Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 20, 2007 Share #41  Posted March 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Walt's "response" was fictional, that was perhaps not as clear as it could have been, but if you read the text carefully it was stated as such - I must admit I had to read it a second time to see this. Guy, I'm _extremely_ surprised - shocked is too strong a word - that a Leica employee forwarded company emails to you at your request, especially when you were not involved in the email chain.   Jim and I are friends also and it was my request to him just to be sure what was said. With all that is going on what if's are just to loose when everyone is looking for facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 20, 2007 Posted March 20, 2007 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here Unprofessional Leica support . . .. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 20, 2007 Share #42 Â Posted March 20, 2007 Fair enough Guy, but I would have thought any correspondence between Leica and a customer was confidential. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 20, 2007 Share #43 Â Posted March 20, 2007 I don't know that answer but i would think only if it is like classified info, this was public info. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 20, 2007 Share #44 Â Posted March 20, 2007 Guy, I meant that it should be confidential between the customer, Leica and any directly involved third parties. I wouldn't have expected Leica to release emails to someone not directly involved for posting in an open public forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted March 20, 2007 Share #45 Â Posted March 20, 2007 I started all this and it's created a lot of misunderstanding, anger and ugliness. I apologize. Maybe a forum moderator can pull the whole thing? Â Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted March 20, 2007 Share #46  Posted March 20, 2007 I started all this and it's created a lot of misunderstanding, anger and ugliness. I apologize. Maybe a forum moderator can pull the whole thing? Walt  You should have known that arguing with Leica is like arguing with people in a little village. If you argue with the baker in the bakery at one day the butcher in the butcher's shop will treat you like a thief the other day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted March 21, 2007 Share #47  Posted March 21, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I started all this and it's created a lot of misunderstanding, anger and ugliness. I apologize. Maybe a forum moderator can pull the whole thing? Walt  Walt, please don't feel you need to apologize. You are entitled to your opinion, and have the same right as any other forum member to express it. Of course not everyone will agree, and many will not read your entire post before responding - life on internet forums these days.  I for one can't believe what happened after you expressed your opinion including the business with your email to Leica US. We should all remember in future that email directed at Leica US support could end up on the Leica forum for general user comment.  I enjoy your work and in the end that is all that counts here or else where.  Cheers. Terry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 21, 2007 Share #48 Â Posted March 21, 2007 I for one can't believe what happened after you expressed your opinion including the business with your email to Leica US. We should all remember in future that email directed at Leica US support could end up on the Leica forum for general user comment. Â In fairness Walt actually posted the e mails himself earlier in the thread. Given that and the misunderstanding over his faux quotes from Leica I don't think any crime has been committed here. Leica didn't post any e mails. Maybe Guy didn't get permission to post the e mails though?........ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 21, 2007 Share #49 Â Posted March 21, 2007 There are no fouls coming from my end. If your going to post a e-mail and quote just part of it as Walt did does that seem fair to anyone that the full answer is not quoted correctly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnguyen Posted March 21, 2007 Share #50 Â Posted March 21, 2007 I have the 50mm f2.8 current version and the Summitar f2 screw mount and they both collapsed fine on my M8. No problemo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted March 21, 2007 Share #51 Â Posted March 21, 2007 I think Walt's being unfair to Leica for expecting them to hold his hand over a lens right now considering all they're up against. He's lucky he didn't just get a "see the manual..." kind of response. I know that they and their dealers are up against a zillion requests for filters, coding questions, not to mention broken cameras real and imagined. And Jim probably truly doesn't know, and may not even care, considering his workload, and that's okay too. Sheesh. Â I don't think Leica expected the response to the M8, esp from first time users of rfs. If they had to give a long winded, overly polite response to every user with an issue vs a real problem (like the guy awhile back who thought he had a mecahnical problem because he kept seeing orange in the viewfinder - it was his finger!) then none of the real issues we really need taken care of will get done. They should have expected the response and been ready but that's a whole 'nother post. Yeah, I'd be frustrated if I couldn't use my lens, but it says right there "not recommended." I've done more than my share of things "not recommended" in my life and some hurt and others led to great things. Either try the lens or heed Leica's advice. Simple as that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chmoss Posted March 21, 2007 Share #52 Â Posted March 21, 2007 The M8 manual is quite clear on page 86: "Can be used, but risks damaging the camera Lenses with retractable tubes can only be used with their tubes extended, i.e. their tubes must never be retracted into the LEICA M8. This is not the case with the current Macro-Elmar-M 90mm f/4, whose tube does not protrude into the camera body even when retracted. It can therefore be used without any restrictions." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 21, 2007 Share #53 Â Posted March 21, 2007 Okay guys i am going to step out of this just because I don't want to see any wars . I understand all parties involved and i may have missed something in all the translations so bottom line not recommended but use at your discretion seems to be the case. Walt and I both asked the mods to just delete this thread and it may just be a good idea, we don't need any hurt feelings for anyone. Hell we have enough other eggs to fry instead of beating the drum . So sorry if i was off in the translations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 21, 2007 Share #54 Â Posted March 21, 2007 There's one thing that's obvious--we've all got too much time on our hands. Â Look at the length of this thread for example. Â Or the length of the Interesting Leica Reply re 35/1.4 thread. Â That's not to say the topics aren't important, but isn't it interesting that we've all got time to chip in? And most of us are saying something that has already been said. This thread has even got the thread starter apologizing for annoying some of us! Â Don't you think we could turn this energy toward solving the Iraq problem or fixing global warming or maybe even taking pictures? (I know, "Not invented here!") Â I'm not blaming you, I count myself in on this. Â Maybe I need to turn off the computer and get a snack! Â --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUF Admin Posted March 21, 2007 Share #55 Â Posted March 21, 2007 Any objections if we close the thread? Â Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted March 21, 2007 Share #56  Posted March 21, 2007 What bothers me about all this is we have a title out there defaming Leica staff members for doing the right thing, but doing so with syntax not acceptable to Walt. It’s telling that all other posters to this thread dealt only with practical facts, and none viewed Jim Butler’s remarks as deserving the pique of Walt’s perceptions. In my view, though this situation is much less extreme, this is reminiscent of the value of complaints posted by M8 detractors who have never used the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 21, 2007 Share #57 Â Posted March 21, 2007 I voted for deletion myself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 21, 2007 Share #58 Â Posted March 21, 2007 Stuart is right. I say delete the thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharookh Posted March 21, 2007 Share #59  Posted March 21, 2007 B&H shows the 50/2.8 Elmar coded for digital as indicated below:  (Leica Normal 50mm f/2.8 Elmar M Manual Focus Lens (6-Bit, Updated for Digital) - Black USA - Mfr# 11831 • B&H# LE5028MB)  Maybe Leica suggests that it can be used - but uncollapsed.  Best Sharookh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted March 21, 2007 Share #60  Posted March 21, 2007 You can pull it if you want and do so because  THE TITLE IS UNFAIR AND MISLEADUNG.  Some of us would enjoy hours of friendly chitchat from our Leica support folks. At quiet times we may enjoy this luxury. But these are not quiet times. And a little understanding on our part may provide better service - where needed - for us.  As to Walt's original request, it reminds me of the old joke:  Man at trainstation: When is the last train to Manchester please? Conductor: at five pm Sir. Man: Is there none later? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.