Sandbagged

[Kenneth Sky]

Michael:
You were "sandbagged" by Leica. After giving them the courtesy of previewing your review of the M8, ( I take it that this is a quid pro quo for lending you an advance copy of the camera) they mislead you into believing that they would give you advanced notice of their fix for a glaring problem you identified but suppressed. This threatens your reputation as an objective reviewer and I am incensed with Leica. You should never offer them this courtesy again. Shame on them.
Ken

[Tim Gray]

In this day of  social computing, I don't think it's an option any more for that kind of curtesy.  Once the physical product ends up in use, someone is going to "spill the beans" and the shortcomings will become instantly published throughout the internet.  Then everyone who published but didn't highlight the defects will be compromised.  

I would think that the only reason to pass a review past the manufacturer would be to ensure that no factual errors have crept into it.  If the product is released with defects, regardless of how fast the manufacturer responds, thats is absolutely not the reviewer's problem.  If QA isn't up to par, then there's a price to be paid - there's too much instant transparency out there to have any hope of any "breathing space" to fix the problem before it's under the spotlight.

[William_Good]

Ive been watching this M8 fiasco play out with the interest of someone who went thru this before with kodak 14n & SLR* sensors  

Michael did  right by  by clearing up the "review" omissions.
It was the right thing to do, and kudos for doing it quickly.

I buy Michael's excuse and he retains credibility with me, So what's Leica got to say for itself?

Cheers

[petermfiore]

once a company starts taking orders for a product, i would expect an issue such as this to be corrected. If not, the gloves are off.

[vgogolak]

I too agree with Michael's decision. The fact that a company produces an expensive product is NOT an excuse for damning them because it is not perfect. Often the better products are cutting edge (ferrari, porsche come to mind). This often means working things out.

Would I endorse keeping it off the market? Heck no!

One example: In 1973 Mercedes adapted the safety design vehicle to consumer line. It was WAY ahead of anyone. It also was late with cruise control (which maybe even the CORVAIR had at the time ) and we wound up going in for a free retro fit almost a year later.

In the meantime, those bought the car were amazed at the OTHER things and when we got the cruise control it was the smoothest, safest and easiest to use on the market

As I understand it, there are work arounds for the magenta (and yes, I propsed one of them, althiough I have also bought IR filters) and yet the first set of images for MY use are spectacular, have no issues. Exactly what Michael conveyed (I am not a RF person, I have R9/DMR and Contax 645 P45 as some of you know.)

I am also a consultant and physicist and appreciate what Leica has done- an non-retro focus lens system, RF with only 1.3 crop!

Amazing

and that, NOT the infinite hand wringing over issues the company is already working on, is the "approximately RIGHT" massage to the community, not the "Precisely WRONG" one

It is this balance and judgment that I look for in a reviewer, and Michael has certainly to my mind attained that

regards
Victor

[vgogolak]

once a company starts taking orders for a product, i would expect an issue such as this to be corrected. If not, the gloves are off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84634\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Gloves off?

Actually not. Many states have 'lemon laws' to protect the consumer; make it right, replace or refund.

HOWEVER, there are also laws that prohibit a disgruntled consumer from parking a car with a 5 foot lemon on it in from of the dealer showroom. Many of the comments I have seen on the fora get very close to the latter.


Victor

[jcder]

I respect you coming out with statement.

for the rest, I feel you tickled my balls ....


I did not buy the leica because of your review, but it added to the sensation, as well as the "professional wedding photographer'" review, for which I even had to pay.

He even claimed he didn't take any other shot than daylight shots ... blablabla

Just wondering if people do everything for money ...


Me for one, will never take one of your reviews seriously again, I will always wonder what your getting out of this ....

sincerely hope you do enjoy your (free?) M8's


and continue doing the good work .... whahahahahaha


Just wanted to say this, for my part you can close my account again.

[Tim Gray]

Without getting into a debate about where you draw the line (like what if the shutter stuck open every 10 activations?) my only point is that in today's world 100% transparency is the only strategy that makes any sense.  

A comprehensive, accurate, factual assement of both the good and bad isn't damning anyone.

[Fred Ragland]

...Michael did  right by  by clearing up the "review" omissions...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've thinking about the "product review" aspects of LL.  [a href=\"http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/overview/index.htm]Consumer Reports[/url] has the mission of "empowering consumers to protect themselves."  I doubt that those of us who were early adopters of the Leica M8 after getting the go-ahead from glowing reviews feel protected.  If, like Consumer Reports (CR), Michael's mission is to test, inform and protect, that mission was not accomplished.

There are similarities between Michael and CR: neither accepts outside advertising, both support themselves through the sale of information products and services, both strive to achieve a reputation for objectivity and accuracy.

And there are differences: CR has a 450 member research and testing staff, is a non-profit service, accepts no free test samples and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers.

If I were in Michael's shoes in this age of public scepticism I would be asking myself how to achieve the lofty status of a CR with the limited resources available.  How do I maintain a reputation for steely integrity, objectivity and accuracy while adhering to strict standards?

The rub, of course, is the free test samples.  Looking a gift horse in the mouth is intimidating, especially when there's a lifelong love affair with the brute.

[thompsonkirk]

jcder puts it a bit crudely, but there really is an ethical issue here.  Who was sandbagged - Michael by Leica, or readers who may have ordered a megabuck camera on the favorable recommendation of a reviewer who left out observed defects?  

IMO, only if Leica had promised to fix the defects before more cameras were shipped would it be justifiable to underplay the matter in a review.  But 'underplay' wouldn't mean 'leave out'; it would mean noting the defect & saying the manufacturer had been alerted & had responded favorably.  The reviewer's responsibility would then be fulfilled, & readers could make their own judgment about being the first kid on the block, or waiting for the fix.  

At one level this is, as Tim said, a pragmatic issue about how soon the defects will 'leak' on the Internet.  But isn't it also an ethical judgment call, & one that does tarnish a reviewer's reputation?  

Kirk

[John Camp]

I've thinking about the "product review" aspects of LL.  Consumer Reports has the mission of "empowering consumers to protect themselves."  I doubt that those of us who were early adopters of the Leica M8 after getting the go-ahead from glowing reviews feel protected.  If, like Consumer Reports (CR), Michael's mission is to test, inform and protect, that mission was not accomplished.
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't think very many people who relied on reviews have gotten M8s. The camera has been out for one week, and with a few exceptions, the people who got them put down payments last summer, way before there were any reviews. And most of those people, who actually have M8s, are engaged in a fairly rational discussion of the problem. I bought on Leica's reputation (ordering in June) and Michael's review just provided me with a lot of information I wouldn't have had, like on the color gamut.

I have an idea of where most of the pissing and moaning comes from -- I went through this with the Kodaks and watched it with the Nikon D200 -- but I'm too polite to get into that. If the discussion had been limited to M8 owners, it would have been heated, but not childish or churlish.

JC

[Kenneth Sky]

I must come to Michael's defense. Although he well knows how to defend himself. On the M8 review, he stated and showed that he was willing to forgive certain deficiencies (slow start up) to get the "Leica" look and feel. He got nothing from Leica but the temporary use of a sample which he had to return "from his cold dead hands". The issue of allowing Leica to preview and suppress certain facts is problematic. Obviously, Michael is from an earlier time when courtesy was more important than scoring a "gotcha". How was this repaid? I say Leica was rather cavalier with Michael"s reputation. This sort of reminds me with how he was treated by Hasselblad with regard to the "dropping front element of the lens" affair. As Leo Durocher used to say, "Nice guys finish last".

[Andy M]

I think Michael needs to be cut some slack here.

I'd not have dealt with the situation in the same way as Michael, but then again I'm not from his generation who, as was mentioned previously are possibly more courteous towards others.

Michael comes across as an ethical kind of guy, and my opinion of him has not changed at all in the last few days.

Would I question his reviews? Certainly, just like any other.

Is it because I believe he has an ulterior motive behind them? Not at all.

I very very much doubt Michael would have placed his reputation on the line simply for a camera.

I think Michael was at worst misguided. Lets not assassinate him for it...

[dbell]

jcder puts it a bit crudely, but there really is an ethical issue here.  Who was sandbagged - Michael by Leica, or readers who may have ordered a megabuck camera on the favorable recommendation of a reviewer who left out observed defects? 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry, but nobody should be buying anything based on one favorable review. When it comes to the equipment that I depend upon to pay my bills, the only opinion that really matters is MY OWN. I do my own testing and come to my own conclusions. What works well for others isn't always what works well for me, and in the end, I am the ONLY one responsible for my work. I'd never buy any expensive photographic tool that I couldn't return if it proved unsuitable for my purposes.

From what I can tell, Michael acted with the best of intentions and got hosed by a company that took advantage of a good-faith gesture.


--
Daniel Bell

[image66]

It was about a week after Michael released his review of the M8 that he also issued a followup on the problem.  I ask the question of when in history have you seen a correction or acknowledgement of an issue with a review this quickly?

Those who are grousing either had no intention of buying an M8 anyway or weren't going to get them any time soon due to backlog.  Any pro who relies on one product review, regardless of the source, needs to have their head examined. I really question the professionalism of any "pro" who buys the first of something and then immediately runs off WITHOUT TESTING and shoots a wedding with it.

My problem with Leica isn't so much that they failed to give Michael a courtesy call, like they did Phil, but that they went ahead and continued shipping and delivering a possibly defective product.

Where is the product testing by the manufacturer?  Software gets Alpha and Beta Tested, but manufacturers are so loathe to let anything out of the lab and into the real world to see what breaks!  Had this been actually tested by REAL USERS and not ENGINEERS, just maybe this problem would have been spotted earlier. Leica isn't alone in this, though.  The problem is that these cameras have so much software in them that it isn't the hardware that is holding up delivery and testing, but holes and bugs in the software.  How can you get out and test the hardware without the camera locking up on you?

"Gottahavititus"  There are people (Michael included) which just have to have the latest/greatest item right away.  Usually it works out great, but once in a while it will bite you.  Guess what, with the Leica it bit you.

Leica will get the problem resolved and probably rather quickly. I can't imagine that anybody at Leica is enjoying this weekend.  If, say, they get this resolved and issue swap-outs to all purchased units within three weeks, what's the harm?  Just how many units could be sold and delivered so far?  If it's a pro who bought the camera, shame on him/her for using it on a paying job without adequate testing anyway.  Don't blame Michael, blame youself.

[jani]

It was about a week after Michael released his review of the M8 that he also issued a followup on the problem.  I ask the question of when in history have you seen a correction or acknowledgement of an issue with a review this quickly?

I've seen it before. But at the moment, the only place I can recall it happening, was right here, by Michael.

I thoroughly enjoyed the review, and must admit that I'm a bit wide-eyed at those who rush off to order products like these unseen, and then criticise the reviewers for their own faults. Anonymously, too, but that's hardly unexpected.

Thanks to Michael for a honest and straightforward attitude.

If there was anything that could possibly be wanting in Michael's hands-on report in this regard, it might have been a mention of something like "there are a couple of infrequent issues with my sample of the camera that I've contacted Leica about. I will post an update when and if I know more". But really, that's a quibble, and should be implicit in any review; I find it far, far worse that some other reviewers make general assumptions based on single samples.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I've seen it before. But at the moment, the only place I can recall it happening, was right here, by Michael.

I thoroughly enjoyed the review, and must admit that I'm a bit wide-eyed at those who rush off to order products like these unseen, and then criticise the reviewers for their own faults. Anonymously, too, but that's hardly unexpected.

Thanks to Michael for a honest and straightforward attitude.

If there was anything that could possibly be wanting in Michael's hands-on report in this regard, it might have been a mention of something like "there are a couple of infrequent issues with my sample of the camera that I've contacted Leica about. I will post an update when and if I know more". But really, that's a quibble, and should be implicit in any review; I find it far, far worse that some other reviewers make general assumptions based on single samples.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am in total agreement. You put it very well, Jan.

Eric

[David Mantripp]

I wonder how many of the outragead screams are coming from people who would actually buy an M8, or who would know how to use it ? (Lord preserve us from the "Here Is mi Cat takin wiv my Lieca M8" galleries.  I suspect there is a huge amount of pure envy in the mix here.

Why Leica would "work closely with" DPReview is another question. The average DPReview reader is looking to prove that his (always his) latest plastic male jewelry is better than the others - I doubt that many real world Leica M customers care about or even know about what Phil Askey thinks of the M8.  

In any case, I would bet that this "close working" is a somewhat exagerated statement. But if not, then clearly Leica marketing have no idea about the demographics of photography web sites.

[michael]

I'll just add that with hindsight I wish that I had written that I had seen a few images with problems, that I'd passed them along to Leica, and that I was waiting to hear back from them on it.

But I didn't. Mea culpa. Won't be the first time in my life that I've made a mistake, or likely the last.

Michael

[Fred Ragland]

Mea culpa. Won't be the first time in my life that I've made a mistake, or likely the last.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nor the rest of us.  Thank you Michael.