[edlaurpic]

First topic:

I think I get it, but let me ask one more time this way . . .

Unless I want exif data, after getting the filters for my lenses that are 28mm or longer, will it be necessary for any reason to also have them 6 bit coded?

(I hope the answer is "No.")

Related topic:

And so we are clear about the extent to which Leica is going to assist us in this situation, would it be correct to say that they will provide two filters and only two filters gratis and are not offering even a discount for people who need more than two filters because they have many more than two lenses?

Seems ironic—the more devoted you have been to Leica glass, the more you will have to pay for the privelege of using your lenses on an M8?

Of course, there is the 30% discount on one lens, which is nice, but that won't make up for the cost of having to purchase at retail a dozen UV/IR cut filters...and what if, like me, you don't want/need any more M lenses?

Sorry to sound a little ungrateful for Leica's gesture regarding the discount on one new lens for eaarly buyers who have already received our M8's, but, as noted before, for avid users of Leica M cameras and lenses, one of the reasons we wanted an M digital camera was so that we would continue to be able to put our M lenses to work... and not have to pay for that privilege beyond the cost of the camera.

And why should we have to send our cameras in for the "upgrade" related to the banding and green blob instead of receive immediate replacments? These were defects right out of the box, which some people suspected/noticed early but which Leica did not immediately acknowlege. Once acknowledged, it seems to me that when a purchaser receives a product that is defective right out of the box, he/she has a right to have it replaced with a new non-defective unit...not have to send it in for "upgrade" or repairs. Again, I really feel for Leica, and I want them to come out of this all right, but early purchasers of the camera prior to Leica acknowledging the problem should get an immediate replacement camera before new buyers receive any of the next batch of cameras.

Go ahead and be tough on me about this if you disagree. I am not saying this just to spout off dissatisfaction. If I am out of line, tell me. Otherwise, it seems to me that those of us who purchased early and got defective cameras should get replacements, not an invitation to send it in for repairs... that might be appropriate if it happened a year from now, but not immediately upon delivery to us. The two gratis filters and the 30% off on a new lens seems like a reasonable gesture (to those of us who don't already own a cabinet full of M lenses, that is) as compensation for the inconvenience of having to use filters to deal with the UV/IR issue, but we should get any filters beyond the two free ones that we need at least at Leica's wholesale cost. We shouldn't have to pay full retain for them, and our defective cameras should be replaced...swapped, however you want to put it.

Leica hasn't officially posted what it intends to do so maybe if enough early purchasers feel the same way Leica will go a little further to deal with this... although it appears that the earlier post relaying the information that a dealer received may be their bottom line about this. If so, Leica is missing an opportunity to handle this situation in an optimum way—that is, as the saying goes, in a "stand up" way— it seems to me. Acknowledging the defects and offering to correct them (albeit at substantial cost and inconvenience to the purchaser) is, I suppose, better than denial or inviting us to sue to get what we bargained for.

Expecting the purchaser to pay to "put right" what Leica said would be right with this camera when we received it is a mistake. This should not be and it almost cancels out the gesture regarding the new lens discount and two filters (it doesn't quite cancel it out, but almost).