bill Posted September 1, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 1, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am sure that some people here are not guessing. But they are not posting much either. Nope. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Hi bill, Take a look here Leica would be stupid.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
markgay Posted September 1, 2009 Share #22 Posted September 1, 2009 Theo, there's an old saying in journalism - "If your grandmother tells you she loves you - check it out!" That being said, I am No. 1 on a list with my dealer for an "M9" That's brilliant Two decades ago I was luck enough to win a journalism scholarship to Iowa University! Yep, corn fed pigs and corn fed....! You get the idea. Anyhow, that quote, "If your mother says she loves you, check it out" was quoted at a reporters' workshop in Des Moines and I quote it to this day. It's amazing how many young reporters drop their jaws: Yuh don' say. It is something - along with the concepts of objectivity and the difference between logic and optimism - that newspapers would use as a selling point if their management had any idea. Regards, Mark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markowich Posted September 1, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 1, 2009 But, who would have guessed that Leica was delivering the M8 with a serious - easy to detect - IR-issue? Would anyone out there bet serious money on the M9 being full-frame, decent ISO 2000, and free of green light streaks etc? the easy to-detect-IR issue was missed by highly professional but unfortunately overenthusistic and extremely leica-accomodating reviewers -some of them even charging access fee for their reviews- and then detected by 'commoners' on this forum. that makes me already curious about the upcoming M9 reviews. will be fun. peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 1, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 1, 2009 Nope. Regards, Bill haha good one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted September 1, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 1, 2009 the easy to-detect-IR issue was missed by highly professional but unfortunately overenthusistic and extremely leica-accomodating reviewers -some of them even charging access fee for their reviews- and then detected by 'commoners' on this forum. Nice story but not quite true. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a commoner who detected it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 2, 2009 Share #26 Posted September 2, 2009 Leica would be stupid ... Wow, John! I'm glad you chose that word instead of "moronic." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 2, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 2, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nice story but not quite true. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a commoner who detected it Thank you Pascal. Not quite true at all but popularly repeated again and again. Many people seem to have no clue that the problem came up in a thread where you, I, RobSteve and some others were discussing a purplish appearing piece of clothing. It is true that myself, Tom Abrahamson, Ed Swartzreich and many others missed the IR problem at first but that, as you know, had nothing to do with protecting Leica, etc. Of course, this has all been discussed to death in the past but not everyone bothers to research before posting or they conveniently forget to tell most of the story. As you know, I ended up covering the IR problem (and various solutions) quite exhaustively long before most places had even published a review of the M8. My writing about the IR issue came just a few days after I published the review that dealt with file quality. That was long before most people had written anything at all about the M8. After you discovered it I brought your results and comments to Leica and then the company's explanations came, the free filters started, etc. It's too bad some people don't research more fully before repeating old saws. Of course it always seems to be the people who never read the actual reviews, never saw the IR comparisons with the 5D, the filter tests, the cyan drift tests, etc. Many photographers used the R-D1 for several years before realizing it was sensitive to IR. And some reviews done even a year after the M8 was released didn't mention a thing about the IR issue. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arthury Posted September 2, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 2, 2009 It is crytsal clear that M9 will be presented & shipped on September 9.[...] Presented on 09/09/09 but shipped on September 9, 2011 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 2, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted September 2, 2009 Thank you Pascal. Not quite true at all but popularly repeated again and again. Many people seem to have no clue that the problem came up in a thread where you, I, RobSteve and some others were discussing a purplish appearing piece of clothing. <snip> It's too bad some people don't research more fully before repeating old saws. Of course it always seems to be the people who never read the actual reviews, never saw the IR comparisons with the 5D, the filter tests, the cyan drift tests, etc. <snip> Sean I remember those conversations. I thought Pascal first had questions about streaks across the frames, followed by somebody who posted an orchestra wearing magenta tuxedos. Within a few days of the camera's release, I posted some pictures I took outside at night, in which I got "green blobs," and I thought I was doing something wrong -- so I posted the green blobs and asked the question, "What am I doing wrong, I get these green blobs?" The answer was, "OMG, where'd those come from?" I may be misremembering, but it seems to me that the whole explosion was over on the Rangefinder Forum, rather than here...but I could be wrong. I also remember all the screaming that followed, pointed not so much as Sean as at Michael Reichmann, that I thought was pretty unfair. Reichmann had noticed some problems, but hadn't reported them in his initial review, because he wanted to make sure he wasn't seeing a sample-related anomaly, and fairly quickly thereafter reported the whole thing, only to be accused of journalistic malfeasance by a group of snarky little assholes who'd probably never seen a Leica in their lives... Ah, those were the days, eh? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted September 2, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 2, 2009 ... the easy to-detect-IR issue was missed by highly professional but unfortunately overenthusistic and extremely leica-accomodating reviewers ... Peter--Remember, according to Michael and Sean at the time, Leica had asked that no comments be made regarding color, because they were still working on white balance. So even though the IR issue was easy to spot in retrospect, no one was looking for it. I wouldn't say the reviewers were "Leica-accommodating," just that their attention was elsewhere. IIRC, we all were annoyed at Pascal for getting the first camera and then--fer cryin' out loud--complaining about it 24 hours later. We've all got our own ideas of the sequence of events. I think Sean mis-remembers the timeline, but he has a right to; as he says, one could research the matter first. I think it was green blobs first--Michael later published textbook examples--then green stripes, and then the dawning of the era of blessed magenta, at which time Sean pointed to one of his firefighters already published, and pretty well shut up the crowd saying "why didn't you notice it?" by pointing out that we had all overlooked it. On this forum, the first hint of the IR problem that I recall came from someone who published a picture of the top of his R-D1, showing different colors for elements that all looked black to the eye. Pascal was first to find a problem (first with the camera after all), and all else cascaded from that. It's really amazing how quickly the problems surfaced and were reported and duplicated here, and how quickly Leica responded. There's no royalty; we're all commoners when it comes to digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted September 2, 2009 Share #31 Posted September 2, 2009 Some things in life are not so obvious... She loves me, she loves me not..... Is there a worm, centipede or baby rattle snake under that rock? You get the idea.. But this, a super obvious call to the date of "09.09.09" at 09:00 AM? Leica is having FUN with this, and they would not do that unless they knew we were going to have fun too. I am not posting here again until that day, it is just too insane here, I have photos to make, plans to make. So go to bed boys and girls, for Santa will not appear any sooner than that fateful day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted September 2, 2009 Share #32 Posted September 2, 2009 I was part of that extended conversation on LUF (didn't see whatever was on RFF) in 2006-7, and wrote up an analysis for my class on how this was a textbook example of just how hard it is to introduce a new product while mastering technologies that were not longstanding core competences of a company. Check it out here, (warning 25 MB powerpoint with pictures...). My examples do not include Sean's Brattleboro fireman with a purple hat, or Michael Reichman's green blobs in what looked like Deep Throat's parking garage, but there is a purple tuxedo hanging in a closet. Don't forget that some of the solutions, like Sharpie-coding, were user-generated. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 2, 2009 Share #33 Posted September 2, 2009 Peter--Remember, according to Michael and Sean at the time, Leica had asked that no comments be made regarding color, because they were still working on white balance. So even though the IR issue was easy to spot in retrospect, no one was looking for it. I wouldn't say the reviewers were "Leica-accommodating," just that their attention was elsewhere. IIRC, we all were annoyed at Pascal for getting the first camera and then--fer cryin' out loud--complaining about it 24 hours later. We've all got our own ideas of the sequence of events. I think Sean mis-remembers the timeline, but he has a right to; as he says, one could research the matter first. I think it was green blobs first--Michael later published textbook examples--then green stripes, and then the dawning of the era of blessed magenta, at which time Sean pointed to one of his firefighters already published, and pretty well shut up the crowd saying "why didn't you notice it?" by pointing out that we had all overlooked it. On this forum, the first hint of the IR problem that I recall came from someone who published a picture of the top of his R-D1, showing different colors for elements that all looked black to the eye. Pascal was first to find a problem (first with the camera after all), and all else cascaded from that. It's really amazing how quickly the problems surfaced and were reported and duplicated here, and how quickly Leica responded. There's no royalty; we're all commoners when it comes to digital. On cascading: remember the "beam me up"banding? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 2, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 2, 2009 P ...and then the dawning of the era of blessed magenta, at which time Sean pointed to one of his firefighters already published, and pretty well shut up the crowd saying "why didn't you notice it?" by pointing out that we had all overlooked it. On this forum, the first hint of the IR problem that I recall came from someone who published a picture of the top of his R-D1, showing different colors for elements that all looked black to the eye. Pascal was first to find a problem (first with the camera after all), and all else cascaded from that. It's really amazing how quickly the problems surfaced and were reported and duplicated here, and how quickly Leica responded. There's no royalty; we're all commoners when it comes to digital. It's true that several pictures I published in my first M8 review (that dealt with file quality) showed the IR color shift but neither I nor the thousands of people who read that review noticed weird colors at first. Part of the challenge is that we (or at least I) don't always remember what colors various strangers were wearing on a given day even if we photographed them. I think Tom, Ed and others who wrote about the camera early on might have had the same experience. Some may also recall that my vegetable examples didn't seem to have IR shift problems. In any case, there was no conspiracy and the pictures showing color shifts were published in plain view from the start. As primarily a BW photographer I also tend to notice various aspects of a picture more than color (a less kind way of saying this is that I must be color blind). Every problem with the M8 made its way into my reviews as they were published and all of the problems were being discussed there before most other reviews were published at all. To say that I gave a bit of attention to the IR problem and its solutions would be an understatement. If and when Leica produces a new camera model (at some point in the future) there's still going to be the possibility that thousands of photographers making thousands of different kinds of pictures may find something that any given review misses. And if that happens it still doesn't indicate any kind of conspiracy, hidden agenda, etc. Finding and helping with those problems is one of the constructive purposes of forums like this, of course. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidomo Posted September 2, 2009 Share #35 Posted September 2, 2009 SO, Sean, how is the M9 holding up? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.