chris_tribble Posted November 10, 2007 Share #121 Posted November 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Walt, I believe you, of course, and respect your perspective. It always surprises me to read about the shutter feel issues because I've used various examples of the M8 and have never had a problem with the shutter release feel of any of them. Is this, perhaps, something you might want adjusted? I do use a soft release and press the shutter with the first bend of my finger. Best, Sean Sean - agree with you here... I don't use soft release or anything else, but my two M8 bodies are fine - fully comparable in feel to my M6 TTL or M7 in fact. I get annoyed by the on-off function, thoroughly confused by the fact that there's no absolute stop on the shutter speed dial (WHY did they do it that way), but the shutter release itself's never been an issue for me. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 10, 2007 Posted November 10, 2007 Hi chris_tribble, Take a look here Contemplating Forgiveness--Why Do We Accept the M8?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Shootist Posted November 10, 2007 Share #122 Posted November 10, 2007 Some of the beta testers later said that they had mentioned the problem to Leica, who had requested that it not be published, to allow for time to fix it. This is all normal. The problem is that it wasn't fixed, and no filter deal was mentioned until later. Correct and IF the reviewers and or beta testers had made it public Leica could of and more then likely would of dealt with it prior to the release with the filter offer and the hardware fix. That would of negated the 30% off deal for early buyer which would of save Leica some money and if they had addressed the problems it would of saved them the PR nightmare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted November 10, 2007 Share #123 Posted November 10, 2007 O.K., I'll try a "soft release." How do I get a few? I haven't asked Leica to adjust anything because five cameras have been so similar that I have thought it a design problem. And, honestly, I can't imagine Leica accomplishing something like this competently. I have better reliability, communication and feelback from my bank and insurance company. The older film cameras could be serviced by good, independent mechanics and this is one of the real problems with the M8. Thanks, Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 10, 2007 Share #124 Posted November 10, 2007 Hi Walt, I used a soft release for years on my M2/3/6, but prefer the feel of the shutter on the M8 without one. If you want to try one PM me your snail mail address and I put one in the post for you to borrow, otherwise contact Tom at Rapidwider directly... RapidWinder.com Home Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted November 10, 2007 Share #125 Posted November 10, 2007 Hi Hank, I'm a bit sceptical about this. My personal opinion - and I have no facts to back this up <grin> - is that Leica were totally aware of the IR problem and hoped to get a hardware fix in place before the camera was launched. The management had committed the company to a release date, the fix wasn't forthcoming, and the rest is history. Well I always felt if I waited long enough we'd agree on something, but I admit I was beginning to give up hope Yes, if I were contemplating selling a $5-6000 camera I would start with the assumption that the majority of people who can afford it probably weren't born yesterday and aren't gullible idiots...not that Leica's strategy seems to have put a dent in sales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Walt Posted November 10, 2007 Share #126 Posted November 10, 2007 Steve, Thanks, I just ordered a few rather than have you send something from the U.K. Walt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 10, 2007 Share #127 Posted November 10, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) No problem Walt, if they don't suit your style you'll be able to sell them easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted November 10, 2007 Share #128 Posted November 10, 2007 Steve, Thanks, I just ordered a few rather than have you send something from the U.K. Walt With the soft release if you fire with the tip of your finger it will actually make things worse. But if you lay your finger over the release which is now raised quite a bit above the camera and has a broad surface I find it helps quite a bit. Maybe it's the mass of my finger over the broad area of the release. The feel is not as notchy - crunchy and I feel like I have more control. Not everyone has the same experience though and some hate it. The optical-mechanical bits of the M8 can be serviced by independent techs it's the software / electronics that you have to depend on Leica for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 10, 2007 Share #129 Posted November 10, 2007 {snipped}. You simply chose to emulate the stylistics of copy-writers to spin-doctor the facts to support a ludicrous assertion that Leica has done any of what they've done altruistically rather than clearly and absolutely in the interest of self-preservation. I never, ever said Leica did anything altruistically. That, indeed, would be ludicrous, since they're neither church nor charity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted November 10, 2007 Share #130 Posted November 10, 2007 I never, ever said Leica did anything altruistically. That, indeed, would be ludicrous, since they're neither church nor charity. It merely sounded like that, because it was written in Marketing-ese Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 10, 2007 Share #131 Posted November 10, 2007 I disagree; I don't think it sounded like it was written in your dreamt-up "Marketing-ese", Vinay, because if it had been it would have sounded more like the below (additions in red): given M8 buyers completely free filters for an instant improvement to the negligible IR problem that Leica has been working tirelessly on to bring a permanent solution to its loyal customers. Leica has given M8 buyers a fantastic opportunity to increase their lens range and caste iron investment through offering a heavily discounted deal on M lenses Without question given M8 buyers an immediate free recall to replace faulty parts and restore faith in the universally respected Leica marque and its superior design and build quality ... etc, etc Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 10, 2007 Share #132 Posted November 10, 2007 Correct and IF the reviewers and or beta testers had made it public Leica could of and more then likely would of dealt with it prior to the release with the filter offer and the hardware fix. That would of negated the 30% off deal for early buyer which would of save Leica some money and if they had addressed the problems it would of saved them the PR nightmare. I don't think that the technology to fix the problem in a way which would have made Leica happy (no compromise to optical quality), as well as us (no filters required), existed at that time. I believe that Leica's management looked at the problem, and simply had to realise that there was no good solution, and went ahead with the release, hoping for the best. In spite of the fact that I would love to shoot without filters and without IR problems (especially with the WATE, which is such a pain to use), I am happy that they did this. The company is doing well again, I am not bankrupt and neither are they, and the camera is very good in spite of its flaws. I do expect (I mean that in the imperative sense) them to get the M9 right, however! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted November 11, 2007 Share #133 Posted November 11, 2007 I disagree; I don't think it sounded like it was written in your dreamt-up "Marketing-ese", Vinay, because if it had been it would have sounded more like the below (additions in red): given M8 buyers completely free filters for an instant improvement to the negligible IR problem that Leica has been working tirelessly on to bring a permanent solution to its loyal customers. Leica has given M8 buyers a fantastic opportunity to increase their lens range and caste iron investment through offering a heavily discounted deal on M lenses Without question given M8 buyers an immediate free recall to replace faulty parts and restore faith in the universally respected Leica marque and its superior design and build quality ... etc, etc Pete. The hall-mark of Marketing-ese is that, if done right, the mind of the reader supplies the missing words to complete the subliminal message intended by the writer. Thanks eversomuch for proving my point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted November 11, 2007 Share #134 Posted November 11, 2007 I don't think that the technology to fix the problem in a way which would have made Leica happy (no compromise to optical quality), as well as us (no filters required), existed at that time. That might've been believable had Leica been up-front about the issue and proposed the IR filter "solution" from the outset. As it is, we can't--well, those of us who aren't so blinded by brand loyalty we're willing to suspend logic--discount the possibility that the technology exists but was not economical to institute as a retrofit. A stronger (note I do not use the word "thicker" because we're talking microns not millimetres) IR filter over the sensor is claimed to produce unwanted vignetting...yet so do lens filters, and yet that was rectified in firmware. My suspicion is that providing 2 free IR filters cost Leica far less than scrapping their entire order of sensors and buying new ones with stronger IR filters, plus replacing those on already-sold M8s under warranty. My suspicion is that the IR filter fix and the explanation/excuse for it come from bean-counters, not technicians--who are nonetheless compelled to recite the official line if questioned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted November 11, 2007 Share #135 Posted November 11, 2007 all your post sound like marketing-ese to me mr patel-because i get a wretched stomach ache when i read them-you're just shilling for customers aren't you??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted November 11, 2007 Share #136 Posted November 11, 2007 all your post sound like marketing-ese to me mr patel-because i get a wretched stomach ache when i read them-you're just shilling for customers aren't you??? You do realise that makes absolutely no sense at all, don't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted November 11, 2007 Share #137 Posted November 11, 2007 i don't actually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 11, 2007 Share #138 Posted November 11, 2007 The hall-mark of Marketing-ese is that, if done right, the mind of the reader supplies the missing words to complete the subliminal message intended by the writer. Thanks eversomuch for proving my point. Vinay, I believe that you've unwittingly proven my point rather than your own; you're making a point about subjectivity, ie what it sounded like to you. I told you that it didn't sound like that to me (my subjective view) and what it would have sounded like by adding my unskilled version of marketing script. Therefore by insisting that 'marketing-ese done right' requires the reader to insert his own subtext only goes to prove that your insinuation that Jamie was employing 'marketing-ese' is untenable because we already have three differing subjective interpretations. Whatever marketing message was supposed to have been subliminally attached has clearly been lost. Moreover, you've contradicted yourself. If, as you say, the skill in marketing-ese is to get the reader to supply "the missing words to complete the subliminal message" but you had to 'translate' Jamie's message then clearly Jamie could not have written his post in this marketing-ese otherwise the subliminal message would have been self-evident. May I respectfully suggest that you concentrate your undoubted skills on gastroenterology and leave marketing to those who know what they're talking about, which, before you ask, doesn't include me in their number. Rather than continually pouring scorn how about posting some images of yours so the members can also enjoy the fruits of your photographic prowess? Cordially, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 11, 2007 Share #139 Posted November 11, 2007 You do realise that makes absolutely no sense at all, don't you? Brad must've made some sense because I understood the jist of his post. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 11, 2007 Share #140 Posted November 11, 2007 My apologies to the OP for perpetuating the hijacking of this thread in order to redress erroneous comments. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.