Erwin: More on M8

[kelly_flanigan1]

I sort of agree with BRAD in that the IR filter of the lens appears to be a bandaid.<BR><BR>If it was well understood they should have ramped up a decent supplier to build IR blocking filters already.<BR><BR> The magenta problem must have been known early on in prototyping. Maybe they have whussy spineless management like the usa does too, where engineering folks are branded NOT team players if the bring up flaws like shuttle o-rings and magenta problems ? <BR><BR>With a moving target on high tech stuff often management spouts its time to shoot all the engineers and release it to production, and let the sustaining engineers "fix" it while in production. Software is often like this too:) <BR><BR>Its sort of like if Detroit made a new SUV that stalled if it went thru 6 inches of water, and users had to place a bra over the front "to fix the problem", and no other SUV required it.

[nels]

It's not so much about technological limitations per se, as it is about coming clean with them <i>up front</i>, explaining the pros and cons, and earning and keeping the trust of the customers. Getting caught trying to push a defective product and them offering up a bandaid <i>solution</i> is downright embarrassing and incompetent, and asking early reviewers to hush up about posting the findings in candid reviews is just plain unethical.

<p>

Any explanations put forth <i>after the fact</i> stating that the limitations were design choices, without offering a formal apology, smacks of arrogance on part of the management and their contempt for their customers by underestimating their intelligence.

[Brad_]

<I>The magenta problem must have been known early on in prototyping. Maybe they have

whussy spineless management like the usa does too, where engineering folks are branded

NOT team players if the bring up flaws like shuttle o-rings and magenta problems ?

</I><P>

 

I would not be surprised with that scenario. <P>

 

For a project like the M8 I suspect you'd want at least a dozen beta testers. Two dozen

would be much better. Even if the issue escaped the designers during development over

the first two years of the project (highly unlikely), a handful of the beta testers would have

caught it - especially since it's shown to be *so* easy to find a shooting situation where

the problem occurs and no doubt the testers were very seasoned photographers with an

eye

towards quality.<P>

 

Imagine you're the M8 project manager, and you need to brief corporate management 4

months

before production release that there's a major problem on the horizon. And that you've

already blown your budget and schedule. <P>

 

That's not a set of PowerPoint slides I'd be thrilled about creating...

[Brad_]

<I>Any explanations put forth after the fact stating that the limitations were design choices,

without offering a formal apology, smacks of arrogance on part of the management and their

contempt for their customers by underestimating their intelligence.</I><P>

 

Summed up nicely. Also, the fact that M8 reviewers were not supplied with IR filters with their

evaluation cameras, further reinforces the notion the solution was an afterthought.

[barmijo]

I hope you folks don't mind a post here from someone that actually owns an M8.

 

This is my first Leica, and despite owning Canon DSLRs that cost MORE than the M8 and L lenses, I LOVE my M8. I intend to keep it AND buy more lenses for it. Why? First, because I bought the M8 specifically to have an option to my auto-everything Canons, so a filter on the lens really isn't an issue to me. Second, because the lenses are a fraction of the size of my Canon's so I can carry 3 or 4 with the M8 in a small pack. But mostly because it has no anti-alias filter.

 

Without an AA filter, the M8 captures far more detail than any Canon or Nikon I've ever used. In M8 images faces have texture, you can count hairs, and eyes sparkle. If you question this, visit a Leica dealer with your own SD card and take some test images.

 

Clearly Canon and Nikon could easily build cameras without the AA filter and thereby capture the same level of detail. However, they've made a marketing decision not to. Having read a lot of Canon marketing and technical material about the AA filter, I believe the decision was based the fast their customer base is biased by high-volume and consumer users. Both of these users would have a negative reaction to any need for filters or to remove moire or color casts in post processing. Threads like this one have no doubt earned those marketing folks a promotion and raise so I don't expect either company to revisit that decision. Ironically, that could be a good thing for Leica as it'll leave a niche for them to fill.

 

As for folks who post comments like "the 5D is a far more advanced camera in every respect" or "a camera that needs a filter to render color acurately is ridiculus" - the only folks you're impressing are point-and-shoot users.

[jerry_kirkwood]

Actually the only people <i>you're</i> impressing are other M8 owners.

[al_gorman]

world would be a better place either without Leica or with Leica as a legacy brand name for a larger company with a different ethos.

 

That is a cult statement which has nothing to do with photography. It is a product, nothing more,if you want to join a cult, type, 'cult' into google there are a lot of choices.

 

My understanding is that PN is a photographic site not a place for irrational 'cult' beliefs.

[al_gorman]

Let us all be perfectly honest.

 

If you walked in a camera dealers and was looking at a camera which the salesman told you was great for BW but you had to put a special filter on for Color you would think he was taking the P....... wouldn't you! He then went on to tell you blacks would turn Magenta, without the special filter, depending on the material........you would be thinking have I got 'dopey written on my forehead'.......wouldn't you!

 

You would probably answer him back, 'don't tell me', before you press the shutter release you have to sing 'Amazing Grace' in C minor with 6 beats to the bar.

[jerry_kirkwood]

I might say something, once I stopped laughing, checked the calendar to see it wasn't April 1st, and realized the guy was serious.

 

If it was a 16 megapixel full-frame and Leica said before it went on sale "look fellas, this is what you're going to have to accept because of the short lens-sensor plane distance of a rangefinder, yadda yadda" then maybe I'd stroke my beard in thoughtful consideration.

 

But a 10mp with a crop factor is already two steps back from the current state-of-the-art in the >$2000 arena, plus they sprung the filters on the public after the fact, singing out of one side of their mouth that it was a planned compromise, and out of the other side of their mouth that they were reacting to something they hadn't figured would be significant enough to be addressed. Put it all together and it doesn't sound like a very confidence-inspiring company to give 5000 hard-earned dollars.

[jtdnyc]

<That is a cult statement which has nothing to do with photography.>

 

Perhaps if you don't shoot with a Leica, what I said about my hopes for the company could sound like a cult belief...to you.

 

But if, like me, you are concerned about the future availability of new Leica products, the continuing availability of parts for old Leica products and service under existing warranties for which you paid a premium (as I did), then the desire to see an independent Leica succeed in the marketplace, producing unique, premium products, is very much related to photography.