So Huff's sold his 240 then

[iedei]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there's nothing wrong with Steve Huff making a business out of his blog....but let's not act as if nobody can state their opinions about the guy's website. Anyone/everyone has an opportunity to should they wish to. I, personally, find his blog to be badly written and badly designed with poor reviews of goods.....but if people find them helpful, then fine for you!

 

FYI: i also wouldn't be surprised if he gets paid to push certain products...as many blogs do. I do think some people think he is offering only his personal opinion, however if somebody is running a site their opinions are surely going to be influenced by their business and strategies.

 

this has nothing to do with the guy as a person....this is merely in regards to his site and its content.

[scaryink]

Actually he was selling an MM and summilux 75 on the local craigslist (we live in the same locale). I contacted him about the MM but purchased another before he returned the email. Per his direct message to me he is color sort of guy and the MM wasn't for him. It is apparent he gets product discounts and then re-sells the kits to make a few bucks. This is similar to the demo CD's back in the day where the Reps would resell the CD's to used used record stores. If I recall there is a recent very specific US federal law that states if you receive any sort of compensation or have special agreements it must be disclosed. Violation may be a fairly serious offense.

[KM-25]

Everyone who has ever written about photo gear topics can be accused of being gear head centric (me too). A celebration of Kodachrome is gear head centric (film is gear too). Before the Internet, people wrote about gear for magazines and in books. Not everyone had a friend who was a working photographer whom they could call for gear advice; and if they did, likely the pro's gear choices were very specific to their photography & business. What is different now is that publishing is much wider and flatter, so almost anyone is a potential publisher. And there is a lot more content and more easily accessible, so potentially more distractions.

 

It's just too much sir, it's like every other post on every forum, it's pretty ridiculous in my opinion...

[Guest tanks]

...It is apparent he gets product discounts and then re-sells the kits to make a few bucks. This is similar to the demo CD's back in the day where the Reps would resell the CD's to used used record stores. If I recall there is a recent very specific US federal law that states if you receive any sort of compensation or have special agreements it must be disclosed. Violation may be a fairly serious offense.

 

Really? Now, you are so not subtly accusing him of breaking the law?

 

Wow, just wow!!!!

[erl]

Clear thinking tells me there is NO accusation being made. Read it again and understand.

 

scaryink simply stated a situation. No accusation.

[kdriceman]

Actually he was selling an MM and summilux 75 on the local craigslist (we live in the same locale). I contacted him about the MM but purchased another before he returned the email. Per his direct message to me he is color sort of guy and the MM wasn't for him. It is apparent he gets product discounts and then re-sells the kits to make a few bucks. This is similar to the demo CD's back in the day where the Reps would resell the CD's to used used record stores. If I recall there is a recent very specific US federal law that states if you receive any sort of compensation or have special agreements it must be disclosed. Violation may be a fairly serious offense.

 

Disclosure for income tax purposes. IF one fails to disclose, unless there is intent to defraud, it will only require payment of taxes on the imputed compensation with perhaps a penalty and interest. But we certainly don't know the circumstances of Mr. Huff's situation so it seems a bit over-the-top for us to even engage in such a discussion.

[Scott997]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is the lamest thread ever.

[semi-ambivalent]

Scaryink knows nothing of Mr. Huff's tax returns. Neither do you. I saw no statement from anybody that Mr. Huff is not forthright in his tax matters, hence no slander.

 

When threads like this go overboard they degrade pretty quickly because, however people act in the Real world, there is a distinct lack of critical thinking and clarity of expression in the so-called blogosphere.

 

I'd like the mods to kill the thread until there's some content worth the time it takes to read it.

 

s-a

[Scott997]

Just drop it. Kill this thread. This is pathetic for the Leica Community. Listen to yourselves, think before you post. Leave it be. Go out and shoot some Leicas and stop spending so much time on the internet talking meaningless nonsense.

[macjonny1]

Is there a "delete thread" option?

[Ecaton]

My advice to Mr Huff:

Buy another M and resell it after one week. i) it will help to keep this nonsense thread going forever, and ii) it will make Mr Huff`s blog even more known, which seems to drive some insecure Leica owners crazy. Time to close this thread, it`s an embarassment to every decent Leica shooter. :mad:

[erl]

Listen guys. My best reading of this drivel is that there is some inuendo, maybe.

No actual accusations have been made in my opinion. So don't assume they have.

 

An earlier poster has good advice. Go out and shoot pictures.

Let Huff do all the 'puffing'.

[digitalfx]

Clear thinking tells me there is NO accusation being made. Read it again and understand.

 

scaryink simply stated a situation. No accusation.

 

Your wrong, his post is out of line and so is this thread. This entire thread has no place in this forum.

[erl]

NO, you are wrong IMO.

However, since you reported a post in this thread, other mods will assess it besides me.

If I am wrong and you are right, they will act appropriately, with my full acceptance and I trust, yours.

[Ecaton]

Listen guys. My best reading of this drivel is that there is some inuendo, maybe.

No actual accusations have been made in my opinion. So don't assume they have.

 

An earlier poster has good advice. Go out and shoot pictures.

Let Huff do all the 'puffing'.

 

Really? Do actual accusations need to be made before a post is crossing the lines. Somebody posted that it is "apparent" that Mr Huff would get discounts on products and that he would sell such discounted products to make a buck. To then go on in the same post and refer to legislation requiring such arrangements and profits to be disclosed. I call this: Trying to create an impression as if........ . And all this because a certain Mr. Huff committed the sacrilege of selling a Leica M. Enough, I would say.

[Guest borge]

Remember before the internet, back when you could call up a friend who was a real live working photographer and ask him what he thought about the new camera he had been using? That is how I make decisions about what gear to buy, people who actually use it to make a living rather than people who hardly have time to shoot because they are trying to pick apart a camera and become the next "Internet Gear Review Hero" or "Web Sensation".

 

So who are you going to call regarding the M240? Nobody uses it to make a living. Every professional photographers primary tool these days is either medium format or a dslr, depending on the assignment. Sure, a few shoot M's now and then but for professional photographers it's a tool that is suited more to them, personally, than to their business.

 

There are exceptions of course: People sponsored by Leica and such.

 

I love my MM and 35/50 Summilux'es, but man, I would never ever buy it if I was working as a professional photographer. I have already been offered photography assignments in Asia and Italy for some fashion companies. They required color pictures. I can't give them that, so no go, and anyway, it really doesn't interest me to have photography as a job.

 

Steve is doing what he's doing because he love photography. Professional and fulltime working photographers won't (and don't have time to) do what Steve does. Most of them don't care either, because for them, the camera and lenses are simply tools that they can do their job with, just as wrenches are to mechanics.

[erl]

Really? Do actual accusations need to be made before a post is crossing the lines. Somebody posted that it is "apparent" that Mr Huff would get discounts on products and that he would sell such discounted products to make a buck. To then go on in the same post and refer to legislation requiring such arrangements and profits to be disclosed. I call this: Trying to create an impression as if........ . And all this because a certain Mr. Huff committed the sacrilege of selling a Leica M. Enough, I would say.

An accusation is a good way to draw a line, for a start, otherwise, where do you draw it?

 

Whether Huff gets discounts and then 'onsells' is not our business, so why be so concerned about it? Legal or not, it is his problem.

 

Your way of viewing the situation is all full of surmise and emotion. Huff selling is not sacrilege, except according to your words. Referencing legislation is not problematic. Your idea of "trying to create an impression as if....." is in itself incomplete, as though you are trying to 'create an impression'.

[jaapv]

Mods have conferred. We find this forum is not the place for defamation by innuendo and unfounded suppositions . By all means discuss reviews, but don't discuss reviewers this way.