Michael Reichman's explananation

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.
 
foxwhelp said:
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.
Click to expand...


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."
 
Toby 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 😀
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
newyorkone said:
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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Toby 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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
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. 🙂
 
A couple of comments & a question

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.
 
Socke said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

You summed it up Socke ... he's a reviewer!

🙂
 
jlw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Flyfisher Tom said:
you think FOX is investigative journalism ? 😉 I guess we are talking across standards 🙂
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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 😀
 
Nachkebia said:
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 😀
Click to expand...
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.
 
Socke said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you're giving Faux Nooze waaaaay too much credit 🙄
 
jlw said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
A Reviewer's Resonsibility
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Harry Lime
Harry Lime
P
Galapagos Islands and the Inca Trail
Replies
17
Views
3K
Nickseve
N
Back
Top Bottom