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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Scott W, Nov 12, 2006.

  1. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    had time to address the issues.

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

    My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    public to make up their own minds on this issue.

    Another option would have been to simply state that they were holding
    off on reviewing the M8 until after some issues were cleared up.

    Leica has acted more like a politician doing spin control then a
    company that really cares about their customers.

    Scott
    Scott W, Nov 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    > had time to address the issues.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
    >
    > My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    > factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    > statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    > says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    > public to make up their own minds on this issue.


    Now that it's out in the open, I'm interested in how reviews in the
    pipeline, and later, will address the issue.

    --
    M Stewart
    Milton Keynes, UK



    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    Malcolm Stewart, Nov 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Scott W

    Steven Guest

    "Scott W" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    > had time to address the issues.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml


    You trust someone who says that ? : "Ps: Inevitably someone is going to
    write on one of the online forums that I must be biased toward Leica to
    write such a favorable review. Ok. I admit it. I'm biased. Now, get over it!
    "

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml

    He sounds a lot like a Ken Rockwell mixed with Phil Askey. One is a moron
    and the other will do anything to please his sponsors.
    Steven, Nov 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Scott W

    Bob Williams Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    > had time to address the issues.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
    >
    > My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    > factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    > statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    > says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    > public to make up their own minds on this issue.
    >
    > Another option would have been to simply state that they were holding
    > off on reviewing the M8 until after some issues were cleared up.
    >
    > Leica has acted more like a politician doing spin control then a
    > company that really cares about their customers.
    >
    > Scott
    >

    What are some of the "issues" that were uncovered by users that were
    ignored or played down by the reviewers?
    I have not kept abreast of the Leica M8 saga.
    Bob Williams
    Bob Williams, Nov 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Scott W

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    > had time to address the issues.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
    >
    > My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    > factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    > statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    > says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    > public to make up their own minds on this issue.
    >
    > Another option would have been to simply state that they were holding
    > off on reviewing the M8 until after some issues were cleared up.
    >
    > Leica has acted more like a politician doing spin control then a
    > company that really cares about their customers.


    I'm with you up to the last sentence, where you seem to put much
    of the blame on Leica. Luminous Landscape has been a terrific net
    source, but it's reputation drops with this one.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, Nov 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Scott W

    Pete D Guest

    "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:syM5h.108559$%...
    >
    >
    > Scott W wrote:
    >> Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    >> had time to address the issues.
    >>
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
    >>
    >> My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    >> factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    >> statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    >> says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    >> public to make up their own minds on this issue.
    >>
    >> Another option would have been to simply state that they were holding
    >> off on reviewing the M8 until after some issues were cleared up.
    >>
    >> Leica has acted more like a politician doing spin control then a
    >> company that really cares about their customers. Scott
    >>

    > What are some of the "issues" that were uncovered by users that were
    > ignored or played down by the reviewers?
    > I have not kept abreast of the Leica M8 saga.
    > Bob Williams
    >


    Purple is the new black!
    Pete D, Nov 13, 2006
    #6
  7. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Pete D wrote:
    > "Bob Williams" <> wrote in message
    > > What are some of the "issues" that were uncovered by users that were
    > > ignored or played down by the reviewers?
    > > I have not kept abreast of the Leica M8 saga.
    > > Bob Williams
    > >

    >
    > Purple is the new black!


    Yup, a lot of black fabrics photograph as purple with the M8, this is
    due to a weak IR blocking filter. This also has the effect of making
    green plants look yellow.

    Scott
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #7
  8. Scott W

    Doug Robbins Guest

    A camera this outrageously expensive should not have "issues".

    Doug

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Because they were asked not to publish what they saw until after Leica
    > had time to address the issues.
    >
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/new/index.shtml
    >
    > My believe on this is pretty straight forward, unless there was a
    > factual error in the review print it as is and let Leica put a
    > statement in addressing the issue. Instead it was done in a way that
    > says they (both Leica and Luminous Landscape) did not trust the buying
    > public to make up their own minds on this issue.
    >
    > Another option would have been to simply state that they were holding
    > off on reviewing the M8 until after some issues were cleared up.
    >
    > Leica has acted more like a politician doing spin control then a
    > company that really cares about their customers.
    >
    > Scott
    >
    Doug Robbins, Nov 13, 2006
    #8
  9. Scott W

    Hebee Jeebes Guest

    Well, sure a camera that expensive shouldn't have issues. But, it is par for
    the course these days as well. Consumers do very little to stop this and it
    is 100% within the power of consumers. If they don't buy, then the companies
    will do better. However, people do buy and in doing so they let companies
    get away with a lot of things that they shouldn't get away with. So really
    consumers shouldn't be complaining because they are getting screwed. For
    they are the ones that walk around in a permanently stooped position.

    As for why reviewers didn't catch the problems. They did. They just couldn't
    risk saying anything. Because if they had then the company in question would
    never have provided them with another product to review. Reviewers have it
    hard. They have to balance the truth about a product and the need to keep on
    companies good side so they can continue to get products to review. They
    only way around this is if reviewers bought a product like a consumer would.
    Then they would be 100% free to say what they wanted. However, reviewers,
    magazines,etc. simply don't have that kind of money. So a lot of bad things
    are mentioned and those that are are very highly sugar coated.

    R
    Hebee Jeebes, Nov 13, 2006
    #9
  10. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Hebee Jeebes wrote:
    > Well, sure a camera that expensive shouldn't have issues. But, it is par for
    > the course these days as well. Consumers do very little to stop this and it
    > is 100% within the power of consumers. If they don't buy, then the companies
    > will do better. However, people do buy and in doing so they let companies
    > get away with a lot of things that they shouldn't get away with. So really
    > consumers shouldn't be complaining because they are getting screwed. For
    > they are the ones that walk around in a permanently stooped position.
    >
    > As for why reviewers didn't catch the problems. They did. They just couldn't
    > risk saying anything. Because if they had then the company in question would
    > never have provided them with another product to review. Reviewers have it
    > hard. They have to balance the truth about a product and the need to keep on
    > companies good side so they can continue to get products to review. They
    > only way around this is if reviewers bought a product like a consumer would.
    > Then they would be 100% free to say what they wanted. However, reviewers,
    > magazines,etc. simply don't have that kind of money. So a lot of bad things
    > are mentioned and those that are are very highly sugar coated.


    Actually I believe there is a lot consumers can do about it and we are
    doing it right now. By raising the issues on the various news groups
    and user forums the camera companies are quickly getting the idea that
    times are changing and if you mess up like this word spreads almost
    instantaneously.

    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.

    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.

    Scott
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #10
  11. Scott W

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Nov 13, 2006
    #11
  12. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    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
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #12
  13. Scott W

    ASAAR Guest

    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. :)
    ASAAR, Nov 13, 2006
    #13
  14. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    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/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=20832100
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=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
    Scott W, Nov 13, 2006
    #14
  15. "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    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
    Bart van der Wolf, Nov 14, 2006
    #15
  16. Scott W

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    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
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 14, 2006
    #16
  17. Scott W

    Scott W Guest

    Bart van der Wolf wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > 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
    Scott W, Nov 14, 2006
    #17
  18. Scott W

    ASAAR Guest

    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/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=20832100
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=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.
    ASAAR, Nov 14, 2006
    #18
  19. Scott W

    Annika1980 Guest

    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/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=20832100
    > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=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 shit in 1954.
    Annika1980, Nov 14, 2006
    #19
  20. Scott W

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    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
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike Jackson

    DVD Verdict looking for new reviewers

    Mike Jackson, Jun 28, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    312
    Mike Jackson
    Jun 28, 2004
  2. Jeanette Guire
    Replies:
    93
    Views:
    1,876
    John McWilliams
    Oct 26, 2007
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    621
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,714
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. thingy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    410
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page