Leica T (Typ 701) gains updated firmware version 1.1

I worked in an R&D department in the early 80s and recall vividly when one of our directors brought in his first day purchased TRS-80s. Man we were envious!

And the TRS 80s we had in highschool had 51/2" floppy drives.

Except for running some emulation, I don't think coding for this kind of thing would be impossible on a TRS 80.

And OP seems to have confused a CNCed block of aluminum with things like hand made sensor chips and lenses.

Yeah, I get that there was more than one model of TRS-80, so one probably used 8" floppies.

@Higuel

Someone needs a chill pill.

@Jakeb: Yes! A RED ONE!!! :D

No big deal. Leica simply forgot to add the modified code borrowed from Panasonic to the final firmware that prevents the use of any batteries other than genuine Leica labeled batteries.

Nobody that can afford to pay $1,850 for a T should have any problem coughing up a mere $140 for a Leica battery. I mean, they come in colors, black and silver. Who else but Leica pays as much attention to style and color coordination, making sure that even the battery color will match the body color for the discriminating few that have images to maintain.

Quote: "...hat someone at Leica had told DPReview that."

exactly... someone at LEICA.

electrophoto:

Next time quote me completely.

A sales rep for Leica making such a claim is not at all a serious claim and if that's what DPR reported as established fact, that's a real problem for DPReview's credibility.

So far no one, including DPReview, has pointed to Leica T literature that makes this no software correction for the lens claim.

In other words, electrophoto, you made the same huge mistake that DPR looks to have made.

You've taken a lazy route to attack Leica, for something Leica didn't do.

In your case, I'd try to sign up for a job at leica.

electro:

Why? I like most decent Leica lenses, but I sure don't defend many Leica digital bodies.

You made a rather big mistake, akin to what appears to have happened with DPR's claim, just admit the mistake and move on.

Chopping up easily checked quotations doesn't do your case much service.

It's funny that sales rep at Leica isn't credible source anymore. I guess he has no responsibility for what he says and no idea what is he selling, right? Way to go, now you will need detailed official press releases for any serious reviews because you can't trust the firm employees.

HowaboutRAW: I do appreciate that you kept the level truly civilised! Well done! :)
However, even if you almost made me change my mind(!) at the end there is no excuse for any of the workers in such a - REALLY!- prestigious brand to say ANYTHING that will leave the clients unhappy! If People pay such money for LEICA QUALITY PRODUCTS i suppose is ALSO because they want something they CAN TRUST! Unfortunately, it is looking that Leica(like most others) choose the cheesy way! :(
And that is unfortunate for the world of Photography itself: Leica was after all the quality benchmark that you COULD in the past look up to! :/

"A sales rep for Leica making such a claim is not at all a serious claim and if that's what DPR reported as established fact, that's a real problem for DPReview's credibility."

I don't see how Leica's salesperson saying something false is is a problem for DPR's credibility. When Sony or Samsung's salespeople tell DPR something false in a press meeting I'll expect then to report it just the same. Besides, they knew they were talking to the press. They should have been more careful.

Also, Sony and Samsung don't sell slow normal zooms for $1750. Leica should be held to their higher standard.

Do you work for Leica? I see you on here making replies to their defense for just about every anti-Leica post.

"very good lenses" do not need this amount of software correction

You're really just nit picking here. DPR doesn't need documentation supporting what Leica's own sales reps tell them in a meeting order for it to mean something.

Do I believe what sales reps tell me? Sometimes. And when they screw up like this I tell other people about it, just as DPR is for Leica and you are for Samsung.

I'm not bashing Leica, for what it's worth. I actually think the T looks like a really interesting product and I'd love to try one some day. It is about time someone paid attention to user interface and the whole user experience. But I've got to call a spade a spade here.

@HowaboutRAW

If they were BETA, then they should have 0.x versions, not 1.0. And 1.1 suggest it's an update for the production version, or cameras already being sold. To me, it seems Leica released the camera with an unfinished firmware (that differs from all the features advertised on the manual)

And, if a rep said the T lenses were optically corrected when in fact they were not, that guy as I said, is a rep, representative of a company and is speaking on behalf of that company. And I'm quite sure they briefed all the info to the reps for the PR part of the event.

@HowaboutRAW

Ok, whatever you say. I was just pointing out that maybe Leica released the 1.0 version without the full set of features advertised on the manual and thus, being unfinished. Is there anything wrong with that? I was just thinking that's interesting.

I did have a Sony a99 with firmware 0.9 before it shipped worldwide and never saw firmware 1.0 being advertised with giving the user the full array of features seen on the manual. And once I heard a random guy in the a7 launch event saying the sensor of the a7R being the same as D800E and Sony reps quickly corrected the info and made it clear it wasn't the same. So, if a Company Rep isn't up to the task, then why call themselves Representative? Don't you think so?