View Full Version : Michael Reichman's explananation
herbkell@shaw.c
11-11-2006, 08:36
Sort of a mea culpa this morning on MR's site...interesting..
I received my M8 yesterday and I really don't see how Leica and the reviewers were not aware on the purple issue. It showed up on most of my first indoor shots as synthetic black stuff is pretty prevalent in a household,
Michael's explanation makes sense but is hard to condone
After reading Reichmann's statement, I am disgusted with Leica's management. They have tooled everyone with the premature release of the M8. They are going to have to do some big-time backflips to regain the trust of their customer base.
yes, and let's not forget to continue to support our professional wedding photographer..... and part-time (BS) reviewer ...
I sincerely hope he's enjoying his previously accumulated M8 user "income" and having a great time, probably somewhere in the Caribbean, holding his Cuba Libre in one hand and his "free" M8 in the other and laughing, which I doubt he even has ...
If leica goes down the drain after all this, they deserve it....
I'l keep holding on to my MP though, sending the M8 back first thing monday morning.
does this all mean that I'm even more delighted with my newly acquired $400 Leica CL ???? Yup --- I'm sure many of you are just purple with envy...
just pulling your chain, guys...
read this: http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/m_system/m8/
have the words sink in, let them slowly evaporate in your left brain half...
and then read this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
I am incredulous at 1) MR's initial decison and 2) that he still thinks it was the right thing to do, and 3) that he whines about DPR.
The guy is an incredible webmarketer but these are flawed decisions, and remove any doubt about his crediblity or objectivity. :eek:
I will give him points for coming clean though, it would have been much easier to hide and say he didn't encounter the problems.
Compromised certainly, but still some integrity.
willie_901
11-11-2006, 09:29
Rats, I just threw up all over my shoes.
I posted time and again that that reviewers have to be nice to manufacturers to get free pre-release product. If they are not on good terms with manufacturers or they don't have a business. That most of us consumers trip over each other to read one of these first and exclusive reviews (as we are all guilty of) shows what absolute mugs we are. I heard similar stories to the about movie reviews CD reviews -you name it. The media's reviewing of any product is now totally corrupt and without credibility. There was more useful and reliable information on the web within days than there was from any professional reviewer.
I posted time and again that that reviewers have to be nice to manufacturers to get free pre-release product. If they are not on good terms with manufacturers or they don't have a business. That most of us consumers trip over each other to read one of these first and exclusive reviews (as we are all guilty of) shows what absolute mugs we are. I heard similar stories to the about movie reviews CD reviews -you name it. The media's reviewing of any product is now totally corrupt and without credibility. There was more useful and reliable information on the web within days than there was from any professional reviewer.
good call, Toby. We all live in a cloud-cuckoo-land called 'hope'...
zhemgang
11-11-2006, 09:43
I was astonished at MR explanation. I suppose I naively thought there just might be some independent reviewers out there with enough integrity to say it like it is. Guess I was wrong. That MR would say he went ahead and pubished a "review" because he "felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay" and then take out the very information that buyers would want to know "because it's that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers" is just lame, or worse. I don't fault Leica at all and I'm sure the company will act quickly, but LL's ability to retain any integrity as a serious and independent review journal has been totally compromised.
I hear he'll change the name of his site to "illusionist landscape"
MR from his statement obviously was more peeved about DPreview getting the scoop than his article misleading M8 customers.. shows you his priorities...
and then I just browsed through the LUF and these guys are still proclaiming to be patient and trust Leica, as well as the reviewers for they had nothing to do with this.... ?
What an extraordinary bunch of people they are any company would wish such a client base.
Maybe I'm getting loopy in old age
The LUF are the sort of people who would thank you for an ice pack just after you kicked them straight in the nuts. (Or in leica's case promised to SELL them an icepack :D )
early adopters are masochists. everyone knows there will be bugs, but they can't resist the pleasure of owning one before everyone else.
The LUF are the sort of people who would thank you for an ice pack just after you kicked them straight in the nuts. (Or in leica's case promised to SELL them an icepack :D )
Yes, but the icepack would be handcrafted from angel's tears ;) and carry a premium over mass-produced icepacks from the Far East :rolleyes:
/voigtlander fan
ZeissFan
11-11-2006, 09:57
While everyone is dumping on Leica, I think it's time to step back and bit, take a deep breath and relax.
This isn't the end of Western civilization. It's a product flaw, and with any luck it's something that can be corrected through software. Certainly, it should have been caught in development. Certainly, it wasn't.
Disappointing, for sure, given the price and the company, which for some people magnifies it. But it's still a computer device, no less than other digital devices. Look at the number of firmware releases for other cameras that now have become accepted business practice (Job 1: get it on the market. Job 2: let's see if it works).
Give Leica a chance to fix it.
Zeiss: did you even read anything? The bug was caught in development. It wasn't fixed and they knowingly delivered the flawed product to the customers hands for full price..
Allen Gilman
11-11-2006, 10:01
heh...leica-gate
While everyone is dumping on Leica, I think it's time to step back and bit, take a deep breath and relax.
This isn't the end of Western civilization. It's a product flaw, and with any luck it's something that can be corrected through software. Certainly, it should have been caught in development. Certainly, it wasn't.
Disappointing, for sure, given the price and the company, which for some people magnifies it. But it's still a computer device, no less than other digital devices. Look at the number of firmware releases for other cameras that now have become accepted business practice (Job 1: get it on the market. Job 2: let's see if it works).
Give Leica a chance to fix it.
If the problem is that the IR filter on the lens is too thin, how can it be fixed in firmware? If the IR filter needs to be that thin to be compatible with all M lenses, then can it be fixed without making some lenses obsolete? :eek:
... Certainly, it should have been caught in development. Certainly, it wasn't... ....Give Leica a chance to fix it.
The point is they did know about it in advance, and could have taken the time to fix it but didn't.
Agreed its not that important... ...its just unethical.:bang:
Ironically Zeiss so far has gotten it right and looks prettty smart sticking to their knitting.
ZeissFan
11-11-2006, 10:07
I posted time and again that that reviewers have to be nice to manufacturers to get free pre-release product. If they are not on good terms with manufacturers or they don't have a business. ...
Yes, I agree. And the "gotta be first" digital/computer mindset only perpetuates this.
As I said before, there is entirely too much ass-kissing that goes on with the so-called photographic press, whether it be traditional photography magazines or online reviews.
I don't know which is worse: A professional ass-kissing journalist, or an ass-kissing pretend-journalist online hack more worried about currying favor with manufacturers than being truly forthcoming (not aimed at any specific person ... rather the group as a whole).
Ohhhhh man! "Give em a chance?!" You know what, they rolled the dice and pulled a hard 8 (That's M8). Leica's credibility has taken a big hit because they released a faulty product. Then asked reviewers to cover for them. Damning to the reviewers and the manufacturer. MR came clean and I give him some points for that but that is all he gets points for. Looks like the only review spot that maintained it's integrity as being impartial and for the consumer was DPReview.
ZeissFan
11-11-2006, 10:15
Zeiss: did you even read anything? The bug was caught in development. It wasn't fixed and they knowingly delivered the flawed product to the customers hands for full price..
Don't insult me ... let's not get personal here. You don't know me well enough to speak to me like that. Got it?
It's not the first time that a knowingly flawed product has reached the market.
That wasn't my point. My point is that people are acting as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in history.
And nowhere in their letter does it state that this was caught in development (although it sounds like it was known, given Reichmann's note on his site).
Don't insult me ... let's not get personal here. You don't know me well enough to speak to me like that. Got it?
It's not the first time that a knowingly flawed product has reached the market.
That wasn't my point. My point is that people are acting as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in history.
And nowhere in their letter does it state that this was caught in development (although it sounds like it was known, given Reichmann's note on his site).
The point is if you were a professional photographer and you'd decided that after some testing you wanted to use your new M8 to shoot a wedding for a rich client and then you saw all the tuxes had turned purple. Your customers could nail you to the wall, maybe even sue you if you couldn't fix the images, if a pro had got caught out badly by this it could destroy his business. Not the worst thing ever to happen in history, but if Leica knowingly put its customers in this position it stinks. That reviewers knew this as fellow pro photographers that's even worse.
Allen Gilman
11-11-2006, 10:32
gotta admit - buyers who are surprised by the reviewer/maker relationship here were being a bit naive. since when do you suspend skepticism when money's involved?? :P
The point is if you were a professional photographer and you'd decided that after some testing you wanted to use your new M8 to shoot a wedding for a rich client and then you saw all the tuxes had turned purple. Your customers could nail you to the wall, maybe even sue you if you couldn't fix the images, if a pro had got caught out badly by this it could destroy his business. Not the worst thing ever to happen in history, but if Leica knowingly put its customers in this position it stinks. That reviewers knew this as fellow pro photographers that's even worse.
you'd have to be one incompetent pro if you didn't try out your camera before using it for a job.
you'd have to be one incompetent pro if you didn't try out your camera before using it for a job.
Yes, but I'd never think of specifically testing blacks to see if they went purple. Would you? Have you ever read a camera review with a specific "do blacks go purple?" test? I would normally test for skin tones, battery life, focus accuracy, but on the whole I'd just go out and use the camera and see what I thought and take plenty of back up for a week or two.
The question that pops into my mind here is, if Leica knew the M8 was defective while they were saying it was ready for prime-time, how can they expect people to believe them when they say they are going to fix these problems in a reasonable way in a reasonable time? When the guys who found and reported the problems on the user forum give the all-clear, then I'll feel confident putting in an order. Not before, and not on the word of the review websites.
An observation or two from a know-nothing about anything:
M8 On the Job: Shoot a wedding or two in the customary manner with the proven equipment. Take the new equipment along and make several exposures in the same manner as the proven equipment. The images from the new equipment are then evaluated against the old. Good. Bad. Ugly. No harm. No foul. Income as usual.
Who knew What and When: Sounds like the Clinton-Nixon years, hey?
Marketing set a deadline.
Engineering & Development said, "Whoa!"
Marketing said, "No way!"
Marketing won.
Customers lost.
Duncan Ross
11-11-2006, 11:33
If they can fix the Hubble they can fix a sodding Leica. Don't take this the wrong way everyone but Zeissfan has a valid point about this not being the end of the world. It's like when you hear about a luxury cruise liner making an unscheduled stop at Dubai for repairs. The passengers insist their world has fallen apart and they will need another £8000 holiday to recover from this one but somehow it's hard to share their sorrow. This level of hissy fits and recrimination is starting to make the forum look bad.
I can happily take all the flames you care to respond with on the chin but remember that most of the good folk here simply cannot afford an M8 and it can appear to some extent as a rich person's toy. Debate is good, wealthy people trading potshots looks bad...
John Camp
11-11-2006, 11:37
I give Reichmannn a lot of credit for his discussion of his review; most people would have just kept their mouths shut. Who would have known? And his reviews did point out two problems, including the problem with IR sensitivity and white balance, and the IR problem appears to be at the root of most everything else, possibly including the banding. And Reichmann has said, on his forum, "never again." From his point of view, he made the mistake of trusting Leica.
I don't give Askey a lot of credit for not publishing; you set yourself up as a professional reivewer, find an expensive camera that's about to launch has serious problems, and you don't publish? Who'd that help?
Most people who have gotten M8s didn't buy (or not buy) because of the reviews. With the exception of a few cases, to get an M8 early, you had to pre-order; I ordered in June on Leica's reputation, and because I wanted this camera. And I plan to keep it, because I like it more than any other camera that I've used. It wouldn't have made any difference what either Sean Reid had said, or MR had said, or Askey, because Popflash had already deposited the check. I'm happy with that.
I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people complaining on this forum don't have an M8, and that most of them will never get one, even if the problem's fixed. People who do have M8s take the problems seriously, but most of them have also behaved like adults.
JC
Don't insult me ... let's not get personal here. You don't know me well enough to speak to me like that. Got it?
It's not the first time that a knowingly flawed product has reached the market.
That wasn't my point. My point is that people are acting as if this is the worst thing to ever happen in history.
And nowhere in their letter does it state that this was caught in development (although it sounds like it was known, given Reichmann's note on his site).
Didn't mean to insult you. sorry if you took it that way. I was just pointing out the fact that Leica DID know about the bug pre-release. I agree with your other point that this is NOT the end of the world, however it is a pretty big event in the small Leica world that we're all in..
AShearer
11-11-2006, 11:43
Ohhhhh man! "Give em a chance?!" You know what, they rolled the dice and pulled a hard 8 (That's M8). Leica's credibility has taken a big hit because they released a faulty product. Then asked reviewers to cover for them. Damning to the reviewers and the manufacturer. MR came clean and I give him some points for that but that is all he gets points for. Looks like the only review spot that maintained it's integrity as being impartial and for the consumer was DPReview.
After looking at the DP Review (I shoud say Preview) note with interest done in Sept 06, where they said they were lucky enough to have an M8 to do this preview. Then their posting of the Leica statement, and their inserted sentence, "Note that we have been working closely with Leica on this, obviously it made sense for us to delay our review until these issues have been resolved." I'm wondering. What prevented DP Review from bringing this problem to light before now? It sounds to me like a clear statement that they knew about the problem and witheld their review? I'm not defending MR , but why does DP get kudos for being impartial?
I give Reichmannn a lot of credit for his discussion of his review; most people would have just kept their mouths shut. Who would have known? And his reviews did point out two problems, including the problem with IR sensitivity and white balance, and the IR problem appears to be at the root of most everything else, possibly including the banding. And Reichmann has said, on his forum, "never again." From his point of view, he made the mistake of trusting Leica.
I don't give Askey a lot of credit for not publishing; you set yourself up as a professional reivewer, find an expensive camera that's about to launch has serious problems, and you don't publish? Who'd that help?
Most people who have gotten M8s didn't buy (or not buy) because of the reviews. With the exception of a few cases, to get an M8 early, you had to pre-order; I ordered in June on Leica's reputation, and because I wanted this camera. And I plan to keep it, because I like it more than any other camera that I've used. It wouldn't have made any difference what either Sean Reid had said, or MR had said, or Askey, because Popflash had already deposited the check. I'm happy with that.
I would be willing to bet that 95% of the people complaining on this forum don't have an M8, and that most of them will never get one, even if the problem's fixed. People who do have M8s take the problems seriously, but most of them have also behaved like adults.
JC
Agree entirely. I'd really like one of these, but I'm not going to place an order until these issues are resolved.
Yes, but I'd never think of specifically testing blacks to see if they went purple. Would you? Have you ever read a camera review with a specific "do blacks go purple?" test?
no, but that didn't stop people from finding out anyway.
... It sounds to me like a clear statement that they knew about the problem and witheld their review? I'm not defending MR , but why does DP get kudos for being impartial?
It's worse than that: Hiding important information is not "being impartial".
Yes, but I'd never think of specifically testing blacks to see if they went purple. Would you? Have you ever read a camera review with a specific "do blacks go purple?" test? I would normally test for skin tones, battery life, focus accuracy, but on the whole I'd just go out and use the camera and see what I thought and take plenty of back up for a week or two.
Sorry, but for a wedding photographer (your example) more extensive and thourough testing would be standard operating procedure, especially if you have rich clients ... who have very competent lawyers. Backlighting, synthetics and black tuxedoes are pretty common in weddings. If you are a current user of Nikon or Canon gear, you probably know those conditions can be problematic.
I don' t think DPR gets kudos for being objective - in fact they are being pretty critical of Askley on the DPR forums.
People are upset because their relationships have been challenged whether its with Leica, MR, LL, or SR. There has been a trust that has been broken. Whether the trust was naively placed or not doesn't really matter.
Whether one owns a Leica or not (I don't) there is still a desire to watch how photography develops. People do rely on reviewers to learn about products they might buy, and products they may never buy. I used all three reviewers recently to make my own E-1 purchase, a product they didn't really agree on.
Leica' reputation might have made reviewers superfluous for some, but it doesn't change the relationship and responsibilty a reviewer has with their audience.
To be fair to MR he doesn' t pretend to be unbiased. In fact his biases have been pretty clear. I can understand a reviewer trusting a manufacturer they have a relationship with - especialy Leica. Its ironic that it seems it was MR's anger with Leica giving other sites news ahead of him that led him to spill the beans. Those beans are indeed damaging to Leica's enviable reputation.
I still want an MP though.
Sorry, but for a wedding photographer (your example) more extensive and thourough testing would be standard operating procedure, especially if you have rich clients ... who have very competent lawyers. Backlighting, synthetics and black tuxedoes are pretty common in weddings. If you are a current user of Nikon or Canon gear, you probably know those conditions can be problematic.
But no reputable company would release a camera with such obvious flaws. What your saying is that it's somehow OK for leica to release a camera that could drop someone into real grief. It's one thing to check if a camera is working properly, it's quite another to know that a camera is no use even if it is working to specification.
no, but that didn't stop people from finding out anyway.
I pity the M8 buyer who doesn't waste half his life on internet forums :D
" I can understand a reviewer trusting a manufacturer they have a relationship with"
pretty un-together statement wouldn't you say ?
such an understanding would turn the reviewer into a proclaimer .... certainly not a reviewer.
The only digital camera I ever bought was a Nikon Coolpix for the wife. If it turned black into purple I would've taken it straight back to the shop. That camera cost £100, not £3000. There is no excuse for this. Maybe Leica's name will be so ruined by this that I can get a decent MP for reasonable money. Every cloud et cetera, et cetara...
I work in a similar area to Reichman, and remember seeing the conspiracytheories, of how how the reviewers must have known the flaws and kept quiet, and thinking they were ludicrous. I work in Europe, though, not the US, where there's a different culture. IN the UK, magazines are mainly funded via circulation - their readers. In the US, they're funded by their advertisers.
I have honestly never heard of reviewers sending their copy to a manufacturer, and with-holding evidence of a flaw at the manufacturer's behest. It's absolutely outrageous. If the guy had any ethics, he shoudl have publsihed and be damned. If Leica did put him under pressure, that's the kind of thing any true professional should deflect.
What is truly idiotic is that Reichman caved in to Leica's pressure, but this did Leica NO GOOD AT ALL. If, in simple terms, he lied by omission, not mentioning crucial faults, what credibility can we give his praise? IF he had said,this camera has the best image quality I've ever seen but some bugs need ironing out, we would have believed him. As it is, his review is revealed as worthless, and Leica seems exposed as , at best, duplicitous.
Matthew Runkel
11-11-2006, 13:38
It is Journalism 101 that a professional journalist should never allow subjects to review drafts of articles or influence the timing of publication, for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious. If a publication chooses to deviate from these principles, it should prominently and clearly disclose that to readers.
Reichmann's policy is to always let manufacturers vet his reviews? That's a fact his readers should be very interested in knowing, and which neither is nor should be obvious unless he discloses it. DPReview delayed its review at the manufacturer's request? Readers need to know that too, but maybe not until the review is eventually published.
Of course, these websites have no obligation to follow sound journalistic practice, but the perils of not doing so should now be clear to them. Reichmann can be commended for his candor, but he has no one to blame but himself for the position he is in. Moreover, he does not appear to have taken the right lessons from an experience that may have destroyed his credibility as a reviewer. Whatever professional courtesy reviewers and manufacturers extend to one another surely must end when the manufacturer releases a product into commerce whose most obvious flaws the reviewer glossed over on assurances that the manufacturer was "looking into them." Once the flawed product is being sold, the reviewer is soon in the unenviable position of being thought either incompetent or disingenuous.
It will be interesting to see what other writers of glowing reviews end up saying about whether Leica influenced what they wrote and when they published it. There is little reason to suppose that Leica did not contact other reviewers in its effort to "manage" the release of information about camera flaws that it was "looking into." It also seems reasonable that some reviewers attributed image quality problems they noticed to the "non-final firmware." A suspicious person might think Leica's "non-final firmware" mantra was largely a smoke screen to discourage reviewers and others from zeroing in on problems now acknowledged to be caused by the design of the M8's sensor.
Magnus I'm not sure what you mean by un-together.
I agree with the subsequent posts.
I certainly don't think of a "reviewer" as a journalist. I'm expecting biased opinions from reviewers not objective facts. With a journalist I would expect a higher standard, alas one rarely seen today in this era of "embedded" reporting.
I'm certainly not saying their actions were justified, or deserve sympathy, in fact I think they made bad decisions. I am saying that these are working relationships, not adversarial ones. Perhaps it turned out the reviewers were too in bed ed with Leica.
Allen Gilman
11-11-2006, 14:18
"Face it! Digital capture just plane sucks. Always has.Always will!"
you tell em gb. gotta respect the statements of a guy who talks....plane.
Keith Cocker
11-11-2006, 14:24
Zeiss: did you even read anything? The bug was caught in development. It wasn't fixed and they knowingly delivered the flawed product to the customers hands for full price..
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'm entitled to a different one.
But no reputable company would release a camera with such obvious flaws. What your saying is that it's somehow OK for leica to release a camera that could drop someone into real grief. It's one thing to check if a camera is working properly, it's quite another to know that a camera is no use even if it is working to specification.
No, I'm not saying that! I think that releasing the camera with these flaws is a very bad thing. If they knew prior to release (seems certain they did), then shame on them for doing so and for being less than honest about that. If they didn't know, then shame on them for not catching something so important and easy to test.
What I am saying is that you don't bet your reputation (and your livelihood) on a piece of equipment that you haven't personally tested for your needs.
But I still want an M5.
...
But I still want an M5.
:D Yup. The first ever worst ever Leica body. It too had a glitch or two early on. Those were remedied during the production run. I'm glad I got mine when I did. :)
Sorry, but for a wedding photographer (your example) more extensive and thourough testing would be standard operating procedure, especially if you have rich clients ... who have very competent lawyers. Backlighting, synthetics and black tuxedoes are pretty common in weddings. If you are a current user of Nikon or Canon gear, you probably know those conditions can be problematic.
come to think of that, anybody tried a Gretag Macbeth testchart with the M8? I did with my Canon when I built profiles for my printer.
(Printer meaning a company with digital presses who print the magazin I work with from time to time)
But I do hope that all the new M8 owners get over their problems and finally get to go out and enjoy the reason why they bought the camera for in the first place.
No, I'm not saying that! I think that releasing the camera with these flaws is a very bad thing. If they knew prior to release (seems certain they did), then shame on them for doing so and for being less than honest about that. If they didn't know, then shame on them for not catching something so important and easy to test.
What I am saying is that you don't bet your reputation (and your livelihood) on a piece of equipment that you haven't personally tested for your needs.
But I still want an M5.
I absolutely agree with you. I was just trying to say normally you check a camera on the basis that it should be usable if it works to factory specs. At the moment the M8 is inherently unusable in certain situations by design. I'm not the best advocate for this because up until this year I'd not spent a penny on cameras in five years, although I'm really making up for lost time this year. I'm not an early adopter by nature I let others do the unpaid testing.
herbkell@shaw.c
11-11-2006, 15:22
MR has posted and update to his mea culpa as follows.......
"Update:
Why did I agree to Leica's request not to publish some of the problems that I saw during my testing?
Of the 500 odd photographs I took during about a week of testing I only saw the magenta cast issue in 2 images and the green blob issue in 1 image. That's well under 1% of the shots take.
I was therefore loath to mention the problems because I felt that they might have been anomalies that others might not encounter, and I didn't have the benefit then of the hindsight in now knowing the nature of the problem. I did identify the low light level white balance issue and also the excessive IR sensitivity and discussed them in the review.
Asking a manufacturer for feedback on a review, particularly with regard to potential factual errors is the norm. Most reputable reviewers do this as a matter of course.
Leica appropriately asked me to hold off on some of the problems that I saw, because, I believed, they wanted to identify whether these were anomalies or systemic. A fair request. I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
In any event, my enthusiasm for the M8 is undiminished and I did end up purchasing one for myself, even knowing what I did. So anyone that feels I deceived them has to accept that I did so without mal intent, since I put my own money where my pen is."
MR 's M8 must behave differently to mine. I bet if I took 500 photos or various subjects in different lights the "purple problem" would show up a lot more than twice. My M8 routinely and invariably makes all synthetic black objects purple. Pretty hard to take 500 photos and only have synthetic black in two of them.
Now I simply don't buy anything the man says I cannot believe this problem only occurs on 2 out of 500 images in any M8
What do other M8 owners think?
There is an English political journalist called Jeremy Paxman. His journalistic premise is (and I quote) "why is this lying ******* lying to me?" we need a camera reviewer with the same outlook.
MR has posted and update to his mea culpa as follows.......
"Update:
Why did I agree to Leica's request not to publish some of the problems that I saw during my testing?
Of the 500 odd photographs I took during about a week of testing I only saw the magenta cast issue in 2 images and the green blob issue in 1 image. That's well under 1% of the shots take.
I was therefore loath to mention the problems because I felt that they might have been anomalies that others might not encounter, and I didn't have the benefit then of the hindsight in now knowing the nature of the problem. I did identify the low light level white balance issue and also the excessive IR sensitivity and discussed them in the review.
Asking a manufacturer for feedback on a review, particularly with regard to potential factual errors is the norm. Most reputable reviewers do this as a matter of course.
Leica appropriately asked me to hold off on some of the problems that I saw, because, I believed, they wanted to identify whether these were anomalies or systemic. A fair request. I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
In any event, my enthusiasm for the M8 is undiminished and I did end up purchasing one for myself, even knowing what I did. So anyone that feels I deceived them has to accept that I did so without mal intent, since I put my own money where my pen is."
MR 's M8 must behave differently to mine. I bet if I took 500 photos or various subjects in different lights the "purple problem" would show up a lot more than twice. My M8 routinely and invariably makes all synthetic black objects purple. Pretty hard to take 500 photos and only have synthetic black in two of them.
Now I simply don't buy anything the man says I cannot believe this problem only occurs on 2 out of 500 images in any M8
What do other M8 owners think?
Too many reviewers are camera groupies rather than review journalists. Having a pre release version of the M8 sends the camera groupie into a priapic reverie. They feel special because they they get their M8 way before any normal user. They forget that this special feeling should not influence their review. They review the camera bearing in mind that there is a new lens release (all expenses paid) in venice next month.
It's easy to sway a reviewer without them them thinking that they had even been compromised. All that they do is count on human nature.
Allen Gilman
11-11-2006, 15:46
"Allen, Your right! Can't get no plainer then me!"
:D :D :D
foxwhelp
11-11-2006, 16:00
Sheesh, this is really quite absurd.
Nothing in Reichman's <i>mea culpa</i> suggests that he knew that the problem would not be fixed before release or that it was a systematic problem (in fact his update suggests precisely the opposite). Given that, it doesn't seem particularly bad form to me to say nothing of the matter when Leica requested that he not and assured him they were working on the issue.
Of course reviewers show their reviews to manufacturers -- this is good for everyone, especially consumers who may benefit from the leverage the reviewer has with the manufacturer, and it also makes for better, more informative reviews, especially if the problem arises becuase of user error.
Yes, probably a mistake for Leica to release the camera before the issues were resolved <i>but</i> frankly I'm glad they did. Love the camera even with the problems. The banding I find fairly irksome, but it genuinely is uncommon (though it is quite easy to make the camera band if you're intent on doing so). The sooner it's fixed, the better, I think. The magenta thing -- there are several fairly effective work arounds out there, one of which (the IR filter), I would not reject as a permanent solution even if others would.
But the fact remains, there is perfectly reasonable course open to everyone who cannot live with the wait until a fix is implemented (or the IR filters if that's the fix) -- just return the thing. I have not heard that <i>anyone</i> has been refused a refund upon returning it (and given the speed with which thus stuff circulates, we'd probably all be aware if returns were being refused. If you don't like it, just return it. If you do like it -- and I do -- use it Even if you don't like it, consider using it. I think you will find, as many others have (including the whipping boys Reichman and Reid) that even with the flaws it is really quite an extraordinary camera.
foxwhelp
11-11-2006, 16:04
Oh, and I should add some thanks that many of you are not reviewers. One of the nice things about Reichman and Reid is that the can do a decent review -- noting flaws where they exist, but not losing perspective about them. They are capable of seeing a flaw, putting it into the entire context, and giving you a decent sense of the practical importance of the problem. Nothing close to that here, alas.
Sheesh, this is really quite absurd.
Nothing in Reichman's <i>mea culpa</i> suggests that he knew that the problem would not be fixed before release or that it was a systematic problem (in fact his update suggests precisely the opposite). Given that, it doesn't seem particularly bad form to me to say nothing of the matter when Leica requested that he not and assured him they were working on the issue.
Of course reviewers show their reviews to manufacturers -- this is good for everyone, especially consumers who may benefit from the leverage the reviewer has with the manufacturer, and it also makes for better, more informative reviews, especially if the problem arises becuase of user error.
Yes, probably a mistake for Leica to release the camera before the issues were resolved <i>but</i> frankly I'm glad they did. Love the camera even with the problems. The banding I find fairly irksome, but it genuinely is uncommon (though it is quite easy to make the camera band if you're intent on doing so). The sooner it's fixed, the better, I think. The magenta thing -- there are several fairly effective work arounds out there, one of which (the IR filter), I would not reject as a permanent solution even if others would.
But the fact remains, there is perfectly reasonable course open to everyone who cannot live with the wait until a fix is implemented (or the IR filters if that's the fix) -- just return the thing. I have not heard that <i>anyone</i> has been refused a refund upon returning it (and given the speed with which thus stuff circulates, we'd probably all be aware if returns were being refused. If you don't like it, just return it. If you do like it -- and I do -- use it Even if you don't like it, consider using it. I think you will find, as many others have (including the whipping boys Reichman and Reid) that even with the flaws it is really quite an extraordinary camera.
J. Borger
11-11-2006, 16:19
....... I think you will find, as many others have (including the whipping boys Reichman and Reid) that even with the flaws it is really quite an extraordinary camera .......
Foxwelp .. i agree with every point you made ..........
I am glad i had my camera before all the ranting began and it became imposible to filter the truth from the fables in all M8 related forums: the sad situation this moment!
Gabriel M.A.
11-11-2006, 16:20
Anything that's flawed here is people's definition of "flawed".
The problem has been that there's been a completely different expectation about this issue. Leica thought, utterly incorrectly, that the public in this Internet age was a well-informed one.
The product met their specifications; their reviewers gave them feedback according to these specifications. They did not realize what big of a deal this would be in this snapshot world. But it is.
Forget all the other technological advances. One completely correctable issue is making everybody whine beyond bounds of decency.
If you cannot begin to understand, or won't, the issue, and cannot differentiate between "flaw" and "mistake", take a look at those three other fingers because they are pointing back.
With all the problems with the RD-1, j*s*s! People's worlds were not collapsing. Epson responded, and with the speed of a tortoise, in making replacements, repairs, etc. Leica is doing this within days, and personally responded on forums, which is saying a lot.
If you like your horse very well done, this one's about to break down to the molecular level.
herbkell@shaw.c
11-11-2006, 16:42
Oh, and I should add some thanks that many of you are not reviewers. One of the nice things about Reichman and Reid is that the can do a decent review -- noting flaws where they exist, but not losing perspective about them. They are capable of seeing a flaw, putting it into the entire context, and giving you a decent sense of the practical importance of the problem. Nothing close to that here, alas.
Isn't this the whole problem - they didn't note flaws when they existed?
Forgetting the rhetoric I am still interested to know if other folks M8's behave like mine......the vast majority of black subjects and certainly those with synthetic fibres always get the purple cast. In my case it's not a occasional thing at all
Expectations, as unrealistic as they may be, are still part of understanding one's market. I hardly equate Epson's place in the RF world with that of Leica. That is the difference.
I agree that Leica's response has been swift in comparison to Epson, and I do hope that the resolution will be up to Leica standards and applauded by all.
Whether the problem is a "flaw" or "mistake" is still to be determined, is it not? I'm not prejudging ... I honestly don't know which it is. If the correction is "buy a bunch of IR filters", then THAT certainly doesn't correspond to Leica's statements about the "first timeless digital camera" etc.
" Exceptional performance in every detail
For Leica, image quality is not only a catchword, but a value attainable by optimizing all the links in the performance chain: Leica's M high performance lenses, now performing even better in the digital system with the new 6-bit coding. The low-noise CCD sensor which is specifically matched to the extreme requirements of the high-resolution M lenses."
newyorkone
11-11-2006, 22:09
But no reputable company would release a camera with such obvious flaws. What your saying is that it's somehow OK for leica to release a camera that could drop someone into real grief. It's one thing to check if a camera is working properly, it's quite another to know that a camera is no use even if it is working to specification.
This has got to be one of the funniest posts I've seen in a while. I think you meant to say, all companies, reputable or not, release cameras with obvious flaws. D200 banding...are you so sure that Nikon didn't knowingly release the camera fully aware of the flaws? 5D vignetting and banding. etc. etc. etc.
What's even more funny is that people are totally trashing MR, his ethics, integrity, honesty, but then they immediately go on to base their new found hate for everything and everyone related to Leica, on the same words that they just called untrue. How does that make any sense?
This whole situation has exploded entirely because of hearsay, conjecture and gossip. "This is Leica's statement that I got..." "I heard someone state that they heard...", etc. I seriously doubt that much of anything that has been stated, discussed, etc. is rooted in any truth. It's all a slandering mess.
I agree that as consumers we should be skeptical...especially when spending $4800 on anything. Be skeptical but be consistent about it. Don't cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your arguement and then ignore other parts that don't.
Lastly, if you really believe that Leica or anyone else was malicious and unethical in their actions then lay those claims to them directly and not on some anonymous forum. Be civil enough to tell a man (or company) to his face instead of behind his back. You would expect the same courtesy for yourself.
Nachkebia
11-11-2006, 22:16
It is amazing how people can defend brand name just because they have spend a lot of money buying products of it, when actually it has to be revere :D
I'll say only one thing about Michael Reichmann's commentary, specifically the following:
Asking a manufacturer for feedback on a review, particularly with regard to potential factual errors is the norm. Most reputable reviewers do this as a matter of course.
Maybe it's the norm in the "trade press." However -- and I'm speaking as someone who has a BA degree in journalism from a large university with a well-regarded J-school, and who worked as a full-time newspaper reporter for five years -- what I was taught is that it is absolutely unethical to show a story to a news source before publication, for any reason whatsoever. Period. No discussion.
In reporting and ethics classes we were told repeatedly, in so many words, that you absolutely never send a story to a source before publication, not even to get the factual content checked. It's considered okay to call a source and read back direct quotes from that source, or to summarize a source's statements, and ask for confirmation. (E.g., "So Mr. Mayor, when we were talking this morning, you said you took bribes to support your crack habit. Right?" If the source later denies the quotes or statements, it becomes the reporter's judgment call whether to accept the denial and seek clarification, to report the original version, or to report the original version and also that the source later recanted.)
But what you absolutely NEVER do is send the whole story to the source in advance. It's a clear "don't do it," not even a gray area. Why? Because doing so would create exactly the sort of suspicion in readers' minds that people are raising against Reichmann's review: That the whole story was published subject to the source's approval.
I don't know how many print publications adhere to this strict standard nowadays, but I'm pretty sure it's still gospel at any major newspaper and probably the larger professional magazines as well. On the web, though -- well, let the reader beware. Most website authors -- even those who are knowledgeable photographers and high-caliber wordsmiths -- are not trained journalists and consequently have never been taught the ethical standards of the profession.
That's okay as long as you, the reader, realize it -- just don't assume that what you read on somebody's photo website or blog is written to the same standards as, say, an Associated Press wire story.
This has got to be one of the funniest posts I've seen in a while. I think you meant to say, all companies, reputable or not, release cameras with obvious flaws. D200 banding...are you so sure that Nikon didn't knowingly release the camera fully aware of the flaws? 5D vignetting and banding. etc. etc. etc.
What's even more funny is that people are totally trashing MR, his ethics, integrity, honesty, but then they immediately go on to base their new found hate for everything and everyone related to Leica, on the same words that they just called untrue. How does that make any sense?
This whole situation has exploded entirely because of hearsay, conjecture and gossip. "This is Leica's statement that I got..." "I heard someone state that they heard...", etc. I seriously doubt that much of anything that has been stated, discussed, etc. is rooted in any truth. It's all a slandering mess.
I agree that as consumers we should be skeptical...especially when spending $4800 on anything. Be skeptical but be consistent about it. Don't cherry pick bits and pieces that suit your arguement and then ignore other parts that don't.
Lastly, if you really believe that Leica or anyone else was malicious and unethical in their actions then lay those claims to them directly and not on some anonymous forum. Be civil enough to tell a man (or company) to his face instead of behind his back. You would expect the same courtesy for yourself.
Banding and vignetting are pretty easy to fix. The magenta blacks thing looks like whole other nightmare to me. I'm not really talking about MR's personal ethics, rather his journalistic ethics. I don't think anyone was malicious per se. Rather, I've always been dubious that Leica is big enough and in a good enough financial position to bring its own digital system to market without major problems. And furthermore, I am telling Leica to its face the only way a company understands, I went out this week and bought some canon L glass and put all thoughts of an M8 system out of my mind.
Oh and I agree that reading this stuff back it all looks a bit hysterical but I think these internet discussions tend to read like that. Once you dig a whole for yourself in these discussions its very difficult to stop digging!
RObert Budding
11-11-2006, 23:46
Anyone here remember the Contax N-Digital, Kyocera's full-frame DSLR? It was capable of producing superb results - but it did have some issues with noise (as did Kodak's FF DSLR). Apparently some of the issues were addressed in firmware updates. But there was a lot of bad press and sales never recovered. Kyocera eventually shuttered their camera business.
The marketplace can be unforgiving. And Kyocera's utter incompetence in managing the problem and communicating with the public did not help the situation.
amateriat
11-12-2006, 00:33
But no reputable company would release a camera with such obvious flaws. What your saying is that it's somehow OK for leica to release a camera that could drop someone into real grief. It's one thing to check if a camera is working properly, it's quite another to know that a camera is no use even if it is working to specification. Back around early 1981, I tossed off an entire Canon F-1/EF/etc. system for the then-new Pentax LX system. Pentax promised everything, and I loved how that camera felt in the hands and responded. Shortly thereafter, an Achilles' heel appeared: a mysterious shutter lock-up that couldn't be remedied in the field, with both LX bodies I had. It took several months of rushing back-and-forth to Pentax' service department (which helpfully expedited service like I was a big-shot pro, which I was anything but), before it was revealed that there was a manufacturing flaw that was responsible for the problem – I just happened to be the proverbial guinea pig who caught it early. At a subsequent Photo Expo later that year (here in NYC), I mentioned my problem to a Nikon rep, who could only give me a painful smile and say, "Surprise!"
What I'm getting at is that, if you dig deep enough, you'll find foibles involving most photographic stuff that hits the market (don't tell me that pro dSLRs from the Big Two sprang forth without "issues"). I'm not condoning Leica's moves here, since we all hold them to a higher standard than the usual suspects, and we should all expect nothing less than a proper response on their part, addressing the problem at hand. On the other hand, all this "If they don't make a digital M this year, they're dead meat" talk didn't help things much. They should've taken the time they needed to get things properly in order; their apparent succumbing to outside clamor (and, most likely, shareholder unrest) was unfortunate, but catcalls from the We Want It Now! gallery were getting a bit too loud for Solms to ignore. We demanded our digital goodies delivered yesterday, and now we're bitching about things being not quite as they should be? (Imagine if we dealt with Microsoft this way!)
Ultimately, Leica earns a foul card for doing a bit of a rush-job before all the major bugs were squashed. But we here have to take a breather and ask what in Hell we're in such a honking hurry about. We didn't want this M to be merely digital, we wanted it to be done right, and not something that's instantly put in the shade by somthing similar nine months from now. By my rough estimate (it's past 3: 15 in the morning here, so my math's fuzzy – sue me;-), Solms got on the digital M bus less than two years ago. From the moment I learned of the imminent release of the M8, I was worried that Leica was rushing things just a bit, and that something was bound to go wrong. Anybody else can design a fair-to-middling digicam and get it out the door in a year or so, but here the stakes were a good deal higher. I wish they'd waited till early next year; obviously, somebody told Engineering that "next year" wasn't an option. Now we just need to see what Leica offers up as a solution. I for one am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Then, too, I didn't anxiously fork out the better part of five grand for an M8.
- Barrett
I second Fox, after all it was a pre production sample and one can expect faults in this phase.
Reichmann stated more than once that he reports faults to the manufacturers and that he make sugestions if he finds something not to his liking. Some manufactures listen to the testers and some don't. Like Canon which insists on that braindead CF-Card door design or the mirror lockup deeply hidden in the menues.
The Edsel didn't send Ford to the wall and it was a turkey of the highest order! Leica have made a goof, agreed and MR did do a diservice to his readers by not reporting the problem and on that basis to me, he doesn't warrant the description ... 'JOURNALIST'
Leica however, will do what I'm sure any company with such a dedicated following not necessarily based on logic would do ... which is try to save their arse in any way they can!
And by the way I don't own an M8 and don't aspire to ... but I can perceive the 'bleedin' obvious'.
:angel:
we are talking about reviews of pre production cameras and not investigative journalism where the journalist digs out the ugly truth like what they do on CNN and FOX and such.
As a reviewer I wouldn't expect a mashine faultfree even in later design phases, the more electronics and programming involved the less I would expect anything to work.
Except Microsoft products of cause, as everybody knows they work faultless and don't need review, that's why Microsoft restricts reviews of their products in the License you accept when running the product for the first time. :)
Dale Cook
11-12-2006, 05:27
Does anyone know of Sean Reid pointed out these fatal flaws in his pay-for-review of the M8 prior to Leica's statement? I would be far more upset having paid for a review if these flaws were not uncovered and shared in a review I paid for.
While I agree with MR's poor judgment in releasing the M8 review with the critical ommissions without noting he was waiting for a response from Leica, I would point you to his recent comments about Hasselblad's latest HD3 and lack of raw option with Canon G7 to make a full decision about credibility. I find MR to be far more objective in his reviews than others and will probably be even more so moving forward given this snafu.
Here's the problem. You do have to maintain some level of relationship with manufacturers if you are going to get cameras to review. And you have to have cameras to review if you're going to be in that business. I have no problems with MR allowing Leica to respond to the faults he found before publishing. There was the mistake...publishing before the response.
And finally. There is an alternative...the RD-1. I'm very happy that I've hung on to mine and didn't decide to do a fire sale so I could get a pre-order in for a camera that hadn't even had sample pics posted yet. Buyer beware regardless of company and reputation. That's just the world we live in today.
we are talking about reviews of pre production cameras and not investigative journalism where the journalist digs out the ugly truth like what they do on CNN and FOX and such.
As a reviewer I wouldn't expect a mashine faultfree even in later design phases, the more electronics and programming involved the less I would expect anything to work.
Except Microsoft products of cause, as everybody knows they work faultless and don't need review, that's why Microsoft restricts reviews of their products in the License you accept when running the product for the first time. :)
You summed it up Socke ... he's a reviewer!
:)
willie_901
11-12-2006, 07:22
I'll say only one thing about Michael Reichmann's commentary, specifically the following:
Maybe it's the norm in the "trade press." However -- and I'm speaking as someone who has a BA degree in journalism from a large university with a well-regarded J-school, and who worked as a full-time newspaper reporter for five years -- what I was taught is that it is absolutely unethical to show a story to a news source before publication, for any reason whatsoever. Period. No discussion.
This is an excellent point.
Furthermore, newspaper/magazine journalists have editors. Editors are supposed to ask their review writers questions like, "Some Kodak sensors had IR problems. How is the M8 with IR?" Or, "I don't care what Leica wants you to do – what about our responsibility to the readers?"
Of course sometimes editors don't do their job and things still go wrong. But I prefer to pay for reviews where there is some sort of peer oversight.
willie
you think FOX is investigative journalism ? ;) I guess we are talking across standards :)
No, but I wanted to point out how high the standards are with regard to journalism, I avoided publications like Daily Mail and Sun or Bild for a reason :)
Let's be clear, the question is not whether you expect to have a perfect camera, pre or post production. Nothing is perfect. But whether you are balanced enough to report the NEGATIVES and the POSITIVES.
The question is when you imply that you are a 'journalist', which MR does, then you must live by those standards. If you want to call yourself something else, fine. You can live by the standards of that. You live and die by what you hold yourself out to be.
I knew a motor"journalist" once, what do you think are they supposed to publish after they'd been invited to test drive a new car during a presentation at a nice beach ressort?
You've got exactly two possibilities, write what's allowed or don't write at all. Do you like a monthly income? Than better don't mess with the manufacturers, your readers won't support you when you have nothing to write about.
Only Ken Rockwell can review cameras he's never seen :D
Gabriel M.A.
11-12-2006, 09:05
It is amazing how people can defend brand name just because they have spend a lot of money buying products of it, when actually it has to be revere :D
It is amazing how people can immediately assume that people who do not bash Leica are those who have spent a lot of money buying products of "it".
And it is this generalization's (and others) cause that cannot make this discussion civil.
Gabriel M.A.
11-12-2006, 09:07
we are talking about reviews of pre production cameras and not investigative journalism where the journalist digs out the ugly truth like what they do on CNN and FOX and such.
I think you're giving Faux Nooze waaaaay too much credit :rolleyes:
John Camp
11-12-2006, 17:10
I'll say only one thing about Michael Reichmann's commentary, specifically the following:
Maybe it's the norm in the "trade press." However -- and I'm speaking as someone who has a BA degree in journalism from a large university with a well-regarded J-school, and who worked as a full-time newspaper reporter for five years -- what I was taught is that it is absolutely unethical to show a story to a news source before publication, for any reason whatsoever. Period. No discussion.
And this is one of the main things wrong with newspapers, and why, as a Presidential press secretary said one time, "The dirty little secret about newspapers is that every story is wrong." This is a result of what I call "situational ignorance," which is generally ignored in J-schools for the very good reason that J-schools don't teach very much that's useful.
The ethical standard should be, "I won't change a story unless it's wrong;" but I've never seen that standard in any journalism Code of Ethics.
It shouldn't be done casually, but if it takes showing a story to a source before publication, to make sure that it's right, then the sources should be shown the story. Once you've made a mistake in print -- and I include the web -- on an important story, it's essentially impossible to correct it. You'll never get back to all the readers who saw the original.
I think Reichmann screwed up in a very minor way -- it would have been almost impossible to buy a camera based on Reichmann's review, since the first wave of cameras were spoken for long before the reveiw came out. And I understand why he did what he did. He was dealing with a very technical subject with a not-final version of firmware, on which the company said it was making continuing changes, and they told him essentially that the issues were being addressed. He should have said that in the review. He didn't -- though he did mention IR issues, which seem to be the main ones -- and he should have. A minor sin, in my view; it's more important that he got everything else right.
JC
I don't buy Reichman's statement that he only saw 2 mages that had the magenta cast.
Look at this guy's street photos.. The magenta cast is visible on almost everyone one of them.. Very apparent in several pictures.
http://web.mac.com/mac.hive/iWeb/Site/Leica%20M8%20Street%20Shots.html
climbing_vine
11-13-2006, 08:16
In reporting and ethics classes we were told repeatedly, in so many words, that you absolutely never send a story to a source before publication, not even to get the factual content checked. It's considered okay to call a source and read back direct quotes from that source, or to summarize a source's statements, and ask for confirmation.
Don't take this personally, as I don't know you (obviously)--but my experience is that the "real" press is no better about any of these issues than the trade pubs (or bloggers for that matter). Not letting sources check factual information is certainly something that can be debated, but even if one does take that as an iron–clad rule one should still get a fact-check from some third-party who knows what they're talking about. I've been interviewed for stories in a number of well-circulated dailies and weeklies, including one major urban US paper--as well as having first-hand knowledge of stories that I read--and they almost invariably have key facts utterly wrong, quotes mangled, and some made up out of whole cloth. I also did some time in one of the "best" J-schools in the country, at one of the top public Universities, and not only did I not see any surplus of ethics but also a true lack of intellectual curiosity--people just didn't care. And that's the same attitude I've seen from most "real" journalists I've encountered.
Trusting a "real" journalist, in other words, is just as questionable as trusting a trade pub journalist. Let's not get on any high horses here.
J. Borger
11-13-2006, 08:21
Reichmanns statements make his position worse for me ... what he has done was wrong in the first place .... but when faced with the consequences of his OWN decision pointing at another (Leica) to clean his own back is as low as it gets in my book! A gentleman had kept his mouth and faced the consequences.
Traitors are worse than cheaters in my textbook!
I can understand he was overwhelmed by the quality of the camera (so am i) and wrote a positive review despite the issues though. So he should stand for that instead of pointing to others ......disgusting!
I don' t think DPR gets kudos for being objective - in fact they are being pretty critical of Askley on the DPR forums.
(delurk)
Although he seems pretty critical himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6144038.stm
(If it is not just another troll commenting in his name :confused:)
/Jobo
(relurk)
I may be a suspiscious person, but somehow that comment does not seem to be on the same track as the one on his website. And I doubt any serious reviewer would enter into any internet discussion that way....
btw Reichmanns excuse curls my toes as well. :(
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.