Toby
On the alert
ghost said:
I pity the M8 buyer who doesn't waste half his life on internet forums
M
Magnus
Guest
" 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.
pretty un-together statement wouldn't you say ?
such an understanding would turn the reviewer into a proclaimer .... certainly not a reviewer.
mpt600
Established
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...
Paul T.
Veteran
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.
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
Well-known
Journalism 101
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.
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.
rhogg
Member
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.
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
Well-known
"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.
you tell em gb. gotta respect the statements of a guy who talks....plane.
K
Keith Cocker
Guest
ywenz said:
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'm entitled to a different one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
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.Toby said:
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.
venchka
Veteran
Trius said:
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.
S
Socke
Guest
Trius said:
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)
gb hill
Veteran
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.
Toby
On the alert
Trius said:
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
Peter Kelly
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?
"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?
Toby
On the alert
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.
Toby
On the alert
herbkell@shaw.c said:
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
Well-known
"Allen, Your right! Can't get no plainer then me!"
foxwhelp
Newbie
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.
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
Newbie
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.
foxwhelp said:
J. Borger
Well-known
Foxwelp .. i agree with every point you made ..........foxwhelp said:
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!