scott kirkpatrick Posted September 12, 2009 Share #41 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm sitting with my coffee, seven to ten hours ahead of you guys, not having seen the French/Puts broadside buried deep under the TOP Veblen verbiage, and (sigh) at least two weeks away from having my own M9 in my hands. This thread is a great way to start the morning. I thought that there was pretty full disclosure of the details of the junket which the "American-British delegation" enjoyed (of which Mr. Puts was so envious). But he's got an M9 and I haven't, so what is he bitching about? The news that the M8's special IR qualities were discovered in Vancouver by folks who congratulated Stefan Daniel on this accomplishment is absolutely delightful. I can see why Leica absorbed that input at that time without comment. There's plenty still to be learned. Raw file development quality is still all over the map. Lenses which we loved on the M8 don't all work the same on the M9. And there are mysteries in the speed with which the M9 writes to different types of SDHC cards. With 38MB images, we're going to need more SDHC cards, So everybody, get some sleep. I'm off to read Sean's ISO paragraphs. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Hi scott kirkpatrick, Take a look here The Sour Grapes Duo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
blakley Posted September 12, 2009 Share #42 Posted September 12, 2009 So I'm confused about what Howard French's real point could be here... If he hasn't read Sean's review, he can't object to its content, so he must be objecting simply to the fact that Sean was given a camera to review. But what, really, is the alternative? Sean, David, Jono, Phil, and Michael are people to whom potential Leica buyers look for information (So is Erwin, so at some level I understand why he would be annoyed at not being given a review sample when others are). I'd bet that no one on this forum would seek out an M9 review by Howard French, or care much about it if they happened across it. Saying that Leica shouldn't have provided review copies to the people they did is like saying a movie studio shouldn't pre-screen a movie for Roger Ebert; even if you don't like Ebert, and even if you think he's in the bag for the studio, the studio would clearly be insane not to offer him a screening, and complaining about this is just silly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
odyocu Posted September 12, 2009 Share #43 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, Thanks a lot for your message. I have been able to read Erwin's comments. On the other hand I can't see yours. I have no intention to subscribe to your site either. I have tried my best to reach your articles, but I couldn't. If that is my fault please accept my apologies. But: In this open forum area, I think you need to post your comments here openly too. Not addressing or referring a paid website, as if a teaser for subscription. Howard French and Erwin Puts pontificate on articles that, it seems, they've never read. See the featured comments here: The Online Photographer: Leica M9 Links I've long had trouble taking Mr. Puts seriously but he just dropped another notch. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted September 12, 2009 Share #44 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, Thanks a lot for your message. I have been able to read Erwin's comments. On the other hand I can't see yours. I have no intention to subscribe to your site either. I have tried my best to reach your articles, but I couldn't. If that is my fault please accept my apologies. But: In this open forum area, I think you need to post your comments here openly too. Not addressing or referring a paid website, as if a teaser for subscription. Sean doesn't have to give his work away for free here or anywhere, and the fact that he charges for access to his work does not make it OK for others to criticize his work without having read it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfokevin Posted September 12, 2009 Share #45 Posted September 12, 2009 Could it be the sour grapes are from not being one of the select few who were treated to a visit to the Bavarian Clean Room for a preliminary play with the new uber-camera?... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #46 Posted September 12, 2009 Then read Howard's comments. Maybe not slander for Erwin but sour grapes for sure. I don't find much to disagree with in what Howard says. There were problems with the earliest M8s that weren't picked out by the reviews - and I'm not singling you out here, none of the reviews that I read at the time mentioned them, and I think it was Pascal here who first showed some of them a few hours after receiving his camera. Of course Leica are going to give cameras to people they feel they can 'trust'. That's both a strength in that such people are going to be 'friendly' to the company, and a weakness as they can be accused of cronyism. Howard emphasises the latter. Maybe Erwin _is_ now piqued at no longer being the first choice of Leica when it comes to receiving equipment for review, but I have no idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #47 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) On the topic of reviewers - isn't this the way it is? Press junkets exist in every industry. It's up to the individual to test their ethics when it comes to being wined and dined. Some fail and some rise above. We are only human. Maybe it would be better if people writing about such trips mention upfront if they were paid for by the manufacturer - I'm not just talking about the Leica trip here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 12, 2009 Share #48 Posted September 12, 2009 If he hasn't read Sean's review, he can't object to its content, so he must be objecting simply to the fact that Sean was given a camera to review He isn't referring to the M9 other than saying that Leica chose the reviewers carefully to get good reports, he's talking about issues that the M8 had that weren't reported in its initial reviews. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted September 12, 2009 Share #49 Posted September 12, 2009 I've never read any of Sean's reviews before, and so cannot comment on them specifically, other than to say they appear to be highly regarded by many on these forums. However, I thought many of the reviews I had read were a little misleading and overly positive. The only review that appeared to match my own experiences of using the M8 was Michael Kamber's review, but he was practically crucified by the Leica community for having 'missed the point'. I subsequently went back to using my MP, but I am hoping the M9 will be the camera we're all hoping it could be, and should be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted September 12, 2009 Share #50 Posted September 12, 2009 Could it be the sour grapes are from not being one of the select few who were treated to a visit to the Bavarian Clean Room for a preliminary play with the new uber-camera?... Hessian, actually. Though that must make it harder to keep dust-free. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 12, 2009 Share #51 Posted September 12, 2009 This debate is very interesting, which is all about the standard and method of reviewing. I think it will be helpful if we can agree to or develop a standard format for reviewing, which will separate subjective opinions from facts [backed up with evidences] [as a newspaper maintains "comment is free, but facts are sacred"] Sean (and others), (i) which objective parameters (of a camera and a lens) and their performance should a reviewer first look at/study ? (ii) When would subjective interpretation of those parameters come into being? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted September 12, 2009 Share #52 Posted September 12, 2009 While all the who-is-annoyed-with-who part of this is very entertaining, what I'd like to know is, what were Leica thinking? The M9 could be a huge winner for them, but consider: 1. The lead reviewers are all the same folks that, whatever you believe the rights and wrongs of the situation to be, many people think got their initial M8 reviews wrong. 2. The reviewers haven't had much time with the camera - if I understand Sean correctly, he's had only three weeks with it, and for someone that's also a full-time professional photographer, that not enough to do a review that will answer all the questions. So it was entirely predictable that what's now on TOP would appear somewhere. Although a combination of TOP plus "a former Senior Editor of The New York Times who is now an Associate Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism" plus the doyen of Leica writing is probably beyond anyone's worst nightmares(!) But why wasn't the circle of reviewers widened beyond "the usual suspects", and why weren't the reviewers given enough time to do complete reviews? Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted September 12, 2009 Share #53 Posted September 12, 2009 who cares about howard? professor? so uninteresting......... the reviewers who were invited, know how to handle M. Famous reviewers for any kind of camera. (except dealer ) mostly other colleagues in the world are hooked up with DSLR hype unfortunately so Howark as clueless, wrongly assumed with his realistic fantasies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted September 12, 2009 Share #54 Posted September 12, 2009 My read on it is that the use of the words 'sour grapes' is strictly accurate. If the complaint is that Leica entrusted previews of the M9 to individuals known to use, like and be generally sympathetic towards Leica-style photography, then what is the complainant proposing instead? That Leica exclusively showed off the new baby to those who neither understand nor like rangefinders? Hardly a believable suggestion that any business could take seriously. No, it must be jealousy. Unfortunately, this will lead Mr Puts into the necessity of reducing his cognitive dissonance by making his remarks on the M9 less enthusiastic than they might have been. Sean, don't waste any mental effort on this. After all, such comments being aimed at you are actually recognitions of your standing, and thus back-handed compliments! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted September 12, 2009 Share #55 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, Is it your position that Howard French's comments are out of line? Would there be any circumstances where a product manufacturer arranges a junket for reviewers or hand picks reviewers that you would find inappropriate? At the very least, the circumstances French complains of invite his sort of complaint. Didn't you have to defend yourself after the M8 launch against claims that you covered up issues that Leica told you would be dealt with? Steve That was MR at Luminous Landscape. Here's the review here he confesses. "November, 11, 2006 A Clarification There was an image quality problem discovered by early Leica M8 owners which is now being extensively discussed on net forums. On a personal level this has reflected badly on me because, though I did mention in my review that the camera suffered from poor low light auto white balance, and had excessive infrared sensitivity, my review did not mention the green blob / banding and purple response issues. Well – it did. I discovered these during my initial testing and put them in my review. I then sent my draft review to Leica, as I always do with manufacturers, for their comments. 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, not wanting to delay my review, and expecting that I would be able to publish a follow-up quickly that not only mentioned these problems but also their potential solution. This did not happen. Instead, after the problems because obvious to new users and were being discussed openly on net forums, Leica eventually published a statement, which was issued to some other web sites, but not to this one. At least one such site thus was able to claim credit for waiting to publish their review "while Leica worked closely" with them to resolve it. How nice for them. And me? Well, in some circles my name is mud because I apparently failed to mention these obvious problems in my review. Now you know why. Should I have held off with my review until this issue was resolved? Should I have gone ahead and published it as originally written, even though the company had requested that I hold off on these topics? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is Monday morning quarterbacking. But, in the end I would do what I did again, simply because I felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay. And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #56 Posted September 12, 2009 Could it be the sour grapes are from not being one of the select few who were treated to a visit to the Bavarian Clean Room for a preliminary play with the new uber-camera?... That's my point in the title so yes that seems to be the case. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #57 Posted September 12, 2009 He isn't referring to the M9 other than saying that Leica chose the reviewers carefully to get good reports, he's talking about issues that the M8 had that weren't reported in its initial reviews. Steve, He doesn't paraphrase that history correctly either. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #58 Posted September 12, 2009 While all the who-is-annoyed-with-who part of this is very entertaining, what I'd like to know is, what were Leica thinking? The M9 could be a huge winner for them, but consider: 1. The lead reviewers are all the same folks that, whatever you believe the rights and wrongs of the situation to be, many people think got their initial M8 reviews wrong. Sandy, Do you believe my initial reviews of the M8 were wrong? Who are these "many people"? Other than the fact that IR sensitivity initially was missed by me (though certainly illustrated) what exactly was wrong in those reviews? By the time I had published on the IR issue, solutions, filters, cyan drift, etc. - exactly how many other reviews were even out there? I'd argue that my coverage of the M8 has been among the most extensive and accurate out there. The legend that those initial reviews were misleading seems to be alive. Perhaps you might want to reread them. Leica M8 Part One, Part Two, Part Three, etc. Then check the chronology of that information against when other reviews were published at all. Then show me the other reviews that cover the same breadth and depth of ground about that camera. Then see if you can't note the reviews published much later on that did not even touch on any of those topics even thought they were public knowledge by then. If anyone is going to criticize the history on this, I hope he or she will actually check facts (not rumor or assumptions) and state that history accurately. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #59 Posted September 12, 2009 My read on it is that the use of the words 'sour grapes' is strictly accurate. If the complaint is that Leica entrusted previews of the M9 to individuals known to use, like and be generally sympathetic towards Leica-style photography, then what is the complainant proposing instead? That Leica exclusively showed off the new baby to those who neither understand nor like rangefinders? Hardly a believable suggestion that any business could take seriously. No, it must be jealousy. Unfortunately, this will lead Mr Puts into the necessity of reducing his cognitive dissonance by making his remarks on the M9 less enthusiastic than they might have been.Sean, don't waste any mental effort on this. After all, such comments being aimed at you are actually recognitions of your standing, and thus back-handed compliments! Chris I usually ignore this stuff but this is one case where I think, as I said earlier, that a spade should be called a spade. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbuckley Posted September 12, 2009 Share #60 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean - you play an important role as a reviewer of Leica (and other) products. In the Leica community, reflected here and elsewhere, you play a role not dissimilar from, say, Walt Mossberg's role at the Wall Street Journal when it comes to reviewing consumer technology products: people look to you for the thumbs up or down. The comments by Howard French and the piling on by Puts have justifiably angered you. I believe Howard's remarks are strange; he's a professional journalist, and it is odd to see one cast aspersions on you and others because you were given a preview of a product that launched. Mr. Puts had to have been given a preview, too, as he was up the same day. Why did Howard write what he wrote? Why did Puts pile on? Well, the two words in your title go a long way to offering an explanation: Sour Grapes. I happen to buy that. Others -- Steve Unsworth is a Puts defender, and good for him, but I think he's wrong here -- don't. Bottom line: I am grateful for Sean's, David's, Jono's, and Michael's reviews. Glad they got cameras early. It's not a conspiracy, hatched by Leica, that they seem to like the camera. They seem to like the camera because... it is worthy. I am also grateful for Puts' review. Why Howard French would whip up this tempest is bizarre, and he's right to be called on it by Sean. Why Puts weighed in is bizarre, and he's right to be called on it. But having now called them on it, Sean -- go take a walk in the beautiful Vermont countryside with, I hope, your M9 in hands! JB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.