rhogg
Member
Your right but,,,,
Your right but,,,,
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.
Your right but,,,,
ZeissFan said:
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
Veteran
Toby said:
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).
egpj
50 Summilux is da DEVIL!
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
Veteran
ywenz said:
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).
Toby
On the alert
ZeissFan said:
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
Well-known
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?? 
ghost
Well-known
Toby said:
you'd have to be one incompetent pro if you didn't try out your camera before using it for a job.
Toby
On the alert
ghost said:
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.
Ben Z
Veteran
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.
venchka
Veteran
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.
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
Say it with flashbulbs
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...
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
Well-known
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
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
ywenz
Veteran
ZeissFan said:
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
Established
egpj said:
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?
JohnL
Very confused
Agree entirely. I'd really like one of these, but I'm not going to place an order until these issues are resolved.John Camp said:
ghost
Well-known
Toby said:
no, but that didn't stop people from finding out anyway.
JohnL
Very confused
It's worse than that: Hiding important information is not "being impartial".AShearer said:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
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.Toby said:
rhogg
Member
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.
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.
Toby
On the alert
Trius said:
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.