Diglloyd:"...Leica typ M Usablity..."

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Chambers' comments are pointed but more frequently than not, on the mark. They do stir controversy but that's how you create attention and attract new subscribers. However, his thorough methodology is hard to argue wiith.

 

Leica hasn't been kind to him, never supplying an early sample of lenses or cameras for testing. He does raise the hot-button issue of RF viability in the long run with the arrival of "all-view cameras" as he calls them, capable of accepting nearly any lens. It's a reasonable question. When an M240, MM or 50 APO Summicron hits the streets at the price it's asking for, there should be pretty damned high expectations and the bar he sets are not unreasonable, the EVF being a prime example of such a deficiency.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MirekE]

Lets remember he trashed the X-pro1 as lightroom took time to work with its raws.

 

He trashed the entire X-E1 system which he sent back as not working to spec., apparently he is the only person in the world to say this ?

 

He trashed the EOS-M as "worst design ever". funny as I thought is nicely made for a compact upgrader and seems to get review points only for the sluggish AF.

 

etc.

 

Over emotional trashing is normally done for market purposes.

 

I prefer Sean Reid, the rock solid benchmark of camera testing.

 

I subscribe to both and prefer Lloyd Chambers. The web site allows quick navigation, has full size images with hover on comparison, the methodology is solid and consistent. The tone in the actual paid reviews is more balanced, but he points out problems if he finds them. Reviews that do not point out issues are useless for me. I don't see any reason to subscribe to a review site to hear just the politically correct stuff and find out about the shortcomings only after the purchase.

[jaapv]

Well, if you prefer technically incorrect stuff to politically correct stuff...

I wasn't going to address all his points initially,being lazy, but really most of his review is BS.

 

* Not sharper than the M9?

Sharpness is not a meaningful parameter. Does he mean resolution? Maybe, as he seems to think more resolution makes an image "sharper". Which not.

For the rest he fails to say whether he means edge transitions, micro contrast or macro contrast all of which combine to make animage look "sharp".

 

* He seems to have problems with his Apo-Summicron.

That has nothing to do with reviewing the camera body.

 

*The lock-up battery out issue for some users is indeed a concern.

I have a feeling - but no proof- that it is related to using slow SD cards.

 

* The camera does not recognize the coding on all his lenses.

That makes me suspect he has hand-coded them.

 

*Leica does not provide software to correct the subsequent colour cast.

Incorrect. Leica provides LR5 which has a flat-field correction tool for the purpose.

 

* The video button should be programmable.

I agree it would be a nice feature, hardly essential.

 

* The menu system is an arbitrary list.

He seems to have missed that it is grouped in five logical pages with a sidebar indication.

 

* The menu does not retain the last choice on switching off.

That is true and as it should be.

It reverts to lens detection, which is normally the most important item.

 

* He dislikes the row of buttons on the left and has to ""learn braille to use them in low light"

Ergonomics are different for different people. Personally I have no problem here as I learnt to count to six in school.

 

* The EVF is just barely adequate.

Finally a point we agree on.

 

* Switching between EVF and LCD is complicated

He has missed that there is a button on the EVF for the purpose.

 

* Enlarged view in Liv View is centred.

Another point I agree with (and Leica as well, but apparently there are technical reasons)

 

* He has problems with the Live View zoom button position.

Yes and no. When holding the camera properly it falls under your finger and is ideally placed . On a tripod it is akward and using a pistolgrip impossible.

 

*Limited exposure time of 60 seconds.

I agree.

 

* Maximum manual exposure 8 seconds

Again I agree. Leica should reimplement the "T" function of the M8 and M9.

 

*There is no EV compensation in manual.

Of course not. The whole point of manual is setting your exposure including any corrections manually. A blanket guesstimated correction has no place in that process.

The little triangles in the viewfinder give a good over/under exposure indication and the spot metering will help you set exact exposure.

 

So, like a few times before, I find his review lacking of understanding of the subject and partially incorrect.

[colonel]

This is a fascinating survey of negative reviews, Section 6 is particularly interesting:

 

http://web.mit.edu/simester/Public/Papers/Deceptive_Reviews.pdf

 

I like this bit, I think it has a special bearing on this thread (substituting "customer" for "professional reviewer")

 

 

"...... Self-enhancement may explain why reviewers write reviews for items they have not purchased. However, it does not immediately explain why these reviews are more likely to be negative. One possibility is that customers believe that they will be more credible if they contribute some negative reviews. This is consistent with research showing that more negative reviewers are perceived by readers to be more intelligent, competent and expert than positive reviewers (Amabile 1983). These findings have been interpreted as evidence that reviewers wanting to be perceived as more expert will contribute more negative opinions (Schlosser 2005; and Moe and Schweidel 2012). In related research, Cheema and Kaikati (2010) show that individuals who have a high “need for uniqueness” are less willing to make positive recommendations about a product. ....... "

[colonel]

I subscribe to both and prefer Lloyd Chambers. The web site allows quick navigation, has full size images with hover on comparison, the methodology is solid and consistent. The tone in the actual paid reviews is more balanced, but he points out problems if he finds them. Reviews that do not point out issues are useless for me. I don't see any reason to subscribe to a review site to hear just the politically correct stuff and find out about the shortcomings only after the purchase.

 

Sure, Reid Reviews is a primitive site in navigation, in terms of how it uses flash for protection.

But the reviews are very balanced and highly detailed. Sean just doesn't bother with emotive words unless couched very carefully.

[zlatkob]

*The lock-up battery out issue for some users is indeed a concern.

I have a feeling - but no proof- that it is related to using slow SD cards.

...

* The video button should be programmable.

I agree it would be a nice feature, hardly essential.

...

* The EVF is just barely adequate.

Finally a point we agree on.

...

* Enlarged view in Liv View is centred.

Another point I agree with (and Leica as well, but apparently there are technical reasons)

...

*Limited exposure time of 60 seconds.

I agree.

 

* Maximum manual exposure 8 seconds

Again I agree. Leica should reimplement the "T" function of the M8 and M9.

 

You're saying most of his review is "BS" and he lacks "understanding of the subject", but I counted six points on which you agree. And if the next M offered 36mp resolution and an optional warning when coding recognition failed, many here would accept those as desirable too. That is about eight points which, if implemented in the next model, would become selling points of the next model.

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People asking for high resolution like 36 MP or even more should keeep in mind that such a high resolution a FF chip has disadvantages too. Do not forget that. because of good reasons even the two top cameras ( 1 DX and 5 D III) of Canon have not such high resolution and the top camera of Nikon has not too - up to me knowledge only 2 models below have it, although their marketing staff is eager to get such models. People who really have need of such high resolution, are better off with a Hasselblad or a Mamiya, which have both bigger chips and therefore not such a high pixel pitch.

[jaapv]

You're saying most of his review is "BS" and he lacks "understanding of the subject", but I counted six points on which you agree. And if the next M offered 36mp resolution and an optional warning when coding recognition failed, many here would accept those as desirable too. That is about eight points which, if implemented in the next model, would become selling points of the next model.

Six out of sixteen (adding the two from the preamble to the 14 he lists)

I would say that is not a passing score for somebody who sets himself up as an expert reviewer.

Actually I think the increase from 18 to 24 is not an interesting point, let alone 36 with all the attendant problems. And a bleep? As long as one can switch it off....

[zlatkob]

Six out of sixteen (adding the two from the preamble to the 14 he lists)

I would say that is not a passing score for somebody who sets himself up as an expert reviewer.

Actually I think the increase from 18 to 24 is not an interesting point, let alone 36 with all the attendant problems. And a bleep? As long as one can switch it off....

 

The bleep (or chirp as he calls it) is something else you agree on, because he wants it to be something one can switch off.

 

As for more megapixels, we've seen the same protests in the past. Almost everyone says they don't need more. However, when a new model appears with more megapixels, the side-by-side detail comparisons come out and many people are quickly convinced that more mp has advantages (and they can tolerate the disadvantages). People who say "I don't need more mp" will later say "Leica glass is so good that it can take advantage of more mp," and "Sometimes it helps when I need to crop or make a really big print."

 

Remember when anyone who mentioned the possibility of live view was panned as not understanding the camera or wanting the bells & whistles of a Canon/Nikon? Now look how many aficionados of Leica simplicity are finding valuable uses for live view. The absurd criticism of 2008 has become a selling point in 2013.

[jaapv]

It would be extremely sad if he did not get a few things right.

[MirekE]

Well, if you prefer technically incorrect stuff to politically correct stuff...

 

I was referring to his actual, paid reviews, not to the simplified blog post.

 

* Not sharper than the M9?

Sharpness is not a meaningful parameter. Does he mean resolution? Maybe, as he seems to think more resolution makes an image "sharper". Which not.

For the rest he fails to say whether he means edge transitions, micro contrast or macro contrast all of which combine to make animage look "sharp".

 

Well, his paid site has a whole section called Making Sharp Images with about 200 pages of information on sharpness and resolution alone, probably the most comprehensive collection I have ever seen. I would not suspect he does not know the difference between sharpness and resolution. What he means is probably per pixel sharpness.

 

I will stop right there, because I have no need to defend anyone.

[MirekE]

Sure, Reid Reviews is a primitive site in navigation, in terms of how it uses flash for protection.

But the reviews are very balanced and highly detailed. Sean just doesn't bother with emotive words unless couched very carefully.

 

Yes, they are balanced and detailed and I am glad I have multiple sources to use. Just recently, I was researching 21mm lenses for M and spent some time with both review sites. The written information is great in both, LC is probably more technical and with some lenses more detailed (again, I am talking about the paid stuff, not the blog), but I think Sean has possibly more info on some of the Biogons I was looking for. The most important difference for me are the images. On LC's site they are good enough to show drawing style of individual lenses. LC also provides more illustrations of field curvature, flare resistance (or lack thereof). Different people have different preferences - I personally like LC's more technical style combined with very good illustrations better that the more informal style of SR. The navigation plays important role, too.

[zlatkob]

I had a vague sense that this was "deja vu all over again" (to quote Yogi Berra) ... and in in fact it is.

 

Two years ago, Lloyd published his "Open Letter to Leica" listing 10 ways to improve the M9. Many of the replies in this forum were scathing. There was all sorts of ridicule and head scratching:

 

• "Yawn... He should stick to point-and-shoots."
  
• "...agressive and pointless whining. Indeed, he should dump his Leica, get a point&shoot and be over it."
  
• "...every last point just points back at the writer to stick with DSLR or EVIL cameras and leave the critiques of rangefinders for those who do or actually would use Rangefinders."
  
• "why people always seem to feel that the M9 needs improving"
  
• "The tide is growing into a tidal wave of commodity thinking. The M9P may be our last chance to preserve the M experience in the digital age."
  
• "Why can't people just enjoy what they have instead of always wanting something better?"
  
• "A waist of my time! :-/"
  
• " this blog displays an astounding lack of knowledge."
  
• "Sounds like Mr. Lloyd needs to stick to P&S."
  
• "CCD - Good enough for me; Focus - Better than AF; Frame line - It's a RF stupid; LCD - no need; Image review - Why?; Speed it up - What's the rush; Sensor noise and dynamic range - Bracket; ISO - 800 it's all I need; 18 MP - plenty for me; Long shutter speeds - no need"
  
• "All of this complaining about a camera just strikes me as odd in the first place. It's like buying a hammer and then complaining it doesn't drive screws."
  
• "What kills me about these types of articles is that the reviewer seems to not want a Leica M, but something else..."
  
• "I’ll have to give this all some serious thought for a second or two."
  
• "I think it's because he isn't describing a Leica M camera, but wants to change the Leica M into something else."
  
• "Collectively, we could bitch about every camera ever made - or ever will be. It's pointless unless we all build our own, to our own specifications. To expect Leica - or anyone else for that matter - to do so, is folly."
  
• "Open letter to Lloyd Chambers - 10 ways to improve your photography..."
  
• "Hence, it's ridiculous to suggest in an "open letter" to abandon the very reasons why M users prefer the M camera over DSLRs, bridge cameras, P&S ones and so forth."
  
• "thank god the M9 isn't 24 or 36 or some ridiculously large amount of megapixels (whilst still complaining about wanting super hi-iso on a CCD sensor - uhh, do the physics Loyd). Then one would have to spend ridiculous amounts of time and money as he does on your Mac performance, trying to eek out that extra 10% speed...."
  
• "I still don't get why something as successful as the M9 needs to be homogenized and folded in with the ever mutating digital camera crowd that's choked with semi-annual relearning curves and gadgets you may use once during your ownership."
  
• "WOW! A link to an article that most consider rubbish generate over 150 posts in less than 3 days..."
  
• "A clear demonstration of cluelessness. And in public. I'm embarrassed for him."
  
• " how can somebody write such a foolish piece."
  

Back then, I wrote, "If Leica adopts just a few of the items on Diglloyd's list, then those who are MOST critical of him now will also be the FIRST to buy the new model and talk about it on this forum." L. T. Gray, a guest writer on The Online Photographer, wrote, "Lloyd, your review might look perfectly reasonable...someday. Once the M10 has come out."

 

Now, fast forward two years to the present. Let's see how many of Lloyd's "rubbish" suggestions are in the new M (correct me if I'm wrong as I don't have the camera):

 

1. More resolution - yes. Not quite 28 or 36mp, but 24mp.

2. Electronic viewfinder - yes (optional). Live view - yes. Focus assist - yes.

3. Improved framelines - yes.

4. Improved LCD with more resolution - yes. Not quite 1mp or 2mp, but 920k.

5. Faster, more accurate image review - yes.

6. Faster camera response time - yes.

7. CMOS sensor with improve dynamic range - yes.

8. Improved high ISO - yes.

9. Longer shutter speeds, 30 seconds at least - yes.

10. Lower cost - no. Sadly, he got this one item wrong.

 

Clearly, the decision-makers at Leica were thinking along the same lines as Lloyd, even if forum members here were quick to ridicule him. I suspect that, now that the new M embodies those improvements, many of the people who ridiculed Lloyd's "open letter" have eagerly bought or ordered the new M.