Official Leica Statements

[franklinh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Sean for going the extra mile in getting us this advance or pre-release technical workaround for the reported problems. The Leica Camera User forum is the place not to b...... but to get the straight skinny on things. (Is that an Americanism? Does it translate to German?)

 

I would recommend that those of us so motivated should send Christian an email about the workaround, and mention that you have helped Leica tremendously in their launch of the product and ask them to tangibly recognize the value of that with you.

 

Franklin

 

P.S. Sean, I hope that you can hear and see that so many of us who appreciate the value of your contributions outnumber the few who get too crazy in their comments. Count your angels! Love ya!

[sean_reid]

There's no reason why Leica wouldn't respect the professional advice from a REAL lawyer, Sean. And Nick ... is a friend of Michael.

 

Huh? Sorry but you lost me completely.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[sdai]

Huh? Sorry but you lost me completely.

 

Sean ... I know for sure you haven't read Michael's M8 review - at least not carefully. Do a Ctrl+F and search for Nick Devlin.

 

I'm going to work now ... thanks a lot for the morning call, folks. :D

[ho_co]

As to Leica, reading the statement they gave to you, it seems they were aware of this problem from the start and simply made a choice along the way as they were engineering the camera.

Steven--

Forgive me if I'm overly harsh, but for the second time, I don't see anything that implies that Leica knew about the problem ahead of time. I believe Pascal told you the same after bringing his problems to Leica.

 

We are all confronted with the same issues with the M8. As I see it, not many of us on the forum think Leica was aware of the problems before the launch. That assumption simply doesn't follow from anything they have said. And even if it were true, saying so to the world won't improve the situation.

 

You are within all rights to say that these problems are abhorrent and will force you to reconsider, to sell your Leica gear, etc. But in my opinion, you should quit saying that Leica "must have known." If you know anything about Leica, you will know the camera would not be on the market if they had known.

 

Now Leica offers an interim solution. And you complain it isn't good enough. Gee, guy! They have a problem and are trying to fix it. You are complaining both about the problem and about the proposed interim fix. Again, you have every right to reject the workaround, but at least recognize that the company is working to solve the problem.

 

 

"Yes, say this to all the world. But to me, very softly say, she loves you not."

 

--HC

[sean_reid]

Sean, and good for you for finding a tool that works for you.

 

But I'm guessing that your bottom line won't be shared by enough people to give Leica a bottom line that will keep them afloat. And as we now know -- from the information you were able to bring to us -- there is no fix, just a fully thought through engineering decision that led to an almost great camera with a Leica badge that takes a filter to get almost good colors. And likely a future business school case study in exactly what not to do if you're a small legacy camera company trying to hold on in the high end digital market.

 

Very sad to see. Takes out what promised to be a real alternative to the way we are able to interact with our subjects using digital.

 

Best, Steven

 

Hi Steven,

 

Time will tell. I just really don't think this is quite as dark a situation as it may currently seem to some. There are some problems but Leica never said there were ultimately no fixes. Give them some time to see how the problems can be sorted out. I asked them for some answers as to what can be done in the near future and they told me. But that doesn't rule out what can happen ultimately.

 

Chin up methinks, this is not the first camera that needed some work at release time.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean ... I know for sure you haven't read Michael's M8 review - at least not carefully. Do a Ctrl+F and search for Nick Devlin.

 

I'm going to work now ... thanks a lot for the morning call, folks. :D

 

I proofed it for Michael actually. Is Nick the guy in the video? My memory is imperfect. How is that related to lawyers? I need sleep. Perhaps this post will be clearer in the AM.

 

Sean

[devils-advocate]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's no reason why Leica wouldn't respect the professional advice from a REAL lawyer, Sean. And Nick ... is a friend of Michael.

 

Guilty on both counts . I have no intention of litigating against Leica unless they start selling drugs in Canada. Hey, wait a minute......I bet we could call Guy to give moving victim-impact evidence!

 

I was just as impressed as Michael by the images his test M8 (now his personal M8, and yes, he paid for it just like us plebes) produced. I'm still going to buy one, too. I just think that Leica appears to have been playing a bit of a dangerous game, hoping that few enough people would notice or care about these issues to make them ISSUES before they quickly fixed them without missing their launch-date.

 

I predict that in a year these threads will be a memory, but they really shouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

 

G'night all. Hope the Leica-fairy visits you soon.

[sean_reid]

Thank you Sean for going the extra mile in getting us this advance or pre-release technical workaround for the reported problems. The Leica Camera User forum is the place not to b...... but to get the straight skinny on things. (Is that an Americanism? Does it translate to German?)

 

I would recommend that those of us so motivated should send Christian an email about the workaround, and mention that you have helped Leica tremendously in their launch of the product and ask them to tangibly recognize the value of that with you.

 

Franklin

 

P.S. Sean, I hope that you can hear and see that so many of us who appreciate the value of your contributions outnumber the few who get too crazy in their comments. Count your angels! Love ya!

 

 

Thanks Franklin. No worries, all seems cool on this thread for now. Christian deserves credit for getting the information requested from Germany and translating it to English for us Yanks and Brits. He's an asset to Leica and I mean that quite sincerely. We may not be happy with all of the news but at least he honored what I asked Leica to discuss. Many companies do nothing when they're asked to make statements or clarifications.

 

Cheers, really must go to sleep now

 

Sean

[roberth]

Magnum Photos - American Color, while many are dumping the camera it would seem that good work (even if highly saturated) can still be made with this camera. No I have not received an M8 and maybe I too would be a dumper if these issues affected my work.

Yours, concerned but not panicking.

Robert

[harmsr]

Sean,

 

Thanks for the comment. I really hope that Leica can fix the banding and ghosting issue also.

 

I sold all my film gear except for the M5. In addition, I have only kept the DLux3 and D200. My level of anticipation and expectation was sooooo high for the M8, thinking that I can finally rid myself of the HUGE DSLRs except for macro and long telephoto.

 

My first shot with the M8 was a series of my new M Roadster which is a silver gray. It showed a slight magenta cast to it, which I could reasonably remove in C1. The lighting was mid-morning in AZ with a clear sky. (35 Lux ASPH coded - 75 Cron ASPH uncoded)

 

I next tried several mixed lighting shots at in the late afternoon, around ASU. The auto WB did not even come close or stay consistent. (28 Cron ASPH coded)

 

That same area at night is a favorite for shots. (Old style gas lamps which are really electric for street lighting, lots of activity, bright lights from windows, headlights of cars passing, and neon from the bars ) Most of these shots were ISO 320, 640, & 1250. Many had the banding/streaking and a few had the green/purple ghost images. (28 Cron ASPH coded)

 

As much as I want to like the M8 (rangefinder shooting style and digital), I am struggling to have the patience to see what happens.

 

I can work around the WB issue, but want to see better firmware and believe this would be forthcoming quickly.

 

The magenta issue is really serious. I would use a filter for a temporary fix, if I new that Leica was developing a permanent solution that eliminated the filter.

 

I don't know how to work around the banding / streaking and ghost images issue except to use my M5/film or my D200. Neither one of those cameras, has the same issue in the shots which were messed up by the M8. I have taken the exact same shots with the other cameras previously that I took this weekend with the M8. My intent was to really see how much better the M8 file would be, however the result was not that.

 

Best,

 

Ray

[sdai]

.....I bet we could call Guy to give moving victim-impact evidence!

 

Guy actually threatened to launch a lawsuit against Leica in the 8-bit vs. 16-bit thread (if you've missed that one - truly classic ).

 

I'm out of the country for now but I guess we could bump into each other quite easily when I come back ... Exchange Tower, FCP ... or Szechuan Szechuan?

 

Cheers,

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I did not threaten a lawsuit , what i said is truth in advertising that can become a lawsuit or class action suit if you misinform the public with bad information. Now if you want a lawsuit for defamation of character than i can have that done also.

 

Not filing a freaking lawsuit , yea i have invested 70 k in leica gear and that is something i really want to do is cut my nose off. geez Simon get this stuff correct, that really sounded pretty stupid

 

Sounds like a yellow card to me.

[Guest stevenrk]

Steven--

Forgive me if I'm overly harsh, but for the second time, I don't see anything that implies that Leica knew about the problem ahead of time. I believe Pascal told you the same after bringing his problems to Leica.

 

We are all confronted with the same issues with the M8. As I see it, not many of us on the forum think Leica was aware of the problems before the launch. That assumption simply doesn't follow from anything they have said. And even if it were true, saying so to the world won't improve the situation.

 

You are within all rights to say that these problems are abhorrent and will force you to reconsider, to sell your Leica gear, etc. But in my opinion, you should quit saying that Leica "must have known." If you know anything about Leica, you will know the camera would not be on the market if they had known.

 

Now Leica offers an interim solution. And you complain it isn't good enough. Gee, guy! They have a problem and are trying to fix it. You are complaining both about the problem and about the proposed interim fix. Again, you have every right to reject the workaround, but at least recognize that the company is working to solve the problem.

 

 

"Yes, say this to all the world. But to me, very softly say, she loves you not."

 

--HC

 

HC, don't read it as harsh. I really wish I could read the following words differently, but the only erasonable way to read this is that there were choices that were made along the way that Leica recognized would result in certain outcomes and chose to accept those outcomes for the benefits they would bring.

 

Genuinely not someone who wants to find fault or search for blame. I just wanted a couple of M8s that delivered Leica color and R9 quality. It saddens me tremendously that we have found ourselves here.

 

Here's the statement that Sean got for us that I think can only be read as showing that Leica accepted the IR problem along the way to attain other benefits that they considered more significant. Whether they just didn't see that the trade off and filter fix would't fly, or hoped no one would notice, no idea and don't want to speculate. Here are the leica words I am referring to:

 

"The glass cover of the image sensor of the LEICA M8 is a combination of the IR barrier filter and a specially coated protective glass. The transmission in the red and infrared region of the spectrum can be controlled by the layer thickness of this filter. In the case of the Leica M8, which is a very compact system, the thickness of the filter, 0.5 mm has proved to be ideal. The short back focal length is the base for the compactness and the high quality of the standard and wide-angle lenses. However, the resulting oblique angle of the incident light on the sensor requires special adaptations of the filter.

 

Absence of color fringing / Image Resolution

The extremely thin layer of the filter, 0.5 mm prevents color fringing at the corners of an image. This phenomenon, which is also known as astigmatism and is frequently encountered with digital SLR cameras, is not a problem for the LEICA M8 because of the thin glass cover on the image sensor. This feature, plus the particularly high imaging quality of Leica M lenses, is the reason for the high corner-to-corner image resolution.

 

Rendering of black synthetic fibers

The elimination of color fringing and the improvement of image resolution results in higher IR sensitivity. This causes some synthetic textiles to appear an artificial-looking purple.

 

If the higher IR sensitivity has a disturbing effect in certain applications, e.g. fashion photography, LEICA Camera AG offers its customers a special IR barrier filter. This is screwed on in front of the lens and is an ideal combination of IR, UV and protection filter."

 

Forgive me if I seem a little harsh in return, but how could you not read this as meaning that Leica knew about it ahead of time and made the choice to accept the IR limitation in order to get the high corner-to-corner image resolution. And if so, it's fair to question why and why they didn't give people a heads up.

 

Steven

[Stuart Richardson]

I am also concerned about this, but not freaking out. I am a DMR user, and I am curious as to why a standard IR filter was deemed acceptable for the DMR, but not for the M8. Neither camera has an AA filter, but the DMR has always had great color. It had its own problems, but IR does not seem to be one of them. Anyway, I don't use filters on any of my lenses, and I use lenses from many different manufacturers and vintages, so I am not happy with this situation. Do I really need to buy 39mm, 40.5mm, 43mm, 46mm, 49mm, and 60mm UV/IR filters just to use all my lenses? Not to mention that my 21mm and 25mm Zeiss lenses will not work with coding. I would really prefer if Leica fixed this problem in the camera, or at least offered to place a stronger IR filter on the sensor for users who requested it.

 

While I know that it is still a great camera, these are serious issues that really need to be solved in the camera, not with accessories. If a fully IR blocking filter is good enough for the DMR, 1DsMkII, D2x, and most every medium format digital back on the market, then it is good enough for the M8. Filters are stiches sealing the wound, but eventually the problem has to be solved with an integrated solution.

 

Anyway, that's just my take. I am well down on the list for a preorder, so I might just hold off awhile until this issue is hashed out.

[Guest stnami]

.... now where is that Unreal lawyer when you need one to balance the real one.... some of you guys should lightenup it's only a camera.... I repeat for those that missed it slowly I T......... I S ........ O N L Y.......... A .......... C A M E R A

[Guest stevenrk]

I am also concerned about this, but not freaking out. I am a DMR user, and I am curious as to why a standard IR filter was deemed acceptable for the DMR, but not for the M8. Neither camera has an AA filter, but the DMR has always had great color. It had its own problems, but IR does not seem to be one of them. Anyway, I don't use filters on any of my lenses, and I use lenses from many different manufacturers and vintages, so I am not happy with this situation. Do I really need to buy 39mm, 40.5mm, 43mm, 46mm, 49mm, and 60mm UV/IR filters just to use all my lenses? Not to mention that my 21mm and 25mm Zeiss lenses will not work with coding. I would really prefer if Leica fixed this problem in the camera, or at least offered to place a stronger IR filter on the sensor for users who requested it.

 

While I know that it is still a great camera, these are serious issues that really need to be solved in the camera, not with accessories. If a fully IR blocking filter is good enough for the DMR, 1DsMkII, D2x, and most every medium format digital back on the market, then it is good enough for the M8. Filters are stiches sealing the wound, but eventually the problem has to be solved with an integrated solution.

 

Anyway, that's just my take. I am well down on the list for a preorder, so I might just hold off awhile until this issue is hashed out.

 

 

Stuart, thank you for that info. I had lost a sense of whether the R9 had an IR or not. From Leica's statement, it appears that the closeness of the rear of the lens to the sensor in the RF configuration does not give them the ability to include an IR filter without making significant compromises in other areas such as corner sharpness -- see statement sent to Sean and that I quoted above. Which is what is so discouraging since it appears that the limits of the form may not allow for a real solution. But as Sean I think said, chin up and lets see what they are able to do. I'm still hoping that we will soon have a digital M that both produces Leica quality color along with the wonderful micro detail, clarity and depth that the images already provide.

 

Best, Steven

[petermcwerner]

Forgive me if I'm overly harsh, but for the second time, I don't see anything that implies that Leica knew about the problem ahead of time

Howard, forgive me if I do not agree:

 

The filter is supplied as an accessory with a special firmware adjustment, which will be available shortly after the planned market launch of the camera at the end of November 2006. This wording suggests that this statement is [part of a document] written before the market launch started since now it is no longer "planned".

 

Sorry; I'm just very legalistic and literal-minded. I may be conditioned by my law studies.

 

Peter W.

[ho_co]

Howard, forgive me if I do not agree:

 

The filter is supplied as an accessory with a special firmware adjustment, which will be available shortly after the planned market launch of the camera at the end of November 2006. This wording suggests that this statement is [part of a document] written before the market launch started since now it is no longer "planned".

Understood, Peter, and a good take.

 

But this is a translation into English of a German original. As you say, the camera is on the market before its planned introduction date. This could just as well be read as "shortly after the originally planned market launch" etc. Not seeing the German original (or at least the date of the original) makes it impossible to judge which is more accurate.

 

That's the best reason for having Solms post their response on their web site. Christian is an excellent representative for the company, but his native language is not English; and many of Leica's announcements make complete sense in German but come across cockeyed in English.

 

You've given a good explanation of why you hold that point of view; I see the term as less clearly determined. And I take Pascal at his word that Leica was surprised when he addressed the issue with them.

 

Thanks for your response. You may indeed be right.

 

--HC

[Jamie Roberts]

I now it's not what anyone want to read... but the IR cut filter will solve the issue... I believe Adorama has the 60mm in stock: B + W 60mm UV/IR Blocking #486 Wide Angle Slim Mount Glass Filter for Blocking Ultra Violet and Infrared Radiation

 

Maybe we can do a group buy and get a big discount from B+W

 

JR--I just saw the "fixed" shots posted on the other thread with the appropriate filter, and the initial results look ok.

 

My worry about putting another peice of glass in front of the lens is that, especially shooting wide open, doesn't the filter actually increase the chance of ghosting and chromatic abberations?

 

I mean, it did with the Canon lenses, even with good UV filters (they weren't IR filters). I could regularly reproduce ghost images from from fast glass.

 

{edited because I re-read posts and saw "hotspot" issue}

 

I really respect your opinion, here, so any thoughts you've got are very welcome!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

how could you not read this as meaning that Leica knew about it ahead of time and made the choice to accept the IR limitation in order to get the high corner-to-corner image resolution. And if so, it's fair to question why and why they didn't give people a heads up.

Steven--

You are correct in the second part of your conclusion: IF Leica had this knowledge ahead of time, the information should have been available; perhaps an addendum to the instruction manual or a footnote in the brochure.

 

But the information Christian offered is presented as 'background' information before the suggestion of filtering is broached. You can see 'background' as acknowledgment of the need of a tradeoff. I see the term as an explanation much like Mark Norton's, viz, 'here are the parameters we are faced with.' This could simply be an after-the-fact recognition, trying to show the issues involved.

 

Thanks for explaining your take on the issue; it is certainly viable. Nonetheless, without more information, I don't think the information we have in the statement is enough to infer that Leica was aware of the problem ahead of time.

 

I'm sure my refusal to see what seems obvious to you is as annoying to you as your refusal to see that there is another possible interpretation is to me.

 

Sincere thanks for your time and effort in explaining your point of view.

 

--HC