lct Posted June 11, 2010 Share #141 Posted June 11, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) There are laws to govern exactly what manufacturers should do with faulty goods, so the debate here is pretty superfluous imho... Normal wear and tear warranty may exist on a contractual (and costly) basis but legal ones don't exist anywhere to my knowledge. Would be ruinous for most sellers IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 Hi lct, Take a look here Faulty M9 Returned... This is my letter to Leica. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
adan Posted June 11, 2010 Share #142 Posted June 11, 2010 I have to wonder why the company chooses to give away cameras to the rich and famous, and treats real photographers rather grudgingly in comparison. It has been on my mind that Leica should require a portfolio review from potential purchasers (at least for the first year of a new camera). Sort of like applying to a graduate art school - you only get in if you're good enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 12, 2010 Share #143 Posted June 12, 2010 This thread is very interesting. As usual there are those that feel the need to defend the Leica position and quote legal points ov view, others say that the OP should not post his letter before allowing Leica a response (I agree with that one!). What for me is missing is the following: Leica is a highly respected company with a brand that suggests like Rolls Royce QUALITY. I define quality as "Meeting the clients requirements" ...not that ostrich leather and platinum is used to provide a luxury cosmetic finish to the camera. I would expect such a company to be heavily into "Continuous improvement" yet at no time have I been asked to fill out a questionnaire about my M8 purchase last year...so where does leica get its data from to continuously improve? We have seen many threads about M8 shutter issues, and reliabilty in general for even brand new cameras as quoted here ...no response from Leica! (Previously it has been said here that Leica has no time to reply to every and all issues raised and I agree! That said there are quite a few issues relating to reliability and even faulty cameras when delivered as new that it would be reasonable I believe to hear what the company is doing about it) Leica do seem to always in the end fix these rogue cameras and lenses and eventually the owner is happy, even in some cases when the camera is out of warranty. I wonder why Leica do not turn the bad press into a marketing advantage and announce that they are extending the warranty period for items like shutters if the fault is due to the original manufacture and NOT wear and tear. With a digital camera they could easily limit the warranty cover to cameras with less than 50,000 shutter operations or whatever number seems reasonable and further limit claims that are due to moisture or heavy physical shock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 12, 2010 Share #144 Posted June 12, 2010 Dammit!! Who said "Visoflex" three times? Come on... ...own up... ...there will be no more 50mm Summilux deliveries until you do... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted June 12, 2010 Share #145 Posted June 12, 2010 Frank, where do you suppose faulty Leicas go? And when they go there, who do you think fixes them? Do you think that the designers might actually talk to the repairmen? They're not stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 12, 2010 Share #146 Posted June 12, 2010 Frank, where do you suppose faulty Leicas go? And when they go there, who do you think fixes them? Do you think that the designers might actually talk to the repairmen? They're not stupid. RedBaron you do not get it I am afraid. To achieve continuous improvement you need data and you need to then systematically Pareto analyse that data so that the No1 cause (not symptom) can be fixed and then No2 etc... You saying " Do you think that the designers might actually talk to the repairmen?" is not a methodology to systematically collect data. Its a recipe for failure. If you go on the Leica web site for customer service they ask clients that have had repairs done to give their feedback.....that also is hardly a rigorous approach to achieve data collection. Since I bought my M8 I have never been asked about how pleased I am with the camera, (I am!) or the after sales support (I am not!) ...again I think this is indicative of a company that has an opportunity to improve significantly if they start a continuous improvement initiative. Now let me answer your specific question ...If the camera is a US camera it goes to NJ, in the UK it will go the Milton Keynes etc If these LOCAL organisations can they will fix the fault, if they cannot it will go to Solms. It would be interesting how each intervention is logged and data about the fix recorded (I dont mean how Leica internally charge for local fixes under warranty) such that it can be Pareto analysed. With data you can do so much. Let us suppose that 20,000 M9 cameras have been delivered since last September. Then we have 1/20,000 chance of a failure if the OP was the ONLY camera that failed out of the box at new. However he has now had two cameras fail This suggests that the statistical probability is very very low and the OP was just very unlucky ....unless there are many more cameras failing at new and well before any wear out mechanisms kick in. It seems to me that we read a great deal about the reliability issue and these casual chats at the work bench that you refer to is not a methodology that is working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted June 12, 2010 Share #147 Posted June 12, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have absolutely no idea how Leica manages its quality control and neither do you, Frank. I've never been asked about my cars, watches, computers or any other thing, for that matter. But somehow those products keep improving. The OP got two lemons. Boo hoo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted June 12, 2010 Share #148 Posted June 12, 2010 BTW, any sentence that contains the phrase "it seems to me" or "we read a great deal" normally scores about 9 on my bullshit meter. But both in the one sentence! Wow! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 12, 2010 Share #149 Posted June 12, 2010 ...To achieve continuous improvement you need data and you need to then systematically Pareto analyse that data so that the No1 cause (not symptom) can be fixed and then No2 etc... Yes, that's one of the means for quality improvement programs. It works best for large lots. Kaizen is another one. ...You saying " Do you think that the designers might actually talk to the repairmen?" is not a methodology to systematically collect data. Its a recipe for failure. If you go on the Leica web site for customer service they ask clients that have had repairs done to give their feedback.....that also is hardly a rigorous approach to achieve data collection. Since I bought my M8 I have never been asked about how pleased I am with the camera, (I am!) or the after sales support (I am not!) ...again I think this is indicative of a company that has an opportunity to improve significantly if they start a continuous improvement initiative. How is retrieving information from the place in the process where - by definition - practically all failures have to pass and where they are analyzed a less reliable means of obtaining hard facts about product quality than customer satisfaction surveys? ... Now let me answer your specific question ...If the camera is a US camera it goes to NJ, in the UK it will go the Milton Keynes etc If these LOCAL organisations can they will fix the fault, if they cannot it will go to Solms. Do you mean to say that at both places no one writes anything down for later analysis? It would be interesting how each intervention is logged and data about the fix recorded (I dont mean how Leica internally charge for local fixes under warranty) such that it can be Pareto analysed. It would indeed be interesting to know. Since "we" don't appear to know, drawing conclusions seems a bit futile. What, BTW, makes you say that the internal accounting data is worthless for the purpose? It's one of the very few instruments Leica at Solms has to make sure they actually get most of the incidents reported, if the local repair centers only get refunded upon reporting. With data you can do so much. Indeed. One would, however, be wise to produce conclusions from data which actually is available and to abstain from doing so where not. Let us suppose that 20,000 M9 cameras have been delivered since last September. Then we have 1/20,000 chance of a failure if the OP was the ONLY camera that failed out of the box at new. However he has now had two cameras fail This suggests that the statistical probability is very very low and the OP was just very unlucky Er - not quite. One observation does not make a statistical universe. It does not allow us to form any expectation for future cases. Two examples: Once I bought within two week three somewhat expensive printers from a well-known manufacturer. Two were DOA. None of the same model I happened to buy since had the slightest problem at all during the warranty. We all laugh about the bloke who brings a bomb into the plane with the expectation that the probabililty of there being two is astronomically small. ....unless there are many more cameras failing at new and well before any wear out mechanisms kick in. From the OP's description, we can assume that at least one was a component failure and not due to wear, normal or otherwise. It seems to me that we read a great deal about the reliability issue and these casual chats at the work bench that you refer to is not a methodology that is working. RedBarons term was speaking with. This does in no way imply casualness. I don't see how a casual customer satisfaction poll will produce more reliable data about failed cameras than a systematic feedback from repair centers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 12, 2010 Share #150 Posted June 12, 2010 If Frank didn't only jump into these Leica bashing threads, he might get a more balanced view on life. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 12, 2010 Share #151 Posted June 12, 2010 BTW, any sentence that contains the phrase "it seems to me" or "we read a great deal" normally scores about 9 on my bullshit meter. But both in the one sentence! Wow! Actually when people say "You have no idea..." and when these people do not know me, or know what I know ..............well I guess thinking positively "it seems to me" such people do not have a confidence problem! It is great to see knolwedgeable, confident Leica customers like you and I am impressed when say that the OP had two Leicas and both failed is a Boo Hoo type of issue....I guess by that you mean shit happens! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted June 12, 2010 Share #152 Posted June 12, 2010 Yep, move on. Build a bridge. Statistically, what are the chances of the third being a lemon? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 12, 2010 Share #153 Posted June 12, 2010 I guess by that you mean shit happens! But it does doesn't it? Leica has 100% visibility of all camera failures, and I'm sure they've thought that analysing that data might be useful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 12, 2010 Share #154 Posted June 12, 2010 Yes, that's one of the means for quality improvement programs. It works best for large lots. Kaizen is another one. Yes and every method that I know from Six Sigma of Motorola, Ishikawa diagrams to Pareto anlaysis and Kaizen ALL need data. Small lots work and provide valuable inputs however obviously larger lots give a better statistical analysis. How is retrieving information from the place in the process where - by definition - practically all failures have to pass and where they are analyzed a less reliable means of obtaining hard facts about product quality than customer satisfaction surveys? Talking to those on the work bench is obviously needed as it provides valuable QUALITATIVE feedback and may point to CAUSES of failures rather than SYMPTOMS. Certainly no survey will define the causes and nor will it define corrective actions. My point was that you need to get hard data and that should obviously be driven from internal sources (warranty returns for example) AND from clients. Do you mean to say that at both places no one writes anything down for later analysis? No. However I do say that we still 3 years later have reports about M8 shutter issues and we now get regular feedbacks about faults on Leica product which I would suggest something is not as perfect as it should be for a £5000 camera. In various threads many Pros have complained that the Leica is no longer regarded as reliable or rugged. I used to believe that the Leica was the camera of choice for war correspondents and I still think it could be but I am told that since the Vietnam war this is no longer the case, and I do not understand why Leica through a continuous improvement program cannot regain this market niche plus other pro areas. It would indeed be interesting to know. Since "we" don't appear to know, drawing conclusions seems a bit futile. I am not sure any company, or branch of engineering would progress without drawing some conclusions from limited facts. What, BTW, makes you say that the internal accounting data is worthless for the purpose? It's one of the very few instruments Leica at Solms has to make sure they actually get most of the incidents reported, if the local repair centers only get refunded upon reporting. I did not say worthless...I said that having faults identified by type (eg SD Card reader module, SD card reader control board ...etc) gives a more precise identification especially if it is also identified that the intervention was purely a faulty component or also involved calibration, or manual adjustment. Knowing that Milton Keynes spent 2 hours and replaced a capacitor does not in my view give the required level of detail. Indeed. One would, however, be wise to produce conclusions from data which actually is available and to abstain from doing so where not. Er - not quite. One observation does not make a statistical universe. It does not allow us to form any expectation for future cases. This is true but some of us can see trends and I find the level of reported faults reported for newly delivered product as worrisome and then even more so after usgae over a period of time. I see this as a great opportunity for Leica to fix and become a leader in terms of rugged build quality. Two examples: Once I bought within two week three somewhat expensive printers from a well-known manufacturer. Two were DOA. None of the same model I happened to buy since had the slightest problem at all during the warranty. Could this be due to continuous improvement programmes kicking in? Certainly Japanese companies love CI and their products do get better year to year. We all laugh about the bloke who brings a bomb into the plane with the expectation that the probabililty of there being two is astronomically small. From the OP's description, we can assume that at least one was a component failure and not due to wear, normal or otherwise. I agree and I would hope that after six months of usage wear and tear would not be an issue either. So I presume this means that there is a design flaw, a weak component or an assembly process that is prone to failure....What else could it be. Any CI process would identify the cause. RedBarons term was speaking with. This does in no way imply casualness. I don't see how a casual customer satisfaction poll will produce more reliable data about failed cameras than a systematic feedback from repair centers. Philipp you clearly know about the ways to improve quality. I have given my feedback above. I am suggesting a rigorous client feedback on the product that they have bought and maybe they will learn issues beyond a rogue capacitor that is prone to failures. For example: After sales service time to repair as seen by the client. I have seen quotes that Leica claim repairs are affected within 4 days in 80% of the cases. So why do people quote months here which is my experience. Packaging and shipping issues that have caused RF mechanism to go out of callibration .... Difficulties of using the camera or understanding the manual. (eg Tethering on a M8 ...How do you do it? Profiles and Firmware known issues such as red line on M9, Shutter Issues on M8...etc) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 12, 2010 Share #155 Posted June 12, 2010 If Frank didn't only jump into these Leica bashing threads, he might get a more balanced view on life. Andy I take offence that you see this as a Leica bashing thread...it is not! I see a superb company with a winning product unrivalled in my view that clearly has some "quality" issues at delivery and in early usage "bath tub effect" I think these initial issues are always resolved by Solms eventually, and at no cost to the client. My point was and is that given the number of issues that seem to surface that Leica should be fixing these things much quicker than hitherto and they should be more visible with their continuous improvement program. I see this as being constructive and a realistic opportunity to improve the product from a level where today it is a technological masterpiece....maybe they can even win back the professionals and war correspondents. Before someone tells me that the M9 issues are new ...the M9 has now been in production since September and they must have made a bunch of product. Shipping product that is dead on arrival or within six months is not good and hopefully is a concern for Leica as I believe even if other disagree that this is not good for the brand... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 12, 2010 Share #156 Posted June 12, 2010 Andy I take offence that you see this as a Leica bashing thread...it is not! But le's be frank Frank, almost every post you make has some negative comment about Leica in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snapper UK Posted June 12, 2010 Author Share #157 Posted June 12, 2010 This is not a Leica bashing thread..... It is just that there are some people on this forum that take any comment that is not adulatory as a personal slight....Well done, you bought an expensive bit of kit from a brand that has historically made exceedingly excellent cameras.... Now get over it. For me a camera is a tool. I use Leica because I love the sharpness and speed of the glass, the lack of attention it draws and the mechanical reliability. Ok it's got a red dot on the front, but that isn't anything a small square of gaffer tape won't hide. My experience has been that while image quality and the sharpness can not be faulted, I have not found my M9s to be reliable enough for what I need. Without wanting to repeat myself, there are reasons that I did not return my camera to Solms earlier. Firstly I did visit my dealer and the Leica store in London with the camera, I could not replicate the intermittent problems I had while in store. The problems were firstly blamed on the SD cards I was using. It was even suggested that they may have been counterfeit cards.... They aren't. I spoke to Nobby Clark in MK and the service department in Solms months ago. I was told that it was probably the cards and that the issue would probably be sorted by the firmware update.... It wasn't. The nature of an intermittent problem is that finding a work-around that allowed me to continue using the camera seemed preferable to losing the body for 2-3 weeks. I have asked for a loan camera but to no avail. I don't know how Leica service compares to Nikon or Canon as I have not had a comparable experience, despite having used Nikon for 16 years and switching to Canon 8 months ago. I was not aware that Leica had a professional programme. If anyone has more information please could they post it. In the mean time I will google... Before anyone points out the obvious. I had a called back from Dave Humphries in MK yesterday afternoon, saying that my camera was going into the workshop on Monday and that I would have it back this week coming. Of course I will post an update when I have it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carcam Posted June 12, 2010 Share #158 Posted June 12, 2010 Snapper- thanks for keeping us updated. After an M8, M8.2, M9, X1 etc. I love these threads. Not because you have a problem or because I haven't but it's always nice to see how it will be handled. Although I was in the first bunch of people who got M8's when they wouldn't own up to the IR problem at first, I still love these cameras and hope the company survives. So many of us got a great working camera that when I read these threads, I hope I'm not next... Hope it works out for you (but I still think a brand new camera is a stretch- but if they did, a big kudos for them). Good luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
euston Posted June 12, 2010 Share #159 Posted June 12, 2010 If Frank didn't only jump into these Leica bashing threads, he might get a more balanced view on life. It is ludicrous to call this a Leica bashing thread. That’s an insult to the OP. I do wish this forum would get over characterising any report of equipment failure as an attack on Leica. As I know from my own experience, Leica’s quality control is not 100% effective and I doubt that they would claim that it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mc_k Posted June 13, 2010 Share #160 Posted June 13, 2010 regarding customer polls, I would love to see that feature here..I think they have it on another forum. For example, from reading all of the M8 posts on card issues I assumed this was a common enough problem, sometimes resolved by using smaller cards or not sharing cards. In my experience the problem was handled at Leica's end by swapping a board, or providing a list of four file recovery programs if they couldn't replicate the problem. But it would be nice to have a better idea of how frequently various things go wrong. The camera is definitely quirky compared to others I have used. Some things like the problems in continuous mode, having to take the battery out to fix something, slight calibration errors, etc. seem so commonplace that you wouldn't send the camera back. On the M8, reviewing each shot is no guarantee the files are not already corrupted, and I am sympathetic about using the camera in a commercial setting and having it fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.