Old 11-11-2006   #41
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghost
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
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #42
Magnus
Registered User
 
Magnus is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Munich Germany
Age: 54
Posts: 315
" 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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #43
mpt600
Registered User
 
mpt600's Avatar
 
mpt600 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 114
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...
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #44
Paul T.
Registered User
 
Paul T.'s Avatar
 
Paul T. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,997
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.
  Reply With Quote

Journalism 101
Old 11-11-2006   #45
Matthew Runkel
Registered User
 
Matthew Runkel's Avatar
 
Matthew Runkel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 240
Journalism 101

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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #46
rhogg
Registered User
 
rhogg is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Calgary AB
Posts: 34
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #47
Allen Gilman
Registered User
 
Allen Gilman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 232
"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.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=679'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #48
Keith Cocker
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywenz
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.

Last edited by Kim Coxon : 11-11-2006 at 14:47.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #49
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
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.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #50
venchka
Registered User
 
venchka's Avatar
 
venchka is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 73
Posts: 6,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius
...

But I still want an M5.
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.
__________________
Wayne
Deep in the darkest heart of the East Texas Rain forest.
Quote:
"Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing" Kimi Raikkonen
My Gallery
My Blog-Reborn
FlickrMyBookTwitSpaceFace
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #51
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius
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)
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #52
gb hill
Registered User
 
gb hill's Avatar
 
gb hill is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 60
Posts: 5,871
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.
__________________
Greg
flickr
Bessa R & L
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #53
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius
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.
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #54
[email protected]
Peter Kelly
 
herbkell@shaw.c's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 63
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?
__________________
Peter Kelly

http://www.idubeimages.com.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #55
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
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.
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #56
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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.
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #57
Allen Gilman
Registered User
 
Allen Gilman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 232
"Allen, Your right! Can't get no plainer then me!"

__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=679'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #58
foxwhelp
Registered User
 
foxwhelp is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9
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.
__________________
on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #59
foxwhelp
Registered User
 
foxwhelp is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxwhelp
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.
__________________
on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #60
J. Borger
Registered User
 
J. Borger is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 942
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxwhelp
....... 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!
__________________
my website
my RFF gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #61
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
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.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #62
[email protected]
Peter Kelly
 
herbkell@shaw.c's Avatar
 
[email protected] is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver BC Canada
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by foxwhelp
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
__________________
Peter Kelly

http://www.idubeimages.com.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #63
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
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."
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #64
newyorkone
Registered User
 
newyorkone's Avatar
 
newyorkone is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
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.
__________________
- s t e v e

“Sometimes I do get to places just when God’s ready to have someone click the shutter.” - Ansel Adams
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #65
Nachkebia
Registered User
 
Nachkebia's Avatar
 
Nachkebia is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 36
Posts: 1,992
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
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nachkebia/

Zeiss Ikon, Leica M7, 21,25,35 biogon ZM, 28 elmarit ASPH, 50 planar ZM, 50 summilux asph
(hardcore nikonian)
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #66
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
 
jlw is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,239
I'll say only one thing about Michael Reichmann's commentary, specifically the following:

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."

Last edited by jlw : 11-11-2006 at 22:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #67
Toby
On the alert
 
Toby's Avatar
 
Toby is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: West Wittering, West Sussex
Age: 48
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by newyorkone
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!
__________________
My Website
Mon Flickr

Last edited by Toby : 11-11-2006 at 23:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2006   #68
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is online now
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,387
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #69
amateriat
We're all light!
 
amateriat's Avatar
 
amateriat is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Age: 63
Posts: 4,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toby
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
__________________

"Print 'em both, kid." -
Frank "Cancie" Cancellare, to a UPI courier, after tossing a 20-exposure roll of film to him.

Here, a Gallery.

Last edited by amateriat : 11-12-2006 at 00:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #70
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #71
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,648
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'.

__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #72
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
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.
  Reply With Quote

A couple of comments & a question
Old 11-12-2006   #73
Dale Cook
Registered User
 
Dale Cook is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
Age: 50
Posts: 63
A couple of comments & a question

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.
__________________
DALE COOK
Epson R-D1 and assorted CV and Leica Lenses
My Gallery on RFF
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #74
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socke
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!

__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #75
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlw
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
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #76
Socke
Registered User
 
Socke is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyfisher Tom
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

Quote:
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #77
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nachkebia
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
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.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #78
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socke
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
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-12-2006   #79
John Camp
Registered User
 
John Camp is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlw
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2006   #80
ywenz
Registered User
 
ywenz's Avatar
 
ywenz is offline
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,456
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/Sit...t%20Shots.html
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Michael Reichman's R-D1 Review Sean Reid Epson R-D1 Leica M mount Digital Rangefinder 26 04-11-2005 21:01
Michael Snow piece on display in Toronto jan normandale Off Topic 0 04-03-2005 15:37



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:44.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.