"A Reviewer's Responsibility" Michael Reichmann reflection on his M8 Review

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hahah carsten.. ya, and im stacked in front of computer to do some work here (

 

i know what is MR. the new guru of photography ?

it just looked to me like using the HCB...

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}besides... what is MR ?? what is it - he is cool rap guy ?

HCB is cartier bresson, but what is MR ?

ok, i guess it say something about special m8 community. )

 

Vic vic, your rhetorical perspective actually says something more about you than any community you think your slagging.

 

Semiotiically speaking, why don't you just stay stacked onto a computer and shoot (film) pictures of the screen for awhile? I'm sure they'll be brilliant. Or "better" yet, how about a picture of film containers? Oh wait....

 

So go take some pictures and leave the rest of us to muddle through here in our digital ignorance, ok (not that some of us don't shoot film too)...

 

Or better yet: please go focus on your dissertation. Think of the dis-service your doing to the youth of the world by dawdling and procrastinating with the Leica forum!

 

I beg you--legions of young minds need to have the pedagogical benefit of your to-be teaching sinecure. They're going to learn a lot, I'm sure! Of course, they won't learn about photography, but you'll teach them some valuable life-lessons just the same, I have no doubt!

 

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

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

[hofrench]

I started a thread about this a couple of weeks ago on Rangefinder Forum.

This all would be old hat, of course, except that Michael Reichmann himself revived the discussion with a pretty shameless reverse mea culpa.

There is simply no excuse journalistically for having spotted a serious issue in something purported to be a product review, consulting with the company and on their counsel, deciding not to mention it. Just no excuse, and no amount of twisting and turning by MR can change that.

To me, this self-justifying prattle is even worse than the original offense. I am also reminded by it of the uncharitable way Michael took digs at anyone who had complaints about the M8 after his "review" was published.

The unexplored issue in all of this is the relationship between the people who write these sorts of things and the camera companies. There has been precious little disclosure on the subject.

Does Michael, or do any of the other reviewers we all know receive discounts or emoluments of any kind, whether in the form of money or equipment?

This is no crime, of course, and the people who write well and honestly would be respected all the more for being explicit about potential conflicts of interest. How nice it would be to clear the air.

Howard French

[jaapv]

It has been stated clearly by Michael that he is NOT paid in any way by Leica. This smells of innuendo.

[rob_x2004]

Yea but its the same for cars boats caravans washing machines. A review is a review not an excuse to put your head in a bucket.

[rob_x2004]

Ohh wait it must be gospel. I read it in a magazine.

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yea I read it on the internet.

[hofrench]

It has been stated clearly by Michael that he is NOT paid in any way by Leica. This smells of innuendo.

 

 

Then why be so beholden?

It goes to point of gratuitous product placements in things like video tutorials.

[jaapv]

It is a private website where a photographer writes tutorials and reviews, with clearly stated private bias. It is not a public service, he is not an elected official, he is not even a journalist in the strict sense of the word. He is a knowledgeble photographer that shares his knowledge and opinions. He is not accountable to anybody. Even if he were covered in gold by Leica it would be nobodies business but his own. It is up to the reader to read and to evaluate. Caveat lector in this case.

[hofrench]

"Accountable to no one."

 

Precisely the problem!

Someone who makes or enhances their living by promoting himself as a trustworthy, and implicitly unbiased, expert and then goes and cooperates in the silencing of a very real problem involving a product whose review seems likely to encourage sales. Yes, that person is accountable to no one.

[carstenw]

There is no problem! You just have to stop expecting more from him than personal opinions, and the whole problem goes away. I enjoy his reviews, but I don't expect them to be impartial, nor to contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I read everything with a grain of salt, and within that framework, he is great.

[Shootist]

I started a thread about this a couple of weeks ago on Rangefinder Forum.

This all would be old hat, of course, except that Michael Reichmann himself revived the discussion with a pretty shameless reverse mea culpa.

There is simply no excuse journalistically for having spotted a serious issue in something purported to be a product review, consulting with the company and on their counsel, deciding not to mention it. Just no excuse, and no amount of twisting and turning by MR can change that.

To me, this self-justifying prattle is even worse than the original offense. I am also reminded by it of the uncharitable way Michael took digs at anyone who had complaints about the M8 after his "review" was published.

 

Howard French

 

Well stated and my sentiments exactly, as I posted in my original post to this thread.

As to the deleted part of your post, well If they are getting equipment or money for writing these articles then it is not a review. It IS a AD and should be clearly stated as such.

[sdai]

It has been stated clearly by Michael that he is NOT paid in any way by Leica. This smells of innuendo.

 

But he is privileged to try it before everyone else and that is VERY important. Michael offers his review for free but to those who run reviews as a money making business ... being the first to publish means huge advantage.

[jaapv]

"Accountable to no one."

 

Precisely the problem!

Someone who makes or enhances their living by promoting himself as a trustworthy, and implicitly unbiased, expert and then goes and cooperates in the silencing of a very real problem involving a product whose review seems likely to encourage sales. Yes, that person is accountable to no one.

 

Indeed. Welcome to the real world of the internet... To expect otherwise I find (without wishing to offend) a bit naive. I don't even believe 50% of what is written in a newspaper, why should I think I should stop forming my own opinion when it comes out of a computer? And what rule lays down that a website is accountable, when it is clearly stated that is contains the opinion of those that write in it?

Don't get me wrong, I am not specifically a defender of MR, but I fail to see why he should be held to a standard that does not apply.

[luigi bertolotti]

This thread, and many others that deal about the initial (hidden) problems of M8, and the "not-so-complete" reviews has convinced me that the birth of M8 has been a process at all unusual for Leica people : this, in my op. is in relation with the property of the Company when the M8 launch was planned: a luxury consumer group is at all accustomed that you have to launch the product FOR A STRICTLY DEFINITED DATE : I personally have business relation with a pair of these important names, and this fact has always impressed me : if you have a nice idea & design for, say, a new women's bag, but you cannot develop it for, say, the September trade show of... you simply DO NOT DEVELOP it; they reasoned the same way for M8, I guess : Photokina IS the EVENT : you MUST launch it at Photokina, and "launch" means you have items to give to "market influencers" , "beta testers" etc... It's a mental mood very distant to the typical engineering mentality of tech people: you have to develop a product ? OK, an agenda is scheduled... in a reasonable timeframe, the product will be tested an ready to launch and produce... and if you have some timing shift, you manage it with some "pre-announcment" "declaration of availability" "now on final test..." and so.

[sdai]

Japanese camera companies work in the same fashion, Luigi. They all have strict project timelines otherwise you're not going to do anything.

[hofrench]

Jaap,

The point is not that one should believe everything one reads.

The point is that MR and a very small number of others were writing about the M8 at a time when almost no other hands-on information was available.

Remember, this is a $5k piece of equipment.

Michael's ability to try the camera and write about it first was a bankable advantage which perhaps suggests why in his reverse mea culpa, as I've called it, he goes on to describe his allegiance to the reader as roughly equal to his allegiance to Leica itself.

Do you remember how gushing, and how boosterish the piece was? Would it have been unfair to Leica to have said, ahem, amid all of these great qualities, alas, there are a few issues worthy of concern?

You may think I have it in for MR. I don't. I read LL with the best of them, and have generally found it to be amusing, informative and worth my time.

Knowing what he knew at the time, MR's review of the M8, though, was a disservice to his readers, though, and there's no way around that.

[jaapv]

Howard, it may be, that as a "gamma tester" I am biased as well. I read the reviews before the camera was on the market, as most of us did, but I had ordered it a year before, so I was the first one it was delivered to in our country (Han Borger does not count, he got his in Berlin two days before that). So I was probably one of the first to encounter the IR sensitivity on the first night as I took a flash shot of my wife dressed in black (purple???) with a black cat on her lap. Knowing about the Nikon D 70 through my cousin it did not take me long to figure out what was going on, I bought an IR filter the next day and considered this a bit of a non-issue until all hell broke loose on the internet. So you will understand that it is hard for me to feel sympathy for sweeping conclusions based on this rather (to me) insignificant fact. Therefore I I have some difficulty to burn somebody who wrote in a private capacity, without being accountable to me or anybody else, nor claiming infallability, at the stake.

[johnastovall]

I've been watching this thread and thinking about MR's review and breast beating.

 

I think it had everything to do with it being a 'Leica.' Had it been a Canon, I somehow think we would have see at least an reference to a problem which they were looking at. But he was blinded by the Marque. I know for years I told people my 1959 Austin-Healy 3000 was one of the worlds ten best cars even when it wouldn't start in a heavy dew.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hofrench]

Not trying to burn anyone at the stake. Reichmann strikes me a perfectly fine fellow. Runs a good, and free, website, too.

On this one, though, he did a disservice to his readers, watching out a bit too much for Leica, confusing his roles, feathering his nest, who knows. He should have written what he experienced with the camera. He could have done so gently and smartly.

Not having done so, after consulting with Leica, was a big mistake and as loathe as he is to show any self-reflection on this matter, he's invited us all to weigh in.

On the matter of how big a deal the IR problem and use of filters is, it was a big enough deal that Leica didn't want it mentioned early. It's of course for each user or potential buyer to decide how big a deal it is, which is why honest and impartial reviews are so precious.