clayh Posted November 11, 2006 Share #21 Posted November 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just got queasy reading the Luminous Landscape link. Wow. They knew and suppressed public dissemination of the streaking and blob problem. Owhhh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 Hi clayh, Take a look here For those who feel “Leica should have known”. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
larry Posted November 11, 2006 Share #22 Posted November 11, 2006 I believe Michael Reichmann is also a victim in this because he clearly has a great deal of integrity -- this is a mistake he'll never repeat. Letting a manufacturer review what you've written about a product to ensure technically accuracy is perfectly OK. However, withholding unfavorable comments and observations at their request isn't. As an editor, I've allowed (tool) manufacturers to preview negative reviews with the understanding that the comments will stand unless they can provide overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 11, 2006 Share #23 Posted November 11, 2006 I caught Reichmann's review before the green blobs in his car park shots were pulled. They were actually the best examples of green blobs I've seen. It's unforgivable for Leica to have asked for the review to be modified because it compromises objectivity. Either pull the complete review or publish it in its entirety. Truth is, Reichmann has done us a disservice by allowing his review to be edited. (Edited FF, Moderator I'm sure you have alot of feeling about the issue but keep it on the issue and not the person) As for all this nonsense about the M8 being an infra-red camera. It's not intended to be, was never advertised as such and as we know, this capability is messing up its performance where it should be excelling. Next thing, we'll have a class action law suit because Leica has removed the camera's infra red capabilities. Hello? If any of you are banking on this being available long term, get over it. Just as the image quality is sub-standard by accident, the IR capability is there by accident too. The more I hear about this mess, the less happy I'm becoming. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share #24 Posted November 11, 2006 I am wrong. LuLa has shown that. I admit my error. I was misled by my trust and respect for Leica. I do think it's wrong to blame Michael Reichmann. His explanation is quite believable. He was undercut by believing Leica when they said "we're working on it and will have an answer soon." I mentioned previously that if they knew, they should have put an addendum in the instructions, on the CD, on the web site. But next time, he should be aware that no company's word is to be trusted. Leica knew. Everything I took as failure to know was management-planned coverup. I've carried the Leica banner high, but I've always said that when a believable case could be made that they knew, I would switch to that side. They knew. They covered up the information. They lied to us and to their sales force and they asked responsible testers to cover up as well. I can't say it is an unforgivable error, but only because nothing is unforgivable. This is a major fault and a major mistake. I was wrong to say that Leica was different from other companies. The responsible voices were overridden by idiots. I am becoming angrier and angrier as I write this and as I consider the conspiracy that duped us all. I hope part of the price of the M8 was allocated to building a legal fund to handle lawsuits against misrepresentation of the suitability of the product for use in photography. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted November 11, 2006 Share #25 Posted November 11, 2006 On the other hand, it is true (I think) that the M8 is still selling, and selling well, and that there are few complaints as a percentage of sales. People not on the forum will have to figure out all of these issues for themselves, which will take a long while, if ever. It was the critical mass of noticing the issues here that removed doubt as to where the fault lay, so Leica may confuse that with people not being upset at the issues. Still shipping = good news? If they benefit from the income and decide that not many people will actually send in the M8 for repair when repair is available, but want to be sure that they won't have to do it after selling 10's of thousands of the M8's, so are willing to move forward with a real fix. Still shipping=bad news If they decide that it isn't really a universal issue, people will never really find out and complain, and they can placate the whiners with a slapdash partial fix (e.g., filters) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 11, 2006 Share #26 Posted November 11, 2006 HC, we were all taken in by the LuLa review. What Reichmann should have done was to pull the complete review until the problems were fixed. A half-review of the good bits is not worth much. Instead, his rush to publish, to be first, coloured his judgement. How did Leica ever think the poor image quality would not get out? You wonder whether the engineers said "it's not ready to go yet" and were overridden by the marketing need to get to market. Remember the Challenger disaster when the Morton Thiokol engineers were overridden by an organisation not wanting to lose face? The parallels are obvious. At least disappointing image quality from the M8 is not going to cost people their lives. Their livelihoods, maybe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 11, 2006 Share #27 Posted November 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Steve, we in Europe see you Americans as an amazingly litigious lot - hot coffee from McDonalds, BMWs with repainted doors being sold as new and so on. I would have thought Leica were skating on incredibly thin ice if they go on selling the camera with known defects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted November 11, 2006 Share #28 Posted November 11, 2006 Mark- Yes, that is true, unfortunately, it is how disputes are resolved over here far too often. But part of the reason for it is that large corporations take advantage of (or suffer from) their size and keep doing things that seem in their short-term interest, asuming that they will somehow get away with it and pull a solution out of their "hat" before it gets to court. Or that the consumers will be dumb enough never to figure out what is happening. I continue to be optimistic that Leica will do the right thing, at least from this point forward, and I don't care if it is because they are honorable or because they know they've been caught and realize that they have to make it right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayh Posted November 11, 2006 Share #29 Posted November 11, 2006 This really will make an excellent business school case study someday. The egregious thing to me is how Leica seems to be taking advantage of the generous goodwilll its customers are willing to give it. I think Reichmann is rooting for Leica just like the rest of us, and when they asked him to redact part of his review and told him the problems would be fixed, he accepted it at face value. I think Leica may find that goodwill is rapidly leaking away at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryK Posted November 11, 2006 Share #30 Posted November 11, 2006 Yeah, legal action, forget it. The lawyers will get all the money and we'll get a $10 coupon off the purchase of a new Leica lens, three years down the road, if there is anybody around still selling new Leica lenses. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted November 11, 2006 Share #31 Posted November 11, 2006 I am stunned by the revelation of Reichman review being altered and the information of IR and WB being pulled from the review - at the request of Leica. This obviously makes Leica culpable and they need to take this seriously. I hope Leica will address this issue with dates for a permanent fix or a buy back policy if a real fix is impossible within a certain time frame. I am sure the M8.01 will have these fixes but when? Time marches on, I have paid good money for a highend camera and want to use it to its fullest capabilities now. I too worry about whether as a forum group we are a minority of M8 purchasers and are viewed by Leica as such. Perhaps a forum letter with all affected members attesting to the very real problems should be sent to Leica? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrgeoffrion Posted November 11, 2006 Share #32 Posted November 11, 2006 "my review did not mention the green blob / banding and purple response issues... The company subsequently requested that I hold off mentioning these latter items because they were looking into them and hoped to have a response in short order. I acquiesced to this request..." - Luminous-Landscape Well, I started photography with a Leica R3 and a 35mm Summicron, 60mm macro, and 90mm Summicron about thirty years ago and came back full circle with the DMR after owning the D1x, D2x, 1D Mark II, 1Ds, and 1Ds Mark II. I sold my M6s when I was told by Leica that there would never be a digital M as it was impossible to design. When the M was announced, I had high hopes to use it to replace one of my DMRs as it is much lighter and has precise focusing in low light. To replace some of the R gear, I purchase 11 M lenses (yes, I need them all for the way I work). I was the first "nut" to publicly admit to canceling my M8 order after I saw Pascal's image (I know how much trouble and headache it is to become an (unpaid) beta tester -- I've done it with the back focus issues of the D1x and the "lost image" problem of the 1Ds Mark II). Yes, I can use the lenses with a film M at the moment, but I only shoot digital for work. I'm rather disturbed that I have 11 lenses in my Pro Roller 1 that have no use to me. I'm even more disturbed at the fact that I feel misled. Anyone wants to buy 11 lenses? Better yet, some wants to buy me 11 IR filters? A very, very disturbed JR that feels very, very misled. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter L Posted November 11, 2006 Share #33 Posted November 11, 2006 I would agree with the above posters that the Leica "streaking, magent, green blob" saga is turning the release of the m8 in to a disaster, each and everyone of those M8s will have to send back via the store and the distributer to Solms, opened up and fixed ,whatever that fix is going to be.(UPS happy) I am reasonably sure that a fix will not consist of some download update. I wonder what this will do to the value or resale value of an M8. I started selling some of my equipment (some of my nice 2.8 Nikon lenses are now gone, thanks to Leica and 2 reviewers) in anticipation of purchasing an M8, I Was looking forward to shooting Leica once again, this time digital, that plan has to be on hold until the flaws of the M8 have been corrected, this not going to be resolved in a few weeks but rather months or more. All in all, I am totally disapointed in the behaviour of Leica, their engineers and designers must have known, no one works on a project for years doesn't know its weaknesses. The reviewers( one of whom was all over Erwins Puts's assessment) have a professional responsability to perform thoroughly(especially when the demand payment for their services) as the public basis their(in this case considerable} purchasing decision for some part on their published findings. I went to the Camera store yesterday and spent some time with a Canon 5D, nice camera. no ( obvious) flaws. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted November 11, 2006 Share #34 Posted November 11, 2006 I too worry about whether as a forum group we are a minority of M8 purchasers and are viewed by Leica as such. Perhaps a forum letter with all affected members attesting to the very real problems should be sent to Leica? I don't really see the point, Leica are aware of the issues and are attempting to correct them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryK Posted November 11, 2006 Share #35 Posted November 11, 2006 I just got queasy reading the Luminous Landscape link. Wow. They knew and suppressed public dissemination of the streaking and blob problem. Owhhh. Yeah, this is bad. (Edited FF, Moderator, You wouldn't want to be referred to in public this way Larry. Stay on topic) Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayh Posted November 11, 2006 Share #36 Posted November 11, 2006 Another thought occurred to me on my morning run. In hindsight, the insistence by Leica on an embargo of images from the camera until the final firmware was in place should have been a HUGE red flag. I mean this was three or four weeks before it was due to be released, and they were still wrestling with firmware issues. It reminds me of working for large companies in the 80's: Whenever management says "We have no plans at this time for any reduction in staffing", it means that it is not happening today, but will happen the next Friday. Careful parsing of Leica's statements asking that no raw files be released until the firmware was final should have given us the same hint that something was amiss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpbeer Posted November 11, 2006 Share #37 Posted November 11, 2006 The mere fact that LL published this information tells a lot about what is going on right now. Something amiss in Solms? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 11, 2006 Share #38 Posted November 11, 2006 Yeah, legal action, forget it. The lawyers will get all the money and we'll get a $10 coupon off the purchase of a new Leica lens, three years down the road, if there is anybody around still selling new Leica lenses. Larry I agree, I was involved with a Class Action against Avaya and there's something about Cisco in my in-tray but these things are not worth the hassle. What we want is for Leica to be straight with us and make the camera work as we expect. There's a good example closer to home, just down the road from Solms in Stuttgart where Daimler-Benz (as they were in those days) had to rescue the new A-class car (not sold in the US I think) after it rolled over while trying to avoid an imaginary Scandinavian Elk on the road. Same issues, customer perception, bad publicity, engineering lead solutions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 11, 2006 Share #39 Posted November 11, 2006 I wouldn't build up lawsuit fantasies, since the damages that could be claimed (e.g., the value of the first 1000 units shipped, now claimed to be worthless) wouldn't pay for the takeout meals that a good lawfirm would consume in preparing for the case. And I don't think that Leica, with about 600 employees, has the pocket depth to really attract vultures. Instead, this is a fine time to instill the spirit of truth and scrutiny in reviewers. scott BTW, I know that they knew. I don't have to ask my brother-in-law's cousin's hardressers' camera dealer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted November 11, 2006 Share #40 Posted November 11, 2006 Instead, this is a fine time to instill the spirit of truth and scrutiny in reviewers. Totally agree. i actually have steam blasting from both ears right now, after taking a look over at dpreview (yes - i KNOW i shouldn't go there!) and seeing the following statement: "Phil: Note that we have been working closely with Leica on this, obviously it made sense for us to delay our review until these issues have been resolved." This was apparently posted yesterday. "obviously it made sense for us to delay our review until these issues have been resolved"??? I assume this means until after enough people have clicked on the link under his 'preview' that says "Support this site, buy the Leica M8 from one of our international affiliate retailers".... Really unacceptable imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.