An open letter to Leica regarding M8 issues

This letter is basically addressing leica wanting the consumer to spend money in

order to resolve a Leica problem

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31026

It'll be interesting to see how Leica responds to this. I wonder if it'll be like Nikon and their focus/metering issue on the D2H. They denied it for years, but where fixing the problematic cameras in a silent recall.

'were fixing'

Okay, I have read a lot of the early reviews and certainly most were less than critical.

 

Can someone point to a detailed, critical review with actual pictures showing the problems? Please?

I'm glad my M3 or MP never suffered from banding or moire.

Marc Williams started this thread and posted samples on the Leica Users Forum (you'll have to register to see the photos):

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/8890-back-into-box-goes.html

The letter is full of typographical errors and addresses Leica as a person. While I realize that English may not be the author's first language, an open letter to a corporation should appear a bit more professional. The author could have written the letter in his/her native tongue or submitted a draft of the letter to forum members for comments and revision. The author could have specifically quoted the forums on which complaints about the M8 have been discussed. The author could have "signed" the letter with a name. I understand the concerns over this camera, but this letter poorly reflects the views of one unhappy consumer. A person who fails to have another review his or her work often produces a less than adequate product. If you don't agree, consider <a href="http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Documents/Swingers_Notice_of_Appeal.pdf">this.</a>

Apologies if my comment is terse. I've also noticed that Jorge did "sign" the letter. Thus, another lesson, check your facts before you vent your hot air. However, a comment above notes that a user must create an account to read the complaints to which the letter refers. Mr. Leica is a busy man and has not time for such foolishness. Jorge may have some clout because of his excellent site but there is nothing in his letter, other than his own assertions, to illustrate that his concerns are his alone.

Finally, even if the errors are due to "electronic transfer errors" as alleged on the site, those errors affect the credibility of the author. If the forum does not allow for postings that "translate" into a correct and proper result, the author's complaint that an M8 fails to correctly and properly translate what is photographed into a correct and proper digital image is undermined.

Leica already knows all about the M8 faults. An "open letter" is not going to do diddly. Every last person (save for the few that are in hopelessly deep denial) on a waiting list or who has just received their M8 cancelling or returning them for refunds will bring it to a conclusion in a hurry. Once Leica has our money and we can't get it back without a battle, we're no longer in the position of strength which we are now if they receive 2000 M8s back in the factory and the only way to sell them is to fix them in a manner customers will accept as befitting its $5000 price.

Erik,

 

I understand your concerns and appreciate your comments. I don't know why you think a user must create an account to read. That is not the case. One does need an account to post but the site is open to all for reading.

 

Vinay, we know Leica will fix the issue, the letter is really meant to address why Leica is passing the cost of fixing the issue to the consumer in the way of havingto purchase filters and lens coding.

Last one, I promise. In stating that Mr. Leica has no (rather than "not") time for such foolishness. I've assumed that Leica is a male. Identification as a male is the sole result of my imagination, picturing Leica as either a fat-cat with his feet on a desk and cigar in his mouth (the connection to Hermes), or as the middle-aged or slightly older, meticulous engineer that American marketing has convinced me represents most German men involved in any type of mechanics. (The rest are lederhosen beer experts or orange pants wearing performance artists.) While Mr. Leica is too busy puffing his cigar or examining each lens with a micormeter/laser/other-really-scientific-tool (which ever of the two personifications ends up as my dominant image) he is German. If he were Canadian, no one would notice him.

Hilarious. Simply Hilarious.

danm. im the keeng of type-os and omis ions. "clad" prolly woulda been a good word in ther and some comas n stuff

"the letter is really meant to address why Leica is passing the cost of fixing the issue to the consumer in the way of havingto purchase filters and lens coding."

 

Then it's missing the point entirely. What Leica is doing is similar to if you bought a stereo and the treble volume level went way up from time to time and the manufacturer proposed a pair of earmuffs that you put on whenever you need it. It wouldn't really matter if they gave the earmuffs out for free, it would be a ludicrous non-solution.

 

The IR filter is "another piece of glass" in front of the lens, and (correct me if I'm wrong) subject to reflections and ghosting as any other filter ESPECIALLY under bright spot light sources. It seems to me (again, not pretending to be a "real" photographer, just going on what "real" photographers have said many times)that the very situations where the M8 would require the filter are those where one would've been previously advised to remove any filters.

 

I'm sure the front filter would be the cheapest, fastest solution for Leica even if they footed the bill for the filters (which I will have to read officially to believe), but not the best. It's a band-aid solution even if it's free to the customers.

"I'm glad my M3 or MP never suffered from banding or moire."

 

The biggest problem my M3 suffers from is moi. (Thanks, I'm...here 'til thursday...)

The bigger question is: Whether or not RRF has become "The National Enquirer." Spamming

other sites with potential "pot boilers" to drive traffic and advertising revenue to the site.

For me its real simple. A $5,000 camera should work better than a $1000 dollar camera so why not get a Canon d30 and $4000 worth of lenses? This would save on aggravation too. How can any company who prides themself on the QC put out gear they know is not right and know that it requires filters and not supply them. This after all is one of the most expensive cameras on the 35mm digital market, Leica took a long time getting this product out the door, they must have known the deficiencies in the design and want the consumer to rectify them or live with them as is. Makes me want to vomit.

It's not just a matter of a $1,000 vs $5,000 thing. Yeah, they both make pictures, but one is a rangefinder while the other is an SLR. It's like suggesting that an 8x10 Deardorf is all you really need because nothing beats a big negative. For those wanting the rangefinder experience a DSLR isn't going to cut the mustard.

What was their answer?

Yeah, they both make pictures, but one is a rangefinder <I>and messes up colors</i> while

the other is an SLR <I>and does a pretty good job</i>.<P>

 

I'm OK with that revised assessment...

Earth to Al,

 

Um, Al, if the mustard is blue, does it matter what it takes to cut it?

I'm sure Al was suggesting that an M8 without it's now apparent flaws does not compare to a Canon DSLR.

 

It's like saying I should've bought a Nikon F5 instead of an M series camera because it's cheaper.

We'd have to see some photos to tell. I've seen plenty here that indicate a cell phone camera would be just fine. Free with the right contract.

It seems that the problem occurs with artificial fibres only.

 

This is a problem that has been known in the world of film for a very long time. Hasselblad's journal specifically asked photographers to ask their sitters to avoid wearing artificial fibre! I think I must have read that more than 10 years ago, in a even older issue of Hasselblad's journal.

 

Seems to me Leica's suggestion is far less drastic or Draconian.

 

This may also explain why the product testers did not spot the problem, because they were all professional photographers and almost by instinct they would have avoided artificial fibres. I know I do; and I'm not even a professional!