Sean Reid s Review of the M9

[jonoslack]

Thanks for the kind words about the Azeri Restaurant shot.

What I was trying to say, is
Will that camera allow me to take the photos I want?

If the answer is YES, then reviews and tests simply become interesting (or not, as the case may be). If you can't try out the camera then the tests may help you to answer that question (but they are never going to go all the way).

As for brick wall tests. I nearly always use our brick wall to check out new lenses to make sure that they're okay - it's quick and easy and it works.

The high ISO noise issue is rather different - Various tests have rather suggested that there is no difference significant between the M8 and the M9 (apart from the sensor size) . I don't take issue with those results, but in the 'real world' I'm finding that properly exposed ISO 2500 shots are often useable (when they weren't with the M8) I'm clearly not alone in this. It may actually be to do with a different colour response, different IR response etc. just looking at the noise levels may only be part of the equation.

So, testing is useful, but the very process of making the test 'meaningful', i.e. carefully controlling the variables and taking shots in test conditions, may actually be making them less useful, as most of us take our pictures in uncontrolled conditions, and those excluded variables may actually be important.

 

[nei1]

Hope youre not using a cornish wall Jono,youll end up with holgas,,,,,,wellcome back,

 

[jonoslack]

Hope youre not using a cornish wall Jono,youll end up with holgas,,,,,,wellcome back,

I wish . . . it's a suffolk wall I'm afraid! (mind you, it's quite wonky, Emma wouldn't let the builder use a plumline :ROTFL

Thanks for the welcomeback.

 

[jonoslack]

IF you remember, the reviewers were well aware of the IR issue, just chose not to let us know. Its a question of where do their loyalties lie, with their readers or the companies? They lost their credibility for me.

c.

HI David
I think this is pretty unfair (especially as this thread refers to Sean Reid's review). He saw the effect straight away (as did some others) working out what it was took a little longer, but there was absolutely no question of "choosing not to let us know" that is quite a big accusation, and I'm actually not sure that it's true of any of the reviewers.

Loyalties are a tricky thing in these circumstances, of course, every reviewer's loyalty is (or should be) to their audience, however, if you find something wrong it's only fair to refer it back to the company concerned before trumpeting it from the rooftops (not least to get a proper handle on it and provide the best possible information to the audience). I don't believe for a minute that reviewers were deliberately deciding not to inform the public. Especially not Sean (who is, or was, the subject of this thread).

 

[ddk]

Hi Jono,

I wasn't talking about Sean in particular, it was more of a generalization. If you remember SR came out and pleaded ignorance (?) of the IR problem, LL took the high road and apologized for not mentioning it while Askey decided not to run their M8 review until Leica came clean with the facts. Many users discovered the IR issue within 24 hrs of the camera hitting the streets and the other two sites knew all about it, SR had the M8 for an extended period and according to you saw it straight away but not even a word about it in his rave review. He didn't have to solve issue just mention it! After all it was always there, wasn't it? and he charges people for in depth reviews doesn't he?

I'm not shouting on any rooftop nor saying anything new Jono, all this was common knowledge at the time. I've been in business for over 30 years and know all about allegiances and relationships.

 

[Brian Mosley]

David,

first of all, I wasn't in the market for an M8 at the time it was released, so while I do understand the anger which must have been felt by those who invested in the system very early on the strength of reviews... I'm also quite separated from the debate.

I do, however, subscribe to Sean Reid's site... so your thinly veiled accusations towards Sean's credibility are very troubling - I went and quickly scanned Sean's 4 part in-depth review of the M8, and he does explain exactly how the issue was brought to his attention and how he helped with the analysis of the problem.

Rather than paraphrase or misrepresent Sean, I dropped him an e-mail requesting the facts in case you're interested...

Here's his word on this :

"In my M8 review (of image quality) I published several color pictures that showed IR color shifts but I did not initially see that problem in them. Neither did the thousands of people who saw those sample pictures. The challenge is that when one is photographing strangers in a crowd its hard to remember what color clothing everyone was wearing. The people who saw those sample pictures also had no way of knowing, for example, what colors the firemen's uniforms really were. The fruits and vegetables I photographed for the color/noise tests didn't show a noticeable IR color shift problem. So I did miss the problem at first, as did many reviewers.

Shortly afterwards, I was part of a thread on the LUF in which the IR problem surfaced. Once I could confirm this in my own tests (which are in the reviews) I reported on it and requested an official statement from Leica. I then began extensive coverage of the M8 and IR, filters, cyan drift, etc. All of this was on my site long before most reviews of the M8 were even published. In fact, long after I had published a lot of information about the M8 and IR, the problem still went unmentioned in some reviews."

Hope that helps.

Kind Regards

Brian

 

[ddk]

Hi Brian,

I wasn't angry at Sean or any reviewer, I was simply disappointed with the product and only became angry when I had hell of a time returning it. I'm not veiling anything nor accusing, my initial comments weren't directed at anyone specific. Jono brought up Sean and I remember reading his review, along with others, and there was no mention of the IR problem until people had the camera in their hand, this is a fact and not an accusation, the follow up excuses were after people started protesting. It also came up in several places that Leica had asked the reviewers not to mention the problem for the time being!

 

[jonoslack]

HI David

Hi Jono,

I wasn't talking about Sean in particular, it was more of a generalization. If you remember SR came out and pleaded ignorance (?) of the IR problem, LL took the high road and apologized for not mentioning it while Askey decided not to run their M8 review until Leica came clean with the facts. Many users discovered the IR issue within 24 hrs of the camera hitting the streets and the other two sites knew all about it, SR had the M8 for an extended period and according to you saw it straight away but not even a word about it in his rave review. He didn't have to solve issue just mention it! After all it was always there, wasn't it? and he charges people for in depth reviews doesn't he?

I'm not shouting on any rooftop nor saying anything new Jono, all this was common knowledge at the time. I've been in business for over 30 years and know all about allegiances and relationships.

After I posted that last, I did a bit of delving and unfortunately, having delved I was too late to edit it. When I said that he had 'seen it' straight away it might have implied that he recognised it - in retrospect it's clear that although he took photographs of it, he did not recognise it.

As you say Askey decided not to run it until Leica came clean, LL apologised for not mentioning it.

SR quite clearly didn't recognise the problem until after the first image quality review was posted (see Brian's post above) - Most of us didn't see it either, it's hardly culpable as it's not what one was looking for (In doing the M9 testing I was astonished at how many people really do wear purple tops!). He did publish a lot about it once he became aware of it.

I should apologise for being ambigous - it's so easy to criticise people, and the critique sticks. I think it's pretty important to get things absolutely right when peoples' reputations depend on it.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Brian,

I wasn't angry at Sean or any reviewer, I was simply disappointed with the product and only became angry when I had hell of a time returning it. I'm not veiling anything nor accusing, my initial comments weren't directed at anyone specific. Jono brought up Sean and I remember reading his review, along with others, and there was no mention of the IR problem until people had the camera in their hand, this is a fact and not an accusation, the follow up excuses were after people started protesting. It also came up in several places that Leica had asked the reviewers not to mention the problem for the time being!

The reason I brought him up, was because this thread is about his review of the M9 and because it was clear that when he wrote his review of the M8 he didn't know about the IR effect (as many others didn't) - retrospectively it could be seen in his photographs, but not at the time. Whereas your post was tarring all reviewers with the same brush and the fact that this thread bears his name makes the implication obvious.

Your implied accusation is that he knew about it and didn't say so. this is not a fact, it is a non fact.

You are now implying that he was asked by Leica not to mention the problem. I've no idea whether other reviewers were asked to hold fire, or even whether Sean was - what is perfectly clear is that:

as soon as SR became aware of the IR issue he wrote about it on his website

If you are going to imply something else then you'll need to produce evidence to back it up, and if you aren't meaning to imply it then you should probably say so.

 

[stephengilbert]

Jono,

I agree that it's important to get the facts right before criticizing Sean or anyone else. I think it is at least as important to get the facts right before posting a review of a camera or other product. The reviewers understand that they will be relied upon for advise as to expensive purchases.

The hundreds of posts about the online camera review world include too many that defend the rights of the reviewers and minimize the rights of the consumers of their reviews. My concern is that there be transparency in the review world. It seems like we've only begun to approach that recently.

Steve

 

[Bob]

And all reviewers are human, many with their own unique methodologies. Lots of things are easy to miss unless the reviewer has a specific test for that particular characteristic built-in to their methodology.
That is one reason why no review can be complete.
Now the review I like best is to get the camera in MY hands and shoot about 1000 frames. That is my preferred way of deciding if I like it or not.
Unfortunately, at the Oregon Workshop I will have to share with the other attendees unless Leica is so generous as to provide us with MANY M9s.
-bob

 

[jonoslack]

Jono,

I agree that it's important to get the facts right before criticizing Sean or anyone else. I think it is at least as important to get the facts right before posting a review of a camera or other product. The reviewers understand that they will be relied upon for advise as to expensive purchases.

The hundreds of posts about the online camera review world include too many that defend the rights of the reviewers and minimize the rights of the consumers of their reviews. My concern is that there be transparency in the review world. It seems like we've only begun to approach that recently.

Steve

Hi Steve
Before the debacle with the M8, IR was something which really wasn't discussed with respect to cameras (at least, on a very small scale). Added to which, in Sean's case, most of his output is black and white.

Having spent 3 months testing I understand how impossible it is to look at everything - one is testing for specific issues, and it's incredibly easy to miss other issues - especially ones which are so difficult to see, and the IR issue is really tough.

Reviewers have a duty to be honest (I quite agree), but they don't have a duty to be perfect (at least, I don't think so). To say something is right when it's wrong is dishonesty, to say nothing at all (because you didn't notice it) is simply being imperfect.

The general public on the other hand has a duty not to make implications of dishonesty unless they are pretty sure they're right.

 

[Vivek]

What is interesting to me is that the Leica RF (camera and lenses) are very simple cameras compared to the ones from Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc.

There isn't much to "review" about...

 

[jonoslack]

And all reviewers are human, many with their own unique methodologies. Lots of things are easy to miss unless the reviewer has a specific test for that particular characteristic built-in to their methodology.
That is one reason why no review can be complete.
Now the review I like best is to get the camera in MY hands and shoot about 1000 frames. That is my preferred way of deciding if I like it or not.
Unfortunately, at the Oregon Workshop I will have to share with the other attendees unless Leica is so generous as to provide us with MANY M9s.
-bob

Quite right bob - if you're in the neighbourhood you're welcome to have a go with mine (and have a beer to go with it!)

 

[nei1]

Lucky you Jono if youve been able to keep it!

 

[ampguy]

probably some, but not the same as an M9, the M8 will still have an 8-bit data path without further hw upgrades, and the gains in NR would likely be in the shadows mostly, not mid-tones.

I think the M8's noise levels are fine. Use fast lenses, and if still too noisy, shoot in b/w

Is it possible that M8 noise could be improved same to M9 by new firmware? I am still happy with M8 and plan to use it for a while.

 

[Bob]

Quite right bob - if you're in the neighbourhood you're welcome to have a go with mine (and have a beer to go with it!)

Next week I will be in Hampshire. Unfortunately not close enough I am afraid.
-bob

 

[ddk]

Dear Jono,

This is now heading somewhere that was never my intention. I'm sorry if my tone is such that it implies double talk. My original comment about not trusting reviews in general was just that, a general comment with no one in mind. I much prefer to read people's experiences, like yours and enjoy the way Guy goes about shooting and writing, over professional reviews, nothing more.

Please read what I wrote, I said that I read that Leica had asked reviewers not to comment on the IR issue, never said anything about Sean. Please read if for yourself, scroll down to the bottom of the page, Nov. 11, 2006, Clarification;

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml

"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..."

:deadhorse: Regarding Sean, since you bring him up and instead of you reading into what I'm writing, let me spell it out.

- His initial reviews never mentioned a word about the IR issue and there was tons of praise for the M8. This is a fact, you can check it out. Am I critical of this review? Yes, and as a paid subscriber at the time I have a right to be.

- An explanation for not including it in his reviews was given once, the proverbial $hit hit the fan and not before. This is also there dated and in black and white. I'm not making anything up here!

Since you asked, this next part is entirely my own feelings and conclusions regarding the issue. I might be wrong but I was never really convinced by Sean's excuses, the M8 launch was a huge event at the time and it was a relatively long term test period with everyone talking about it. I have a very hard time believing that none of the chosen 500 (according to Reichmann) talked to one another or at least Michael and Sean didn't compare notes during that time. I respect Reichmann for not making excuses and coming clean, what happened was understandble.

Call me a cynic if you want to, but that's who I am...

 

[jonoslack]

HI David
I don't think we disagree about the actual events at all. So I'll trim the first bit, and leave the dead horse because I like it so much

:deadhorse: Regarding Sean, since you bring him up and instead of you reading into what I'm writing, let me spell it out.

- His initial reviews never mentioned a word about the IR issue and there was tons of praise for the M8. This is a fact, you can check it out. Am I critical of this review? Yes, and as a paid subscriber at the time I have a right to be.

- An explanation for not including it in his reviews was given once, the proverbial $hit hit the fan and not before. This is also there dated and in black and white. I'm not making anything up here!

Absolutely - this is what I said I quite agree - the initial review didn't mention it, and he said nothing about it until the proverbial hit the fan. He says this is because he didn't know about it until then, and I don't see any evidence to believe otherwise . . . innocent until proved guilty etc.

Since you asked, this next part is entirely my own feelings and conclusions regarding the issue. I might be wrong but I was never really convinced by Sean's excuses, the M8 launch was a huge event at the time and it was a relatively long term test period with everyone talking about it. I have a very hard time believing that none of the chosen 500 (according to Reichmann) talked to one another or at least Michael and Sean didn't compare notes during that time. I respect Reichmann for not making excuses and coming clean, what happened was understandble.

Well, my experience here was that other testers really didn't talk to each other - of course, not being a reviewer, I don't know whether they talk to each other or not.

Call me a cynic if you want to, but that's who I am...

Oh! surely not

At least this is clear, you are making an assumption of guilt from no concrete evidence, which is absolutely your prerogative (but it's probably more graceful to do it in private), but that isn't quite what you said in previous posts, and if you make remarks about reviewers in a thread Called "Sean Reid's Review" then it's not a crazy assumption to think that you meant him . . and it turns out that you did!

Anyway, I think you've made your position pretty clear, and we absolutely agree on the events, so shall we shake hands nicely and agree to differ on the interpretation?

 

[jonoslack]

Next week I will be in Hampshire. Unfortunately not close enough I am afraid.
-bob

Ah . . . and I'll be in Holland - ships in the night stuff . . . and it would have been such a good excuse for a pint