Leica to shift product focus...

[johnastovall]

With the serious problems attendent to Leica's premature release of the M8. Solms has decided make a move at diversifacation in their products. Introducting the Leica-Birdy Bike, you can now cycle on a Leica to where you plan to shoot with your Canon or Nikon gear. It will even fold up for easy transport by plane.

But some early adopters have reported flashing bands of light when passing street lights and the tires sometimes changing color to magenta.

[Rick Waldroup]

I would love to have one of those! John, you know much more about digital than I do- how in the heck did Leica drop the ball with the sensor and whatnot with the M8? You would think with digital capture being around as long as it has that it would not be that difficult to produce a camera that delivers acceptable results, especially when the name is Leica and the camera is almost five thousand dollars. When Epson and Cosina teamed up to make the RD-1, the camera had problems, but not to this degree that the M8 seems to be having.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup

I would love to have one of those! John, you know much more about digital than I do- how in the heck did Leica drop the ball with the sensor and whatnot with the M8? You would think with digital capture being around as long as it has that it would not be that difficult to produce a camera that delivers acceptable results, especially when the name is Leica and the camera is almost five thousand dollars. When Epson and Cosina teamed up to make the RD-1, the camera had problems, but not to this degree that the M8 seems to be having.

I think Leica may have had a "Not invented here" mind set and didn't ask for help. What really has me upset is Leica knew about the problems and still released. Also MR at Luminous Landscape, knew about the problems and at Leica's request didn't mention them in his glowing review of the M8. I don't know where Kodak is in all this but they had the same problems of lack of IR filtering in their early cameras. I would think they would have mentioned to Leica the weak IR filter was not a good idea.

More on my future gear plans as a reaction to this will be posted later today.

Oh, a Birdy bike is as much as a refered R-D1.

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

Any idea on who is making the sensor chip for this?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

Any idea on who is making the sensor chip for this?

It's fabed by Evolution by way of Natural Selection Labs based on a design by Darwin, Ltd.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Does it come in black?

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

I guess they are using the famous "throw a bunch of S$%^ against the wall and see what sticks theory?"

I wonder how this is going over in GERMANY!

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

Does it come in black?

You can get a Birdy Black up have to add your own Leica logo. Just like the M8 where you add your own IR But filter.

http://www.birdybike.com/Models/bird...small_full.jpg

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

John, it comes in Maroon!

[Duffy Pratt]

From LL intro:

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.

How does that square with the review first glossing over these problems, and now apparently trying to sell the IR problem as a "feature." LL now has an article testing the IR "capabilities" of the M8. As if Leica had set out to make an IR digital camera.

It bothers me that Leica dropped the ball here, but since I was probably never going to get this camera, that was just a curiousity. It bothers me a bit more that LL, whom I have trusted for solid, impartial information, may not be as trustworthy as I had thought.

Duffy

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Duffy Pratt

From LL intro:



How does that square with the review first glossing over these problems, and now apparently trying to sell the IR problem as a "feature." LL now has an article testing the IR "capabilities" of the M8. As if Leica had set out to make an IR digital camera.

It bothers me that Leica dropped the ball here, but since I was probably never going to get this camera, that was just a curiousity. It bothers me a bit more that LL, whom I have trusted for solid, impartial information, may not be as trustworthy as I had thought.

Duffy

It doesn't and MR has a serious problem since he lets a manufacture proof his review.

Here's part of MR's rationalization of his doing what he did.

A Clarification

There was an image quality problem discovered by early Leica M8 owners which is now being extensively discussed on net forums. On a personal level this has reflected badly on me because, though I did mention in my review that the camera suffered from poor low light auto white balance, and had excessive infrared sensitivity, my review did not mention the green blob / banding and purple response issues.

Well – it did. I discovered these during my initial testing and put them in my review. I then sent my draft review to Leica, as I always do with manufacturers, for their comments. The company subsequently requested that I hold off mentioning these latter items because they were looking into them and hoped to have a response in short order. I acquiesced to this request, not wanting to delay my review, and expecting that I would be able to publish a follow-up quickly that not only mentioned these problems but also their potential solution.

This did not happen. Instead, after the problems because obvious to new users and were being discussed openly on net forums, Leica eventually published a statement, which was issued to some other web sites, but not to this one. At least one such site thus was able to claim credit for waiting to publish their review "while Leica worked closely" with them to resolve it. How nice for them.

And me? Well, in some circles my name is mud because I apparently failed to mention these obvious problems in my review. Now you know why.

Should I have held off with my review until this issue was resolved? Should I have gone ahead and published it as originally written, even though the company had requested that I hold off on these topics? 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, as is Monday morning quarterbacking. But, in the end I would do what I did again, simply because I felt that potential owners needed to know what I had learned in my testing, without delay. And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said.

You can read it all here.

[KJ Smith]

November 2006 Rangefinder pg 78

And the people who developed the chip ..........................................Kodak !!!


Kevin

[Duffy Pratt]

Why didn't he come up with the obvious solution; which was to tell the truth in his review? He could have said that he spotted some anomolies in 3 of the 500 shots that he took, that he pointed out these anomolies to Leica, and that they have told him that they would be looking at the issues and, if they reveal anything systemic about the camera, Leica will address them as quickly as possible. Then say, that even with these possible problems, he has decided to buy the camera himself.

If he had done that, I don't see how anyone would have cause to complain. But for some reason he seems to think that the only options were to publish the article as originally drafted, or to withold publication. The course he took makes him look bad, Leica look bad, and LL look bad. I can't see why he would be defending it.

I also don't see what he means by a manufacturer's responsibility to journalists. It seems to me that that's just backward. The manufacture should do nothing more than supply the equipment. The reviewer reviews it and tells it like he sees it. What responsibility should the manufacturer have? I can understand how a journalist might have an obligation to let the manufacturer respond, but beyond that...

The bottom line is that he published a glowing review on one of the most popular photo websites on the net, and in the review he witheld damaging information about the product at the request of the manufacturer. My guess is that quite a few people were pushed positively toward the decision to buy based on that review, and many of those people may end up disappointed because they might have behaved differently if they had known of the problems. He should have serious egg on his face, and he can't pass that blame off to Leica or anyone else.

Duffy

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

November 2006 Rangefinder pg 78

And the people who developed the chip ..........................................Kodak !!!


Kevin

I wonder how much Kodak warned Leica about this as the early Kodak dSLR's had the same problem and they had to send out a user installed IR cut filter. This was in a 20K dSLR.
With a such weak IR filter, I would think they would have ask the sensor maker just what the consequences could be.

What ever the real reason, if they knew about it they should not have released and then to suggest you buy 200+ dollar filters were the things to do shows a lack of Leica's understanding of the market for this kind of digital camera. They aren't people buying collector editions. They are serious photographers' looking for a very special tool for some very speical uses.

[PeteQ]

It is really a shame that MR's chose to post his review the way he did. Even worse, I think, is his explanation, especially this part "And, I would have held back again on the issues that I was requested to because that's the proper way to deal with manufacturers, who one assumes will take their responsibilities to journalists seriously. Enough said." Proper way to deal with a manufacturer that is giving you freebies maybe. If you are buying things with your own cash, you are a pissed off customer but if it is a "loaner" then you have to play nice nice and proper....

Gee, do you think politicians would like to get advance copy and have facts they don't like withheld? The bottom line is, for some reason MR is beholden to Leica in some way. Maybe it's the shiny new cameras that keep showing up. I guess it's nice to get pre-production equipment and if that is what he was willing to sell his integrity for, well, I guess those Leicas must really be something....

Duffy hit it right on the head, just a simple note that he had some problems and after discussing the issues with Leica he was told they were being addressed. Would have done wonders. For MR to call it Monday morning quarterbacking is absurd. That's a no-brainer if you are to be perceived as independent. He changed his article at the request of Leica to suppress problems. Is there really a gray area for him to not understand why his name is mud right now?

As John Wayne once said "You have my trust, it is your birthright. But heaven help you if you lose it." I know I will certainly cast a jaded eye on anything else I read from MR. At least Ken Rockwell admits he hasn't used stuff before he gives it a review.