Leica ... the gods of the digital camera world

read this carefully:

 

 

http://www.leica-camera.us/photography/m_system/m8/

 

 

 

 

and then read this:

 

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml

 

 

 

(copied from a RFF post, but it certainly takes the biscuit)

Better yet read "November 11 2006 Clarification" down the page <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml">HERE</a>

Time for a full scale war for finger-pointing ... ha ha ha ... some people should take responsibility for what they published. It is, after all, a written document. It was published on the web, in his own web site and when to publish it ... so, he should stop pointing his finger at the vendor.

"And me? Well, in some circles my name is mud because I apparently failed to mention these obvious problems in my review. Now you know why.

 

Should I have held off with my review until this issue was resolved? Should I have gone ahead and published it as originally written, even though the company had requested that I hold off on these topics? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is Monday morning quarterbacking. But, in the end I would do what I did again, simply because I felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay. And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said. "

 

So Michael Reichmann knew of these problems but for some reason felt he had to get his review to his admiring public. Why?

 

Why was it so important to get the review out? Did he want to be first? Was that more important to him than serving his reader's interest?

 

I have defended him in this past but no more. He owes his readers a big apology.

RE the top article at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml, regarding the M8 - Reichmann is being perfectly honest, and I appreciate that. <p>

 

I found this quote rather enlightening:

<i>And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said. </i> <p>

 

I think Reichmann was stunned by Leica's lack of professional reciprocity. That Leica released a statement to another site and not to him was bad form. One can imagine the angst and confusion at Leica during that relatively brief period of fact-finding and disclosure - I forgive them - for now.

 

This is an interesting moment in history.

Especially troubling are his conlcusions, at the end, starting with:

 

"In the case of the Leica M8 I am pleased to report that overall image quality is second to

none."

The most important points of a published camera test is to mention the bad stuff, as the good things are generally so obvious. He screwed up this time, and it damages confidence in his objectivity in future tests.

Where did all those kool-aid believers go who got pounded for $27 to get the unvarnished truth?

Before the camera was introduced I was hopeful that Leica could pull off something special

with the M8. I based that on the quality of the imagery I'd seen from the DMR, in particular

the dynamic range. But problems aside, I have yet to see any pics taken with the M8 that

look at all "special." In point of fact, everyone I've seen looks like a rather pedestrian digital

snap shot. I hope that this problem with the M8 proves to be solveable, but I'll be damned if

I'll pay 5k for a camera that delivers results that look so run-of-the-mill.

If he wanted to cover his butt he could have offered the same incredible "I didn't see it" story like the other reviewers. Maybe he did or didn't think that coming clean might salvage his credibility for future reviews, but by him falling on his sword we now have the answer to something most of us couldn't help but suspect but didn't want to know. "The truth? You can't handle the truth!" :-)

"In point of fact, everyone I've seen looks like a rather pedestrian digital snap shot."

 

Er, ah, so far all anyone's been showing are test shots trying to display the various defects. I don't think we'll see anything non-pedestrian until the talented photographers start using the M8 in their work, and from what I can see that's not going to happen until Leica fixes the camera so those guys can use it.

He mentions that by not having a resolution-reducing anti-alias filter the camera offers

superior image quality (at ISO400 and lower). Yet no where in his report will you find the

word "moire."

 

Moire artifacts are fact-of-life consequence of digital sampling coupled with not

employing an extra-cost AA filter coating on the sensor. If there were no moire artifacts a

reviewer would (should) be jumping up and down and marveling at that breakthrough AS

WELL AS the benefit of getting some extra sharpness.

 

Perhaps that was an oversight. Or maybe he was not experienced enough to look for that.

From a technical standpoint I'm sure curious. Why no word?

Hmm, i always do my own research before buying a cam or lens; from Jessops in the UK they have a 30 day return policy. When i bought my LX1 i knew what to expect from my own research.....then, i had thirty days to just make sure.

 

I could not be more happy with the cam,particulary as i was aware of all the so called issues regarding noise.<div></div>

How nice and clean,detailed, and sharp is this photo....<div></div>

So, while you are waiting for the M8 fix, why don't you Leica fans buy one of these and some photo fun.

Ouch. So Leica knew about the problems and shipped anway. This seems to be getting worse and worse everyday. I'm afraid the next thing I'll find out is that M8s explode randomly...

Just a few thoughts.

Too late, already bought one Allen and having fun with it. For the price of a Leica lenscap you can be shooting, well, lenscaps.<div></div>

<i>but I'll be damned if I'll pay 5k for a camera that delivers results that look so run-of-the-mill.</i><p>

LOL! That seems to affirm the remark " feisty bunch of guys wondering why a $5000 camera won't automatically take a great photo."<p>

It's the photographer who makes the pictures.

For the price of a Leica lenscap you can be shooting, well, lenscaps

 

Excellent. I bow to your wit.

In the name of maintaining complete objectivity, why would a reviewer need to have a manufacturer "approve" or "review" the draft of a product review before publishing it to the world? If he finds something wrong with it, he can always include it in the review with the caveat that it may be his particular unit that's faulty. That way, others can watch out for those similar errors in their units.

<p>

Given that the LL review was put up on the eve of releasing M8 to the general public, I am all the more shocked that Leica didn't do anything to stop the shipment and hold off on all deliveries until they fixed the issues. When I pre-ordered Digilux 2 in January 2004, I remember the shipments to us customers were delayed for a few weeks by Leica dealers because some parts (can't remember whether it was the straps or the users manuals) didn't make it in time to the US from a separate manufacturing facility in China. They wanted to ship a complete product once and do it right. The M8 is perhaps the most important product introduction by Leica in recent history, and it's truly baffling why the mad rush to get it out there.

<p>

Case in point, as far as reviews of otherwise stellar products with a few fixable issues go, check out the <a href="http://photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/HP%20B9180/page-1.htm"> excellent review of HP B9180 printer</a> by Vincent Oliver. He openly and honestly lists all the issues he encountered in the two units he used because of a faulty firmware or a buggy software along the way.<p>

No use crying foul to a manufacturer, as MR appears to, when you compromise your integrity by being less than 100% objective in your written statements to the world.

i think the market in general can be legitimately disappointed with the M8 and more importantly the way in which Leica has handled the issues with the sensor and processor... having said that, i'm somewhat surprised that so many people purchased this $5K camera without first having handled it and seen some test shots from it and instead chose to stake their expectations on online reviews alone... it also strikes me as odd that the reaction to this camera seems somewhat exaggerated relative to the teething issues that Nikon has had in the past... what strikes me as being most interesting is that all the sensors that have exhibited issues have come from Kodak and somehow no one is pointing the finger at them... lastly, why anyone expected the Leica M8 to outperform the other pro quality dSLRs is beyond me... advantages offered by superior optics are clearly being restricted by the sensor... in the past, with film it was a level playing field... film took years to refine and 'perfect'... expecting leaps and bounds in the development of electronic imaging sensors seems rather stupid to me... i've seen most impressive images from the now very 'old' Canon 1D... while there have been huge 'improvements' in resolution... the qualitative development of digital sensors (beyond size) has been rather modest in the past few years.. it would be interesting to know the relative size of budgets used for sensor development vs. firmware development vs. marketing and advertising in the digital age vs film based cameras...

 

i would hazard to guess that far more money is spend on firmware/advertising now than when film ruled and development budgets were spent primarily on refining mechanics and optical formulas...

 

just my 2 cents worth...

 

 

just my 2 cents...

<i>what strikes me as being most interesting is that all the sensors that have exhibited issues have come from Kodak and somehow no one is pointing the finger at them</i><p>

 

Why would anyone? You don't buy a sensor from Kodak, you buy a camera. In part, you are paying a camera maker to pick the right parts for their product. If the engine controller fails on your car, do you call Bosch or Volkswagon?

Nels and Ken (and others) I am a fan of Leica cameras, and I was in the front row of their cheering section up until this past week. I was not so naive as to expect every M8 in the first batch would be defect-free. I'm not that naive that I would guarantee anyone a perfect M7 or MP after several years of production. But whereas I expected various sample malfunctions due to the rushed production and a workforce only recently trained on a brand-new model to slip through QC, I am bowled over that several fundamental issues exist that are obvious and objectionable to the majority of users. I am dismayed that Leica knew of these defects and still released the initial shipment. I am ashamed and feel a deep sense of betrayal if they actively engaged at least one reviewer to be complicit in a coverup. I can't see what was "in it for him" to have complied. What did he fear by revealing the truth, that next time around Leica wouldn't grace him in the future with samples to preview? Or perhaps that NO MANUFACTURER would give him samples to preview? Maybe this is commonplace, and might account for why other cameras seem to hit the streets with defects not reported in the early reviews. It's all very intruguing. Leica chose the wrong decision not to delay the M8, and like many bad decisions, is exacerbated and eclipsed by the uncovering of what appears to be a coverup. Some carping about delayed introduction pales miserably in the face of this scandal in terms of long-term damage to their reputation, and cost to their bottom-line. This is bad, very bad.

Ken, no need to speak common sense now. ;-)

 

Actually I believe the M8 doesn't have to be leaps and bounds above say a Canon dslr in image quality, I don't think it will happen if it could. I think that they have to be comparable. (lets face it, they are all going to look like digital. ;-) a little joke no need to flame) Once the image quality is comparable the real debate will be the fundemental difference between rangefinder focusing and slr focusing, user friendliness ect... This will be the reason for a user to buy the m8 instead of the DSLR, or buy both. Rangefinders work great side by side with a good slr.