tbarker13 Posted November 5, 2008 Share #341 Posted November 5, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Really, it's pretty sad when they have to draw a distinction between these two cameras by denying a firmware upgrade to one of them. I have to say it kills me when people talk about this notion that promises made by Lee should be discarded - now that he's left the company. That is utter rubbish. He made them when he was speaking for Leica. When he was being paid to run the company. His word was Leica's word - whether the company likes it or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 5, 2008 Posted November 5, 2008 Hi tbarker13, Take a look here Hot Air and Broken Promises. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
padraigm Posted November 5, 2008 Share #342 Posted November 5, 2008 Amen brother Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted November 6, 2008 Share #343 Posted November 6, 2008 Thank you, Manfred. You know who and where to write to... Yes, Mark, I know and I will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 6, 2008 Share #344 Posted November 6, 2008 I have to say it kills me when people talk about this notion that promises made by Lee should be discarded - now that he's left the company. That is utter rubbish. He made them when he was speaking for Leica. When he was being paid to run the company. His word was Leica's word - whether the company likes it or not. Sorry, that's not the point. It was, and is, marketing puff. All companies do it. Check the disclaimer on the corporate website. All companies do that too. They have to, to avoid the unreasonable attention of litigious ne'er-do-wells. If people truly believe that Leica has done them wrong, take them to court. Go on. Perhaps it would stop threads like this before they become even more "religious". Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted November 6, 2008 Share #345 Posted November 6, 2008 I'm sure you are absolutely right Bill. I cant take Leica to court, the only thing I can do is accept the situation. I have bought a lot of Leica stuff recently M8s and lenses. I'm going to lay off for a bit, enjoy my cameras, see how it all pans out over the next 3 or so years. I dont think I'll be jumping in early again. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 6, 2008 Share #346 Posted November 6, 2008 I'm sure you are absolutely right Bill. I cant take Leica to court, the only thing I can do is accept the situation. I have bought a lot of Leica stuff recently M8s and lenses. I'm going to lay off for a bit, enjoy my cameras, see how it all pans out over the next 3 or so years. I dont think I'll be jumping in early again. Jeff Jeff, that's the most sensible contribution to this thread for many a page. What's the saying? 1. Don't sweat the small stuff 2. It's all small stuff Enjoy what you have, for what it is. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted November 6, 2008 Share #347 Posted November 6, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sure you are absolutely right Bill.I cant take Leica to court, the only thing I can do is accept the situation......Jeff Jeff, that's the most sensible contribution to this thread for many a page.......Bill Bill - Your position is clear, as is Jeff's. Whether or not Jeff's being sensible or not in passively accepting what many here see as Leica's deception runs through the heart of this thread's disagreements. If this forum was passive on everything to do with Leica, I fear that many of the early issues with the M8 would not have been attended to by them, including the repeated calls for a 'discrete' rewind function. The 'discrete' rewind function is an integral asset of the new shutter being paid for by upgraders, stripping that asset out to penalise upgraders is to me a bigger deception being played on loyal customers than not honouring Lee era company pronouncements which at the time earned Leica kudos, goodwill, and our respect. This thread is calling Leica to account for it's policy of deception in a matter which is significant to the M8's functioning for many who work in a traditional 'M' environment requiring a quiet camera, the matter is trivial to you, and acceptible [it appears] to Jeff, but unacceptable to many of us. Dissatisfaction with Leica deceit needs to be heard; this thread is useful. ................... Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted November 6, 2008 Share #348 Posted November 6, 2008 The 'discrete' rewind function is an integral asset of the new shutter being paid for by upgraders Well, is it really? I haven’t seen anything in the way of a conclusive proof that the delayed recocking feature has anything to do with the new shutter. And neither have I seen any substantive evidence in favour of the assumption that this is all just a matter of firmware. Which it may very well be – it is not an entirely unplausible assumption after all –, but it might still turn out to be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 6, 2008 Share #349 Posted November 6, 2008 The 'discrete' rewind function is an integral asset of the new shutter being paid for by upgraders Is that function mentioned anywhere in the upgrade information? I still don't know why people who are so upset about this don't just sue Leica for "breach of promise", or something similar. There MUST be a lawyer in the house somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted November 6, 2008 Share #350 Posted November 6, 2008 There was a bit of irony in my post 345 which perhaps others did not notice. My way of dealing with Leica's decision is to not be caught again, put off my future purchases until I know how Leica will conduct business in the future. So no M8.2 now or ever and no rushing out and getting an M9 when the time comes. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DuquesneG Posted November 6, 2008 Share #351 Posted November 6, 2008 The 'discrete' rewind function is an integral asset of the new shutter being paid for by upgraders, stripping that asset out to penalise upgraders is to me a bigger deception being played on loyal customers than not honouring Lee era company pronouncements which at the time earned Leica kudos, goodwill, and our respect. This thread is calling Leica to account for it's policy of deception in a matter which is significant to the M8's functioning for many who work in a traditional 'M' environment requiring a quiet camera, the matter is trivial to you, and acceptible [it appears] to Jeff, but unacceptable to many of us. Dissatisfaction with Leica deceit needs to be heard; this thread is useful. ................... Chris Sensible, objective, well-put, and spot-on. No wonder hearing it disturbs so many people here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 6, 2008 Share #352 Posted November 6, 2008 Sensible, objective, well-put, and spot-on. No wonder hearing it disturbs so many people here. Or, emotive, biased and unrealistic. YMMV. I'm not criticising Chris, who I think makes a lot of sense, or his recent post. I'm just pointing out that this debate has run it's course. Nobody "wins", least of all those who feel aggrieved because they realise now that they based spending decisions on marketing. Jeff's point (or subtext) was well-made. There is a risk to being an early adopter - full stop. If you don't have the stomach for the risk, don't take it. If you feel that you have had your fingers burned, learn from the experience and don't do it again. This thread has gone beyond useful, at about the same time as it went beyond parody. There is a serious point to be made about Leica service, and about their management of workload and associated expectations, but that is a totally different issue. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 6, 2008 Author Share #353 Posted November 6, 2008 Well, is it really? I haven’t seen anything in the way of a conclusive proof that the delayed recocking feature has anything to do with the new shutter. And neither have I seen any substantive evidence in favour of the assumption that this is all just a matter of firmware. Which it may very well be – it is not an entirely unplausible assumption after all –, but it might still turn out to be wrong. A popular claim - that it might not just be firmware - which is wrong. But for the fact it would get deleted and I would get banned, I'd publish here the schematic of the shutter controller, the details of the 16 way interface to it and the logic timing diagrams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 6, 2008 Share #354 Posted November 6, 2008 So, sue them, Mark. Put your money where your mouth is Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 6, 2008 Share #355 Posted November 6, 2008 A popular claim - that it might not just be firmware - which is wrong. But for the fact it would get deleted and I would get banned, I'd publish here the schematic of the shutter controller, the details of the 16 way interface to it and the logic timing diagrams. So what we need is a firmware hack..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted November 6, 2008 Share #356 Posted November 6, 2008 Jaap seems to have the answer - if we don't have a lawyer on the forum, do we have a hacker? The position I have the most trouble understanding is Bill's. If some folks want to continue bringing what they think is ethically wrong to Leica's attention, so be it. But why in the world write over & over again that they're wasting their breath? Isn't that wasting one's breath2, i.e. squared? Kirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted November 6, 2008 Share #357 Posted November 6, 2008 The position I have the most trouble understanding is Bill's. I wouldn't worry about it, Kirk. I don't understand people who deny reality or fail to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions but I don't lose any sleep over it. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted November 6, 2008 Share #358 Posted November 6, 2008 Well, is it really? I haven’t seen anything in the way of a conclusive proof that the delayed recocking feature has anything to do with the new shutter. And neither have I seen any substantive evidence in favour of the assumption that this is all just a matter of firmware. Which it may very well be – it is not an entirely unplausible assumption after all –, but it might still turn out to be wrong. You are right that no one knows at this time whether it is all firmware or some hardware and firmware. But if it was all firmware It could be that even after you install the upgraded shutter the camera is still seen as a original M8 and if they implemented the delayed cocking it would work on original M8's without the shutter upgrade. the same firmware works for ALL version of the M8. The M8.2 has some type of pointers to let the firmware know it needs Just how many people would upgrade there shutter if they could have the delayed cocking with the original shutter. I think nearly none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
canlogic Posted November 6, 2008 Share #359 Posted November 6, 2008 I wouldn't worry about it, Kirk. I don't understand people who deny reality or fail to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions but I don't lose any sleep over it. Regards, Bill You don't own an M8 so your opinion has no value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 6, 2008 Share #360 Posted November 6, 2008 You don't own an M8 so your opinion has no value. :D Good one! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.