Two Dead M9s

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's all due to the distance between Solms and the antipodes. Or the careless people who ship our M9s and drop the boxes. Or because consumer electronics should be expected to fail. Or because we're all being nasty to all those nice Leica people.

 

Bollocks.

Thank you for a well-reasoned, unemotional and constructive contribution....

[mgreernz]

You shouldn't let threads like these put you off, Louis.

They are a muddle of confused issues, emotional responses, misunderstandings and non-straight thinking.

For instance:

1.Leica's CQ is failing continuosly and they dont even look at the cameras.

Reality: From many threads we know that each and every camera comes with 100-150 test exposures. So they are tested exthaustively. That means that the majority of out-of-the-box failures either occurred in transit (like probably the OP's shutter fault, that happens if the camera is slammed hard enough in a vertical sense (i.e. dropped).

or are early failures which cannot be picked up by QC like the SD card error of the OP which almost always is a bent pin in the SD slot or a connector worked loose (see transit failure). These early failing are exactly the 20 failings per million parts that are built into the camera btw. It goes for sensor cracks as well. How can you test for an event that is going to occur in use?:confused:Still, funny things like a loose top or a lens with a 90 degree focus ring engraving should not slip through - but human beings are not 100% infallible. It is the price for handcrafted gear.

2. Leicas are less reliable out of the box than Canikon/Iphones/etc.

It may well be true. One post quoted a failure rate of 20 pmillion as Industry standard.

The form of the number says it all. That may well be true for robot-produced mass items (like the SD slot;)) produced in millions, but until somebody finds the number for hand-assembled hybrid mechanical-electronic devices it tells us exactly nothing. Don't forget, a robot produces thousands of identical mistakes before being found out by QC, a human chain of assembly will produce fewer, but all different ones, making the checks far more complicated and far less reliable. In other words - it cannot be in the same order.

3. Repairs being held up by parts shortage. Their planning is imbecilic and is customer neglect.

Well, it is pretty clear what happened. A company like Leica must estimate the number of parts needed for the anticipated production and service run. Relatively small numbers too, compared to the giants in the field. And then they have a runaway success - like the M9, which plays havoc with all estimates. So they have to expand the supply chain, order extra from suppliers who must fit it between large orders. That takes time - and produces major hiccups, like we are seeing now.

 

Jaap, my frustration is with the kind of response I've quoted above. In several earlier posts to this thread, I made what I hope were unemotive, well reasoned contributions on an issue which seriously effects some of us. To have these real concerns trivialised and suggest they are muddled and border on the "imbacilic" is not just frustrating. Quite frankly, it's offensive.

 

It is NOT ok for equipment of this value to have the fail rates that are being reported. It is NOT ok when Leica Customer Services fail to communicate adequately. It is NOT ok when parts are mysteriously unavailable for the completion of warranty repairs, yet at the same time available for newly announced product which plainly will use some of those same parts.

 

I'm a passionate evangelist for Leica - but I don't feel compelled to defend the company at every turn of the road. Clearly, there are or have been some failings in QC and customer service. So I repeat my earlier plea: Leica, what is there to lose in an open and honest conversation with us about these issues? It would help us to value each other more, enable us both to understand these matters more clearly; we may even discover we are unfairly maligning you. You (Leica) and we (your passionate buyers) have everything to gain and nothing to lose from that kind of open, respectful conversation.

 

But I fear it's falling on deaf ears and buried under excuses like dropped cartons and the distance between northern and southern hemispheres.

[vanhulsenbeek]

...............

It is NOT ok for equipment of this value to have the fail rates that are being reported. It is NOT ok when Leica Customer Services fail to communicate adequately. It is NOT ok when parts are mysteriously unavailable for the completion of warranty repairs, yet at the same time available for newly announced product which plainly will use some of those same parts. ................................

 

 

+1

[tobey bilek]

To Mark D

 

One does NOT inspect quality into a product, ie 100% inspection.

 

Since the time of Edward Deming in the 1950`s, the procedure is to control the quality of the components by careful manufacture and statistical quality control and proper engineering.

 

The constant quality spills indicate to me this is not being done at Leica or subcontractors..

 

If interested, you might look up a book called " quality is free"

[RSL]

What does 'actual photography' mean,,,,,,,,just curious.

 

Mooky, "actual photography" means making photographs instead of obsessing about your equipment.

[barjohn]

If the defenders on here quit defending and unified with the buyers experiencing issues Leica might be forced to actually listen and provide the quality that the customer is paying for. In the end everyone wins. Leica's reputation improves and it gains more customers and customers win in that they get the product they thought they were purchasing. Transit problems can easily be discovered and addressed by placing the devices on a shake table and discovering where the failures are happening and at what level and frequency and then applying good engineering to correct. Other problems can be found via climate chambers and lastly drop testing though this method can be destructive so is usually used more sparingly.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's unreasonable to suggest that factory-packed M9's failed under poor handling during shipment. Look at Tina's M8 (http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/178681-2/090917_665_09798.jpg), which is still working despite having had a bit more wear than would be caused by shipping.

 

There's nothing wrong with just saying to David, "Okay, you got two bad ones." It's surprising but not statistically unreasonable.

 

If shipping were the cause, there would be a higher incidence of initially defective M9's the further from Solms their delivery points.

 

Yes, we all wish everything were perfect out of the box.

 

So does Leica, because warranty repairs add to their costs. To imply that management isn't interested in initial defects is absurd, because it hits their bottom line.

[SJP]

There's nothing wrong with just saying to David, "Okay, you got two bad ones." It's surprising but not statistically unreasonable.

Baysian statistics would indicate that an external factor like both camera's being in a crate that was dropped or whatever is at least worth considering. I do not believe that Leica would ship camera's that do not work in Solms. Indeed we know that they take ca. 100 shots (or at least shutter actuations) with a new camera before shipping.

[NZDavid]

I'm not sure that the M9, or the M8, has a 'known' limited lifespan. My feeling is that digital imaging systems are now coming of age. Especially in the M9. I held off for years while the megapixel race was in full flow. Now is a good time to jump in IMO, a feeling I think is equally shared by so many other new M9 owners. It's the camera we've all been waiting for which is why it's been such a runaway success. Solid state electronics are in fact generally robust, the camera is extremely well built and delivers medium format quality images. How much better does it need to be? It does more than any of us could have dreamt of just five years ago.

There have been teething problems, we all know that, but the backup, while a little slow at times due to this sudden success, is genuine in it's intent. The passport system means that if anything goes wrong, at all, in your first year of ownership you will be looked after. The software is update-able. DNG files are future proof. Leica will still service any of your mechanical M system cameras, why not the first digitals in 20 years time?

The only way I can see the situation being more confidence-inspiring is if Leica were to make the M9 more modular in it's construction and therefore eminently up-gradeable. We would then be able to send our battered old bronze and magnesium bodies in to have the latest components/ sensors/ electronics installed in Leica's new upgrade wing. Then of course everyone would want one:) ....

Alex

 

Thank you for a logical, non-emotive argument. It does seem the megapixel race has slowed. Improvements like better dynamic range have real immediate benefit. Meanwhile the marketing minions are dreaming up solutions to problems nobody knew existed and are adding a raft of new features, but these are mainly in the compact and "prosumer" sectors.

 

Solid state electronics may be reasonably robust, but I am not sure about software, or sensors. I do hope they are becoming more reliable, but can't see a lot of evidence. It's almost as if we expect software to fail these days. If it didn't, all those IT people would be out of a job.

 

Yes, an upgradeable sensor would be a brilliant, ingenious solution so you didn't have to buy a whole new camera, but I can't see they are going to do that now...Ricoh has a solution with its GXR, but you have to get a whole new lens as well.

 

Jaapv also has some good points on QC. It used to be that Leica was obsessed with reliability. I do not know how Leica compares in the digital age. Of course, any product can fail, and I very much doubt if Leica's failure rate is higher than any other manufacturers -- probably less, having heard some of the stories from pros using one of the major SLRs.

 

Kathryn Schulz in Being Wrong discusses Six Sigma. This is a QC process pioneered in 1986 by Motorola and now widely used by many companies. The protocol indicates the amount of deviation from a given norm. "A company that achieves Six Sigma experiences just 3.4 such errors per million opportunities to err." Or a 99.9997 per cent success rate.

 

Again, it would be interesting to know how Leica compares.

[Doc Henry]

These articles are interesting and in response to what is said here :

Just to get an idea !

 

Google Traduction

http://translate.google.fr/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Ffiabilite-apn-chiffres-un-assureur-news-13385.html&act=url

 

Proof that failure can exist on a digital camera !

 

Henry

[ho_co]

Baysian statistics would indicate that an external factor like both camera's being in a crate that was dropped or whatever is at least worth considering....

Thanks, Stephen.

 

Agreed, certainly worth considering. Question becomes 1) Were these the only two Leicas in that shipment? 2) If not, should the others have problems? 3) Was there really no visible damage to shipping container? etc.

 

I agree that the cameras are likely to have left Leica working. But as others have said, defects can occur for reasons other than shipping damage.

 

Remember how much trouble Tim Ashley had with his first 35 Summilux? Leica at first said 'it's designed that way.' Others started checking their own lenses. Tim tried one or two more samples. Carsten visited a Berlin dealership when a Solms technician was present, and with a new lens off the shelf, showed him the same problem Tim was complaining about. Tim ended up visiting Solms and IIRC, demonstrating to a technician exactly what was wrong. Once Leica recognized the problem, they realized that the extensive QC tests they already had in place wouldn't catch this problem, and that they were in fact shipping lenses with this optical defect. They modified their test procedures to detect the problem, and it soon disappeared from the lens and from the Forum.

 

Somewhere, I think, is a minor defect (or a hundred minor defects) in M9 QC that lets these problems occur.

 

But if any of us were to go to Solms, I doubt that we would see an obvious flaw in the testing procedure, simply because it's obscure. And screaming "They must do better" doesn't help if we can't also say, "See, here's where the problem is."

 

A few M9 sensors cracked, apparently without rhyme or reason. Finally (according to the photokina Fragestunde posting http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-blog/de/2010/09/leica-fragestunde-photokina-das-protokoll/), Leica found and fixed the problem. The problems are unfortunate, but I think they'll get ironed out.

 

It's frustrating for the few of us who have the problems, but it's frustrating for Leica as well, because they're doing all they know to do.

[ho_co]

... It used to be that Leica was obsessed with reliability. I do not know how Leica compares in the digital age....

David, as I remarked above, even in the days of mechanical-only cameras, there were out-of-the-box defectives. I doubt that Leica is worse today than earlier, and I agree that Leica has always had the reputation of being quality- and reliability-conscious, but without figures, we can't compare. The Internet certainly makes failures more visible today.

 

But talk to Sherry Kräuter about the early M5's.

 

And check the record on the R4. My guess is that it presented a far higher percentage of defective cameras than either the M9 or the M8. In fact, IIRC, Leitz US introduced the replacement Passport Warranty precisely because of the R4's teething problems. (I believe Leitz US preceded Wetzlar in implementing the Passport Protection Plan.)

[ozdavid]

Hi Howard,

 

My understanding is that Adeal gets reasonably regular shipments of Leica product for distribution throughout Australia. I do not believe that the relevant shipment was limited to the two defective bodies. To date I understand that there have been no reported issues with others in the shipment. That is why our thoughts (mine and my Dealer - who is very supportive) turned to QC at the factory.

The bodies showed no external evidence of abuse, though I am not a technician and only looked at the externally visible parts.

 

I accept there is a real possibility of coincidence . The reason for starting the thread was the fact that lightning in that case struck twice consecutively at the same place! and my realisation that the two problems identified (which themselves appear to be unrelated) had been reported in this forum over the preceding 10 months by a number of others (most of whom do not appear to live in the Antipodes). In those circumstances it seemed to me that the event was worth mentioning, though I had not quite expected the interest this thread appears to have generated.

 

Regards

David

 

Regards

David

[ho_co]

David, I don't disagree with any of your points, and I'm glad you posted the problem here.

 

It has to be doubly frustrating (duh...) to have had two defective cameras back-to-back. Was the QC technician who passed the camera the same in both cases? I hope not, but even if so, that would be only circumstantial evidence, and a culprit search is out of place here. As you said, they're two different and documented problems, possibly caused by failure of different components.

 

Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong, but in regard to lightning striking twice:

 

I read somewhere of a math teacher who gave his class the assignment to go home and throw a die a hundred times, and record the result of each throw. The next day, he ambled through the class, glancing at each student's homework and saying either, "Yes, you recorded the rolls" or "No, you're faking, you just wrote down numbers you made up."

 

The only way I can see that the teacher could have given such summary (dis-)approval would be for him to check to see whether the student showed a case or two of the same result thrown two or more times consecutively.

 

Your case is interesting and disappointing; no one would want a dealer to get two defective cameras in a row, and certainly no one would want the same customer to get them both.

 

But I don't think your case is demonstrative of anything general.

 

If I pull up to a traffic light and see three pink Cadillacs (sorry for the regional reference) pulled up to the same light, there's no conclusion to be drawn. It's just coincidence.

 

Nonetheless, it's an interesting coincidence, and for you, a definitely annoying one.

 

And Leica is IMHO just as annoyed because of the continuing bugs they haven't been able to sort out.

 

 

BTW--If you haven't checked it, I think Henri's link (Google Traduction, mentioned above at http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/143669-two-dead-m9s-8.html#post1472013) is also interesting for raising some related issues.

 

BTW2--Are NZDavid and ozdavid acquainted? Reminds me of the Monte Python skit where everyone is called Bruce.

[AlanG]

In reading over this thread I think a lot of it is venting frustrations.... whether various issues are supported objectively or not we can't always know or agree on. But clearly there are frustrations. And some people get frustrated more easily than others.

 

I remember someone once said that Lucas electronics in British sports cars were a plus because it fit in with a culture of shade tree mechanics who liked to tinker with their cars.

[ho_co]

You're right, Alan. It strikes a chord with all of us.

 

And that's a wonderful quote!

... I remember someone once said that Lucas electronics in British sports cars were a plus because it fit in with a culture of shade tree mechanics who liked to tinker with their cars.

[ozdavid]

Howard,

We're not though I hope to become so as I do a bit of work in NZ from time to time!

 

As to three pink cadillacs - I can think only of LA or Vegas in the 60s and 70s!

 

Regards

David

[pico]

David, as I remarked above, even in the days of mechanical-only cameras, there were out-of-the-box defectives. [...]

 

Utter nonsense! Between myself and many, many of my fellow professionals of the Sixties we never, ever had a defective out-of-the-box Leica. In fact, I still have six Leica Ms and lenses from the era that are still just fine.

 

Knock off the impressionistic opinions. Get facts.

[AlanG]

Utter nonsense! Between myself and many, many of my fellow professionals of the Sixties we never, ever had a defective out-of-the-box Leica. In fact, I still have six Leica Ms and lenses from the era that are still just fine.

 

Knock off the impressionistic opinions. Get facts.

 

I worked in a camera store on weekends and vacations when I was in high school and college back in the late 60s and early 70s. I don't remember a single defective camera or flash out of the box. As a matter of fact, very few cameras, other than older models, came in for repair at all. (Except when we started selling Mirandas.)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[NZDavid]

...BTW2--Are NZDavid and ozdavid acquainted? Reminds me of the Monte Python skit where everyone is called Bruce.

 

Speaker: "Everyone's an individual."

 

Voice pipes up from the crowd: "I'm not!" (also Monty Python.)

 

Google translate is always good for a laugh.

 

Google Traduction

 

It's a good example of dumb software absolutely riddled with errors. Main point seems to be that Panasonic scores better for reliability. But I wouldn't want my camera to hang out in dangerous places, and I'd want to be careful about the kind of aircraft I used...

 

 

"Bad surprise: Canon.. Remains a topic: SLRs.... just follow the peregrinations of our forumers to be convinced, there are few compact also extensively used.... gold, one can imagine that one who makes sure his camera less reluctant to go out in adverse conditions or let it hang out in dangerous places...We always expected the final study, which accommodates all aircraft of all types and brands of all styles used by all photographers. In the meantime, we are comforted by the thought that whatever its aircraft, it was nine in ten chance that it works for at least two years, and that once we pass the 250 € that hope to pass nineteen chance..."