henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #21 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have to agree that casting the invited reviewers as extra friendly 'gushing' Leica friends is unwarranted without some proof. Yes, they have all at some time been very positive about Leica products, but so have an awful lot of people. I don't agree 100% with any of the invited reviewers; David Farkas I don't classify quite as a reviewer as I haven't seen him review much else and as far as I know he's a major Leica dealer. He seems to be a very nice guy which I'll get to check out in Seattle in a month , but being a dealer puts a certain slant on his position. The other three are all people who's contributions I read on the 'net and whose viewpoint, I hope, I understand to a degree by now. I like reading their contributions, and I weigh their opinions in light of what I feel I know about them. The same goes for Erwin Puts. I would think that Leica invited those four because they are widely read reviewers (or dealer) who have all had experience with Leicas or have been/are Leica shooters. No point in getting the PC World reviewers out there. Howard French (about whom and his viewpoint I know little) definitely wrote a lot of ill-considered rubbish and Erwin Puts, who has often in the past been called a Leica shill should know better than to agree with him. With respect to early M8 reviews, most reviewers didn't catch the IR issue. I had an early M8 to try before introduction and noticed the IR problems on the second day I had the camera, and reported it to Leica in my assessment. I however had the advantage that I've done a lot of IR shooting over the years both personally and professionally and was delighted with the IR sensitivity. Earlier I had a Canon DSLR converted to IR to get decent IR response. They didn't respond to that point. I also mentioned it on the LUG where it faded until after the camera started shipping. As far as some of the other 'major issues' such as shutter noise and frameline woes, well that is a matter of personal opinion and those mentioned are not ones I share. I like the framelines the way they are and I'm certainly not paying a lot of money to get my 1/8000sec removed. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 Hi henning, Take a look here The Sour Grapes Duo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted September 12, 2009 I have to agree that casting the invited reviewers as extra friendly 'gushing' Leica friends is unwarranted without some proof. Yes, they have all at some time been very positive about Leica products, but so have an awful lot of people. I don't agree 100% with any of the invited reviewers; David Farkas I don't classify quite as a reviewer as I haven't seen him review much else and as far as I know he's a major Leica dealer. He seems to be a very nice guy which I'll get to check out in Seattle in a month , but being a dealer puts a certain slant on his position. The other three are all people who's contributions I read on the 'net and whose viewpoint, I hope, I understand to a degree by now. I like reading their contributions, and I weigh their opinions in light of what I feel I know about them. The same goes for Erwin Puts. I would think that Leica invited those four because they are widely read reviewers (or dealer) who have all had experience with Leicas or have been/are Leica shooters. No point in getting the PC World reviewers out there. Howard French (about whom and his viewpoint I know little) definitely wrote a lot of ill-considered rubbish and Erwin Puts, who has often in the past been called a Leica shill should know better than to agree with him. With respect to early M8 reviews, most reviewers didn't catch the IR issue. I had an early M8 to try before introduction and noticed the IR problems on the second day I had the camera, and reported it to Leica in my assessment. I however had the advantage that I've done a lot of IR shooting over the years both personally and professionally and was delighted with the IR sensitivity. Earlier I had a Canon DSLR converted to IR to get decent IR response. They didn't respond to that point. I also mentioned it on the LUG where it faded until after the camera started shipping. As far as some of the other 'major issues' such as shutter noise and frameline woes, well that is a matter of personal opinion and those mentioned are not ones I share. I like the framelines the way they are and I'm certainly not paying a lot of money to get my 1/8000sec removed. Henning Did you publish on the IR thing early on? If so, good on you for catching it. It *is* true that a bunch of us did not at first realize what was going on with that. No conspiracy but attention on many other aspects of the new camera. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted September 12, 2009 Share #23 Posted September 12, 2009 I'm pretty interested in this topic because I spent better than twenty years as a working journalist, and a pretty good one. I don't like manufacturer-sponsored trips, but those are simply a reality in the tech world. If there's going to be a trip, which necessarily implies a certain favoritism, it's up to the reviewers to make clear exactly what is going on, and if there's a quid pro quo. I was around for those first early M8 reviews, and all of the reviewers that I know of, did that -- mentioned the fact that they'd gotten early review models from Leica. The criticism aimed at Reid, what there was of it (and it was fairly mild at the time) was that he didn't see the magenta cast and therefore didn't report it. I know from my own experience with the M8 that it was hard to see if you weren't specifically looking for it, because at the time, burgundy-colored clothing was fairly popular in some fabrics. So you could look at a shot, and nothing seemed amiss, because natural fabrics dyed black didn't show the shift -- only synthetics. So crowd photos showed a mix of black and "burgundy" garments. The first time I was really hit with the problem was when somebody posted a photo of a symphony orchestra (Vienna?) and the tuxes were a ridiculous burgundy. This must have been within a couple days of the camera's release. After that, the talk was everywhere, and Reid immediately got on it, and he himself pointed out some obvious cases that he'd apparently missed. (Some of them might have been firemen, IIRC.) More fire was aimed at Reichmann, who *had* noticed the IR shift, but didn't report it in his review. He said shortly afterwards that he'd mentioned the problem to Leica, because he wasn't sure if the problem was real, or perhaps a sample problem, or a firmware glitch - he had a pre-production model, and Leica didn't seem to know what he was talking about, and asked for time to look into it. Reichmann apparently didn't want to cast aspersions on a long-awaited product without knowing what the facts were, so he didn't report it in his review. Two considerations here: (1) At the beginning, Leica Ms were very scarce. Almost everybody who got one in the first few weeks pre-ordered long before Reichmann's (or Reid's) review. So they weren't hurt. Everybody who waited to order until the reviews came out, had plenty of time to cancel after the trouble started -- which started literally the night of the release. So they weren't hurt. In fact, nobody was hurt. Most of the noise came from people who I don't believe ever had, or intended to get, Leicas -- just your typical little web rats. (2) Mr. French was a well-known reporter for the New York Times, and is currently a professor at Columbia, though I don't know in what capacity. Perhaps someone should ask him to explain all those corrections in the Times. They are there, day after day, week after week, hundreds of them a year. This, from a fully professional newspaper, one of the leading newspapers in the US, with huge numbers of editors and reporters. His explanation (which I would accept) would probably go something like this: given a large number of chances to makes errors, humans will make them. They will further make them in a daily newspaper, where there's a lot of time pressure. Question: Well, then, why not wait, until you can be sure to be 100 percent accurate? Why not hire fact checkers, to call every source? Answer, it's too expensive, and takes too long. In the news business, we're doing news, not history, and we are competitive with the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc. When we get a big story, we do the best we can, but there's an equal imperative to publish what we have. Nothing is ever perfect. Exactly the same reasoning applies to Reid, Reichmann and the others. They were doing the best they could with short deadlines in a competitive situation. Publishing a review two weeks after the Leica came out would have attract zero attention, and these guys are running businesses. It's notable that both Reid and Reichmann called themselves on their reviews' shortcomings, and very quickly corrected them -- so quickly (within days) that it would have been impossible for somebody to order an M8 in the interval and then actually get it. When the Times it is called on something serious, it seems to me that it almost always comes from outside -- they get caught, rather than catching themselves. Even then, they often seem to prevaricate. Have they ever really dealt with the awful bullshit they put out on the Duke "rape" case? Anyway, I've spent time thinking about this case, and have no reason to suck up to either Reichmann or Reid, and I really think that a lot of criticism aimed at them has been bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted September 12, 2009 Share #24 Posted September 12, 2009 Let's cut Sean some slack (non-Jono) on this. IMO he's the only one on the 'A List' of invitees that I regard as a heavily-qualified reviewer. Farkas is a dealer, Askey had never used a RF camera, Slack doesn't count, and Reichmann committed an ethical boo-boo when he spotted the IR problem & told Leica but not his readers. French is certainly right in that instance! Sean has indeed been sympathetic to Leica. He's the only one on the list who's a serious user as well as a reviewer (Reichmann sold all his M8 gear via his website). But Sean isn't in Leica's pocket. He's been a critic & a user/consumer advocate, trying to do something about M8 problems like the misplaced .7m framelines & the up-to-now refusal to offer an open lens selection system (let's give him plenty of credit for the victory on this one!). So IMO Sean's point is correct: French lumped him with reviewers who haven't put in the work he's done to improve the system. Scroll down the list at the left side of his web page to see how thorough he's been. Kirk PS: My catty between-the-lines reading of Puts is that he's saying 'I agree with French because I claim to be objective & I didn't make the A-List.' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 12, 2009 Share #25 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, BTW in a couple of M9 posts I've pointed out that in a print of a given size, any noise speckles will be 1.33x smaller from the M9 than from an M8. Please don't think I'm siding with Erwin - or the other guy - though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #26 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, BTW in a couple of M9 posts I've pointed out that in a print of a given size, any noise speckles will be 1.33x smaller from the M9 than from an M8. Please don't think I'm siding with Erwin - or the other guy - though. No, the print thing is really important and I stress it in the ISO section. I don't even know what Erwin said on that point because I stopped reading him quite awhile ago. I also have not commented on him until I saw this swipe on TOP. But for prints...which is really what matters...18 MP vs. 10 MP means less noise in the final print because of down-sampling for a given output size. In my mind, that's where the M9's one-stop advantage is based. I explain more in the new section. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lxlim Posted September 12, 2009 Share #27 Posted September 12, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... Anyway, I've spent time thinking about this case, and have no reason to suck up to either Reichmann or Reid, and I really think that a lot of criticism aimed at them has been bullshit. Thanks, JRC. I agree with your words. In general its a matter of judgement and self control. While it reflects poorly on the critic to those who are discerning, half truths and lies takes on a life of its own that is fairly destructive. Sean is right to defend this seemingly mild insinuation and I am glad you stepped in with a constructive take of the industry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #28 Posted September 12, 2009 Did you publish on the IR thing early on? If so, good on you for catching it. It *is* true that a bunch of us did not at first realize what was going on with that. No conspiracy but attention on many other aspects of the new camera. Cheers, Sean Hi Sean, yes I did mention them, but probably not strongly enough as I liked it. I had the camera for about a week in late August 2006 and e-mailed Leica in early September. I'm sure that some of these thing just didn't register unless you were in the right space, especially if you are not a full time regular technical test, but just an interested user. For example, I would never have commented on the framelines as I like the framelines in the early M8's and it never occurred to me to wish for something different. That's just the way I use the camera, and good IR response was something I appreciated. I'll keep one M8 body if for no other reason Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted September 12, 2009 Share #29 Posted September 12, 2009 No, the print thing is really important and I stress it in the ISO section. I don't even know what Erwin said on that point because I stopped reading him quite awhile ago. I also have not commented on him until I saw this swipe on TOP. But for prints...which is really what matters...18 MP vs. 10 MP means less noise in the final print because of down-sampling for a given output size. In my mind, that's where the M9's one-stop advantage is based. I explain more in the new section. Cheers, Sean Sean, I think the reality is that people most interested in "noise" as kind of pissing contest don't MAKE many prints. I'm often amazed by the kind of sweeping comments about this one factor in digital cameras..."The M8 is useless at 640" was one here recently. In the end if you are making prints and not just sniffing pixels on a monitor there are a lot more important issues than noise. Give me a file with detail in the shadows and highlights that are under control and I'll make you a decent print. Noise has to be JUMBO sized to show up in print in high megapixel cameras. Regarding advice from reviewers...I always find information from people who can actually use a product effectively is more useful. I've enjoyed your site because there is both technical detail and actual evidence of photography! A good combo! Best wishes Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #30 Posted September 12, 2009 I just looked through old e-mails, and on the topic of the IR, I sent Stefan Daniels the following: ------------------------------------------------------------ With regard to the very strong Infrared sensitivity that I've noted; I assume that the production M8 will have the same characteristic as that is not something that is firmware related. That is something that I'm very interested in, as I've been shooting infrared material for decades, and with film it's always been a huge aggravation and cost, considering the need to always bracket. I did, however, notice that especially under tungsten light the colour accuracy was affected. Again, for my use that is less important than the useability in the infrared region. Please keep the infrared sensitivity. ------------------------------------------------------------ also, in the same report, I wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------ One very interesting thing I discovered was that there is no or a very poor IR hot filter. I discovered this while shooting a family gathering where one member was wearing a black T-shirt. In shots taken outside there was a very slight ruddy tint to his shirt. Indoors, under incandescent light, it was medium burgundy! When I got home, I got out various IR filters such as the Leica IR and B+W 92 and 93 and Wratten gels from 70 through 89B and 87 to 87C. Even with the 87C I could get some exposure. Most recent cameras such as the Canons have trouble with the 70, let alone the others. The Leica M8 was very useable with the 89B and 87. Outdoor exposures with the B+W 93 (Wratten 87 equivalent) were about 1/50sec at f/8 at ISO 1250. With the 89B, the exposure at 1250 ISO was 1/125 at f/8; hardly less, indicating a typical unfiltered CCD. The IR pictures were not as sharp as the regular ones, no matter which lens I used, but gave very useable images. For me, this capability is far more useful than the loss of accurate colour with some dark dyed clothing under incandescent lighting, where it would typically appear. I hope this feature makes it into the production models, or at least is available as an option. A further surprising thing is that the camera metered accurately with the Leica IR filter (Wratten 89B equivalent). Truly a useful implementation. ------------------------------------------------------------ So that was my take in early September 2006. I remember investigating IR cut filters from Heliopan at the time, and ordered some as soon as I knew my M8 was coming. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #31 Posted September 12, 2009 Hi Sean, yes I did mention them, but probably not strongly enough as I liked it. I had the camera for about a week in late August 2006 and e-mailed Leica in early September. I'm sure that some of these thing just didn't register unless you were in the right space, especially if you are not a full time regular technical test, but just an interested user. For example, I would never have commented on the framelines as I like the framelines in the early M8's and it never occurred to me to wish for something different. That's just the way I use the camera, and good IR response was something I appreciated. I'll keep one M8 body if for no other reason Henning I don't know Henning, you suppressing that frame line problem must have been part of a Leica-sympathizer conspiracy. We have to keep an eye on you people.<G> Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #32 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, I think the reality is that people most interested in "noise" as kind of pissing contest don't MAKE many prints. I'm often amazed by the kind of sweeping comments about this one factor in digital cameras..."The M8 is useless at 640" was one here recently. In the end if you are making prints and not just sniffing pixels on a monitor there are a lot more important issues than noise. Give me a file with detail in the shadows and highlights that are under control and I'll make you a decent print. Noise has to be JUMBO sized to show up in print in high megapixel cameras. Regarding advice from reviewers...I always find information from people who can actually use a product effectively is more useful. I've enjoyed your site because there is both technical detail and actual evidence of photography! A good combo! Best wishes Dan Thanks Dan. Next I add more samples from a large wedding shoot last weekend. It's funny though because if one doesn't print then the noise shouldn't matter much anyway. Lots of files look clean as an 800 pixel wide file on a screen. I will certainly buy an M9. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #33 Posted September 12, 2009 I just looked through old e-mails, and on the topic of the IR, I sent Stefan Daniels the following: ------------------------------------------------------------ 3. With regard to the very strong Infrared sensitivity that I've noted; I assume that the production M8 will have the same characteristic as that is not something that is firmware related. That is something that I'm very interested in, as I've been shooting infrared material for decades, and with film it's always been a huge aggravation and cost, considering the need to always bracket. I did, however, notice that especially under tungsten light the colour accuracy was affected. Again, for my use that is less important than the useability in the infrared region. Please keep the infrared sensitivity. ------------------------------------------------------------ So that was my take in early September 2006. I remember investigating IR cut filters from Heliopan at the time, and ordered some as soon as I knew my M8 was coming. Henning Well then, you are actually the rightful discoverer of the M8's IR sensitivity though Pascal and RobSteve must still have a place in that history. I'm afraid I won't have a place at that particular table but rather the dusty one in the back for the color blind reviewers. <G> No wonder I'm mostly a BW photographer. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted September 12, 2009 Share #34 Posted September 12, 2009 Sean, I think the reality is that people most interested in "noise" as kind of pissing contest don't MAKE many prints. I'm often amazed by the kind of sweeping comments about this one factor in digital cameras..."The M8 is useless at 640" was one here recently. In the end if you are making prints and not just sniffing pixels on a monitor there are a lot more important issues than noise. Give me a file with detail in the shadows and highlights that are under control and I'll make you a decent print. Noise has to be JUMBO sized to show up in print in high megapixel cameras. Dan Amen brother. And to go even further why not think of noise as grain? Back in the film days shooter liked some grain more than others (each had their preference). Personally I like Nikon noise better than Canon, and Leica better than both. 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #35 Posted September 12, 2009 .It's up to the individual to test their ethics... It is up to the individual to decide his or her ethics all the time - press trip or not. In this line of work one is also always asking - did I miss something? Is this being over-emphasized, under-emphasized, does it show in normal use, does it show in controlled testing...? It's a constant set of debates. A press trip is nothing compared to the challenges of trying to describe a camera or a lens accurately. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #36 Posted September 12, 2009 I don't know Henning, you suppressing that frame line problem must have been part of a Leica-sympathizer conspiracy. We have to keep on eye on you people.<G> Cheers, Sean The conspiracy deepens. On the one hand I was pretty happy with the M8 when I got a chance to play with it; on the other hand the M9 for the most part only really only appeals to the wideangle user in me; I want to see the width that the WATE gives me, and I want to use the 21 Summilux to the max. The M9 seems like a polishing of the M8 to me for the most part; evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Cropped sensors really don't bother me. I've used a 150SW Nikkor on 4x5 for many shots, and think of all the real estate that was wasted there! Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #37 Posted September 12, 2009 Well then, you are actually the rightful discoverer of the M8's IR sensitivity though Pascal and RobSteve must still have a place in that history. I'm afraid I won't have a place at that particular table but rather the dusty one in the back for the color blind reviewers. <G> No wonder I'm mostly a BW photographer. Cheers, Sean Well, I used that particular camera along with a couple of other people including Tom Abrahamsson and we all discussed my findings. It just didn't seem the disaster that it was made out to be later. BTW, I edited my previous post about what I sent Stefan. It was a longer report, and included what I had sent to the LHSA (which of course wasn't seen until much later). If you're interested I can send you the whole thing. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted September 12, 2009 Well, I used that particular camera along with a couple of other people including Tom Abrahamsson and we all discussed my findings. It just didn't seem the disaster that it was made out to be later. BTW, I edited my previous post about what I sent Stefan. It was a longer report, and included what I had sent to the LHSA (which of course wasn't seen until much later). If you're interested I can send you the whole thing. Henning Sure, off-line that could be interesting. sreid at sover.net So Tom did know? There's gonna be a tribunal and Howard French will prosecute. No evidence will be needed apparently but do wear comfortable shoes because the opening and closing arguments will be long-winded and conducted from a very large soapbox. Remember to stand to face the jury and smile. Conviction will be based on what you probably might have done. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 12, 2009 Share #39 Posted September 12, 2009 Sure, off-line that could be interesting. sreid at sover.net So Tom did know? There's gonna be a tribunal and Howard French will prosecute. No evidence will be needed apparently but do wear comfortable shoes because the opening and closing arguments will be long-winded and conducted from a very large soapbox. Remember to stand to face the jury and smile. Conviction will be based on what you probably might have done. Cheers, Sean With respect to Tom. He shoots B&W. If ever a scrap of colour film entered one of his cameras he'd clean it out quickly. The IR thing is completely irrelevant to him. What he (and I) would really like, and what I asked Stefan D. in 2006 is to produce a B&W Leica without the Bayer filters. Higher sensitivity, superb resolution and all of that. That's something to excite us. That might actually get me to buy two M9's in short order. Black Paint B&W camera; Grey Paint colour camera. Henning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted September 12, 2009 With respect to Tom. He shoots B&W. If ever a scrap of colour film entered one of his cameras he'd clean it out quickly. The IR thing is completely irrelevant to him. What he (and I) would really like, and what I asked Stefan D. in 2006 is to produce a B&W Leica without the Bayer filters. Higher sensitivity, superb resolution and all of that. That's something to excite us. That might actually get me to buy two M9's in short order. Black Paint B&W camera; Grey Paint colour camera. Henning I'm mostly a BW photographer as well. Aside from work for clients I've only done two of my own projects in color. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.