[Leica] M8: "I think it's going to be all right" - transposed to Canon, Nikon, etc. etc.

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

B. D.:

Everything you say has merit.  And in a perfect world, with perfect 
engineering, a variety of digital RF cameras to choose from, and a 
corresponding perfect moral universe, I'd agree.

BUT. . .  this is not a perfect world, and the digital camera marketplace 
is a decidedly bad-assed place dominated by a few giants, none of whom give 
a damn about RF cameras.  One of them *is* its own supply chain, and has 
successfully defined to the consumer what digital photos "ought" to look 
like, according to its own strengths (noise reduction) and weaknesses 
("plastic" texture).

Leica decided to go for maximum resolution, a reasonable thing to do given 
their long-time strength, and the smeary fine details of most DSLRs.  The 
price to be paid, if we believe their explanations (which sound 
reasonable), is that to get the maximum resolution and corner performance, 
the IR filter on the sensor had to be too weak for accurate color rendition 
under some circumstances.

(Aside--if the M8 contributes to the decline of polyester in clothing, so 
much the better!   :-)

Yes, they "should have" come clean about the IR issue beforehand, like they 
did about the anti-aliasing filter and possible occasional moire.  The way 
things appear to have been handled must smell very bad, especially to 
anyone with a journalistic background.  It does to me, too.

But given the realities of the digital marketplace and the Internet, 
knowledge of the need for external IR filters might have sunk the camera 
before it ever hit the streets.  It's also possible that Leica's testing 
was limited, and they didn't know how bad the problem would be in the real 
world.  I know that I missed it, looking at some of the early samples.  So 
did Sean Reid.  And we now see that other cameras have the same problem (to 
a lesser degree), including the R-D1, which has been out for a couple of 
years.   So did several Nikon DSLRs. It barely made a blip in the general 
photo press.

The witholding of information at LL is more of a problem.  But again, look 
at what happens when an early review is negative.  Take the example of the 
Oly E-300.  It got slammed due to a substandard JPG engine.  Olympus fixed 
it in a firmware upgrade, but the camera never recovered from the bad 
press.  Would we want that to happen to the M8, especially considering 
Leica's recent financial issues, and the lack of other RF alternatives?  I 
would not want to be in MR's shoes, as it must have been a difficult 
decision.

Leica is a niche market.  I have dealt with a lot with niche market 
software in my work.  It is often buggy, you often have to deal with 
workarounds, the companies sometimes deny that a problem exists even after 
you've proven it.  This may just be something we have to accept in the RF 
digital world.  I wish it were not so, but. . .   Trust me, I've dealt with 
problems that have much worse solutions than something that can be cured by 
a few IR filters.

I have never been a no-filter fundamentalist.

When I say "it's gonna be all right," what I mean is that the M8 has some 
real strengths, that may make it worth it for some of us.  And the problems 
look to be soluable.  The questions for me are these:  Do I want a camera 
that will finally let me shoot digital with my Leica and VC lenses, 
focusing and viewing the way I prefer to (and unlike the R-D1, allowing me 
to see the whole viewfinder frame)?  Is it worth it for me?  Am I willing 
to put up with a couple of imperfections to gain what I'll gain?  Am I 
willing to use IR filters as a price for some really amazing resolution 
that I don't see in DSLR files?

And conversely, would I prefer a camera that does not have the M8's acuity, 
but had less IR issues?  Do I accept the fact that the problem is truly 
inherent in the reality of RF lenses being closer to the film/sensor plane 
than DSLRs?

Everybody has to decide all this for themselves.  The jury is still out for 
me, but I'm feeling more positive than negative right now.  As I said 
before, how Leica handles the problem may be more important than the 
problem itself.  If they offer some free IR filters with the purchase of 
the camera, and fix the green glob and streaking issues with a free chip 
swap at the factory, it may be all right.  If Leica doesn't make good to 
reasonable customer satisfaction, then it's probably curtains for the M8, 
and deservedly so.

--Peter

At 11:04 AM 11/18/2006 -0800, B. D. wrote:
>So it's "going to be alright."
>People will "work through the problems."
>People will make the camera work by putting IR filters on their lenses.
>
>This leaves me wondering several things:
>1. How do people feel about the fact that Leica shipped the M8 knowing that
>the camera was defective, and can not accurately record colors under
>certain, common situations because of the way it is designed?
>
>2. How do people feel about the fact that certain reviewers, upon whom they
>depend - and I am NOT referring to any members of this list - were aware of
>the defect and, at the request of the company, withheld mention of it in
>their rave reviews?
>
>3. How do people feel about the fact that Leica is not recalling the cameras
>to make a real fix, but instead will require owners to purchase filters, at
>their own expense, to "fix" the problem? (And remember, if you have a number
>of lenses, you undoubtedly require a number of filter sizes, unless you're
>going to screw around with adapters, which means you could easily be adding
>$1000 to the cost of the camera.)
>
>4. What would the people on this list be saying if Canon, Nikon, Olympus,
>Fuji, etc., did something like this? Would they be saying, 'no big deal.
>It's a great camera and all it takes is a little working through the
>problems, or would they be saying, 'what do you expect of those big Japanese
>companies with their Chinese manufactured, mass-produced crap? Thank God
>Leica doesn't do things like that!'
>
>5. What happened to the theory - espoused in what I'd guess have been
>literally thousands of posts over the years, that it's heretical to invest
>in Leica glass to then turn around and slap another piece of glass - even if
>made by Leica - in front of the lens?