What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
10 months ago

Sometime ago we had a discussion about whether it was misleading for DPR to state the equivalent FL in terms of FOV but not the equivalent aperture in terms of DOF and light gathered. Opinions were devided. Some say it is misleading or have the potential to be misleading, some disagree.

Well, L=ladies and gentlemen, Leica takes the whole thing to the next level. On the Leica X Vario, Leica dispense with actual FL altogether, it only prints the equivalent FL, and it doesn't even say it is equivalent.

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead. It will be interesting to see if someone will take Leica to court. In New Zealand at the least, it is a sure win under section 9 of Consumer Guarantees Act.

What I do not want to see is for every other camera maker to follow this trend - everyone prints equivalent FL instead of real FL, and pretend that it is the real FL. Imagine your next smart phone - 24mm, F2.0.

jackgreen
Regular MemberPosts: 323Gear list
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

Agree. Actually I'd like to see 35mm equiv in the brackets next to real numbers. Just to understand what this 4mm focus length means fot that small sensor in the phone.

-- hide signature --

My hobby www.jackdevant.com

 jackgreen's gear list:jackgreen's gear list
Sony SLT-A99 Sony 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony 300mm F2.8 G Sony 85mm F1.4 ZA Carl Zeiss Planar T* Sony 135mm F1.8 ZA Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Abaregi
Regular MemberPosts: 121
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

I agree.
Manufactures are extremely good at pointing out the sensor size when it is a 1" and bigger. Almost to a bragging point. But when you get to the small ones they suddenly forget to..

No average consumer understands the relationship to the sensor and how it affects different aspects of the picture like FL, dof, low light quality etc..

Cherry picking like this is extremely misleading to most buyers. And all camera makers do it in the point and shoot category.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alleg1
Contributing MemberPosts: 512Gear list
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Sometime ago we had a discussion about whether it was misleading for DPR to state the equivalent FL in terms of FOV but not the equivalent aperture in terms of DOF and light gathered. Opinions were devided. Some say it is misleading or have the potential to be misleading, some disagree.

Well, L=ladies and gentlemen, Leica takes the whole thing to the next level. On the Leica X Vario, Leica dispense with actual FL altogether, it only prints the equivalent FL, and it doesn't even say it is equivalent.

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead. It will be interesting to see if someone will take Leica to court. In New Zealand at the least, it is a sure win under section 9 of Consumer Guarantees Act.

What I do not want to see is for every other camera maker to follow this trend - everyone prints equivalent FL instead of real FL, and pretend that it is the real FL. Imagine your next smart phone - 24mm, F2.0.

Hold on, in the illustration shown in the "ephotozine" review and in many other illustrations, the lens is badged as 18-46mm, so Leica are not stating the FF eqivalent.

 Alleg1's gear list:Alleg1's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D300 Olympus E-510
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MoreorLess
Senior MemberPosts: 2,426
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to Alleg1, 10 months ago

Alleg1 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Sometime ago we had a discussion about whether it was misleading for DPR to state the equivalent FL in terms of FOV but not the equivalent aperture in terms of DOF and light gathered. Opinions were devided. Some say it is misleading or have the potential to be misleading, some disagree.

Well, L=ladies and gentlemen, Leica takes the whole thing to the next level. On the Leica X Vario, Leica dispense with actual FL altogether, it only prints the equivalent FL, and it doesn't even say it is equivalent.

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead. It will be interesting to see if someone will take Leica to court. In New Zealand at the least, it is a sure win under section 9 of Consumer Guarantees Act.

What I do not want to see is for every other camera maker to follow this trend - everyone prints equivalent FL instead of real FL, and pretend that it is the real FL. Imagine your next smart phone - 24mm, F2.0.

Hold on, in the illustration shown in the "ephotozine" review and in many other illustrations, the lens is badged as 18-46mm, so Leica are not stating the FF eqivalent.

Indeed, its hidden in this shot but the actual focal lengths are on the front of the lens, having the equivalents on the zoom ring isn't anything new at all.

As far as the apertures go you don't want to get into equivalents there since it could potentially effect external metering.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mjack101
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

Leaving aside the litigious question (although NZ must have some pretty hard assed laws if this would qualify) I think Leica are perfectly fine with what they have done. One of the benefits for me of the general Leica layout is that you can see aperture, shutter speed, focal length and focus distance/DOF at a glance and I think that seeing that focal length in FF equivalents makes the most sense.

Is it technically 100% accurate? Maybe, maybe not but I think for the people who will use this camera it will be not be misleading. After all who will use a £2,000 plus camera, either photography enthusiasts who will know the difference or the trophy girlfriends of wealthy guys who will neither know about nor care about the difference as long as it's a Leica and looks cute.

The Leica legal team can sleep happily at night.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
peevee1
Senior MemberPosts: 5,091Gear list
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Sometime ago we had a discussion about whether it was misleading for DPR to state the equivalent FL in terms of FOV but not the equivalent aperture in terms of DOF and light gathered. Opinions were devided. Some say it is misleading or have the potential to be misleading, some disagree.

Well, L=ladies and gentlemen, Leica takes the whole thing to the next level. On the Leica X Vario, Leica dispense with actual FL altogether, it only prints the equivalent FL, and it doesn't even say it is equivalent.

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead. It will be interesting to see if someone will take Leica to court. In New Zealand at the least, it is a sure win under section 9 of Consumer Guarantees Act.

What I do not want to see is for every other camera maker to follow this trend - everyone prints equivalent FL instead of real FL, and pretend that it is the real FL. Imagine your next smart phone - 24mm, F2.0.

They are not even alone:

Probably these numbers should be interpreted as indications of angles of view rather than real mm (Leica does not say mm on the barrel either, and at the front of the lens they are real mm:

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to mjack101, 10 months ago

mjack101 wrote:

Leaving aside the litigious question (although NZ must have some pretty hard assed laws if this would qualify)

Australia's law is very similar, we copied them.

I would be surprised if UK does not have similar provision.

I think Leica are perfectly fine with what they have done. One of the benefits for me of the general Leica layout is that you can see aperture, shutter speed, focal length and focus distance/DOF at a glance and I think that seeing that focal length in FF equivalents makes the most sense.

Just because it "helps", does not mean it is not misleading, they are two very different issues.

Is it technically 100% accurate? Maybe, maybe not

It is not.

but I think for the people who will use this camera it will be not be misleading. After all who will use a £2,000 plus camera, either photography enthusiasts who will know the difference or the trophy girlfriends of wealthy guys who will neither know about nor care about the difference as long as it's a Leica and looks cute.

If that was a valid defence - that you are not liable because some customers will not be fooled and some customer do not care, then no company would ever be found liable for misleading or deceptive conduct. would you not agree?

The Leica legal team can sleep happily at night.

Leica probably cannot even afford a legal team. certainly not on in every Common Law country.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alleg1
Contributing MemberPosts: 512Gear list
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

mjack101 wrote:

Leaving aside the litigious question (although NZ must have some pretty hard assed laws if this would qualify)

Australia's law is very similar, we copied them.

I would be surprised if UK does not have similar provision.

I think Leica are perfectly fine with what they have done. One of the benefits for me of the general Leica layout is that you can see aperture, shutter speed, focal length and focus distance/DOF at a glance and I think that seeing that focal length in FF equivalents makes the most sense.

Just because it "helps", does not mean it is not misleading, they are two very different issues.

Is it technically 100% accurate? Maybe, maybe not

It is not.

but I think for the people who will use this camera it will be not be misleading. After all who will use a £2,000 plus camera, either photography enthusiasts who will know the difference or the trophy girlfriends of wealthy guys who will neither know about nor care about the difference as long as it's a Leica and looks cute.

If that was a valid defence - that you are not liable because some customers will not be fooled and some customer do not care, then no company would ever be found liable for misleading or deceptive conduct. would you not agree?

The Leica legal team can sleep happily at night.

Leica probably cannot even afford a legal team. certainly not on in every Common Law country.

Just to repeat the point made by myself and many others is that the lens is correctly identified in the standard place on the front; it looks like your original post deliberately hides this.

I wonder why?

As peevee1 has noted and illustrated, showing the FF equivalent on the barrel is not uncommon, and is clearly intended as a guide rather than to mislead.

 Alleg1's gear list:Alleg1's gear list
Nikon D100 Nikon D300 Olympus E-510
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to Alleg1, 10 months ago

Alleg1 wrote:

Just to repeat the point made by myself and many others is that the lens is correctly identified in the standard place on the front; it looks like your original post deliberately hides this.

I wonder why?

To tell you the truth, i didnt actually see it. There was no deliberate hiding.

As peevee1 has noted and illustrated, showing the FF equivalent on the barrel is not uncommon,

Well, it actually is still uncommon. I thank Peevee1 for showing us those other cameras, I did not know they existed. But they are still in the minority. All DSLR and Mirrorless cameras I know are not following that practice, yet.

It should also be pointed out that Both the Canon and the Fuji makes it clear on their FL marking that it is the 35mm equavilent. This is very different to what Leica is doing. the fuji even marks actual FL next to the 35mm equiv. There is absolutely nothing misleading about Fuji's conduct.

The only real offender here is the Panasonic, which probably would not come as a shock to anyone given their frequent corroboration with Leica. But it is sad to see they sink to this level. They did not use this type of misleading marking on FZ200.

and is clearly intended as a guide rather than to mislead.

You can say they are intended as a guide, but that is not mutually exclusive with being misleading.

It is very arguable that visually the markings on the barrels are more dominant then the markings at the front of the barrels, and therefore they are likely to mislead.

You can also easily imagine this scenario - someone who is new to photography and want to shoot birds comes to a camera shop. all he knows is the longer the lens the more magnification. sales person tells him that the canon 600 F4 lens is 10000 USD, but he can buy this Panasonic 20-1200mm for only 1000 USD. What is wrong with this picture?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
coudet
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,663
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead.

That's their intention, no doubt.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to coudet, 10 months ago

coudet wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Basically if you do not do any additional research, you would think this lens is actually 28-70 / 3.5-6.4. When in fact, it is a 18-46/3.5-6.4, and its true FF equivalent is 28-70/ 5.3-9.7.

This is a very clear conduct that is misleading or could mislead.

That's their intention, no doubt.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that is their sole intention. But I would say it is at the least part of their intention. Or that they knew very well that it could mislead but they choose to ignore it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mjack101
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

Are you a lawyer?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to mjack101, 10 months ago

mjack101 wrote:

Are you a lawyer?

I can be one if Leica hires me. I dont need to be paid, just a M type 240 at on the first day and one Leica M lens of my choice a month will do.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mjack101
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

Clearly not then as you don't even know that "paid" includes being paid in the form of goods and services as well as cash.

Also your reference to section 9 was to the wrong act, it is in fact the Fair Trading Act 1986.

If you look on Leica's website under technical details they say the following:

Lens: Leica Vario-Elmar 18-46 mm f/3.5-6.4 ASPH. (corresponds to 28-70 mm in 35 mm format),
9 lenses in 8 groups, 2 aspherical lenses.

This wouldn't mislead anyone and you are talking nonsense about Leica being in breach of this act. If you really believe what you say then take them court yourself and see how much time and money you waste.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to mjack101, 10 months ago

mjack101 wrote:

Clearly not then as you don't even know that "paid" includes being paid in the form of goods and services as well as cash.

Also your reference to section 9 was to the wrong act, it is in fact the Fair Trading Act 1986.

See, I am not a lawyer, does that answer your question?

If you look on Leica's website under technical details they say the following:

Lens: Leica Vario-Elmar 18-46 mm f/3.5-6.4 ASPH. (corresponds to 28-70 mm in 35 mm format),
9 lenses in 8 groups, 2 aspherical lenses.

This wouldn't mislead anyone and you are talking nonsense about Leica being in breach of this act.

You are not much of a lawyer either then

There is no such general expectation that anyone who is buying a product must go onto the internet and look for any disclaimer the manufacture may have, therefore having correct product description on the internet is no defense to misleading markings on the camera itself.

If it did, it would be absurd because plenty of people do not have internet with them everywhere they go.

If you really believe what you say then take them court yourself and see how much time and money you waste.

That is a stupid argument, I already said at the very start of the thread - "It will be interesting to see if someone will take Leica to court." I clearly did not mean myself.

Why are you so worked up about it anyway? Do you own a Vario X?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mjack101
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

Why are you so worked up about it anyway? Do you own a Vario X?

I don't own an X Vario and I am not worked up about it.

I just find it extraordinary that someone who has no clue what they are talking about is prepared to claim that Leica has broken the law. I guess it makes for a provocative post.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,347Gear list
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to peevee1, 10 months ago

Here's another (although, it does have "Equiv. 135mm" following the 200mm mark), Sony F828:

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ultimitsu
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,437
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to mjack101, 10 months ago

mjack101 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Why are you so worked up about it anyway? Do you own a Vario X?

I don't own an X Vario and I am not worked up about it.

I just find it extraordinary that someone who has no clue what they are talking about is prepared to claim that Leica has broken the law.

What is extraordinary is the fact you found s9 FTA and still thinks nothing is wrong. how much a fanboy can you be?

"No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

It does not require anyone to be actually misled (notwithstanding that some will), likely to mislead or deceive is enough.

Is leica a legal person? tick

Is printing of 28-70 a conduct? tick

Is that conduct in trade? tick

is it likely to mislead or deceive? tick

The law is pretty plain so how can you not know what it is talking about?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mjack101
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
Re: What is wrong with this picture - Leica X Vario
In reply to ultimitsu, 10 months ago

ultimitsu wrote:

mjack101 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Why are you so worked up about it anyway? Do you own a Vario X?

I don't own an X Vario and I am not worked up about it.

I just find it extraordinary that someone who has no clue what they are talking about is prepared to claim that Leica has broken the law.

What is extraordinary is the fact you found s9 FTA and still thinks nothing is wrong. how much a fanboy can you be?

"No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive."

It does not require anyone to be actually misled (notwithstanding that some will), likely to mislead or deceive is enough.

Is leica a legal person? tick

Is printing of 28-70 a conduct? tick

Is that conduct in trade? tick

is it likely to mislead or deceive? tick

The law is pretty plain so how can you not know what it is talking about?

Ah yes, the old "My argument is so weak I shall accuse him of being a fanboy" strategy. Precisely which part of "I don't own an X Vario" is confusing you?

I'm bored of this, I'm going for a Twix.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads