andym911 Posted November 11, 2006 Share #61 Posted November 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some very interesting statements in this thread and a lot of truth's. If Leica has any scruples left at all we will see some management dismissals within the next week. Consciously misleading a customer base is at the top of the 'never do's' for any company with sound ethics and business conduct principles. I for one will be watching closely and hoping that the remaining management learns from this escapade. I would not entertain continuing buying products from any company in the knowledge that the responsible management is still sitting smugly in their chairs. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 11, 2006 Posted November 11, 2006 Hi andym911, Take a look here For those who feel “Leica should have known”. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jrgeoffrion Posted November 11, 2006 Share #62 Posted November 11, 2006 Howard, do you have some way to find out who the responsible individuals are in this debacle? It doesn't matter who is responsible. What matters is who is accountable... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 11, 2006 Author Share #63 Posted November 11, 2006 Howard, do you have some way to find out who the responsible individuals are in this debacle? I sure hope that once the cameras get sorted out, there will be a little cleanup in the ranks. Carsten-- No. I know and respect a number of people in the company, but it's none of my business who is responsible. I don't want to second-guess. Whether management 'just didn't think it was that big a deal' or 'pushed to ship regardless' doesn't make any difference. Either way, they goofed. On the other hand, I don't have the camera. Maybe if I did, I would figure that it really isn't that big a deal. As others have said, suddenly the cameras started arriving while Leica was still saying 'end of November.' I can't imagine how that could happen since they clearly had knowledge of at least some of the problems and could have delayed two or three weeks. And about adjusting the ranks: That may or may not be a good idea. Maybe this was the first major decision of a manager who has now realized that he made a mistake. It wouldn't do any good to replace someone who's just learned the importance of trust for this company. But they definitely do need to straighten out their problems. And to try to restore our trust as you said. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 11, 2006 Share #64 Posted November 11, 2006 Just to be clear about this--even though you did not seem to misunderstand--I was not asking you to post any names. However, I do think that whoever pushed this camera out into the channels--early even--before it was ready, *knowing* that there were problems, and either knowing how serious, or not knowing enough, needs to go. This was my first new-purchase of a Leica item. I already own 5 second-hand R lenses, but this was my dive in. Yes, I knew that it was a new product. Yes, I knew that there are sometimes problems. Yes, I was prepared for some time sorting things out. However, had I known that there would be this magnitude of problems, I would have waited. I love the little beast, and I may yet keep it, but I feel very unhappy about what is going on. What was meant to be a huge present to myself ended up causing me a lot of grief and worrying. There are many people, like myself, who will probably never again be first in line to buy another Leica product. Soiling the name to such an extent of a company which has built up a solid reputation of excellence through decades and decades (with the occasional blunder, but nothing of this magnitude) is simply unacceptable. Maybe after another night's sleep I will feel differently, but this is how I feel today. -- On a sidenote about the reviews and the responsibility of reviews, I don't feel angry at Michael Reichmann, Sean Reid, or Phil Askey, or anyone else. Clearly, it is normal and reasonable for a camera company to ask reviewers not to comment on image quality. Clearly, a reviewer who is asked to remove references should do so. I also think that Leica was correct to ask for this. All very reasonable. However, two things did go wrong. First of all, when you take the criticism out of the reviews, they end up unqualified positive, which is wrong. A note of some kind should have been inserted, something like "The test camera had some image quality problems which I expect Leica will fix for the final version. I will test this when possible, and report back." This would have been enough warning to those who look for such things. Secondly, Leica asked bad comments to be removed, but then did not fix the camera. I cannot emphasise enough how wrong that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierovitch Posted November 12, 2006 Share #65 Posted November 12, 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. The legal situation may be very complex behind the scenes, with component suppliers being involved. I have had a sensor replaced by Fuji and a battery replaced by Sony this year paid for by Sony. It is a miracle that such a small chip production run was made for Leica. The destruction of a small company like Leica by lawyers would be very sad. If it goes down this path. It would be ironic if the disgruntled may in retrospect have in their possession a very limited edition of the last Leica ever produced. Cheers Pierre Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted November 12, 2006 Author Share #66 Posted November 12, 2006 Just to be clear about this--even though you did not seem to misunderstand--I was not asking you to post any names. However, I do think that whoever pushed this camera out into the channels--early even--before it was ready, *knowing* that there were problems, and either knowing how serious, or not knowing enough, needs to go. Carsten--I didn't think you wanted names posted, don't worry. But I don't think it's that easy to say that someone should be out for doing this. You can't tell all 16-year-olds, "Okay, you damaged the car. You won't drive again till you reach majority." As far as Leica goes, the camera seems still to be selling. It may be a couple months before they can start to see how much this stupidity is going to cost them. It's up to them to decide, not us. To put it directly: They have new management. The previous management didn't do that good a job. If this was the first decision passed down by the new boss, then he must learn from the error. But please, let's not go back to the previous style as we hunt for perfection. ... However, two things did go wrong. First of all, when you take the criticism out of the reviews, they end up unqualified positive, which is wrong. A note of some kind should have been inserted, something like "The test camera had some image quality problems which I expect Leica will fix for the final version. I will test this when possible, and report back." This would have been enough warning to those who look for such things. Secondly, Leica asked bad comments to be removed, but then did not fix the camera. I cannot emphasise enough how wrong that is. I agree completely, but we don't know details. Maybe Leica figured the problem would be fixed before the camera shipped, but some middle manager released the M8 mistakenly a month early. It could be a simple matter of typing '10' instead of '11' in the 'month' field. You can't fire someone for that, though you could consider firing his assistant if he didn't ask if this date was correct. I'm not excusing anyone, just saying that I don't know. I take Reichmann's clarification as an apology. He and we all expected more of Leica. Leica told him the problems would be fixed before the camera was released; he said "Okay," and went out and bought. And he found out with us that Leica didn't do what they had promised. To me this is all speculation. It raises interesting points, but the only thing I think is important is that Leica get on this. We still have three weeks before we get to the announced ship date. A lot can happen in three weeks--just look at what happened in the past one! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted November 12, 2006 Share #67 Posted November 12, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) If these review sites have no power or influence.. then why do the manufacturers give them cameras to review? Because they have the internet photography communities eating out of their hands. One even charges for his "expertise". Maybe if the internet community did not laud them as supremely qualified camera review gods, then Leica would not use them as the promotional propaganda that they have. They all got caught, all of the reviewers got NAILED, and Leica made a huge mistake in trying to get this camera out by some stupid deadline. Leica users are a patient bunch, it takes patience and talent to use a REAL Leica or a REAL camera for that matter. What a wonderful PR move it would have been if Leica would have came right out and said that even though the camera has been officially introduced, it has bugs and is not up to the standards of Leica. I can assure you that almost 99% of those who had pre-ordered it would be very happy and proud of Leica for coming that clean, they would have gladly waited. Instead, fueled by one of the most hype filled crafts on the internet, digital photography had placed Leica in the awkward position of trying to compete with every other crappy digital camera out there so they had no choice but to try to adapt. I think every photographer, camera maker, computer maker and photographic trade media ought to be awfully ashamed at what the new digital age has ushered in. In terms of overall appeal and impact, I don't think the photos have gotten *that* much better since digital. The industry, the attitudes and the quality and complexity of the cameras have gotten much worse however. We all ought to be ashamed of what digital has done to this craft... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sievers Posted November 12, 2006 Share #68 Posted November 12, 2006 Wow -- if true, that's very damning! Larry This is a complete corporate nightmare if true. This company is not flush with cash. The M8 is the big hit it needs to survive in the digital market. People who spend 5,000 for cameras are not idiots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 12, 2006 Share #69 Posted November 12, 2006 I am more and mose mystified about the camera being shipped early. Just a week before I got mine, I was on the phone asking for an update.Leica UK's position was that there would be "very limited" numbers of cameras in December and they could not be at all certain I would get one before Christmas. A week later, a call from my dealer. Does make you think there was a breakdown in communications somewhere or else someone made a decision to ship without understanding the implications. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whorg Posted November 12, 2006 Share #70 Posted November 12, 2006 Because they have the internet photography communities eating out of their hands. One even charges for his "expertise". Maybe if the internet community did not laud them as supremely qualified camera review gods, then Leica would not use them as the promotional propaganda that they have. They all got caught, all of the reviewers got NAILED, and Leica made a huge mistake in trying to get this camera out by some stupid deadline. Leica users are a patient bunch, it takes patience and talent to use a REAL Leica or a REAL camera for that matter. What a wonderful PR move it would have been if Leica would have came right out and said that even though the camera has been officially introduced, it has bugs and is not up to the standards of Leica. I can assure you that almost 99% of those who had pre-ordered it would be very happy and proud of Leica for coming that clean, they would have gladly waited. Instead, fueled by one of the most hype filled crafts on the internet, digital photography had placed Leica in the awkward position of trying to compete with every other crappy digital camera out there so they had no choice but to try to adapt. I think every photographer, camera maker, computer maker and photographic trade media ought to be awfully ashamed at what the new digital age has ushered in. In terms of overall appeal and impact, I don't think the photos have gotten *that* much better since digital. The industry, the attitudes and the quality and complexity of the cameras have gotten much worse however. We all ought to be ashamed of what digital has done to this craft... LOL, that's funny ! ! ! This company must be desparate, it's certainly showing. Scary stuff for sure . . . We can all blame their demise on digital technology ! ! ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted November 12, 2006 Share #71 Posted November 12, 2006 -----My point is that even with the 7000 or so members of this Forum it took us several days to uncover the problems of these babies, and that was with general knowledge and experience being made readily available. The *last* thing we discovered was actually the most devastating problem, the effects of excessive IR sensitivity. Given the constraints they were under, it would have been a matter of sheer luck for the testers to have noticed the flaws and relaid the information to Leica. Thus, in my opinion, it is almost inconceivable that Leica could have known about the issues before bringing the camera to market. Now it has been out for just over a week, and Leica has acknowledged the problems and is working on them. --HC Hi -- I have a large booklet from B+W, the filter division of Schneider Kreuznach, published in 2003 (I think -- it's not dated). There the manufacturers say about the digital UV-IR-Blocking filter 486: "It is used mainly on digital and video cameras with CCD sensors without an integrated IR protection filter, because the IR sensitivity of the CCD sensor would otherwise cause color changes and unsharpness." So, the problem has been known for quite a long time (remember, B+W had to identify the market need and develop the product before they started marketing it). So it is really inconceivable that Leica did not know about it. --Still they decided to design and manufacture and market the M8 with this known devastating defect. They decided on this desperate gamble, I think, because they were actually desperate. I do strongly suspect that a sensor with adequate IR protection simply cannot be made; thus the pathetic claim that a lens filter will be the permanent fix. As we know, interference-type IR filters are angle-dependent, i.e. a sensor filter won't work well in the corners, just as a lens filter will not work satisfactorily with strong wide angle lenses. --In other words, there will not be a satisfactory digital M camera. Not until some really new technology comes up. This is of course the end of the M8, because in a few days Leica Camera will find that they have an unsaleable product. No state of denial will change that. So, I suspect that his is the end of the line for the M system too, and probably also for Leica as a camera manufacturer. --Me, I will fall back on my analog cameras, and hope that film will be available for the rest of my lifetime (I'm 70). What a pity, beacuse the M8 was so immensely promising. But I will NOT take up Japanese plastic at my age. The depressed old man from the Age of Flashpowder Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted November 12, 2006 Share #72 Posted November 12, 2006 it is normal and reasonable for a camera company to ask reviewers not to comment on image quality. Clearly, a reviewer who is asked to remove references should do so. What?? Then what is a review for? I can find out where the buttons are and what kind of memory card a camera takes by reading the manufacturer's specs or playing with a sample in a store. The handling in extended use and the picture quality are the ONLY things I find valuable in a review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivek Iyer Posted November 12, 2006 Share #73 Posted November 12, 2006 What?? Then what is a review for? I can find out where the buttons are and what kind of memory card a camera takes by reading the manufacturer's specs or playing with a sample in a store. The handling in extended use and the picture quality are the ONLY things I find valuable in a review. Geez, Bob. I thought if you are going to spend >$5,000 on a 10mp digital camera in 2006 you needed to be shown where the shutter button is! Have you figured out where the advance lever is or the rewind crank is, yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 12, 2006 Share #74 Posted November 12, 2006 Gents lets be clear. Leica made a conscious decision to ship a half ready product.The quick but permanent fixes were already in the bottom drawer for the magenta casting (I/R filter) should the minority complain, (the majority only shoot flowers, kids,girlfriends,gardens etc. and would not even notice). The cost of a few filters free to those who really push hard, compared with potential lost months of Xmas and end of fiscal year revenue, pails into insignificance especially considering that the majority will eventually anyway purchase those filters at at least 150% gross margin for Leica. The real extent of the banding came as a surprise, I genuinely believe the product was only Alpha tested in this area, but anyway only the Pro's and a few hard core enthusiasts will actually send the camera back for the required hardware change. Bottom line is that it is a planned and weighed up decision to ship the M8 as is and handle the damage as it comes.Any other explanation is simply inconceivable. Business is business...even at Leica Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 12, 2006 Share #75 Posted November 12, 2006 i dont think they knew i dont think they had any idea of the issues otherwise why would they now be in damage control and working on a fix for the camera they concentrated on making it as opticaly good as could be and in all likelyhood left the digital side to kodak Leica has traditionaly used 'other' manufacturers to develop their digital needs yes? they trusted kodak and got burned, its that simple i say this because another manufacturer was pushed to make changes to its camera an online request was made with 1,000's of signatures from loyal panasonic fans this to make an elementry fix to an otherwise worthwhile camera they did nothing, they said nothing which by default says, this is the camera, if you like it buy it, if not get lost if Leica had the evil intent some propose thats exactly what they would have done Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted November 12, 2006 Share #76 Posted November 12, 2006 Riley, whilst I admire your loyalty the facts speak a different story. At least one reviewer (LL) has admitted to not disclosing the M8 issues in their camera review at the request of Leica. andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 12, 2006 Share #77 Posted November 12, 2006 it is normal and reasonable for a camera company to ask reviewers not to comment on image quality. Clearly, a reviewer who is asked to remove references should do so. What?? Then what is a review for? I can find out where the buttons are and what kind of memory card a camera takes by reading the manufacturer's specs or playing with a sample in a store. The handling in extended use and the picture quality are the ONLY things I find valuable in a review. I am speaking only of previews here. I think that Phil Askey has the right idea about previews. Comment on anything and everything you can, but leave the conclusion out. Add that when the final camera comes out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.