This is getting tiresome. I'll try and explain one more time.
There was no attempt to hide anything from readers. I saw a few images among those that I shot that showed some problems. I tried to reproduce them, but not really understanding what I was seeing, I couldn't.
I wrote them up, regardless.
I then sent a copy of my review to Leica before publishing it requesting that they check it for factual errors. I do this with all product reviews, and have done so for the past 30 years. It's my SOP, and in fact a proceedure insisted on by many reputable magazines that i have written for over the years. And no, it isn't advertising motivated. It's to avoid making inadvertant mistakes. The concept is similar to peer review in academic circles, but since with a new product that no one else yet has, there are no peers available. So one turns to the only people that know the answers – the manufacturer. This isn't giving them any editorial control, just an opportunity for fact checking. To do otherwise could prove irresponsible.
In this instance Leica asked if I would hold off on mentioning a couple of problems that I saw because they claimed that they themselves wern't sure if these were single sample or systemic events. I agreed, and requested that they get back to me with their findings, because I sent them a file for them to examine.
I then didn't hear further and proceeded to publish the review without these examples. That was my mistake. I should have mentioned that I had seen some problems, wasn't sure what they were because I couldn't easily duplicate them, and that I was waiting to hear from Leica with their comments.
That's the story. I screwed up and was blind-sided by Leica, because it is now clear that they were indeed aware of these problems, because other reviewers of early production cameras were seeing them as well and reporting them to Leica, just as I did. Phil Askey for one.
As the saying goes – "No good deed goes unpunished". I did what I believed at the time was the responsible thing to do. I didn't understand the problem that i was seeing and so I asked Leica for their analysis. because I didn't know if it was a single sample problem or a larger issue. I therefore didn't believe that it was responsable to publish my findings without additional information.
Should I have held the entire review? I didn't think so then and still don't. Should I have mentioned that there were some things i was still investigating? Yes, I now see that and regret that I didn't. My bad.
But lighten up please. There is no grand conspiracy here. Just some screw ups by fallable people, both me and Leica. I've done my best to explain my role in this , and hopefully Leica will see fit to do similarly. They at least owe such an explanation to me if not also to others.
Michael
