Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: seany on November 11, 2006, 05:54:56 pm

Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: seany on November 11, 2006, 05:54:56 pm
What is the feeling of forum members regarding the recent Leica M8 review by Michael,is a reviewers main obligation to his audience i.e. those who are interested in buying the product he reviews or should he do as Michael and accede to the manufacturers wishes and not publish any defects.Does it not invalidate a review if one does not publish "warts and all".
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Tim Gray on November 11, 2006, 06:57:38 pm
You may not have seen Michael's update on "what's new".   So, what's a defect?  1 in 100 or 1 in 500 or 1 in 1,000?    Obviously if it's easily replicated, but if not?  What's the difference between an anomaly and defect?  Clearly - it's up to the judgement of the reviewer.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: wolfnowl on November 11, 2006, 07:47:54 pm
I don't believe Michael has any obligation to any one of us for any of the reviews he does.  I certainly appreciate them and I'm sure many people do, but to have an obligation there must be some prior contract as to expectation of services delivered for a specific value.  IOW, when you pay Michael to review a camera for you, THEN you have the right to feel he is obligated in some fashion to fulfill that contract for you.  Since that contract is neither real nor implied, then you can take his review as his well educated but personal opinion of the equipment he is testing.  If you disagree with his assessment that's also your right but it doesn't invalidate his experiences.

The counterarguement of course, and I'll mention it because someone is bound to, is that there is an implied contract because the video journals are for sale to interested parties.  True, but that's not the same as publishing a review on a website that can be accessed for free by anyone with an internet connection.

My $0.02

Mike.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: paulnorheim on November 11, 2006, 09:30:34 pm
I have been reading Michael Reichmanns reviews, tutorials and essays for more than a year now, and although I once in a while might disagree, or have other opinions (or no opinion at all), I respect his experience, approach and reflections, the same way as I have learned to respect Sean Reid (mentioned in other threads in this Leica-context) and Mike Johnston, to name a couple of other reviewers and writers who have been associated to LL, and who also share a passion for range finder photography. Or, for that sake, Erwin Puts. They are very different in their ways of thinking about cameras and photography (and very different temperaments!), but they all contribute in ways that I don´t see much of elsewhere.
   
However, of course Michael R. has a contract with his readers! In serveral reviews he has been complaining about people seeing him as biased. In other reviews he has admitted that he is "biased". How are we to deal with this contradiction?
   
If I should guess how he would want his reviews to be read – ok: this is MY interpretation of his ideals; take it or leave it, perhaps I`m wrong, but since someone above talked about "contracts", here`s how I have interpreted the "contract" between MR and me: He wants to be "objective" in the sense that he is trying to inform his audience about important features of the actual camera, lense or software (within some limits, not including some detailed stuff you can read from manufactures and other common sources), but "subjective" in the sense that he knows that every perspective IS subjective (my eyes, my hands, my needs... and my enthusiasm!). But I don´t think he would like to think that his readers suspect him of being "biased" in the sense that he is in the pocket of some company (Leica, Canon, Adobe...).
   And I think it was very unfortunate that he held back information on the M8 issues. Does this mean that he is in the pockets of Leica?
   I don´t think so. (Take a look at his review of Leicas/Panasonics latest DSLR a few weeks ago, and you`ll see that he certainly wasn`t in their pockets at that time!).
   But I also think, as some people have commented on other threads in LL, that the effect of the internet age is that information (and rumors, disinformation, misinterpretation, anger, enthusiasm, bullshit!) spread very fast, and that more transparancy, from companies, as well as reviewers, is needed. I would also suggests that M.R. (and other writers who are reviewing photo equipment, and want to be respected as "unbiased" in the former sense) write a separate article about their "contracts" vis à vis the companies (and with "contracts", I also think about the un-said or -written parts), from getting a camera for testing, to the final review.
   Everybody would, in the long run, gain from this shared information (except those who are biased in the bad sense of that word).
   
Since there is so much crap floating around on the net with such a speed, I would guess that also the companies would gain something by giving clear and accurate information fast, so that the people that readers listen to might spread it, and stop false rumors. A win win situation.
   
This is one issue. The other big issue is that a lot of people want to see alternatives to the big DSLRs (and the current compact cameras) in the marked. I really hope that Leica adresses the M8 problems in a professional way (from honest information to really solving the problems). If they don´t do that well, the whole camera community, and those who enjoy looking at good pictures, might be loosers in the long run.
   And for narrow minded gear-heads or people who simply enjoy a fight, think a second about this. Wouldn`t the world of photography be less fascinating if Leica didn´t survive the transformation to digital?
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: paulnorheim on November 11, 2006, 10:07:18 pm
A small P.S. to Michael Reichmann:
When someone occationally complained that you were biased towards Canon, and never reviewed Nikon cameras, you replied, if I remember it correctly, that Nikon didn´t send you their cameras, and that you used Canon gear yourselves, etc... But given how important LL has become for DSLR shoothers, what about asking Nikon again?
   Or asking some competent people who you trust, who use Nikon gear, to review Nikon DSLRs that are considered important? I am well aware of the fact that LL is your site, and that you can`t take care of everything (like writing about every camera being released). However, given the increased value of LL for so many photographers, a lot of them using Nikon (I am using Canon, so I`m not complaining on behalf of my own sick mother!), it might be a good idea in the future...
   As a side effect, the "biased"-issue would be a bit relaxed. And when I mention Nikon, this also applies to any DSLR that might be considered as "important" (as when you asked Mike Johnston to review the new entry Pentax DSLR resently).
   Just a suggestion. But, as I said in the comment above, transparency is the most important issue. And kudos to you for clarifying what happend behind the scene when you wrote the Leica M8 review.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: michael on November 12, 2006, 09:03:55 am
I have asked a number of people I know with interest, experience and writing ability, to write reviews of Nikon cameras in particular and any others that they care to. None have taken me up on it to this point.

I would like nothing better than to be able to publish reviews of current Nikon DSLRs similar to the field reports and hands-on type reviews that I write myself.

People have little idea though of how much work it is to do these, and to do them well. That's probably why the writters that I've approach havn't followed through. They'd rather do it for a magazine, where at least they get paid.

I get quite a few  unsolicted submission each month, but regretably either the writing style is really poor or the handling of the review process leaves a lot to be desired. This would mean extensive rewriting on my part, which I don't have the time for, otherwise I'd do the whole thing myself in the first place.

Michael
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: pgpgsxr on November 12, 2006, 09:44:27 am
I feel the reviewer on this site has no obligations with anybody. If one doesn´t like the way the Luminous Landscape works, it´s quite easy go to another website.
As far as I´m concerned I like the reviews, I like the forum and I feel Michael has managed to keep me up to date on the latest photographic news. I live in a very boring part of the world at least photography-wise, not many people to share landscape ideas with, so thank God for the Luminous Landscape. I still remember the post on the photo.net forum inviting us around here!

Michael Reichmann , jun 14, 1999; 11:12 a.m.
You are invited to visit www.luminous-landscape.com. This site was created by Michael Reichmann, a long-time member of Photo-Net and magazine author on photography and digital imaging. It is devoted to the art and technique of landscape photography. The site is absolutely non-commercial and there are no annoying pop-up ads.

The site features an extensive image gallery, travel and technical articles, and it includes a major section on digital image processing. There is an open discussion board and anyone may submit a portfolio of their landscape images for inclusion on the Guest Gallery.
Come by and visit www.luminous-landscape.com
Michael
 Keep up the good work Michael!!
 Paul
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: seany on November 12, 2006, 11:49:49 am
Many thanks to all who replied to my question re reviewer's obligations,as usual the quality of the replies are balanced and informative.For myself I would like to add that I always look forward to and value Michael's reviews and will continue to do so in the future,however I believe he may have called it wrong this time [none of us is perfect]but all credit to Michael for his honest and detailed explanation of the events.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 12, 2006, 05:50:01 pm
For what it is worth, my view on this:

- A high visibility reviewer like Michael does have a moral responsability to produce reviews that are fair and honnest, and fully reflect what he saw when testing the product. I feel that michael is fully aware of this and has overall been acting accordingly.

- Checking with a manufacturer first when finding something abnormal when doing testing is the right thing to do,

- Waiting for the feedback of Leica before publishing the article would have been best. Michael should have defined a clear deadline to Leica, and should have mentioned the problem in his article when publishing it in the absence of Leica feedback by the defined deadline,

- We all make mistakes, and what defines us is more the way we deal with those. My feeling is that Michael has clarified the situation and made it clear that publishing the article without mentioning these issues was a mistake. This is good enough for me. Issue closed.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BrianSmith on November 13, 2006, 09:54:35 am
Obviously the fallout from this bothers Michael and he is honestly seeking direction and I respect that. Submitting a review to a camera manufacturer for accuracy to make certain the reviewer understood all functions of the product. However allowing them to dictate that any damaging information that might hurt their sales be withheld flies in the face of chapter one of "Ethics of Journalism 101."

Should a restaurant critic ever ask the chef if they should leave out the part about getting food poisoning? Should a movie critic ask the studio if they got things all wrong when they panned "Gigli" because it might hurt ticket sales? Should an automotive reviewer ever fail to mention that the wheels fall off over 20 mph, just because the automaker told them to keep that on the QT while they "fixed" the problem?

A review ought to be more than fluffy ad copy. If the manufacturer tells the reviewer "We are aware of the problem and working on a solution," then include that response but don't sweep the problem under the rug.

I don't believe Michael was doing anything malicious, but in the future I'd suggest that any camera manufacturers submitting equipment for review be prepared for an open honest assessment of their product - both the good AND the bad...
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: thompsonkirk on November 13, 2006, 10:55:21 am
Please let's just drop this.  On another thread - if you look around - Michael has apologized for what he regards as a mistake.  I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with his current position.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=13051 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13051)

What more can you ask a person to do?  


Kirk
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: James Russell on November 13, 2006, 10:58:19 am
Quote
The very thought that a review was submitted to the camera manufacturer for their review and damaging information was withheld at their request flies in the face of chapter one of "Ethics of Journalism 101."

Should a restaurant critic ever ask the chef if they should leave out the part about getting food poisoning? Should a movie critic ask the studio if they got things all wrong when they panned "Gigli" because it might hurt ticket sales? Should an automotive reviewer ever fail to mention that the wheels fall off over 20 mph, just because the automaker told them to keep that on the QT while they "fixed" the problem?

A review ought to be more than fluffy ad copy. If the manufacturer tells the reviewer "We are aware of the problem and working on a solution," then include that response but don't sweep the problem under the rug.

Brian Smith
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=84933\")

Brian,

I couldn't agree more.

I think working "close" with a manufactuerer puts a reviewer in between a rock and a hard place.

We all want quick and early information and we all want an honest appraisal, though in the digital world, those are usually two differeent agendas.  

I've gone through the early adopter stage with two different brands and each time the cameras were not 100% ready for delivery.  All were eventually sorted out, but not without a lot of work, trial and error.

To me, this site has a special responsibility because since the demise of the RG forums it has become the defacto voice for professional equipment.

To buy a camera based on this recent review then use it for commerce not only costs the user the price of a flawed product, but could ruin a relationship with a client and whether it's right or wrong, smart or foolhardy, a lot of people read the reviews on this site, trust the review and buy the product.

It is very difficult to be unbiased when you build a relationship with any company.

I get a fair amount of e-mails from people asking me my experience of the equipment I use and with one manufacturer I have a close relationship.

I always feel torn about mentioning the issuess of the product, knowing anything negative, (even 1 bad frame in 500) will probably give the person asking second thoughts about the purchase.

Still, when I answer I feel obliged to honestly explain my results, because I know that these purchases are not only costly and time consuming on the front end, but can even be more costly if a job is not delivered to the highest standards.  

As Michael mentioned hindsight is 20/20, but then again Michael is an intelligent adult and knows that to many his word is taken as fact.

In this instance I think he should have given all the facts he was allowed to report.

JR

[a href=\"http://russellrutherfordgroup.com/]http://russellrutherfordgroup.com/[/url]
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Chris_T on November 14, 2006, 10:31:53 am
Quote
But I also think, as some people have commented on other threads in LL, that the effect of the internet age is that information (and rumors, disinformation, misinterpretation, anger, enthusiasm, bullshit!) spread very fast, and that more transparancy, from companies, as well as reviewers, is needed. I would also suggests that M.R. (and other writers who are reviewing photo equipment, and want to be respected as "unbiased" in the former sense) write a separate article about their "contracts" vis à vis the companies (and with "contracts", I also think about the un-said or -written parts), from getting a camera for testing, to the final review.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Before online reviews, the photo magazine (e.g. Popular Photography) reviews are more like product intros. They hardly ever mention shortcomings or make comparisons between models from different manufacturers. The reviews are useless. The publications are definitely in the pockets of the manufacturers.

In that context, the online reviews here and at many other sites are far more useful to the readers. But once the manufacturers become aware of the popular sites, they would jump in to take advantage of them. Some sites would run ads for them, and some reviews would start tip toeing around the shortcomings. That's just how business is conducted. As Michael pointed out, it takes time and effort to write a good review. I therefore would not be surprised or offended if he is in the pocket of the manufacturers in some way.

I fully agree with the suggestion for a reviewer to post a disclaimer that he/she is not in the pocket of anyone. Unfortunately Michael did not respond to this suggestion. But then, I have not come across such a disclaimer anywhere else either.

The bottom line is that the readers should take responsibility to digest and evaluate what they read, especially if the material is unedited and free.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: michael on November 14, 2006, 10:38:04 am
I therefore would not be surprised or offended if he is in the pocket of the manufacturers in some way.

OK, once more for the record....

I have no advertisers. I have no sponsors. I have no corporate affiliations.

I accept no money from anyone (except my customers). I have been writing product reviews for over 30 years and in all that time have never accepted any product, or payment, or other form of gratuity in return for a review – good, bad or indifferent. To suggest otherwise is to be misinformed, or simply rude, or both.

And as for your assertion... " fully agree with the suggestion for a reviewer to post a disclaimer that he/she is not in the pocket of anyone. Unfortunately Michael did not respond to this suggestion. But then, I have not come across such a disclaimer anywhere else either.

Possibly you have never bothered to read this site's front page where the following statement has appeared continiously for the past 7 years...

This site is completely non-commercial. It currently has more than 3,000 pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs — all with no commercial advertisements. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization.

It's ad hominem attacks like this that drive people wishing to make a contribution to the web community away from it, sometimes for good!

Michael
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: paulnorheim on November 14, 2006, 12:08:40 pm
This morning I read another thread about this issue on another site, a very long "discussion". Or rather: a criminal trial with accusators and defenders, on and on – mostly attacks, against M.R. and other reviewers, and against Leica. It was a weird experience, and if some of the threads on the net concerning this issue is read by somone, say, 50 years from now, they will probably think that this must have been written in a period of history when not much else of particular interest happend around the world.

The passion, energy, anger and moralism, and the general atmosphere of witch hunt, paranoia and conspiracy, reminded me of the big ideological controverses in history, like when communism was the big subject ("The God that failed") in Europe during the Stalin era, or the McCarthy era in the US, or, for that matter, the recent anger surrounding the danish caricatures portraiting Muhammed, or the current controversies in US politics.
Magenta in some pictures? The torture of TWO WEEKS waiting time for a clarification from Leica? A reviewer explaining, five or six times, that he regrets omitting some issues that wasn`t clear for him when he discovered them, BUT HOW COULD HE! On and on. And on. And on.

Yes, the issues are, to a certain extent, to some people, important. And some of the questions are interesting on a general level, no doubt about that. But I think the way parts of the internet photography community (or "consumers") have been full time occupied with this issue, tells something particular and strange about our times and our society, that goes far beyond photography (or the "stupidity" of certain participants). I also think that some of the participants should be humble, when they are told that people once fought wars over the principle of the divine trinity. Or when they watch the dogmatic passions and political/religious anger among some islamists today. The net is obviously a tool that can help us widen our horizon. But it seems clear, when you see certain people fighting regular guerilla wars on subjects like Leica, Canon/Nikon, Microsoft/Apple, or for that matter a brand new mobile phone, that it is also an excellent tool for narrowing the horizon into a tunnel vision, for fighting, transforming geeky details into colossal mountains. Volcano mountains.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 14, 2006, 11:02:53 pm
Quote
Before online reviews, the photo magazine (e.g. Popular Photography) reviews are more like product intros. They hardly ever mention shortcomings or make comparisons between models from different manufacturers. The reviews are useless. The publications are definitely in the pockets of the manufacturers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85143\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Perhaps in your locale, but there are magazines (like Chasseur d'Image in France) that have proven their independance again and again.

Paper magazines at least have some income as a result of the sales of the paper, and that garantees some degree of independance.

Most online sites have to rely on advertizing as their sole source of income, and that alone does threaten their independance. Generally speaking I would trust paper more than web in terms of independance.

How come some sites like DPreview appear to have remained mostly un-influenced by manufacturers? The reason is that they have managed to convince readers and manufacturers that an independant source of information would draw more viewers in that one that is clearly biased. Phil has done a rare thing these days, he has bet on the intelligence of the people. 90% of marketing decisions are based on the assumed stupidity of consumers.

LL has been working on yet a different model. I wouldn't call it transparent, but it does clearly not rely on advertising. Either way, I can imagine various ways that could make this work without Michael having to be on anyone's salary list. Just try to figure out the value for the different players, as long as you have a win win relationship for both Michael and us, there is no reason to reject the proposal that it is done independantly from any influence.

The fundamental issue here has been the lack of serious articles on anything released by Canon and Phase main competitors (Nikon and Leaf). There will always be some latent doubt on the independance of Michael as long as he doesn't spend the time it takes to review himself such products. This might be a problem or not, we all have our own views on this.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: michael on November 14, 2006, 11:33:26 pm
Leaf? Do a search. I've done several major articles this year on Leaf backs including field reports. I've been on location shooting with their European sales manager and have written about it. I have written about Imacon backs before the were absorbed by Hasselblad. Given how often you're on this forum I'm surprised that you haven't taken the time to read these articles, assuming that they interest you. They're not exactly hidden.

I've also published two independant reviews of the Mamiya ZD because it interests me, and they are unavailable for me to test in North America. I reviewed the Kodak DCS Pro Back while it was shipping. I have reviewed products from Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic. Leica, Fuji, Mamiya, Sony, and Pentax. Probably a few more that i can't recall at the moment. These are all companies that I requested review samples from, and which sent them.

Nikon? Sorry, I've asked for test samples, No responses. Hasselblad ditto.

Also, as I've pointed out in the past, I tend to review the things that I own and work with. I switched from Nikon to Canon about 6 years ago, and so that's what I own and use. Therefore, I review it more often that products that I don't use.

This is not DPReview. I have no mandate (either self imposed or otherwise) to review any particular product. I review what interests me. I review the products that I either purchse myself or that companies send me for testing.

No mystery to it. No hidden agendas. Personal interest and availability are the sole drivers.

"There will always be some latent doubt on the independance of Michael..."

This is really getting tiresome.

Michael
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Fred Ragland on November 14, 2006, 11:51:21 pm
Quote
There will always be some latent doubt on the independance of Michael...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Et tu, Bernard?
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BrianSmith on November 15, 2006, 12:42:55 am
Michael,

The fact that you follow this thread is proof to me that you care about how people percieve your reviews. So that alone tells me you want to be honest and fair. Offer manufacturers nothing more than an honest un-biased appraisal. The manufacturers with nothing to hide will realize that's a great deal.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 15, 2006, 05:05:24 am
Michael,

There is a major misunderstanding going on here. The rest of my post was clearly saying that I had not doubt whatsoever about your independance. I'll say it again loud and clear I have zero doubt about your independance. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough.

This last sentence was only aimed at saying that some people still doubt because of a certain lack of coverage of some products, Nikon is one of them. I am NOT of one of these persons. Although I would clearly find LL even more interesting if there were more coverage of Nikon, I don't see the lack thereof as a sign of you being paid by Canon. Pointing this out was the whole point of my post.

Quote
Leaf? Do a search. I've done several major articles this year on Leaf backs including field reports. I've been on location shooting with their European sales manager and have written about it. I have written about Imacon backs before the were absorbed by Hasselblad. Given how often you're on this forum I'm surprised that you haven't taken the time to read these articles, assuming that they interest you. They're not exactly hidden.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Although I am fully aware that some things have been done on Leaf (I have read these articles), as far as I am aware, there was no full scale review per se of the Leaf backs. That is what I meant by citing Leaf. Granted, there is a lot more coverage of Leaf than there is of Nikon. Mentioning these 2 at the same level was unfair, sorry about that.

Quote
I've also published two independant reviews of the Mamiya ZD because it interests me, and they are unavailable for me to test in North America. I reviewed the Kodak DCS Pro Back while it was shipping. I have reviewed products from Kodak, Olympus, Panasonic. Leica, Fuji, Mamiya, Sony, and Pentax. Probably a few more that i can't recall at the moment. These are all companies that I requested review samples from, and which sent them.

Nikon? Sorry, I've asked for test samples, No responses. Hasselblad ditto.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many niche players, some of their cameras were lent to you by Vistek. You could borrow Nikons from Vistek if you wanted to Michael, you know that very well.

Quote
Also, as I've pointed out in the past, I tend to review the things that I own and work with. I switched from Nikon to Canon about 6 years ago, and so that's what I own and use. Therefore, I review it more often that products that I don't use.

This is not DPReview. I have no mandate (either self imposed or otherwise) to review any particular product. I review what interests me. I review the products that I either purchse myself or that companies send me for testing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And that fine with me, I don't need you endorsement to use my Nikon or my Mamiya ZD. All I was saying is that as long as you stick to reviewing what you like, and leave aside some main stream high quality products, some folks will be there with conspirations theories. That's the flip side of the coin. I hope that this posts clarify once for all that I am not one of them.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused, there will be no more.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: cgf on November 15, 2006, 06:44:49 am
Quote
This is really getting tiresome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If I can quote a somewhat bizarre but ultimately truthful saying: "Never try to teach a pig to sing"  (it's a waste of time, and extremely frustrating!)

Michael, I would much rather that you spend your time writing about photography, equipment and photo-trips to places I haven't been. The information and knowledge on the LL website is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Chris
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on November 15, 2006, 09:38:15 am
Quote
Michael, I would much rather that you spend your time writing about photography, equipment and photo-trips to places I haven't been. The information and knowledge on the LL website is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hear, hear! Right on!

I happen to prefer Michael's choice of items to review: things that interest him personally. I would be more suspicious if he tried to cover the entire field, give equal time to Nikon and Leaf, etc.

The fact that this forum has a number of very helpful contributors who are knowledgeable about important lines that Michael doesn't personally use balances that aspect of the site very nicely IMHO.

I still say: Thank you, Michael, for a great site!

Eric
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Chris_T on November 15, 2006, 10:04:55 am
Quote
Possibly you have never bothered to read this site's front page where the following statement has appeared continiously for the past 7 years...

This site is completely non-commercial. It currently has more than 3,000 pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs — all with no commercial advertisements. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization.

It's ad hominem attacks like this that drive people wishing to make a contribution to the web community away from it, sometimes for good!

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My apology for missing this statement, and post was not meant to be personal.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: paulnorheim on November 15, 2006, 10:06:32 am
For those of you who are familiar with Luminous Landscape, and the articles and comments from the owner of this site, I think it`s obvious that Michael Reichmann has an ability to integrate several passions into, I would certainly not say ONE passion, but into a particular "practice", or "modus operandi", that you won`t find anywhere else on the net. And this "practice" is, i believe, one source of the recent confusion and doubt, about whether we can trust the reviews at LL, or if they may be influenced by certain companies.
   
   Think about it for a moment. – And Michael Reichmann, I hope you`ll forgive me, when I now talk about someone I do not know personally. The one I am talking about, is not the "real" Michael Reichmann, but the the M.R. that appears on my screen at Luminous Landscape.
That person has a handful of talents:
1) He is a good photographer.
2) He is a good writer.
3) He is curious about some of the latest equipment available.
4) He is a childish pixel peeper with a lot of technical knowledge, and is excited about some very expensive gear (but also a lot of inexpensive gear).
4) He is also intelligent enough, and experienced enough, to know perfectly well that even the worst equipment can become a wonderful tool in the right hands.
5) He is gifted with a certain "social intelligence", and can count a lot of – not only photographers and writers on photography – but also important figures in the hard- and software world, among his friends.
6) He has a pedagogical talent (with a lot of knowledge that he has the passion to share with others – which is the definition of having a pedagogical talent).
   
So - what would you do, if you were in his shoes?
  Let´s say that you`ve allways been dreaming about travelling to a certain destination, to take those fabulous pictures. So why not arrange an expedition, and teach photography to some happy students on the road, at the same time as you`re hunting for those perfect scenes?
   And why not use two brand new cameras while you`re hunting?  
   And why not bring with you some wonderful new lenses, a new tripod and some beta-tested software? Then you can mail pictures while you`re taking them, report on the equipment you used to store your image files while you were on the road, and at the same time write notes for a few articles about the new cameras, lenses, and software, published some days after you`re back.
   And why not use a new Canon camera, since you`ve been using Canon cameras for years? Isn`t this the equipment you`re familiar with, which will give you the opportunity to compare, evaluate and make sound, balanced judgements in your next review on LL, based on years of experience?
    And why not some Adobe software, as you happen to travel with some friends from Adobe? Or why not a Leica camera, since you know their stuff since you started taking pictures with a range finder during the 1960`s?
   Or, since you`re curious, why not something else? Something different? Why not a challenger? What about Aperture for file management and Raw processing? Or a new, promising printer or some high quality paper for output. Or a small company challenging the big ones with a radical new consept? Why not?
   
Enough. But you see my point? A method of combining passions, talents, equipment, curiosity, knowledge and experience into something that both pays the bills and makes Luminous Landscapes into something that simply wouldn`t be there if Michael Reichmann wasn`t there. Working hard, and probably having an interesting time while he`s working.
   And the result?
   Something bigger than M.R.: Luminous Landscape, with all the contributing photographers, in ways that he is not able, and perhaps not willing to control.
   
Me think that M.R. has succeded in making peace with a lot of contradictions within himselfs: a passion for art, and a passion for teaching; a passion for art (again), and a passion for equipment that goes beyond what someone need for their art; a critical eye, and a passion for independence in writing, and also plenty of friends connected to big companies. Etc. Etc.
   And it isn`t surprising that this modus operandi is a permanent source of reactions, pointing in a lot of directions: from admiration to envy, from enthusiasm to suspicion, anger and hostility, and often a mixture of all of them.
   I don`t think that Michael Reichmann is perfect. But I have no reason to think that he`s in the pocket of a certain company. Basically, I think he´ve found certain ways of combining his interests and passions, that will never become 100 % transparent for anybody (not even himself or his friends!), because his method, his drive and (perhaps a bit pretentiously said:) the whole eco-system that we call Michael Reichmann (and Luminous Landscape) is rather idiosyncratic.  
   
Like most of the members and readers of L.L. – from those who defend M.R. as a God, to those seeing him as someone involved in The Big Conspiracy. And the rest of us, who are somewhere in the middle, blaming or defending him on a more human scale. But who, at the same time, can share an astonishing amount of knowledge and experience with each other.
   Perhaps time will tell if Michael Reichmann is a great photographer or not. Or perhaps time will not tell anything about that, because what we call "time" is an abstraction, containing a lot of historical, ideological, economical, and other idiosyncrasies and temporary circumstanses. And because we all witness a flood of images, floating into the net and the galleries, and nobody knows which images will be remembered, and which will sink and be forgotten. Perhaps he would be a better photographer, or writer, if he concentrated on one thing at the time? Who can tell? My point is that MR skillfully manage to combine his many talents (which to a certain degree, at least for a most of us, contradict each other), into what I called a certain "practice". And when some future historican looks into the transition from film to digital, Luminous Landscape will be a valuable source.
   And for us? I would suggest that we should continue to praise and blame him on a human scale. And use Luminious Landscape as a source of knowledge, human experience and expertice. There is no other place like this one.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: bjanes on November 15, 2006, 04:24:08 pm
Quote
This is not DPReview. I have no mandate (either self imposed or otherwise) to review any particular product. I review what interests me. I review the products that I either purchse myself or that companies send me for testing.

No mystery to it. No hidden agendas. Personal interest and availability are the sole drivers.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Anyone who is interested in quality control and statistical analysis knows that sampling error can compromise the value of any test. If the camera or lens being tested is not representative of the the norm for that instrument, the test can be misleading.

Consumer Reports tests only items that they have bought on the open market by anonymous buyers in an attempt to get a representative sample. Of course, they don't test the cameras that are being discussed here. If Leica sends a camera to Michael for review, you can be sure that they will not send him a camera that is not up to spec. Furthermore, if a reviewer pans a product supplied free of charge for testing, the probability of him/her receiving subsequent samples is diminished. On the other hand, reviewers that never pan a bad product will not gain the trust of their readers. There is a proper balance, and I think that Michael's account of what transpired with the M8 is entirely reasonable, and those who impugn his credibility are out of line.

With complex equipment such as lenses and digital sensors, there will always be sample to sample variations and one should test several samples to determine what is representative. Of course, one can hardly expect Michael to purchase several samples for a report that is provided free of charge to the user. After spending thousands of dollars for a camera, it is prudent for the buyer to check his own sample to be certain that it meets his expectations. That M8 users are stuck with a lemon because of a misleading review is not credible.

Finally, DPReview does not really help that much in the selection of a camera. They give an exhaustive description of the controls and specifications. The resolution test is not helpful since it is from a JPEG, usually with default settings, and the reported resolution is nearly always about 80% of Nyquist. Why even bother to perform the test.  The noise performance is also from a JPEG with default NR, which can also obscure image detail. Often ergonomics and personal preference are more critical in one's choice.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: howiesmith on November 15, 2006, 04:46:30 pm
Quote
Anyone who is interested in quality control and statistical analysis knows that sampling error can compromise the value of any test. If the camera or lens being tested is not representative of the the norm for that instrument, the test can be misleading.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An absolute essential for a random test is a random sample.  Maybe there is no "sampling error."  Better than a random sample might be an average sample.

Send me your hand selected "random" sample camera (or lens), and I can tell you how it performs.  How that sample of one compares with what you get from B&H is any body's guess.

There have been many discussions about sample (of one) variations of Canon lenses here.  Surely, Canon (maybe even Leica) knows these things and can feed me a lens or camera that will test good, bad, or average.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: jani on November 15, 2006, 05:21:40 pm
Quote
Finally, DPReview does not really help that much in the selection of a camera. They give an exhaustive description of the controls and specifications. The resolution test is not helpful since it is from a JPEG, usually with default settings, and the reported resolution is nearly always about 80% of Nyquist. Why even bother to perform the test.  The noise performance is also from a JPEG with default NR, which can also obscure image detail. Often ergonomics and personal preference are more critical in one's choice.
I suppose you haven't been reading DPReview for a while (at least since their review of the 5D last November), since what you're stating about noise performance testing is patently false.

DPReview have also been doing resolution comparisons with raw files a bit longer, too, if you see their raw software comparison, as well as their studio scene comparisons.

Raw conversion comparison, EOS 400D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page16.asp)
Noise performance, JPEG vs. raw, EOS 400D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp)
Dynamic range performance, including JPEG vs. raw, EOS 400D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page19.asp)
Studio scene comparison, EOS 400D vs. D80, raw (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page25.asp)
Studio scene comparison, EOS 400D vs. DSLR-A100, raw (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page26.asp)

Apart from this technical nitpicking, I agree that DPReview is oriented towards a more clinical and neutral review methodology, and that it mostly forms a solid basis before looking to more subjective reviews who perhaps share the reader's personal tastes in cameras.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: Gandalf on November 15, 2006, 05:50:06 pm
I think the obligations of a reviewer are honest, impartial, accurate, timely and complete. Fun to read is a bonus. On the whole I think Michael does a pretty darn good job. If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: bjanes on November 15, 2006, 05:52:52 pm
Quote
I suppose you haven't been reading DPReview for a while (at least since their review of the 5D last November), since what you're stating about noise performance testing is patently false.

DPReview have also been doing resolution comparisons with raw files a bit longer, too, if you see their raw software comparison, as well as their studio scene comparisons.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=85500\")

No, I did not read that review since I shoot Nikon. I am glad to see that they are finally doing some raw testing. However, in their D80 review they did JPEG noise testing only and made some comparisons with Canon which are misleading.

[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp[/url]

Nikon NR is done entirely in software (except for dark current) and can not be completely disabled with JPEGs. This NR degrades image detail. You only see the Nikon noise in full with RAW conversion.

On the other hand, Canon also does on chip NR which does not degrade image detail. This is done for both RAW and JPEG. Those JPEG noise graphs make the D80 look better than it is, and the degradation of image detail is not taken into account. If you want, you can look at the detail in the image of the Queen on a coin, but good luck in coming to any objective conclusion.

I did not mention DR, but I am glad to see that they are testing raw. However, their DR for the D80 is the same for ISO 100 and ISO 1600, and does not take into account that a reasonable noise floor severely limits DR with high ISO.

Resolution is not improved much with RAW, but in any case, the extinction resolution correlates poorly with perceived image sharpness and is uniformly 80% of Nyquist. MTF at 50% contrast is a better measure of perceived image sharpness, as done with Imitest (for example).
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: bjanes on November 15, 2006, 06:02:21 pm
Quote
An absolute essential for a random test is a random sample.  Maybe there is no "sampling error."  Better than a random sample might be an average sample.

Send me your hand selected "random" sample camera (or lens), and I can tell you how it performs.  How that sample of one compares with what you get from B&H is any body's guess.

There have been many discussions about sample (of one) variations of Canon lenses here.  Surely, Canon (maybe even Leica) knows these things and can feed me a lens or camera that will test good, bad, or average.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Howie,

I agree entirely. Most likely, a sample from B&H would be more or less random, while cherry picked specimens sent for review are most likely not random. There is quite a bit of variation with Nikon lenses too. I've read many reports of poor performance for the expensive 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, but it gets rave reviews when tested. For what they charge, I would hope that Leica would have better quality control and would have fewer lenses not meeting spec, but who knows.

Bill
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: howiesmith on November 15, 2006, 06:02:38 pm
Quote
I think the obligations of a reviewer are honest, impartial, accurate, timely and complete. Fun to read is a bonus. On the whole I think Michael does a pretty darn good job. If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would you add "knows what he is reviewing" to your list?

"If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective."  Can't agree with that from experience.

Interest and perspective can introduce bias, either intentionally or accidently.  If the reviewer is introducing bias, he should acknowledge that.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: jani on November 15, 2006, 06:11:01 pm
Quote
Interest and perspective can introduce bias, either intentionally or accidently.  If the reviewer is introducing bias, he should acknowledge that.
It is impossible to be without bias. That should be implicit in the reading of any review.

An example:

If I were to review anything, my bias would be as a fairly skilled, technically inclined person. I can try to set aside that bias, but that in itself introduces a new bias.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: stevenrk on November 15, 2006, 09:15:06 pm
Quote
For those of you who are familiar with Luminous Landscape, and the articles and comments from the owner of this site, I think it`s obvious that Michael Reichmann has an ability to integrate several passions into, I would certainly not say ONE passion, but into a particular "practice", or "modus operandi", that you won`t find anywhere else on the net....

And use Luminious Landscape as a source of knowledge, human experience and expertice. There is no other place like this one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul thank you for stating it so well.  And specifically, Micheal's article on the M8 was particularly thoughful and thought provoking.  Absolutely clear in terms of what it was and what it was not.  Reaching to describe a brand new type of photographic instrument that paints a strong image and allows you to connect with your subject in a way, at least in digital, that was not possible before.  

And I'm someone who purchased the M8, used it, and returned it because of the IR issue -- and only that.  So clearly, I disagree with Micheal's view of the importance of the problem or the likelyhood of a satisfactory solution (two bright red dots on one camera are one too many for me, even if you can cover one up with gaffer's tape -- unfortunately not the mirrored one.  And that is even assuming that the IR cut filter/profile produced an acceptable result on the many tones, including skin tones, impacted by IR, in its many and unpredictable forms).  

My difference of opinion with Micheal's discussion about IR, as I experienced in images, is expressed by my decision to return the M8.  But that is exactly what Micheal's site is about, and you describe so well.  We are adults and photographers.  And Michael's articles respect and speak to both.

Steven
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: paulnorheim on November 15, 2006, 10:45:14 pm
Steven,
 
sorry to hear about your experiences. I hope that Leica can fix the issue one way or the other, and that you in the end will get a camera that you can trust – hopefully a Leica M8 again, if that was what you really wanted!
   
I also agreed totally with you, when you praised the approach of Sean Reid in his reviews. (By the way: it looks as if you`ve deleted that part of your last post, while I was writing this response, but that doesn`t matter, as I would be happy to use any opportunity to mention the critical essays and reviews of Sean Reid on the net.) I haven`t gone back to see whether he has "compromised" himselfs on the Leica-issue, as several people have claimed –  and frankly, I do not consider myself competent to make judgements on the issue (but at least I have read his articles, in contrast to certain people on the net who has got the idea that this person called "Sean" must be a corrupt and horrible person!).
   
My experience with Sean Reid as a reviewer, both on LL, and now on his own site, is of someone who takes his time, when he is testing a new camera or some lenses, and allthough he can get it wrong, like everybody else, I dont`have any doubts about his moral integrity or intellectual standards so far.
   Some of Sean Reids reflections on lenses – the way they "draw" or "paint" a scene – or the differenses between how the small sensors of compact cameras capture a scene (with their large depth of field and lack of detail), and how the full frame digital (and medium format film) cameras capture the same scene, with their abilities to render details, trancends anything else I have read on the net, or elsewhere, on this subject.
   Sein Reids slow, balanced and serious way of approaching any issue he is discussing, is so far beyond what you read in almost any popular photo magazine (the ones some people assume are "less corrupt", because they get more money from their readers and the advertising companies!), that I prefer to listen to his voice on the net, much more than most of these glossy paper magazines.
   Anyhow, I hope things eventually get sorted out, and that you end up with a really nice camera!

Cheers!

Paul
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: williamrohr on November 16, 2006, 02:47:25 am
Knowing that I invite the plague of a thousand locusts for what I am about to say .. I just can't ignore this any longer ..... one man's humble opinion ... this angst is directed at the wrong issue ... the review is not the issue.  The review is Michael's opinion and he's entitled to that opinion and the way he derives it.  I for one am delighted to have the benefit of Michael's expertise but at the end of the day it's my money and I am solely responsible for how I spend (or waste) it.  To me the critical issue is what has happened to this industry/market that a company of Leica's historically impecable engineering and reputation brings a product to market before its ready. I own an M6 and an M7 and I KNOW I can can shoot with either of them in rain or shine, hot or cold, dust or otherwise and the only limitation will be my personal creativity .. not the camera ... and when I'm dead and gone ... my grandson will be able to use that same camera to the limits of his ability (assuming film is still available) ... such was Leica quality. I'm not sure any of us need a shutter that will outlive us, but for a price Leica provided it. How they could have released a product with so many obvious issues is "mind numbing". They are not alone though, my H1 had to go back for three firmware "upgrades" before it was right.  My fear is that the camera industry (like many other tech industries) has come under the control of the marketing types and the bean counters ... not the engineers ... and that's what keeps me awake at night.  In the meantime ... thank you Michael ... for spending the time and effort to keep me abreast of the issues  Bill
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: danm628 on November 19, 2006, 10:24:15 pm
I find this to be a very odd thread, it's just hard to believe people think Michael would have some hidden agenda.  I've known Michael for a long time (20+ years ago my company wrote a word processor for his company).  I had lost contact with him for most of that period until I ran into him here.  He's gone back to photography and I work at a really big silicon company.  (Just trying to avoid being part of the great conspiracy and disclose everything.)

About 2 years ago I decided to get back into cameras and ran across LL while looking at reviews.  All of the reviews I read praised the camera I was thinking about (high end digi-cam).  Michael didn't like it.  He complained about the ergonomics of the camera; it took good pictures but was a pain to use.  Part way through the review I realized that I knew the guy writing it, a very strange feeling.  

Looking though LL and Michael's reviews I decided to get a Minolta A2 (ended up with an A200).  Michael said I would like using it and he was right.  For the 8 months I had it I loved the camera, unfortunately my home was robbed on a business trip and I lost it.

Michael doesn't do the technical analysis of the camera shot.  He reports on how easy or hard it is to use.  He talks about the ergonomics.  He doesn't pixel peep the pictures (at least not much), he shows "art" (what ever that means to different people) taken with the camera.  All of which is very subjective.  And very important.

I've taken a lot of Michael's advice on cameras.  Partly due to him I've given Canon a very large pile of money this year.  And loved every minute of it.  I have also bought a lot of things that are not what Michael suggested, I use Aperture since it "feels" better to me than Lightroom.  

Michael is a great guy with lots of opinions.  He has toys I wish I could afford (or justify owning -- I would never use a MF camera enough to make it worth it).  

And most importantly he shares his opinions with us.  

I'm sure Michael's only goal is to have fun.  And I thank him for sharing his fun with us.

     -- Dan

PS And I'm thinking about getting an M8 next year.  It looks like fun.  Expensive fun.  But fun none the less.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: David Mantripp on November 20, 2006, 04:57:09 am
Quote
Perhaps in your locale, but there are magazines (like Chasseur d'Image in France) that have proven their independance again and again.


Possibly in the past, but compare & contrast their current issue: the Olympus E-400 review, which finds as many faults as possible with the camera, invents others, and complains about the price (1100 Euro list for the twin lens kit, fercrissakes - difficult to to improve on that!), then goes on to positively gush all over the M8 (5000 Euro body only), without any mention of the current issues. They are clearly aware of them, because in a little corner, hidden away, they mention that an IR filter would be a good idea... and in any case, they are always very quick to pour scorn on the Internet forums, especially ones that don't speaak French. To be honest, C d'I, in my opinion, is way overdue a bit of fresh blood in the editorial staff.  It isn't just because the reviews are long and full of diagrams that they're any good.  Reponses Photo is a far better magazine these days - written by photographers, not tired old geeks, and it shows.

ps - Example: on the E-400 side, they complain that the dust shaker can't be turned off on startup, and that the EOS 400D, which runs its SSWF clone on power off is far better. Yeah. When is dust likely to get in the camera ? When you change a lens. What do you do after you change a lens ? Turn the camera on. Alors ?  And by the time you get it up to your eye, it is ready to shoot. Measurement Geeks 1, Photography 0.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 20, 2006, 05:40:13 am
Quote
Possibly in the past, but compare & contrast their current issue: the Olympus E-400 review, which finds as many faults as possible with the camera, invents others, and complains about the price (1100 Euro list for the twin lens kit, fercrissakes - difficult to to improve on that!), then goes on to positively gush all over the M8 (5000 Euro body only), without any mention of the current issues. They are clearly aware of them, because in a little corner, hidden away, they mention that an IR filter would be a good idea... and in any case, they are always very quick to pour scorn on the Internet forums, especially ones that don't speaak French. To be honest, C d'I, in my opinion, is way overdue a bit of fresh blood in the editorial staff.  It isn't just because the reviews are long and full of diagrams that they're any good.  Reponses Photo is a far better magazine these days - written by photographers, not tired old geeks, and it shows.

ps - Example: on the E-400 side, they complain that the dust shaker can't be turned off on startup, and that the EOS 400D, which runs its SSWF clone on power off is far better. Yeah. When is dust likely to get in the camera ? When you change a lens. What do you do after you change a lens ? Turn the camera on. Alors ?  And by the time you get it up to your eye, it is ready to shoot. Measurement Geeks 1, Photography 0.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi David,

Having given up on my CDI subsciption a few months ago, I haven't had the chance to read this article on the Olympus. About the Leica, they had probably missed the problem like everybody else and could only afford to add one last minute comment when they read about the issue just before going to press, if they did.

I agree with you that CDI is not as interesting as it used to be, but I still find their write ups to be overall objective. My post was only about that, it was never meant to be a blind praise of CDI. Had you had the chance to read the letter I sent them a few months ago (to which I got no response unfortunately - which caused the non renewal of my subscription), you would know that I find a lot to criticize.

Reponse Photo is indeed one of the best magazines I have come accross recently.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: michael on November 20, 2006, 08:42:18 am
Dan,

Small world, huh?

Good to see you here, and thanks for the kind words.

Contact me off-forum. It would be fun to catch up.

Michael
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: gochugogi on November 23, 2006, 03:25:06 pm
Quote
The passion, energy, anger and moralism, and the general atmosphere of witch hunt, paranoia and conspiracy, reminded me of the big ideological controverses in history, like when communism was the big subject ("The God that failed") in Europe during the Stalin era, or the McCarthy era in the US, or, for that matter, the recent anger surrounding the danish caricatures portraiting Muhammed, or the current controversies in US politics.
Magenta in some pictures? The torture of TWO WEEKS waiting time for a clarification from Leica? A reviewer explaining, five or six times, that he regrets omitting some issues that wasn`t clear for him when he discovered them, BUT HOW COULD HE! On and on. And on. And on.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And how brother! It's a pity but there are some people here with absolutely no grasp on the important things in life. I think the old cliché "get a life" is an apt expression here. MR has done a great job on this site. And has stated upfront in every review he his intentions and goals. He picks and chooses the gear he reviews and imparts a shooter's subjective experience. It's simple, effective and works. If the reader wants more--and I bet they want it free--they can go elsewhere.
Title: reviewer's obligations
Post by: phopia on January 12, 2007, 03:46:55 am
Quote
What is the feeling of forum members regarding the recent Leica M8 review by Michael,is a reviewers main obligation to his audience i.e. those who are interested in buying the product he reviews or should he do as Michael and accede to the manufacturers wishes and not publish any defects.Does it not invalidate a review if one does not publish "warts and all".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A review is not the truth, only a opinion....