The Sour Grapes Duo

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

It's pouring out -alas. I had hoped to get one last sail in this weekend but time and work will not allow it yet even if the weather did. But I do need to work on the S2 "First Impressions" article and also work for some very patient clients (thank you Mike Cheng and others). My family also needs to recognize me. So right you are.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[rdubois]

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.

 

I too don't find much to disagree with what Howard says.

 

I think that the reviews of the M8 and M9 have been published much too quickly and as a consequence the reviews have been based on insufficient experience of the product. Consequently some things were missed in the case of the M8 and perhaps will be missed in the case of the M9.

 

Take the M9 for example: The correct, or should I say the Leica recommended LR raw conversion software is not even available and this may well affect the way conversions are rendered yet conclusions are being drawn by the reviewers based on other converters which may prove to be or not to be optimal.

 

It seems that Leica is allowing facilities to some reviewers encouraging them to publish their findings very quickly and it is not surprising that they will chose their (pre) reviewers with care. I'm not accusing the reviewers in question to produce biased reports but they are clearly prepared to stake their reputations by publishing at this prodigal rate so early on in the equation. I find it particularly extraordinary that Leica have supplied reviewers with the camera but not the raw converter.

 

We, the readers of these reviews on the other hand seem to hang on every word these reviewers write and we attack or are disappointed when we discover that their word is perhaps not always gospel.

 

Personally I take these reviews with a pinch of salt. As Guy Mancuso has often said he will only make a decision when he himself has reviewed the product. Perhaps we should take heed of his advice.

 

Dubois

[sean_reid]

I too don't find much to disagree with what Howard says.

 

I think that the reviews of the M8 and M9 have been published much too quickly and as a consequence the reviews have been based on insufficient experience of the product. Consequently some things were missed in the case of the M8 and perhaps will be missed in the case of the M9.

 

Take the M9 for example: The correct, or should I say the Leica recommended LR raw conversion software is not even available and this may well affect the way conversions are rendered yet conclusions are being drawn by the reviewers based on other converters which may prove to be or not to be optimal.

 

It seems that Leica is allowing facilities to some reviewers encouraging them to publish their findings very quickly and it is not surprising that they will chose their (pre) reviewers with care. I'm not accusing the reviewers in question to produce biased reports but they are clearly prepared to stake their reputations by publishing at this prodigal rate so early on in the equation. I find it particularly extraordinary that Leica have supplied reviewers with the camera but not the raw converter.

 

We, the readers of these reviews on the other hand seem to hang on every word these reviewers write and we attack or are disappointed when we discover that their word is perhaps not always gospel.

 

Personally I take these reviews with a pinch of salt. As Guy Mancuso has often said he will only make a decision when he himself has reviewed the product. Perhaps we should take heed of his advice.

 

Dubois

 

 

Which of these reviews have you read? It may be that you agree with Howard because you and he have both not read the same articles. I don't know. If you're going to characterize them perhaps you want to be specific about which of the reviews concern you. You wouldn't be one to criticize an article you haven't read would you?

[sandymc]

Sandy,

 

Do you believe my initial reviews of the M8 were wrong? Who are these "many people"?

 

Sean, I responded to you by PM, but just for the record here as well, I said "whatever you believe the rights and wrongs of the situation to be".

 

That there are many people who believe the worst is I think proved by some of the other comments on this thread, and on TOP.

 

The point of my post had nothing to do with who was right or wrong at the time, or what my view is. The point is that people believe what they believe regardless of right or wrong, the situation is what it is, and Leica walked head first into a situation that could have been avoided. In my opinion.

 

Regards,

 

Sandy

[sean_reid]

Sean, I responded to you by PM, but just for the record here as well, I said "whatever you believe the rights and wrongs of the situation to be".

 

That there are many people who believe the worst is I think proved by some of the other comments on this thread, and on TOP.

 

The point of my post had nothing to do with who was right or wrong at the time, or what my view is. The point is that people believe what they believe regardless of right or wrong, the situation is what it is, and Leica walked head first into a situation that could have been avoided. In my opinion.

 

Regards,

 

Sandy

 

So what is it you believe Leica should have done? I take it this is about their choice of reviewers for the press trip?

[eronald]

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 otheraspects of the new camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

A lot of people here did use my M8-with-filter profiles.

 

I would suggest that people look at M9 UV-sensitivity seriously.

 

You may find you need a new type of filter, although I'd expect newer Leica glass to block the UV

 

OTOH, UV filters are easy to get.

 

Edmund

[sandymc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So what is it you believe Leica should have done? I take it this is about their choice of reviewers for the press trip?

 

Sean,

 

No, this is largely about the size of the pool of reviewers that got early access to the M9. What I said in my original post is that under the circumstances I believe that what Leica should have done is (a) expanded the circle of reviewers and ( given you and the other reviewers more time with the camera. If we had more comprehensive reviews, and some from reviewers without involvement in previous stuff, it would have made it a lot more difficult for some of the negativity that's now coming out to be taken seriously.

 

Leica would then not now be sitting with the whole M8 thing being rehashed, and probably a lot of people that up till the TOP article has been thinking positive thoughts about the M9, now thinking "Ahhh, maybe this isn't as good as claimed".

 

Sandy

[Dan States]

I'm surprised that so many assume that Leica should do anything OTHER than cater (for the lack of a better word) to reviewers who prefer their brand. They are a for-profit manufacturer trying to sell cameras, not a wing of National Public Radio.

 

The mess surrounding the M8 debut was not driven by certain initial reviews that were incomplete, though they were, but by the fact that the camera had basic problems and Leica was in a pinch and needed to get it out fast. Reviews of any product should be read in the spirit of "buyer beware" regardless of the source. That reviewers often miss or underestimate issues that later turn ugly is not limited to Leica products.

 

In the end Leica made good on the issues with the M8 and the VAST majority of users purchased the camera knowing of it's compromises. (I did)

 

It's the basic nature of rangefinder photography to create polarized opinions. Leica would be insane to hand over early samples to reviewers who either don't understand the concepts' values or have a predetermined inclination away from their brand/concept.

 

By the way, the good news is that so far I have not seen a post indicating Sudden Death, lines on the sensors or any other major gaff! If all we have to argue about is the quality of the reviews we are in good shape!

 

Best wishes

Dan

[stunsworth]

Leica would then not now be sitting with the whole M8 thing being rehashed, and probably a lot of people that up till the TOP article has been thinking positive thoughts about the M9, now thinking "Ahhh, maybe this isn't as good as claimed"

 

To be honest I wouldn't have read or even known about the article if it hadn't been flagged up by Sean, I'm probably not the only one either.

 

I should be having a play with an M9 tomorrow, and I'm greatly looking forward to it.

[sandymc]

I'm surprised that so many assume that Leica should do anything OTHER than cater (for the lack of a better word) to reviewers who prefer their brand.

 

My suggestion wasn't to give the M9 to people that are biased against Leica or RF or whatever, just to broaden the pool to include some people not involved in past wars. I don't think it would have been impossible to find people that would have given the M9 an entirely unbiased (or even positively biased!) review that didn't have the M8 baggage.

 

Sandy

[marioalessi]

Comment "Raw file processing is all over the map." Well this just goes to show the Film only people that just as in film, the chemical developer process used, and in RAW the electronic procedure used, makes a different. So it seems that both FILM and DIGITAL the most discriminating will search out the best Process (Film) or Procedure (Raw).

 

Paying first attention to the noise at 100% magnification on a computer screen is no different that taking a gem quality diamond and viewing it at a sub atomic level for flaws. Serves only as interest from perhaps an academic standpoint.

 

After all a flawless diamond is considered as such when at 10X magnification, you cant see any inclusions (flaws).

 

If the goal is to print the image then i surmise analyzing the noise is only useful if done at reasonable magnification for that particular print size.

 

If the goal is to view the image on a computer screen, then analyzing the noise is only relevant to the reasonable size of magnification that the noise wont me masked due to sub-pixel aliasing present in the display technology.

 

Now if you want to print out the photo and view with a loupe at at a magnification that shows you the actual droplet size of the printing method used, that can be useful to determine the ultimate quality of the print comparison to another printer. But then you will need to analyze the paper structure as well (the print medium).

 

If your going to view the image eon a monitor, then you will also be looking at specifications of the monitors pixel quality as well.

 

Striving to determine anythings value based up one specification is an exercise in futility and an example of someone who simply wants to be able to argue a winnable point based up asking a question so specific the answer can only be one answer.

 

The noise present only matter when the output in which you are viewing is defined. I propose that when discussing noise we should preface out discussions by under what final conditions it is being viewed.

[scott kirkpatrick]

My comment about raw file developing being "all over the map" referred mostly to people's faces that were a long way from reality, much less from how portrait subjects want to see themselves. I like noise. In fact, I think Leica is working too hard suppressing it, but that is for another thread.

 

scott

[marioalessi]

My comment about raw file developing being "all over the map" referred mostly to people's faces that were a long way from reality, much less from how portrait subjects want to see themselves. I like noise. In fact, I think Leica is working too hard suppressing it, but that is for another thread.

 

scott

 

My raw developing response should have been in a another message for clarity. It was more a comment towards they haters of digital. Nothing is better than being there. and at some point photography took over form actually sketching a scene you were viewing, or painting a scene. I suppose there is an argumentative personality type that say whatever they are nostalgic with is somehow the pure and the new is always the heretic.

 

I have never actually compared raw converters on my own images, but I think I'm going to with some problem images.

 

On a side note,

I once told my father how cars form the 1950 were built better and would last longer than todays cars. He replied "Really? they didn't stop well, the air conditioner didn't work well, and gas mileage wasn't as good. If you mean from a style standpoint, then that is a question of aesthetics which is just an opinion."

[johnbuckley]

I too don't find much to disagree with what Howard says.

 

I think that the reviews of the M8 and M9 have been published much too quickly and as a consequence the reviews have been based on insufficient experience of the product. Consequently some things were missed in the case of the M8 and perhaps will be missed in the case of the M9.

 

Take the M9 for example: The correct, or should I say the Leica recommended LR raw conversion software is not even available and this may well affect the way conversions are rendered yet conclusions are being drawn by the reviewers based on other converters which may prove to be or not to be optimal.

 

It seems that Leica is allowing facilities to some reviewers encouraging them to publish their findings very quickly and it is not surprising that they will chose their (pre) reviewers with care. I'm not accusing the reviewers in question to produce biased reports but they are clearly prepared to stake their reputations by publishing at this prodigal rate so early on in the equation. I find it particularly extraordinary that Leica have supplied reviewers with the camera but not the raw converter.

 

We, the readers of these reviews on the other hand seem to hang on every word these reviewers write and we attack or are disappointed when we discover that their word is perhaps not always gospel.

 

Personally I take these reviews with a pinch of salt. As Guy Mancuso has often said he will only make a decision when he himself has reviewed the product. Perhaps we should take heed of his advice.

 

Dubois

 

Good Lord - have any of the critics of Leica's pre-launch reviewer program, and of Sean et al, ever launched a product? Here's how it works in my experience, having overseen the product launch of maybe sixty or seventy services and websites (including handling the launch of a US sports news website called SBNation.com this past Thursday):

 

In advance of the product being available to consumers, you showcase/demo the product to the reviewers/analysts/writers who have the greatest credibility, broadest reach, biggest followings. You let them kick the tires. You let them in on the test bed, because the product isn't "finished" until it's released to the public. Maybe they have to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). You work to coordinate their reviews coming out only after you drop the checkered flag saying, Go.

 

You don't just pick the ones that you know will love it. You offer it to a broad array of people. David Farkas' terrific report shows that in his case, he was offered access to the M9 along with Sean, Michael, and the founder of DPReview. So they clustered, in one instance, four photographers who are all rangefinder photographers. They didn't pay their way over; David made clear he got to Wetzlar using frequent flier miles. These four are not the only people given the M9 in advance. Jono got a glimpse. So did Erwin Puts. And I would bet that all the major photography magazines will soon publish reviews based on M9s they had access to prior to 9/9/9.

 

Somehow the notion that Leica handpicked Sean, David, et al because they would be "friendly," and that they would automatically shape the impression we have of the M9 falsely is just flat out stupid. David Farkas and Sean Reid in particular are rangefinder photographers, and thus would understand the tools they had in their hands. If anyone thinks that, having found in their testing a major problem they then wouldn't write about it, is really outrageous. (Sean and others did not grasp the IR problem with the M8 initially. Is this reason to devalue his contribution to what we know about the M9? His tests on the M9 seem to have been well informed by him realizing that he needed to kick the tires even harder this time.)

 

Yes, Wait until you have an M9 and can test it to decide for yourself. But to in any way say there is something wrong with a process in which people like Sean, David, Michael, and yeah, Puts get to test and report on the thing -- and quickly -- is absurd.

[charlesphoto99]

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.

 

Problem is is that Howard (I'm almost certain) wasn't one of the earliest adopters so well knew about the need to use filters etc when he got the camera. So not sure where the problem lies? It's called personal responsibility of you buy into something that isn't perfect but already fully disclosed.

[rdubois]

Which of these reviews have you read? It may be that you agree with Howard because you and he have both not read the same articles. I don't know. If you're going to characterize them perhaps you want to be specific about which of the reviews concern you. You wouldn't be one to criticize an article you haven't read would you?

 

I've read yours and David Farkas' both of which I found excellent and

Michael Reichman's, Phil Askey's, Jono Slack's and Erwin Puts' which I found OK but less useful FOR ME.

 

This is not directly relevant to this discussion but it might interest you that on the basis of your and David Farkas' reviews I was arrived at the decision that the change to an M9 was not for me in the short term. Reason is that I've just invested in a 24 Lux which works very well with the M8 crop (no external viewfinder), I like the frame lines set for 2 metres and I like the window on the top plate. Furthermore I rarely print beyond 20X30 inches and the files from the M8 are more than adequate and I'm a bit worried at how the 36mB files will slow down Aperture 2. Not really that bothered by the quality at higher ISO which, for me at least is perfectly adequate to 640.

 

It also remains for me to stress that I am amazed by the work that you and David Farkas have put into your reviews (particularly your thouroughness Sean) and compliment you both.

 

Dubois

[rdubois]

Good Lord - have any of the critics of Leica's pre-launch reviewer program, and of Sean et al, ever launched a product? Here's how it works in my experience, having overseen the product launch of maybe sixty or seventy services and websites (including handling the launch of a US sports news website called SBNation.com this past Thursday):

 

In advance of the product being available to consumers, you showcase/demo the product to the reviewers/analysts/writers who have the greatest credibility, broadest reach, biggest followings. You let them kick the tires. You let them in on the test bed, because the product isn't "finished" until it's released to the public. Maybe they have to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). You work to coordinate their reviews coming out only after you drop the checkered flag saying, Go.

 

You don't just pick the ones that you know will love it. You offer it to a broad array of people. David Farkas' terrific report shows that in his case, he was offered access to the M9 along with Sean, Michael, and the founder of DPReview. So they clustered, in one instance, four photographers who are all rangefinder photographers. They didn't pay their way over; David made clear he got to Wetzlar using frequent flier miles. These four are not the only people given the M9 in advance. Jono got a glimpse. So did Erwin Puts. And I would bet that all the major photography magazines will soon publish reviews based on M9s they had access to prior to 9/9/9.

 

Somehow the notion that Leica handpicked Sean, David, et al because they would be "friendly," and that they would automatically shape the impression we have of the M9 falsely is just flat out stupid. David Farkas and Sean Reid in particular are rangefinder photographers, and thus would understand the tools they had in their hands. If anyone thinks that, having found in their testing a major problem they then wouldn't write about it, is really outrageous. (Sean and others did not grasp the IR problem with the M8 initially. Is this reason to devalue his contribution to what we know about the M9? His tests on the M9 seem to have been well informed by him realizing that he needed to kick the tires even harder this time.)

 

Yes, Wait until you have an M9 and can test it to decide for yourself. But to in any way say there is something wrong with a process in which people like Sean, David, Michael, and yeah, Puts get to test and report on the thing -- and quickly -- is absurd.

 

As Sandy mentions in post 67 I entirely agree with him that it would have been nice if Leica had given the reviewers more time.

 

As far as the rest of your post: I just switch off when I see overuse of adjectives such as "outrageous" and "absurd" so no further comment from me on that.

 

Dubois

[Dan States]

Well, the recording artist Seal has apparently had one since 1998 or thereabouts, so let's point the finger at him for not including notes on any problems in the liner notes of his albums.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[johnastovall]

 

<snipped>

 

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.

 

<snipped>

 

 

Could it be that Puts piled on because of the way he got his hand slapped by Leica when he violated his NDA on M8?

[sean_reid]

I've read yours and David Farkas' both of which I found excellent and

Michael Reichman's, Phil Askey's, Jono Slack's and Erwin Puts' which I found OK but less useful FOR ME.

 

This is not directly relevant to this discussion but it might interest you that on the basis of your and David Farkas' reviews I was arrived at the decision that the change to an M9 was not for me in the short term. Reason is that I've just invested in a 24 Lux which works very well with the M8 crop (no external viewfinder), I like the frame lines set for 2 metres and I like the window on the top plate. Furthermore I rarely print beyond 20X30 inches and the files from the M8 are more than adequate and I'm a bit worried at how the 36mB files will slow down Aperture 2. Not really that bothered by the quality at higher ISO which, for me at least is perfectly adequate to 640.

 

It also remains for me to stress that I am amazed by the work that you and David Farkas have put into your reviews (particularly your thouroughness Sean) and compliment you both.

 

Dubois

 

 

Thank you. As I wrote near the end of my M9 review, I can see why some might be quite happy to stay with the M8.2. Enjoy it.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean