Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Sean,

Did I intimate that your reviews were anything but interesting and straight forward? If so I apologize. But Sean, the beauty of Consumer Reports, years ago when I lived in the USA, was the fact that they bought the review products at retail. They did not accept supplier product loans or gifts inorder to avoid possible judgement lapses. That is what I mean by disclosure. and journalistic independence.

A company does not respond to a reviewers' issues as it does to an ordinary consumer. And they do so for a reason. My dead M8s are a perfect example of that.

Kind regards and continue taking good pictures.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Howard,

 

I understand that your concerns are not about me or my articles and I also realize that you've tried to be civil about expressing them. Speaking of articles, I have three of them in draft right now and, if its any consolation, much more of my time goes to those articles (and to my ongoing professional photography work at this busy time of year) than goes to the forum. I usually hit the forum to take a break from work and relax (often when RAW files are batching) but with this thread, I think work might be preferable <G>. Hope to have some new material finished for the site for next week.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sean,

Did I intimate that your reviews were anything but interesting and straight forward? If so I apologize. But Sean, the beauty of Consumer Reports, years ago when I lived in the USA, was the fact that they bought the review products at retail. They did not accept supplier product loans or gifts inorder to avoid possible judgement lapses. That is what I mean by disclosure. and journalistic independence.

A company does not respond to a reviewers' issues as it does to an ordinary consumer. And they do so for a reason. My dead M8s are a perfect example of that.

Kind regards and continue taking good pictures.

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

Most of the products I reviewed are loaned and, alas <G>, there are no camera/lens gifts. Sometimes I do buy products myself but if I actually needed to purchase (rather than borrow) most of the lenses and cameras I review, RR subscriptions would get *very* expensive. The DMR review, for example, would have cost tens of thousands of dollars by itself. But, loans from manufacturers don't tie one's hands in the way that some may suspect. Most reviewers work from product loans and that doesn't have to keep them (or me) from being very candid. Leica, for example, is sometimes very happy with what I write and sometimes quite unhappy - but that doesn't stop them from loaning me products for review. I like Leica, but that doesn't mean I can't try to call things as I see them. Interesting, btw, that negative reviews are often perceived as being more "honest" than positive reviews. In fact, however, I know of some negative reviews that included significant factual mistakes.

 

Moreover, Consumer Reports' system of buying the things they review (while it may be good PR for them) doesn't ensure their accuracy. Their writing about digital cameras often isn't on the mark and their writing about the Isuzu Trooper caused a lawsuit in which they were found to have come to (and have published) several inaccurate conclusions about that vehicle's handling (albeit, it was found, not with intentional malice).

 

What RR, Consumer Reports and Motorcycle Consumer News (which was co-founded by a friend of mine) all have in common is that we don't accept advertising. I think certain pressure can be placed on magazines, web sites, etc. by both advertisers (especially the large ones) and by the corporations who own the sites, magazines, etc. Thus, RR has no advertising, no investors, no board, etc.

 

The Zeiss 15/2.8 got a less than glowing review from me but Zeiss is still sending me the first ever review copy of their 85 soon. One can be honest and still get press loans. I think Leica was happy that I was giving their equipment exposure (despite pros and cons in the reviews) back when most sites ignored them (ie: pre-M8). Ditto for Zeiss which still is not front and center for most sites. Canon not only accepted the criticisms I made of some of their equipment but contacted me with detailed follow-up questions.

 

As for your failed M8. I brought the M8 failures to Leica's attention at several levels quite awhile ago, surveyed to get a sense of how widespread the problem was (is?) and published accordingly. That's the best I can do as a reviewer. I've actually gone to bat for the resolution of many M8 issues, which I also write about (even though I don't necessarily discuss that activity on forums). The best known perhaps, is my push for a lens menu option but there are also many other discussions that don't, and won't, appear in forum posts.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sean,

 

Okay, I'll bite. Could you explain why some things you discuss with Leica about the M8 don't and won't appear in forum posts, without revealing secrets? I would think that anything would be fair game.

 

Hi Carsten,

 

It wasn't meant, at all, as bait actually. If I'm aware of a problem I'll discuss in a review, an update, etc. But then, speaking generally, I go back and forth with manufacturers with some suggestions, some arguments as to why certain changes should be made, etc. Some of that yields fruit and some doesn't but with the M8, in particular, there's been a lot of discussion. So, the problems themselves get discussed in the reviews (and on this forum for sure). The process that I (and some other very quiet members of this forum) then go through to advocate for changes/solutions isn't something that's necessarily appropriate for public discussions. As a rule, if something doesn't exist yet at production level (ie: isn't yet available publicly) it isn't necessarily going to be discussed publicly.

 

An example, which is now past history: the alternate mounts which Zeiss is now making available for their lenses (so as to bring up the correct frame lines in the M8) come from a process that began when I called Zeiss last fall to discuss the frame line problem and to suggest this kind of program. Many of the improvements in the Epson R-D1S and in Epson's revised RAW conversion program came straight from a list I gave (and discussed with) Epson in early 2004. I've quietly done some of the background work to get certain cameras supported, or better supported, by various software, etc.

 

Other discussions have gone on, do go on, etc. with various companies and they are designed to improve the usability of these tools for photographers. So when people suggest that I hide information to protect manufacturers at the expense of photographers, I'm certainly not a happy camper.The fact is that I take a far from passive role in trying to get changes and improvements made in various things that photographers use. So to be bashed sometime by that same community really sucks.

 

Ask John Milich about the evolution of the CV 12 and 15 filter adapters some time. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of reviewing so-called manufacturer loans, and thereby getting pre-release products, this is, of course, unavoidable for a new product.

 

Both the manufacturer and potential buyers have interest in a review of a new product -- particularly a review from a professional user (read: Sean Reid, et al).

 

You may have noticed comments from reviewers about the materials being loaned by manufacturers to the effect that (in this case) the lenses are well-used (read: beat up).

 

Therefore, we users of this product gain from having *old, tired, abused* equipment used in a review. We can say, "Hey, this stuff still works!..."

 

With regards to Consumer Reports, I laud their goals and rules to ensure independence.

In particular, their camera reviews suck and their audio reviews suck: they never review top-of-the-line stuff that defines the field.

 

It would also be better for them to publish online because a great number of items that they review have been superceded by the time the magazine hits the stands/mailboxes.

 

We get a good deal here: free speech -- even when abusing the proprietor, breaking news about products we want or need, lots of info about alternative products (such as CV lenses, filter holders, and the like), and help from other posters (many of whom are professional photographers -- making a living at it [a distinction]).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am amazed to see Sean taking any abuse. Here is a guy who has done more than anyone else to contribute to the rangefinder body of knowledge. He must have run thirty or more lenses through his review, five or six cameras, a variety of software and gadgets (and contributed to the origination and design of several). He writes profusely and clearly about his findings and has to be considered a vital resource. All of this is for the betterment of the breed and the education of the user.

Compare his clarity with the unnecessarily cryptic and /or vague entries from Vic, for example. Compare his content and range with anyone.

Truly a great resource for all of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stnami

Alan lying about cameras is what this was about, so that's what you did you lied and now you feel hard done by a...........the I didn't mean it, I was only joking, it's not my fault caper ..................

It was my dear Voigtlander. A Bessa II as a matter of fact. The best camera I ever used for architecture. What, you have a problem with me using this now?
......doesn't sound very sarcastic, especially to anyone who knows only a little about cameras,(there are many of those around the net) you wanted to be smart..... ended up as being someone who cannot be trusted.........exactly what the thread is about ..the untrustworthy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan lying about cameras is what this was about, so that's what you did you lied and now you feel hard done by a...........the I didn't mean it, I was only joking, it's not my fault caper ..................

 

 

Guilty as charged!!!

 

OK, next time I'll use a winky face ;-)

 

Sorry to mislead all of those on the net who don't know much about cameras or didn't read too carefully, into thinking that I used an old Voigtlander for those shots. Come to think of it, maybe it wasn't a Grandagon lens. It might have been a Super Angulon lens. (I can't remember if I used my 65 or my 75.) Just trying to come totally clean.

 

And if anyone was planning to start an architectural photography business with a Bessa II, I'd have to admit it might not be the best choice for that. A 1919 Kodak Autographic III would do better ;-) (Some things are "inside jokes.") Considering all of Vic's posts before mine, did you actually think it was a good idea to be serious with him? Still, it surprised me that Vic didn't get it.

 

Have a nice day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...