Leica T (Typ 701) gains updated firmware version 1.1

A couple may have snuck out during the latter have of May.

Also people lie on the internet. How many claim to have the Sony RX100iii?

May 28, 2014permalink

samfan

"Here, we're delivering what we promised in the first place" is definitely amusing and more sympathetic than the usual "F*** you, we have your money. Come back when we release another model." of some camera manufacturers.

May 28, 2014permalink

ryanshoots

Sadly most that have commented probably know more about the TRS-80 than making a good photograph and are apparently jealously vitriolic toward those that may own a T series camera.

For those of you to which this description applies. Seek comfort in your brick of technology and the test charts you shoot and the specs you recite daily, you shall endure.

May 28, 2014permalink

AlanG

Isn't the T also a "brick of technology." If not, what is it doing with the firmware update?

I read an interview with Leica's Stefan Daniel. When asked why the T does not have on sensor PDAF hybrid autofocus like some other cameras, he said... ‘We said, "Let's stick to the proven technology that we have experienced with our X Vario [digital compact]."

‘It was a natural approach to use this existing platform, and the proven sensor and autofocus algorithms.'

Read more at http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540657/leica-t-why-it-s-not-a-full-frame-camera-interview-with-stefan-daniel#WHshFP5y1pjXCeuh.99
-----------------------
So while others push the technology to give faster AF and faster overall performance, Leica did not. I am sure it was easier to use "proven" technology than to innovate as Sony did with the A6000's AF. Maybe Sony would not sell Leica its newer (Nex 6) and newest (A6000) hybrid AF sensors.

May 29, 2014*permalink

YehudaKatz

Ugly brick.

May 27, 2014permalink

Retzius

The next firmware update will be hand coded by an old man in a small village in Germany on a TRS-80 with 8 inch floppy drive.

Leica will record a 60 minute video of the entire process.

May 27, 2014permalink

What's wrong with code written on a TRS-80?

Oh, I get it, the TRS-80 doesn't have Leica emulation software.

May 27, 2014permalink

OttoUnion

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!

May 27, 2014permalink

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.

May 28, 2014permalink

NAwlins Contrarian

Yes, in BASIC.

Also, to answer another poster's question, the TRS-80 Model II (1979) had 8-inch floppy drives, and was the only TRS-80 that did. This version was the 'business' model.

May 28, 2014permalink

At the end there is no excuse for any "sales representative or whatever 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! :/

May 27, 2014permalink

Michael Piziak

So a firmware update upon release of the camera? Doesn't sound too assuring.

May 27, 2014permalink

Richard Shih

Fixes and updates can be introduced in the time between loading the firmware on the camera and ship date. It's a completely normal thing now that these devices rely more and more on software. For example, both the new Xbox and Playstation had day one patches, as do operating systems.

May 27, 2014permalink

Why would dpreview excuse a camera maker-and ANY ONE for that matter!- to release something NOT PROPERLY FINISHED?!?
Yes! It does NOT sound very reassuring!!!
EVEN MORE IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR LEICA FAME AND USUAL PRICES!!! -_-

May 27, 2014permalink

JakeB

@Higuel

Someone needs a chill pill.

May 27, 2014permalink

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

May 27, 2014permalink

photoreddi

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.

May 27, 2014permalink

haha! Thank you! :D

May 27, 2014permalink

Folks, I have found out, by a trusty source, what exactly the firmware does...

... its major new feature is adding a red-dot with a 300px diameter permanently to every photo taken, so that when shared, printed, displayed, people will gawk in awe at the photo, because it was taken with a leica.

May 27, 2014permalink

Rooru S

"you will get the complete scope of functions and performance as described in the manual of your camera".

So version 1.0 didn't had all the functions stated on the printed manual? Interesting...first the claim that their lenses didn't need optical corrections (when they were Software corrected) and now unfinished in-camera firmware?

May 27, 2014permalink

Leica did NOT claim that the lenses didn't use software correction.

DPReview made the claim that someone at Leica had told DPReview that. So far DPReview has not explained the source of this claim.

It was well understood that the various tested examples floating around in April and May 2014 were running beta firmware.

May 27, 2014permalink

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

exactly... someone at LEICA.

May 27, 2014permalink

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.

May 27, 2014permalink

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

May 27, 2014permalink

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.

May 27, 2014permalink

jnd

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.

May 27, 2014permalink

jnd:

Goes for Canon reps, Sony reps, etc.

Sales reps make all sorts of incorrect statements.

Ever ask an Apple store employee if it's possible to up the sound card's bit-rate?

Amazing how many sales reps for various Stratasys 3D printers neglect to mention that most of them also require the purchase of an ultrasonic washer for at least $1500. This point goes for most printers building with polycarbonite.

Clearly, you've never had detailed dealings with sales reps, or possibly have, and all of the sales reps always answered any questions fully and accurately--unlikely.

We actually don't even know if the source was a sales rep (who may not even be exactly a Leica employee), DPR said something like: someone from Leica said.

May 27, 2014*permalink

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! :/

May 27, 2014permalink

Higuel:

Except for very good lenses, I don't know what a Leica Quality body is in the digital era.

In the digital era: Leica bodies do not have a great reputation for durability. Unlike a Nikon D4, say.

As for some, unnamed+untitled person, at a Leica press event who didn't know a specification, it sure can happen.

DPReview should never have repeated the claim sans a document. It was less than responsible.

In the fall of 2013, a Samsung rep, whom I know to have worked for Samsung USA for at least a year, told me explicitly that there would be no NX30 and that the Galaxy NX was the replacement for the NX20. This rep also went on to add that future NX cameras would likely all run Android in place of good Samsung mirrorless menus.

I didn't believe the Samsung rep at the time, and even if I did would never have repeated the claims of no NX30 without an official announcement from Samsung USA.

The NX30 was announced less than 3 months later. There's a full review here.

May 27, 2014*permalink

zkz5

"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.

May 28, 2014permalink

zkz5:

And my next paragraph reads:

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

This means that DPReview went with an unsupported assertion. Try quoting completely. And not pretending lack of documentation is NOT a major part of this failure.

Do you really believe what sales reps tell you? (Sony is forever insisting the fixed mirror in the SLTs doesn’t impede higher ISO work.)

What do the prices of Leica’s lens have to do with this? In fact both Sony (Zeiss) and Samsung have some expensive lenses for their APSC mirrorless systems.

Where have I defended Leica’s digital bodies?

Read the point about the NX30 and the Samsung rep from above. I didn't see that repeated in places like DPR, but Samsung people were sure saying it.

You've taken a lazy route to bash Leica, why not deal with the reality of the body, lenses and DNGs and form an opinion, instead of going by what someone may have said?

May 28, 2014permalink

luigibozi

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

May 28, 2014permalink

luigibozi:

The Leica M lenses use correction with digital Leica M bodies.

What raws have you looked at from the T body and T lenses?

Please don't point to the jpegs that DPR posted.

May 28, 2014*permalink

zkz5

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.

May 28, 2014permalink

zkz5:

Yeah, they do need documentation. Particularly for such an extraordinary claim.

And see, the Samsung rep told me that 8 months ago, and I didn't believe it, and didn't see documentation. Then the NX30 was announced.

Leica never made the claim. Some one at Leica looks to have repeated a rumor and then DPR repeated that.

An obvious way to check at the time was to look for evidence of lens correction software being applied to DNGs from either the X2 or X-Vario.

May 28, 2014*permalink

Rooru S

@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.

Jun 4, 2014permalink

Rooru S:

Clearly you don’t know much about the world in general, sorry to be so harsh, but it’s true, for example: Sales Reps are constantly making things up and repeating rumors as verified.

Also DPReview has never even said who told DPR that the T lenses don’t use correction–just someone at a Leica event.

Leica is free to number its firmware in any manner it wants.

The camera did not ship until late May 2014; it is generally understood by anyone who pays attention to digital cameras that if you get ahold of a camera before it ships it very very likely doesn’t have the finalized firmware installed.

I hope others don't rely on you for understanding digital gear and how to (not) pay attention to a sales rep.

Jun 5, 2014*permalink

Rooru S

@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?

Jun 18, 2014permalink

Rooru S:

The A7r doesn't use the sensor that's in the Nikon D800? Got documentation about how the two differ?

There's still no point in taking most company reps real seriously. Every thing I posted above stands.

Jun 18, 2014permalink

FJSpain

This manufacturer acts as if it was at the Olympus mount, i.e.: like the Greek gods, much above the common human beings, and therefore it is not within its standards to go down at the level of such humans in order they can understand what it is offered

May 27, 2014permalink

Because upgrading firmware is unusual?

May 27, 2014permalink

Nick932

So the Greek gods were humans?

May 27, 2014permalink

Archiver

The Greek gods displayed many base human traits. Despite their immense powers, they were also full of jealousy, lust, spite, anger and other human failings.

Zeus was often seducing human women and cheating on his wife, Hera. Women were cursed by jealous goddesses because of their beauty. The list goes on.

May 29, 2014permalink

Nick932

I cannot blame them; the rendition is amazing but not as good as an M.

May 29, 2014permalink

Johannes Zander

Will it also increase the diameter of the red dot?

May 27, 2014permalink

No, but it will blink blue if orks are within close proximity.
Finally useful.

May 27, 2014permalink

DaveCS

"you will get the complete scope of functions and performance as described in the manual of your camera"

Maybe it's me but I read that as Leica releasing a camera that was, truly, not ready for production. This firmware now makes it a production copy and no longer beta.

Cheers,
Dave

May 27, 2014permalink

If the camera has even released, it's just barely started to ship.

May 27, 2014permalink

OliverGlass

The update unlocks the extra areas in the APSC sensor and turns it into a 12MP Full Frame.

May 27, 2014*permalink

But it's not a full framed sensor. And not a TARDIS either.

So do you mean that some of the pixels originally weren't used?

May 27, 2014permalink

halfwaythere

Am I the only surprised this is free?

May 27, 2014permalink

starwolfy

Hahahhahajajajjajajjja............ -.-

May 27, 2014permalink

halfwaythere:

Has Leica charged for other firmware updates?

Hardware trips to Leica for tweaks yes.

May 27, 2014permalink

OttoUnion

I believe some Ts got out and were sold (errantly) before the initial firmware was finalized. This release should rectify that situation.

May 27, 2014permalink