sensor.
Click to expand...

Man, I hope you're right. I'm convinced they TRIED to do the right thing. I'm not sure charging for the retrofit would be such a bad thing. It would give you the choice of using filters or retrofitting. For those with a lot of glass the retrofit probably would be preferable unless they've already bought filters. There certainly are a bunch of people like you and Ted who seem to have had none of the mechanical or firmware problems that keep popping up and who are satisfied to use filters. At this point I'm satisfied with my R-D1, which has had no problems except a requirement for a slight infinity adjustment on the RF, but I'd sure like to own the camera Leica set out to produce.
 
Last edited:
Barjohn,
I think you are 100% correct on this except on your cost to Leica at 6 million. You need to add labor for the swap, labor for the code writers who will need to develop a new firmware for the new sensor, labor for beta testing the new sensor with the new firmware, labor for the cameras they will have to rebuild twice, shipping costs, lost sales as they will not be able to fix cameras and build cameras at 100% output. Now the costs are more like 12 to 15 million. The reason Leica does not sue Kodak is to avoid a public admission of the real IR issue or they failed to test samples of the mass produced run of sensors and signed off on the batch. Such an admission would most likely put the camera in a different light and that would put Leica out of business. Leica got lemons from Kodak so they’re making lemonade; they developed a cover story for the IR characteristic while they work behind the scenes on a new sensor and or a way to make the current sensor work without IR filters in front of the lens. As to getting the fix for our current M8's free from Leica when it's developed? Don't count on it, the current cameras will not get a retro-active refit I'm certain- Leica will rename the new camera with the fix- something like M8 Mk II or M8.5 or whatever and the M8 will stay the M8.)

My favorite drink? Lemonade- it’s so refreshing just like the M8.
 
Last edited:
My favorite drink? Lemonade- it’s so refreshing just like the M8.
Click to expand...

Well, I like lemonade too, but I don't usually try to eat or drink cameras. And a camera that's a lemon is a bit hard to digest.
 
Ted, I intentionally did not include the other costs becasue it was obvious to me it would be a non-starter without them. I agree with your other cost estimates. I certainly don't think the sensor is meeting the Kodak published specifications. However, since Kodak seems to have its own finanical problems I doubt thta they will step up to the bar and eat the cost. Leica stock appears to be doing well so I am not certain why so many think they are on the verge of going out of business.
 
The Leica is not a lemon but Leica did make the best of the situation as it stands- that's the analogy. I too am making the best of the situation- if I did not want to work with the M8 I would not be here. As it stands the camera takes stunning images, that Leica will build a better version over time is certain but that does not take away for me from what the M8 is right now nor does the M8's characteristics preclude it from being a useful tool.
 
>Anyone think of anything I missed?

Yes.

16. Replace the shutter with something deserving of the Leica M heritage instead of the claptrap thing that's in there now.
 
I like the shutter- 1/8000 of a sec, smooth as butter and unobtrusive in it's sound. Love it however it could improve.
 
Last edited:
Oh yeah.

17. Drop the LCD. Who needs it? If I want an LCD and all the buttons there are plenty of DSLRs for that. Leica M photographers don't need no stinkin' LCD.
 
Love the LCD- it would be a disaster to throw out one of digitals real strengths over film. Namely the ability to confirm exposure on the spot. Think Hassy with a Polaroid back only much better.
 
barjohn said:
Leica probably started work using the specifications provided by Kodak and pre-production samples that may have behaved like the Kodak literature. The problem may not have manifested itself until the sensor went into large scale production where Kodak could not maintain the properties of the pre-production samples. I have seen this type of thing happen before.
Click to expand...

Me too John, except that it was the OEM outsource supplier (Kodak in this case), not the final product manufacturer who bore the cost. Sometimes that involved legal action, but most of time it did not, since they recognized they would only heap legal expenses upon the inevitable. So I don't see why your argument allows that Leica would have to pay the full freight.

However in my case we were often talking about minimal reductions in physical properties that could only have been detected with repetion of the long-term testing, which was not practical. In this case of the IR contamination, what kind of big deal would it have taken for them to snap a few shots, just like the first buyers did and discover the issue right away? Your scenario does not diminish the fact that Leica's QC was/is abominable.
 
Last edited:
John thats an excellent list.
Are you going to mail it to leica? Im not sure how actively they read websites!
I agree that the problem is probably software based, but it hardly inspires confidence to anyone who is planning to earn their living with one. Also I cant imagine a trip to Solms and back is anything under 1 month. I just have uncomfortable thoughts about my camera jamming up shooting a wedding. The only issue with my M8 is the batttery does not charge to 3 bars. Im just letting everything settle down to see if anything else happens! Other than that the images are sublime. I suspect its more reliable than a space shuttle! My back up is my Rolleiflex. Meter still good after 40 years!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom