Richard Marks
Rexel
Ben Z
"All I am waiting for now is most of the teahing roubles to be fixed..."
Dear Ben
How are you going to know when all the problems are fixed? Internet gives no idea of incidence. I really think the "My M8 has died" type posts represent a very small proportion of those sold. I suspect many are QC issues relating to the rechargeable battery and this is something which is difficult to test. Our delaership in Sheffield has sold 12 units now and allegedly there have not been any returns. I think that time has probably arrived. Do yourself a favour and take one for a serious test drive. I know you will be impressed.
Richard
"All I am waiting for now is most of the teahing roubles to be fixed..."
Dear Ben
How are you going to know when all the problems are fixed? Internet gives no idea of incidence. I really think the "My M8 has died" type posts represent a very small proportion of those sold. I suspect many are QC issues relating to the rechargeable battery and this is something which is difficult to test. Our delaership in Sheffield has sold 12 units now and allegedly there have not been any returns. I think that time has probably arrived. Do yourself a favour and take one for a serious test drive. I know you will be impressed.
Richard
willie_901
Veteran
Irrelevant, Leica already has. Leica's brand trades on excellence. The introduction of the M8 caused harm to their brand. Releasing the camera to market as they did was either stupid or arrogant. It could be fatal.Edward Felcher said:
The (M) system is not a suitable platform for evolution in digital photography. Get over it.
The lens rear element-to-sensor distance requirement is a severe handicap. Evolutionary development is futile without a radical change in sensor technology. There is no financial motivation for Leica or anyone else to invest in a fundamentally new sensor technology that is compatible with M mount lenses.
If Canon or Nikon or whoever (except Leica or Epson) sold a digital camera with the rangefinder aesthetic, I'd buy one in a minute. I would not care if it did not use the M mount. All I would care about was that excellent prime lenses were available. Until this happens, rangefinder evolutionary development is a contradiction in terms.
Evolution is not necessary to have market share. Static products can be profitable. Cosina seems to be doing well. Studio lighting systems and strobes are not evolving. There are examples in other hobbies (when's the last time there were radical technology changes in hunting shotguns, water skis, canoes, kaiaks, pool tables or bowling balls).
Only for digital photography... so what.
The IR color cast is not a detail. Leica mislead their customers due to incompetence, or worse. Banding is not a detail. The former can not be fixed if you use Leica lenses particularly for focal lengths of 35mm and less and the latter should have never happened.
The $5K also pays the salaries of the marketing managers and Leica executives that bungled the M8 introduction. I do expect top-level performance from them at that price level. Why reward their performance? For me, this is not a detail.
Early adapters pay enable late adapters to afford desirable new technological advancements. Fine. But the reason M8 owners are on the bleeding edge is because Leica mismanaged the M8s release. Leica's poor decisions caused the bleeding, not the technology.
The M8 does not represent a quantum leap in digital imaging technology. Leica refined nothing (maybe they paid somebody else to develop improved Bayer reconstruction algorithms, maybe not), nor did they do anything new that entailed great risk. The M8 adapts the M lens mount to mature sensor technology. This requires an IR filter in front of the lens. Quality IR lens filter technology exists.
What's next? A third-party decides they can make money by selling a IR filter that attenuates IR frequencies at a level suitable for digital photography and is thin enough to satisfy Leica's optical requirements. Leica uses this filter with a slightly improved digital sensor, and the M9 is born. DSLR sales drive incremental sensor improvements. Leica brings out new models using mature sensors. Repeat as needed.
I should pay "extra" for this?
A market is not dead because it is a niche market. A market dies when there is no profit to be made.
To me it represents an arrogant, or incompetent, or desperate company.
1. Leica could have easily started a pre-release PR campaign based on the following premise: every other digital camera company has it backwards. The IR filter should be in front of the lens, not behind it. Only Leica does it right. Only Leica understands optical excellence should not be compromised by filtering light after it passes through the lens. Leica is smart...you are smart...smart people buy Leicas. Leica demands the best (even it the best requires a filter in front of the lens)... you deserve the best.
If Leica had done this, I bet I would have bought a M8 in 2007.
2. The banding problems were easily avoided by not rushing the release.
Many other companies have suffered by rushing to market. Smart people repeat well-known mistakes all the time. But the best (and top prices require the best) don't repeat obvious errors. This is the disconnect. When I observe trusting customers pay Leica top dollar and watch them receive less than they paid for, I loose respect for Leica. This does not mean a M8 that ships from Solms in June with two IR filters and competent firmware is not worth $5K. It means Leica's management does not deserve my business.
The other disconnect is: I am not able to say, "Well, the camera is OK now, and I'd rather pay for IR filters now to enjoy the camera now, and I get a discount for new lenses, and after all I want Leica to survive, so I forgive the company. Here's my $5000."
I don't condemn those who can forgive. It's just that I can't find any motivation to do business with Leica.
willie
Richard Marks
Rexel
Dear Willie
Have you personnal experience of any of the problems that you refer to, or is it simpy the result of trawling
Have you personnal experience of any of the problems that you refer to, or is it simpy the result of trawling
Ben Z
Veteran
photogdave said:
They've allegedly been on that verge for a couple of years. But I stand corrected, Pentax is still in the digital game as far as 35mm-type DSLR's are concerned. I was a Pentax user for many years, still have my Spotmatics. I use the lenses on my 20D.
Richard Marks said:
I have and I was, I want one and hope to buy one eventually. I'll know at least when the current problems are solved when the people who sent theirs back report they've been fixed. And when (or if) firmware 1.10 becomes available, people install it, and is solves these electronic bugs. And I'll also be less anxious that Leica no longer has anyone to write further firmware updates for any future problems that crop up.
Willie_901 said:
Now there I disagree, and point to the image files the camera has produced. The banding etc. are the result of incompetent testing, not technical limits being exceeded. The only issue that might be unsolvable with current technology is the IR filter, if in fact a stronger sensor filter would cause a catastrophic problem and it isn't just Leica's marketing people BS-ing. Even if a stronger sensor filter would cause severe IQ degradation and the front filters are the only current solution, at least it is a solution, meaning it does solve the IR color shift, albeit with added tweaking needed with wide lenses to get rid of the cyan corners. Bottom-line, when all is said and done the M8's only limitations as a first-class picture making machine at this point are QC issues, and, as always, the skill of the guy behind the viewfinder.