pgk Posted October 22, 2010 Share #21 Posted October 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Be fair guys! All the OP is requesting is that Leica act like all other camera manufacturer's, isn't he;)? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2010 Posted October 22, 2010 Hi pgk, Take a look here Leica complaint. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted October 22, 2010 Share #22 Posted October 22, 2010 It would actually be worth considering a subforum for Complaints, Rants and Chairman CEO Suggestions. An occassional read could spice up the day for anyone. Maybe even including the good folks at Leica Meanwhile I agree with Rick that there's a lot of photographic talent on this forum. As documented very convincingly in the LUF Book If only... By the way, doesn't this belong in the Bar? Regards, Bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted October 22, 2010 Share #23 Posted October 22, 2010 ...... no they are few and far between:) Oh! That is painful... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 22, 2010 Share #24 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Oh! That is painful... not as painful as accepting mediocrity in image making for pixel peeping Edited October 22, 2010 by stnami Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted October 22, 2010 Share #25 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Yes, you are dead on about using a reputable dealer. Maybe you pay a few more bucksthen these bargain basement guys.... but it's worth having a good and honest supplier behind you if there is a problem. I may be a bit strange, but I use a top mounted finder for all my lenses. I can really see! The camera rangefinder is just used for focusing. (and it helps keep my nose off the display as I am left-eyed). Enjoy! +1, and suits me fine! Edited October 22, 2010 by vanhulsenbeek Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 22, 2010 Share #26 Posted October 22, 2010 I know a good joke about a guy in a restaurant. It's not clean enough for here, but it ends with him saying "No, I wanted a FORK on the table!" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustafasoleiman Posted October 22, 2010 Share #27 Posted October 22, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Oh! That is painful... not as painful as accepting mediocrity in image making for pixel peeping ... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/134712-leica-complaint/?do=findComment&comment=1479346'>More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted October 22, 2010 Share #28 Posted October 22, 2010 Richard, I do not get your point. Do you really expect Mr. Daniel or anybody from Leica US to waste their time with issues resolved. I hope not. You take yourself too important. Regards Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realphotos Posted October 22, 2010 Share #29 Posted October 22, 2010 So mr Gordan it seems your want the high ground Your a good photographer and long time user of Leica you say. You have purchasesd a camera and you have a problem. What's your point of wanting the Forum to become involved? Leica have sent out a lot of M9's and it appears there is problem with yours. I look forward to hearing your clearly described strategy or point is to involve some "high volume" comment in this forum when you know this is not the place for Leica to respond to you. Are you just putting the " boot in" because you know Leica will not respond here. If you have received an M9 that is not 100% and via a distributor that's not performing then I am the first person to acknowledge your rotten luck but do you have to use forum space to complain. What's your point. My point is you give Leica a profile demographic of there clients that is unreal. Over reactive* etc. This* is absolutely not a personal comment but my point is on the forum "we" all offer all sorts of coments about Leica (their philosophy,business,products etc) but what about thinking that Leica must receive a certain profile of their clients from our forum chat. Sincerely hope your camera issue is sorted asap but hope we can try to use every bit of forum coment to drive Leica to their highest possible product & service delivery. It's a very curious situation that when we have the net and a forum like this were we have the attention of the supplier and the manufacturer but they don't use the right of reply. Hopefully their interpretation of the feedback is approriately balanced. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 22, 2010 Share #30 Posted October 22, 2010 This is an unbelievable thread. The OP states that his 50f2 does not fit his new M9 but everything else. The dealer replaces the M9 so Problem resolved and informs Leica management. OP does not get a call from Leica management in Germany, which would be a nice gesture and has happened to me when I wrote a complaint. Now we get thread after thread attacking the OP because he expects a call. and of course support of Leica management for NOT phoning or writing an apology email. We also get the usual two liners that add no value. The real issue however is not even identified, or mentioned : How can a M9 at £5000 for the body alone be passed through QC with a M lens that does not fit? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 22, 2010 Share #31 Posted October 22, 2010 No, Frank, you are wrong. The Summicron that didn't fit was the OP's Summicron. Are you suggesting Leica should collect all Leica M-lenses out there to test whether all of them will fit every new body they make? The OP did not say he was unable to fit ANY lens to the new body, just his Summicron. I own a 50 asph that for some peculiar reason won't fit on my M7, but does fit on my M3 nicely. All my other lenses fit on both bodies, as could be expected. Now you tell me whether the M7 or the Summilux is faulty. Obviously, I could have this resolved, but do not care, as I use the Summilux solely on the M3. Cheers, Andy 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted October 22, 2010 Share #32 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) How can a M9 at £5000 for the body alone be passed through QC with a M lens that does not fit? Because it was not a new lens but an existing lens already owned by the OP and Leica when making the M9 decided on a certain value of the dimensions of the M mount and lens holding catch that take into account that M lenses have been made since 1954, at various locations, using different machines, and by different technicians. These dimensions are chosen such that a certain percentage the whole ensemble of lenses are expected to fit (like 99% if they use 3 sigma, could be a different figure), However as the mounts (M9 body) are basically hand made these also have a tolerance range so that certains lenses are OK on one body but not on another while the M9 as such is still within specification. Edited October 22, 2010 by SJP 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted October 22, 2010 Share #33 Posted October 22, 2010 The real issue, Frank is that the OP does not have a contract with Leica. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 22, 2010 Share #34 Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) On Sept. 30th I received a new M9, unpacked it, and there was a firmware glitch and my 50 Summicron would not mount on that body (mounts fine on my M6 and then M8.2 as well as two other film bodies). Foto Care in NYC was great and exchanged the camera immediately without any problem and with full support. I cannot speak highly enough of them. Happy ending, then... Not that we know what the "software glitch" was, nor anything about your Summicron. But of course that is irrelevant, because the problem has been sorted. On the other hand, Leica has been as responsive as a politician caught with a hooker. I don't blame them. I wouldn't respond to someone who compared me to a politician. On Oct. 1, I sent an email to Leica USA Why? Your problem has been sorted. What was the content of your email that you thought it a) so important to send worthy of a response from senior Leica management and c) worthy of interest here? Mark Brady responded within an hour Good. You got a response from someone evidently tasked to deal with such things. (the top brass should take a hint from him) ...or just recognise that he is doing his job. ...and forwarded my concerns to Roger Horn--head of Leica USA, and to Christian Erhardt, also in the USA, and to product manager of the M system in Germany, Stefan Daniel. I heard nothing, nada, from these three gentlemen and on Oct. 8, I called Mr. Horn. Again, why? He was very pleasant and said that he would contact Mr. Daniel. As of today, I've yet to hear a peep of explanation or apology. Again, not a peep, email,nothing. What did you expect? These people have better things to do than to respond to every single customer individually. They have employees for that. I've been a Leica user for over 40 years Ah there's the rub. What do you think that gets you? The right to have everyone run about like headless chickens because you have a problem? So, unless you are dealing with a reputable and responsive dealer, ...which you were... The second one seems to be fine save for the poorly designed frame lines to recording ratio, but that is true of all of Leica's digital cameras. Bad Leica! This all sounds very familiar. Attention seekers come in all shapes and sizes. Leica is the "parent", and the attention seeker the "child". Leica appear fortunately to have become adroit at humouring them, in the meantime, just like a real parent, ignoring their clamour and getting on with the real work. Regards, Bill Edited October 22, 2010 by bill Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted October 22, 2010 Share #35 Posted October 22, 2010 ....................What's your point of wanting the Forum to become involved?......................... Ah there! If all members posting would ask themselves that question in earnest and act reasonably, this Forum would wither away Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFV Posted October 22, 2010 Share #36 Posted October 22, 2010 Quite frankly, I don't understand the commotion... if the CEO of Leica called me to apologize I doubt I would have the time to attend his call... I am waaaaaay to important for that. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 22, 2010 Share #37 Posted October 22, 2010 Because it was not a new lens but an existing lens already owned by the OP and Leica when making the M9 decided on a certain value of the dimensions of the M mount and lens holding catch that take into account that M lenses have been made since 1954, at various locations, using different machines, and by different technicians. These dimensions are chosen such that a certain percentage the whole ensemble of lenses are expected to fit (like 99% if they use 3 sigma, could be a different figure), However as the mounts (M9 body) are basically hand made these also have a tolerance range so that certains lenses are OK on one body but not on another while the M9 as such is still within specification. Stephen one of the selling points of M cameras (thru to M9 titanium) is that the old lenses fit. I would presume that Leica have done their 3 sigma analysis on the camera mount and have a view on tolerances of the M lenses. These considerations hopefully are what drives the M mount specification to ensure that they actually do actually do fit. A second M9 camera has been provided to the OP and this works....so just what are the tolerances on that 1st camera? Was it as you suggest in spec. and Ok, or just a rogue camera? The question that now surfaces to my mind is will Leica feel a need to learn anything from this experience and change the tolerances of the M mount after examining the camera in Solma. Another contributor suggests that he has an issue with one of his M lenses on a M film camera. Frankly I have never before heard of any M camera not accepting old M lenses due to a mount tolerancing issue....is this something known about before, or is it so very very rare that it should be handled the way this case has been, with no need to tighten the M9 specification? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted October 22, 2010 Share #38 Posted October 22, 2010 ... I have never before heard of any M camera not accepting old M lenses due to a mount tolerancing issue.... The Summilux 50 asph is not exactly an old lens, mind you. Whatever, the problem is known and it's an easy fix. It has to do with one of the springs of the camera mount. Bend that spring a little and the problem is gone. You have to know where to bend it, however. Andy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted October 22, 2010 Share #39 Posted October 22, 2010 The Summilux 50 asph is not exactly an old lens, mind you. Whatever, the problem is known and it's an easy fix. It has to do with one of the springs of the camera mount. Bend that spring a little and the problem is gone. You have to know where to bend it, however. Andy Andy the 50mm ASPH is a current production lens that is not exactly cheap. I have the highest regards for Leica design integrity and quality but I musts say I am surprised that clients that buy into Leica may have to fix the compatibility issue when they get home for what you say is apparently a known problem. The fix you say is bending a spring a little on the camera M mount. ....Personally I would be reluctant to do that on a new £5000 camera, but maybe I am being too demanding. Is this problem unique to the 50f2 and 50f1.4 ASPH mentioned here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 22, 2010 Share #40 Posted October 22, 2010 I've read some "interesting" threads on this forum in my time, but this one is one of the more "interesting". Of course things like this shouldn't happen, but when products are made by humans, they do. The dealer sorted the whole problem out by return. That's excellent. IMHO, this should be a GOOD NEWS thread, not yet another opportunity for the usual suspects to wade in and bash Leica. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.