Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why did reviewers not pick up on the Leica M8 problems?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why did reviewers not pick up on the Leica M8 problems?

 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
On 13 Nov 2006 12:32:18 -0800, Scott W wrote:

> And the reviewer who are getting beat up for not reporting
> on this issue I believe will be a bit more careful the next time
> something like this happens.


And when I criticized that reviewer's sloppy writing, bias and
attempts to blame a camera manufacturer for his own incompetence,
his "peanut gallery" of fans in r.p.d. first denied those problems,
but eventually said it didn't matter, because his unique take on
things made for interesting reading. It seems to me that the only
thing MR did differently this time is have an opinion that wasn't
shared by the majority of his (former?) fickle fans.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006

ASAAR wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 12:32:18 -0800, Scott W wrote:
>
> > And the reviewer who are getting beat up for not reporting
> > on this issue I believe will be a bit more careful the next time
> > something like this happens.

>
> And when I criticized that reviewer's sloppy writing, bias and
> attempts to blame a camera manufacturer for his own incompetence,
> his "peanut gallery" of fans in r.p.d. first denied those problems,
> but eventually said it didn't matter, because his unique take on
> things made for interesting reading. It seems to me that the only
> thing MR did differently this time is have an opinion that wasn't
> shared by the majority of his (former?) fickle fans.


He was not really beat up that much, until he divulged that Leica has
asked him to remove the part of his review that deal with the problem
and then he complied with their request. This same sort of thing may
well have gone on with other cameras but this is the first I have seen
it in such a blatant way.

It is not MR's opinion that is getting people upset, it is he
willingness to withhold parts of his review that showed flaws in the
design of the camera.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
On 13 Nov 2006 14:02:27 -0800, Scott W wrote:

> He was not really beat up that much, until he divulged that Leica has
> asked him to remove the part of his review that deal with the problem
> and then he complied with their request. This same sort of thing may
> well have gone on with other cameras but this is the first I have seen
> it in such a blatant way.
>
> It is not MR's opinion that is getting people upset, it is he
> willingness to withhold parts of his review that showed flaws in the
> design of the camera.


I don't really care to defend MR that much, but it seems that his
acknowledgement should be seen in a positive light, compensating
slightly for his capitulation with Leica's request. I still feel
that part of what fuels his reader's ire is that Leica is involved.
They have *many* very vocal detractors. The only people that might
have suffered from his reviews would be those who actually purchased
an M8. Have they been the ones that have been complaining the
loudest? If it's anything like what we're seeing in r.p.d., it's
more likely to be Canon owners that are doing the most venting.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2006
ASAAR wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 14:02:27 -0800, Scott W wrote:
>
> > He was not really beat up that much, until he divulged that Leica has
> > asked him to remove the part of his review that deal with the problem
> > and then he complied with their request. This same sort of thing may
> > well have gone on with other cameras but this is the first I have seen
> > it in such a blatant way.
> >
> > It is not MR's opinion that is getting people upset, it is he
> > willingness to withhold parts of his review that showed flaws in the
> > design of the camera.

>
> I don't really care to defend MR that much, but it seems that his
> acknowledgement should be seen in a positive light, compensating
> slightly for his capitulation with Leica's request. I still feel
> that part of what fuels his reader's ire is that Leica is involved.
> They have *many* very vocal detractors. The only people that might
> have suffered from his reviews would be those who actually purchased
> an M8. Have they been the ones that have been complaining the
> loudest? If it's anything like what we're seeing in r.p.d., it's
> more likely to be Canon owners that are doing the most venting.


You might want to look at some of the Leica forums, a lot of Leica
users who are anything but happy.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20832100
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20798476

So why should it matter to those of us who are not going to buy a M8?
Because it should be stated that this kind of product introduction is
unacceptable and the more grief Leica and a few reviewer get on this
the less likely this kind of thing will happen again.

If the reviews for the M8 could be misleading this time the next time
it might well be a camera that I would buy.

When I bought a Sony F828 M.R. called it a flawed Jewel and told what
the warts were. This let me know what I was getting and what I would
have to live with, it would have been nice if he gave the same
consideration to the people looking at buying the M8.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
SNIP
> BTW I have one of the B+W 486 filters (IR blocking filer) and so did
> a
> quick test of both my 350D and the Sony F828. The 350D showed no IR
> leak problems at all the F828 show a slight purple but nothing like
> what the M8 is producing. When this same filter is used in front of
> the M8 the difference is dramatic.


I also have one of those filters, and they are useless on wider angle
lenses. The reflection of IR changes with the light angle of incidence
on the filter. They'd need a thin absorbing filter for correction.

--
Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
ASAAR wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2006 14:02:27 -0800, Scott W wrote:
>
>> He was not really beat up that much, until he divulged that Leica has
>> asked him to remove the part of his review that deal with the problem
>> and then he complied with their request. This same sort of thing may
>> well have gone on with other cameras but this is the first I have seen
>> it in such a blatant way.
>>
>> It is not MR's opinion that is getting people upset, it is he
>> willingness to withhold parts of his review that showed flaws in the
>> design of the camera.

>
> I don't really care to defend MR that much, but it seems that his
> acknowledgement should be seen in a positive light, compensating
> slightly for his capitulation with Leica's request. I still feel
> that part of what fuels his reader's ire is that Leica is involved.
> They have *many* very vocal detractors. The only people that might
> have suffered from his reviews would be those who actually purchased
> an M8. Have they been the ones that have been complaining the
> loudest? If it's anything like what we're seeing in r.p.d., it's
> more likely to be Canon owners that are doing the most venting.
>



Perhaps because there are so many of them! At
$4500, the M8 is definitely for the discriminating
few

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
> SNIP
> > BTW I have one of the B+W 486 filters (IR blocking filer) and so did
> > a
> > quick test of both my 350D and the Sony F828. The 350D showed no IR
> > leak problems at all the F828 show a slight purple but nothing like
> > what the M8 is producing. When this same filter is used in front of
> > the M8 the difference is dramatic.

>
> I also have one of those filters, and they are useless on wider angle
> lenses. The reflection of IR changes with the light angle of incidence
> on the filter. They'd need a thin absorbing filter for correction.

My believe is that the filters in front of just about any of the
sensors on digital cameras is in fact an absorbing filter. But Leica
might not have much wiggle room in changing that filter and the filters
that screw on to the front of lenses seem to be interference. Putting
an absorbing filter on the front of the lens will not be a solution
that many M8 owns will accept as it would cause a fair bit of light
loss.

You could curve the filter for a wide angle lens, but coating curved
surfaces is not a real joy to do.

But for lenses that are not too wide the IR blocking filter does
wonders, which really shows just how bad the camera is without the
extra filter in place. Whereas my filter is too small to screw onto my
18 - 55 lens just holding it in place and setting the lens to 18mm
makes it look like it would not produce a bad color shift. A wider
angle lens should show cyan corners as the filter begins to block out
visible red at greater angles.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
On 13 Nov 2006 15:49:30 -0800, Scott W wrote:

>> If it's anything like what we're seeing in r.p.d., it's more likely
>> to be Canon owners that are doing the most venting.

>
> You might want to look at some of the Leica forums, a lot of Leica
> users who are anything but happy.
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20832100
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20798476


Then those Canonistas can consider their labors to have achieved
their goal and can now hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner.


> When I bought a Sony F828 M.R. called it a flawed Jewel and told what
> the warts were. This let me know what I was getting and what I would
> have to live with, it would have been nice if he gave the same
> consideration to the people looking at buying the M8.


True. But now you're aware that M.R. is a Leicaphile. Had he
been infatuated with Sony's products he might have hidden the flaws
by only holding Sony's F828 jewel in the most favorable light. I
don't think that there will be much of a change in manufacturer's
attempts to best position their products since most back room
agreements such as this one are never divulged. Nor do I think that
most of the pressure should be put on M.R. He is what he is.
Instead, Luminous Landscape should receive most of the pressure, to
make sure that they keep their various writers and reviewers
"honest". This assumes that Luminous Landscape isn't owned or
controlled to any significant degree by M.R., and I don't follow
L.L. enough to know what his position is with them.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006

ASAAR wrote:
> > You might want to look at some of the Leica forums, a lot of Leica
> > users who are anything but happy.
> > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20832100
> > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=20798476

>
> Then those Canonistas can consider their labors to have achieved
> their goal and can now hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
>


You rang?
Perhaps Leica should forget this newfangled digital stuff and go back
to doing what it does best .... making obsolete, overpriced film
cameras that were hot **** in 1954.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2006
ASAAR wrote:
>
> True. But now you're aware that M.R. is a Leicaphile. Had he
> been infatuated with Sony's products he might have hidden the flaws
> by only holding Sony's F828 jewel in the most favorable light. I
> don't think that there will be much of a change in manufacturer's
> attempts to best position their products since most back room
> agreements such as this one are never divulged. Nor do I think that
> most of the pressure should be put on M.R. He is what he is.
> Instead, Luminous Landscape should receive most of the pressure, to
> make sure that they keep their various writers and reviewers
> "honest". This assumes that Luminous Landscape isn't owned or
> controlled to any significant degree by M.R., and I don't follow
> L.L. enough to know what his position is with them.
>


It says at LL in "about this website"

"The publisher and primary author of this site is
Michael Reichmann."

Phil

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is best (non-Leica) digital slr back for Leica R lenses? TJ Digital Photography 13 12-23-2007 10:46 PM
Is Lumix Leica real Leica? John Navas Digital Photography 1 11-18-2007 09:16 AM
Why did the professional camera reviewers totally miss a serious flaw in the camera? Jeanette Guire Digital Photography 93 10-25-2007 11:49 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
When to pick ASP.Net, when to pick desktop? tom c ASP .Net 5 11-01-2006 06:15 PM



Advertisments