Jump to content

A most desirable firmware WISH


usefeet

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Guy, one reason people are citing for wanting the menu option is because coding takes too long. That's a customer service issue, not a firmware issue. True, Christian's role may be marketing but that role includes developing the market and listening to customer feedback and routing it accordingly. I see endless complaints here about lack of responsiveness from Leica NJ, so there's work to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest guy_mancuso

Mark the real issue there is the mounts are made by a vendor in a small town outside of Solms and there buried with orders. Classic case of supply and demand than it takes like 3 days to mount and calibrate. leica got lucky Mark they sold more M8's than they every expected in such a short time frame , great for them and also a nightmare in hell for them and for us. Everyone at leica and every user is running into these walls. You many moons ago sent all your glass in ahead of time, you should feel some relieve that you did that before the M8 came out.

 

No one will argue with you on the patience issue, it is just the way it is. Honestly i wish i could communicate better news here on customer service stuff but we simply can't pick on one person, it is a company wide issue and i know they are truly trying.

 

Also we all know here on the forum how sore a subject this menu option issue is. Seriously they need to make a call soon here and a definitive one.

 

Just for the record also there are several folks very close to Leica on this forum that have put a lot of effort into just this issue alone. so folks like Sean we should be giving credit too also. Both of us are in the same train of thought , make a call on it and get it over with. This just leads to frustration and threads like this

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is it Leica NJ dont bother to respond to emails, can't provide status such as when the lens went to Germany and so on? What's that got to do with a shortage of lens mounts?

 

John Milich is much better qualified than me to say what's involved in manufacturing a bayonet ring but Germany has layers and layers of sub-contractors who specialise in this sort of stuff. If the existing supplier is their bottleneck, maybe they need to use more than one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso
So why is it Leica NJ dont bother to respond to emails, can't provide status such as when the lens went to Germany and so on? What's that got to do with a shortage of lens mounts?

 

John Milich is much better qualified than me to say what's involved in manufacturing a bayonet ring but Germany has layers and layers of sub-contractors who specialise in this sort of stuff. If the existing supplier is their bottleneck, maybe they need to use more than one.

 

Those are answer that only Leica NJ and Robert Fisk can give. I do know they simply are waiting on mounts for some lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, and I'm quite sure that press kit would have included the rider that (I paraphrase) "Specifications are subject to change". So maybe their statement was made in good faith at the time, only to be undermined later by the IR issue rearing its head. That meant IR filters, coding required for optimum quality and (sadly) issues for uncoded lenses.

 

Here we agree. I think it certainly was made in good faith at the time. And, yes, the IR issue does create problems for uncoded lenses (and that was not Leica's original attention at all). Coding was meant to be "value added" not "required".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we agree. I think it certainly was made in good faith at the time. And, yes, the IR issue does create problems for uncoded lenses (and that was not Leica's original attention at all). Coding was meant to be "value added" not "required".

With regard to "good faith" in marketing, let's /all/ agree, especially "at the time". Let's also agree that "The IR Issue" is ever present, regardless color or B&W.

 

I do not agree that lens coding was ever an option, but a requirement to achieve the optimal result from a given--Leica-known--lens used on the Leica M8. That lens coding was announced and offered before the M8 release(even to "reviewers") is surely a sign that such an optimisation was a priori the "IR Issue".

 

To assume lens coding firmware correction equal to, say "Cloudy" WB is a menu item short of screen resolution: out of scope, disrespectful of intent well presented.

 

For "all intents and purposes", lens coding was meant to be enforced, by design, as an in-camera optimisation: if your lens does not conform, then you have the choice to omit this feature.

 

Would you have it done well, or "best guess"? Seems this, and the "petition" thread suggests folks want it "best guess"(or some review based on such surmise). Far be it for me to suggest who's guess is best(!), yet I am able to distinguish the lens coding from the "IR Issue" which many seem to have confused(and to which Sean refers quoted).

 

As you proffer this "menu item" want, consider the variations of (15)16, 21, 24(25), 28 and 35 lenses and ask yourself which correction you'd have, please. And then consider which of these Leica must be resposible, again, please... and with respect to the folks who must code your fondest dreams! Don't forget the 40, 50, 75 and 90(macro?)!

 

And you thought EV and ISO menu selection was cumbersome! Enjoy!

 

rgds,

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......but Germany has layers and layers of sub-contractors who specialise in this sort of stuff. If the existing supplier is their bottleneck, maybe they need to use more than one.

 

Mark, I hope you will forgive me saying so but there are time when despite your undoubted detailed knowledge of some aspects of Leica and the M8 in particular you display a lack of understanding that borders on naivety. Leica has put some manufacture out to subcontractors not from choice but from economic necessity driven by low demand. It has contracts in place for specific quantities at specific times, if it wants more then the price is higher, in some cases much higher and the companies involved need notice. It is a myth that there is unlimited and immediately available capacity in Germany to manufacture precision parts to the sort of standards demanded by Leica as anyone who has been involved in sourcing camera parts from there will tell you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That lens coding was announced and offered before the M8 release(even to "reviewers") is surely a sign that such an optimisation was a priori the "IR Issue".

 

Hi Dave, I tend to think that the coding was originally offered to correct vignetting rather than IR issues.

 

I also tend towards the cock-up rather than conspiracy theory with regard to the IR problem in that I think Leica were looking for a hardware solution to the issue before the camera launch, but the management had commited them to a release date. In the end something had to give and the camera was released with the issues we know of. Of course if the camera had originally been designed without the lens coding Leica would have been stuffed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if the camera had originally been designed without the lens coding Leica would have been stuffed.

 

Yes, without the lens coding, they would have had to provide a menu to allow the user to select the lens in use and you can just imagine the howls of protest about how inconvenient that was going to be... LOL

 

I agree that for one brief moment (sometime between 12:30 and 13:00 on 28 September 2006 IIRC), the whole lens coding thing looked a bit irrelevant, seeming to be a belt-and-braces (belt and suspenders for you US people) approach to mitigating the sensor vignetting problem and as we know, they did a great job with the sensor microlenses which is one reason the M8 exhibits much less vignetting than the R-D1 which has a smaller sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are answer that only Leica NJ and Robert Fisk can give. I do know they simply are waiting on mounts for some lenses

 

Guy, I think this goes to the heart of the problem, which is that Leica have simply been abominably bad at communicating, and its VERY frustrating for all concerned. I've had a Nocti on order for six months now. At the time of order, it was explicitly quoted as two weeks delivery!!!. Now Leica flat out refuse to give any estimate of delivery time.

 

Limited contractor capacity, lack of availability of rare glass, etc, etc are all very well. But Leica do need to get their planning systems and customer communication to the point that they can give accurate delivery times - be it for lens coding or new lenses or filters, and then stick to them. Otherwise customers will vote with their feet. From a marketing perspective, the M8 honeymoon is over for them; M8's are freely available and all the early adopters (aka the folks on this board) that will overlook bad service have them. If they want a long lived product, they need to deliver on the customer service end of the equation....

 

Which I think is Mark's basic point. And I have to agree with him on that.

 

Sandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth, when I called Leica NJ yesterday in regards to my new WATE, the lady that answered the phone told me she was new and just started work there yesterday. I think I was talking to the service department. This new hiring is good news.

 

In regards to lens coding, I was talking to a tech that services my Leica gear in Canada and he mentioned Leica NJ had layed off/retired a lot of technicians a few years back when things got slow. We forget that only a few years prior to the M8, Leica had a huge drop in camera sales as digitals became more popular and Leica had to rationalize its staffing. This lost employees with their specialized skills have probably been tough to replace.

 

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is not Walmart. With small volumes and demanding specs they would have limited clout in regards to pricing and schedule with suppliers. You order 300 widgets , you get x schedule at x price, after delivery you find you need 20 more? Your out of luck. As the cost of set up and production of 20 more on a rush basis could be double. Order more then you need to be safe? Not likely considering the companies financial condition.

 

Add to that the impact on finances and experienced staffing from the legacy of years of poor economic performance and an unanticipated tsunami in demand on every division of the company -engineering, manufacture, communications and service and you have a big headache for management.

 

Speculating on the internal workings of the company is pointless. Insulting a marketing manager because he hasn't taken it on himself to take over the service department and tell them how to fix the problem is absurd. How would you like a marketing guy to waltz in to your engineering department and tell you he's going to straighten out your behind schedule project -I bet that would go over big.

 

Hopefully Leica will get it all sorted out. So while I have no advice for Leica on how to manage business problems of which I have no inside knowledge - I do know what would make the M8 work better for me and for quite a few others. Thus the request for this feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica has not, necessarily, fully articulated its position on this yet. They've given their supposed reasons for not providing the lens selection in-menu, so far, but their position on the matter, overall, isn't yet public knowledge.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Indeed Sean, though it seems to me that a little hair splitting is going on there; let me put it this way then: Leica gave their reasons for not adding the menu option - didn't give any reason in favour of it - didn't say they will never do it, nor did they say they will; thus, so far all we heard from Leica regarding this issue is their reasons for not doing it. I assumed therefore their position is not doing it, as per the reasons they gave, at least for the moment; therefore, I assumed for the moment being their position is not doing it; therefore, I added a line of hope for their changing what seems to me, from what they gave us so far, their position - though not an official nor an unchangeable one... hence what I wrote. But all this is assumptions on my part from what little they gave us so far, and as you said we don't have an "official" position yet. Again, I hope they will consider this despite what they said so far about it.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hair splitting is because I can't say more than I said above. But photographers who want to see this feature shouldn't give up hope...or patience.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

:) oh well then, I take this as good news - until someone more in the know than myself (you or anyone else) will be able to disclose something more... thanks for the words of hope Sean.

 

Best,

 

Vieri

Link to post
Share on other sites

The members of this board are among Leica's most supportive, devoted and tolerant customers and Leica should be reading these posts if they're not. If they are, one of the things they should be taking away from this kind of thread is that their poor communications have created an incredible amount of ill will. As a small company, they may have personnel, supply and engineering problems that would not affect a company like Nikon; but they also have the opportunity to communicate competently and proactively with a relatively small customer base that, in terms of cost, is at the very high end of the camera market. Leica has done terribly on this score and their recent FAQ, full of denials and authoritarian posturing, doesn't help a bit.

 

I don't give a hoot about the "Leica tradition" (c.f. the New Yorker piece, which I found a wonderfully written, repulsive, fetishistic elaboration of this brand myth). I just want to take photographs with a transparently competent piece of equipment. This is the reason that the photographers cited in the New Yorker piece used the camera in the first place. Leicas were once cameras that performed simply and well and that could be easily serviced by a number of good people outside of Leica. This is no longer the case. I am using the M8 because I have no other choice at the moment and my long experience with the older, good film Leicas is too long-standing for me to learn photography in a different way (I've tried). As a result of my experience with contemporary Leica and the M8, and particularly Leica N.J., I would drop this camera in an instant if a competent company like Nikon offered an alternative. I have no "loyalty" to or particular interest in this brand and can't imagine why I should.

 

For photographers--not for equipment fondlers and collectors--Steven Lee is quoted with some ominous words in the New Yorker piece that I hope do not portend Leica's future development. Fortunately the M8 is a much better daily-use, photographer's camera than the Morgan is a daily-use car. But there's something apt in Lee's analogy. The M8 is also an unreliable, anachronistic, nostalgic, selectively-incompetent piece of equipment that falls far short, in many regards, of good modern technology, design and manufacturing practices. The image quality (without IR correction), the viewfinder accuracy, the shutter release mechanism, the total reliability and a number of other details (that add up) are all marginal. That covers a lot of ground for a camera.

 

On one of their biggest bungles, the IR problem, Leica should do whatever they can to remedy it. That means a lens selection menu. I don't give a hoot about their marketing strategies on this score, they have a responsibility to correct a problem they created, if unwittingly. If photographers--not lens collectors--think a menu sounds like too much trouble, they're using too many lenses. And they have the option to not use the menu.

 

Leica's real tradition, the tradition that gives the brand name commercial value, is about good, functional, daily-use, photographer's cameras. Here's hoping that Leica's future will not be about the mystique and nostalgia.

 

Walt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso

Walt have to honest here and here it is your trying to use a Zeiss or CV lens than that is your problem not leica's and the only thing they are responsible for is there own brand of lenses and they have leica's name on it. The only reason leica would give the code away is too leica lens users that can't code a lens either because of a screw or mechnical mount issue. Period. The only other possible reason and i really mean possible is becuase they are backlogged on coding lenses for folks but that process is in place at all there facilities. So the true reality is this it was and is intended for leica lenses only. What YOU as a third party lens holder can do is basically steal that code and plug your Zeiss and CV lens for it. leica does not even recoginize the word Zeiss and CV this is the legal part of this or Zeiss and CV could sue the pants off of leica if leica even breathed that you can use your Zeiss and CV. You have to look at leicas responsibily to there Leica lens buyers period. Weather it is good for them to have Zeiss and CV lenses compatible is completely irelevant. This has everything to do with Patents, Copyrights and legal issues. You have to understand this part or your completely barking up the wrong tree. Legally and morally there only responsible for Leica. Everyone keeps saying to do this and that is sitting on zeiss and CV, they can't cater to this user but they can to leica only users.

 

This is the legal part now take this a step further and here it is. You, not picking on you but Zeiss and Cv lens holders will (let's be real honest here ) steal a copyrighted firmware code and use it to your benefit ( pirating software here folks) to use on a leica branded camera so your lenses will match there system. Am i not correct here. let's forget all the marketting stuff that it would be good for leica and all that been discussed to death not the point i am making at all but looking at this from the legal end of it. leica cannot think or embrass zeiss or CV in any capacity from a patent, copyright or legal standpoint.

 

Reason i have said this several times already this is a top management call. The have a obligation in a moral sense to there leica lens buyers but they know full well that Zeiss and CV lens users will basically steal the code. be it a good thing overall does not matter , it is somewhat giving it away that could possible hurt there own lens sales. frankly you can't blame them there in business to make money. So what we have done yes all of us end users is jacked them up against a wall and said give it up.

 

This is a tough call to make for Leica no matter where you sit in this. i would like to see it but it can backfire on them too and where to you risk shareholder value.

 

 

Seriously we can piss and moan all about this but there is a lot more going on internally than just saying release it. This is politics and legal decisions . I hope they do it but we will have to see what they do ultimately on it

 

 

Just playing the little devil in the back room but needs to be known

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Leica's real tradition, the tradition that gives the brand name commercial value, is about good, functional, daily-use, photographer's cameras. Here's hoping that Leica's future will not be about the mystique and nostalgia.

 

Walt

 

Well said, Walt.

 

It's tough when your preference is for the sort of working method and ergonomics personified by the M and which reached it's zenith of refinement 40 years ago. Try and find a digital equivalent today that preserves all the important qualities of the film M. Nothing has come close until the M8. While 40 years ago a Leica user would be purchasing a top of the line mainstream pro camera from a company that made it's living providing working tools to photographers-today you are swimming against the NiCanon tide hoping a small company that has been living off collectors and nostalgia buffs for decades can get back to making working tools for photographers that blend innovative modern technology with the qualities that make the M attractive.

 

The M8 was a sort of safe first step that broke no new ground but at least managed to get a lot closer to the M experience then you will ever get with a DSLR. I can only hope that there will be not just retro digitals but real innovation in the future in the same spirit and vision that produced the M3 and on a different track then the Auto-SLR's of which there are already plenty.

 

I think this menu issue has as much symbolic value as practical. Is Leica now a company once again focused on the needs of photographers or is it still a 'luxury lifestyle company' protecting the exclusivity of it's small wealthy clientèles status objects. I'm rooting for Mr. Lee and company because they are the only game in town even thinking about producing these sorts of digital cameras.

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...