Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:29 PM 11/18/2006, you wrote: >Re-read that Pop Photo item that was posted the other day - I believe the >first place it occurred was in the Luminous Landscape rave, but I may be >mistaken. IF I recall that one correctly, the reviewer acknowledged allowing >Leica to see his review before posting it; he has acknowledged withholding >the information in order to give Leica a chance to fix the problem. And he said that he has done that with many other reviews when he's run into a problem that the manufacturers promise to fix with a later software or firmware upgrade. He says that his mistake with Leica was not getting a promised date for the fix. He says he won't make that mistake again. I, for one, trust Leica to come up with an acceptable fix. They know that their reputation for durability and reliability (therefore the future of the company) is on the line. I also think that the problem has been greatly exaggerated. If you are a fashion or product photographer who needs exact colors, you would not be using a Leica M anyway. For photojournalism - Leica M's forte - the M8 is the best digital camera I've found. The lack of an IR filter is actually an advantage, not a fault. Leica purposely left the anti-alias filter out for sharper results straight from the camera. All digital cameras that include the anti-alias filter require software fixes for the softness. Leica requires software fixes for the color since they don't have the filter. If I had to choose between better sharpness and better color fidelity, I would choose sharpness any day. Leica did, too. Tina Tina Manley, ASMP, NPPA http://www.tinamanley.com