Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The reason, while in India one of

the camera strap mounts came off. No warning, just came off. The piece holding it in

with two screws simply came off and the camera drops to the ground, lightly damaging

an older 35mm summicron. So I sent in the camera and lens for service.

 

 

What do they figure is likely to happen when a strap lug fails? It isn't your fault that you had an older lens on it instead of a new one. I guess they figure that maybe you had a damaged lens sitting around and took advantage of this "opportunity" to get it fixed for free. And they could say that they are not responsible for ancillary damage if something breaks. It all depends on what one feels is reasonable.

 

But if I were working high above a crowd and a camera fell due to a lug strap failure and injured someone below me, I wonder what my insurance company would think is reasonable? It seems reasonable for me to think that a neck strap lug is very secure and will support the weight of a camera in all but perhaps the most extreme situations. When I photograph from a helicopter, the owner installed anchoring straps that connect to the camera straps to make sure they can't fall out of the copter. I don't think it crossed anyone's mind that this wouldn't be enough.

[swamiji]

Jaques, if you ran your car into a fire hydrant, would you expect the dealer to service the grill and radiator under warranty?

 

Yes, if the accident was caused by a defective part... Lug nuts... And since I am an American and a Californian, I would expect additional compensation for emotional damage, or the courts would have a new case.

[ho_co]

offtopic, swamiji--

The question is the lens, not the strap lug. The lens had already been damaged by incompetent service; whether the strap lug was defective has nothing to do with that.

 

And the question was, "If you ran your car...," not "If the steering linkage broke and caused you to run your car into a fire hydrant...."

 

Let's try instead: "If you had let your unlicensed neighbor service your rear suspension, and after several months you lost control of the car due to the loss of a rear strut, would you expect the dealer to service your grill and radiator under warranty?"

 

But I appreciate the fact that people are trying to blame Leica for not fixing free what someone else had messed up. Take it to court, if you want, but I don't think you'll win.

[jaques]

Howard: I am not sure of what you are on about.

 

Let's try instead: "If you had mounted your well used vintage Noctilux on your new M9, and after several months the lug on the M9 camera fell off -without warning and under normal use- causing the lens to be smashed to smithereens, would you be happy with Leica only repairing the m9? Even if the Noctilux had once been serviced by DAG?"

 

I seriously doubt you would be happy.

 

The OP indicates the lens was damaged because the strap lug on the camera failed. Leica is saying they won't repair the lens because it has been serviced elsewhere before. As I understand it they are not denying that damage was caused by the lug failure- only denying any responsibility- via what looks to me like a loop-hole of sorts...

 

If I had a Toyota and the brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect: would Toyota only be liable for the damage to the car- or would they be liable for all damage caused?

[bill]

You are talking about consequential loss. I buy a gun. I shoot you. You sue Smith & Wesson... I think not. leica will limit their liability, not unreasonably, to that which is under their control. They are not responsible for all the variables - how and where you use the camera, what lens you choise to mount when - that is all down to you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[DennisK]

jaques wrote: If I had a Toyota and the brakes failed due to a manufacturing defect: would Toyota only be liable for the damage to the car- or would they be liable for all damage caused?

 

bill wrote: I buy a gun. I shoot you. You sue Smith & Wesson... I think not. leica will limit their liability, not unreasonably, to that which is under their control.

 

Bill, it seems to me you (and others) are going out of their way to twist the argument away from Leica's responsibility for properly working lug straps. Don't you think there's a difference between using a tool to cause damage and a failing tool that causes damage in the process with regards to the liability of the tool maker? Isn't it under Leica's control to guarantee the functioning of their lug straps under normal use?

[Dabow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting and, at the same time, a quite worrying thread. I've owned many cameras from various manufacturers over the last 28 years - Praktica, Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta and Leica. I came to the Leica fold quite late, mainly due to cost and the effort it took trying to justify it, as well as buying into a whole new system and way of working. Perhaps I've been lucky, but in all these years and throughout all of these cameras and different brands I have never had an issue. As the years have gone by the level of camera I have bought has increased, both in terms of price and therefore (I would hope!) quality. Leica was the last brand I moved to, about 6 years ago now, although I still keep one foot firmly in the Canon camp. Canon equipment has always served me very well in a wide variety of conditions.

 

So... Leica. A brand since my youth I have associated with top quality. Finely made machines with no expense spared in construction. Hand built, exceptionally reliable, rock solid to the point of being bullet proof. Well, perhaps that was the old film M's. One perhaps can't expect a digital M to have the same lifespan as a film M, due to technological advancement. However, what I as an owner DO expect is the same build quality, sturdy construction and reliability associated with the name, especially given the high price point of Leica M cameras. A scratched sensor is one thing, but a defective lug is just unforgivable IMO. The camera goes, along with a very expensive lens, crashing to the floor. Add to that, as others have pointed out, the potential for injury. And that's not all - I've seen other reports here and elsewhere about bits randomly falling off digital M's. The finder lever was one, to which another poster calmly replied it was a common problem and to just add it back on with a bit of strong glue! What??

 

Perhaps my tolerance is lower than most, but when I pay a price (especially a high one) I expect a quality product that works and won't let me down, especially when it's a tool of my trade. More so when the company I purchase from has a strong reputation for quality which I assume they would like to retain. Yet some seem quite happy to accept these shortcomings and multiple trips back to the factory, weeks without their cameras and an endless stream of excuses and passing the buck. Last year I had an expensive Manfrotto tripod fail on me - a nearly new tripod at that. Manfrotto tried to shrug it off on the grounds that the particular model I had had been built in Asia and not in the EU and therefore the quality could not be expected to be as high! Seriously?? Needless to say I shouted at them, then I shouted some more, then I took it to their Head Office and vented, then they sent me a new tripod (made in EU (as if that should make a difference when their name is attached to it)) and a strong apology.

 

Apathy with these companies, when their products fail, IMO only goes to fuel the trend. Bose is a prime example of how a company should deal with customer issues if a product fails. No endless back and forth, no raised temperatures and case pleading, just a swift replacement and even an offer of a higher model as compensation for the inconvenience. Of course it depends on the nature of the fault, and whether it's a customer issue or not. But when it's a company/product fault the line to me is very clear.

 

So, Leica. As I say I've had no issues to date. But the stories I've read about some of the problems experienced by other owners and how Leica have tried to deal with them worries me. They also reduce my brand confidence... quiet significantly. As we all know, bad news travels fast. Noted there will always be one or two bad experiences, and that's to be expected to a degree. That said, if one of my lugs failed and my Noctilux went bouncing across the pavement as a result, if I didn't receive immediate compensation and a replacement my hands would be moving swiftly around someone's neck at Solms. I'd also be singing my issues from the rooftops until someone higher up the tree sat up and took notice. Customer satisfaction with a strong sense of fair-play should be paramount in maintaining a strong and loyal customer base.

 

I bought the Rolls Royce of cameras... or so I thought. The various tales of cameras malfunctioning, coming back from the factory with more issues than they went in, bits falling off and how they've been treated by Leica are fast leading my thoughts to more Alfa than Rolls - nice to look at, fun to drive when it works, but don't expect any long term reliability. Should my M9 ever fail me in what I consider to be a matter Leica needs to resolve and they don't do so reasonably, I will leave the Leica fold as fast as my legs can carry me. Should bits start to fall off my Leica through no fault of my own, I will leave the Leica fold with no further discussion. I will also make my opinion of the brand heard. My allegiance only goes so far. I bought a tool to do a job, not a nice, expensive piece of ornamental camera equipment.

 

Fingers crossed that never comes to pass, as I really enjoy my M9. It's a pity I now feel slightly nervous when the strap is around my neck though.

[NZDavid]

So should I buy one?!

[hoppyman]

Hi Christopher I can imagine how frustrated you must be. You have been very unfortunate.

You have mentioned now that you have established that the sensor cover glass scratch dates from two months after the last servicing. You certainly were unlucky to mark it. Perhaps the tiniest bit of grit has got on there? Unfortunately this is not covered since it is not a manufacturing defect of course nor caused by Leica last time.

 

There seem to be two parts to problems with your older Summicron 35 lens.

It is not under its original warranty apparently and someone else having serviced it previously would in any case make that warranty null and void. Perhaps you may have some claim against whoever serviced it, if that could be established?

 

You have said too that the lens was lightly damaged when the camera fell? Dented filter ring or similar? I don't think that this would not be under the camera warranty either.

I know the sinking feeling that you get a couple of seconds after the crunch of your camera and lens hitting the ground. I dropped my M8 (off my neck when bending down) on concrete and it landed on the hood of the fitted lens. Remarkably everything survived.

 

Your Leica Warranty Card explains the specific conditions regarding ... serviced by unauthorised persons or workshops.... and .....Consequential claims, no matter what kind and of what legal argument...

 

Best wishes for you to get the camera back speedily and the manufacturing defects repaired to your complete satisfaction. I guess with the scratched sensor cover glass and lens you will need to make separate judgements as to what you are willing to spend.

 

 

....Good morning all,

 

This is not to complain, nor to suggest Leica is creating inferior products. Just a log

of my experience and to welcome any suggestions.

 

I purchased my M9 about 1 year ago and when working, it's great. About 6 months

into owning the camera it goes in for service the first time. The reason being the large

dial on back was producing erratic results. They replaced it and cleaned the camera.

They made no mention of a scratched sensor on the report or to me. The camera

came back with a dirty sensor and one of the viewfinder's LED lights no longer working.

I decided to live with the faults until I needed to send the camera in again.

 

The second time I sent it in was about 1 month ago. The reason, while in India one of

the camera strap mounts came off. No warning, just came off. The piece holding it in

with two screws simply came off and the camera drops to the ground, lightly damaging

an older 35mm summicron. So I sent in the camera and lens for service.

 

After 2-3 weeks I had to call Leica to find what was going on. They inform me the

scratch in the sensor had been there since the first service and is not covered under

warranty. 900+ euros to fix. Though the lens was damaged due to the fault from the

camera body, Leica will not check it out (for free) as it has been serviced before and

apparently by someone else (before I owned the lens). If I want them to check it out

it'll cost around 400 euros minimum. They will fix the strap mount though. The camera

should be ready in another 3 weeks.

 

This makes for roughly 2 1/2 months of 12 months I've not had camera due to servicing.

 

So while I do love using the camera, I admit I'm regretting the purchase a bit now.

European (Swedish) Law says I cannot get a replacement unless the camera is sent

in for service 3x with the same problem.

 

Thoughts are welcome!

[vanhulsenbeek]

.................. Should my M9 ever fail me in what I consider to be a matter Leica needs to resolve and they don't do so reasonably, I will leave the Leica fold as fast as my legs can carry me. .................................

 

Fingers crossed that never comes to pass, as I really enjoy my M9. It's a pity I now feel slightly nervous when the strap is around my neck though.

 

It is very likely your camera will not fail you.

But boy, aren't you spoiling your own fun

I feel fine when the M9 strap is around my neck

Suffered enough in my life from other - be it virtual - straps!

[bill]

... Isn't it under Leica's control to guarantee the functioning of their lug straps under normal use?

 

Again, this is a question of limitation of liability. The doctrine of reasonableness will also apply. Define "normal use". Set a reasonable time limit. I guarantee your subjective views on these parameters will be different to mine, and indeed to others because they are yours, based upon what YOU regard as reasonable. If the OP has an issue with Leica on this they can always resort to legal redress. Good luck to them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[denoir]

My M9 has been to Solms twice for rangefinder adjustments - the first time was when the camera was brand new. Although I'm not over the moon about the all mechanical design, I recognize that it's the nature of the beast that it can be sensitive to bumps and shakes.

 

My 75 Summicron has been to Solms twice as well. First, new out of the box it was front focusing. They fixed and focus was spot on. Then the aperture ring broke (rotated freely) so I sent it in again. I got it back a few weeks ago and now the lens is back focusing. So I'll have to send it in again. People say that Leica gear that it's "bulit like a tank". That's a partial truth - it's built like a tank that was assembled by drunken chimpanzees.

 

To be fair, my other four Leica M lenses have worked flawlessly while two of my four Zeiss ZM lenses had to be sent to Zeiss for adjustments & repairs (front focusing, and wobbly focusing ring).

 

I've never had these kinds of problems with my 5DII/7D + Zeiss ZE and Canon glass. Still, I love the M9 and all things considered I'm extremely happy with it.

[plasticman]

I think that lens/camera adjustments are a problem that most people are aware of, and if perfect focus is to be expected from a wide variety of heritage lenses then waiting times and expense just have to be accepted as part of the package.

 

However, if a critical part fails on the camera (especially a part which the user has no possible warning is about to fail), then Leica should surely step-up and gracefully accept responsibility for the damage caused not only to the camera itself, but to the equipment attached to the camera.

 

All these statements about 'limitation of liability' and so on surely miss the point that it is simply bad business to treat your customers as potential legal adversaries. Maybe even just a thread like this does more than €400 worth of damage to Leica's reputation - so fixing the lens for free would probably have been cheaper in the long-run?

[bill]

"Oops! Mr Leica, I have dropped my camera. it was fitted at the time with my brand new Noctilux, which bounced off and rolled away into a storm drain. Clearly the mount was at fault. Please supply me with a new Noctilux as a gesture of goodwill..."

 

Yeh right...

 

Leica are a business not a charity. As it is, I think from personal experience and all the favourable reports on this forum, that they already go a country mile to providing a good customer service experience.

 

Regards,

 

 

Bill

[lct]

The worst lawyer could not lose a case like this in France. By replacing the lug for free, the maker has acknowledged his fault so it must pay all damages caused by the latter.

[bill]

Really? Good job they are not in France then.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

Depends on the place of purchase Bill.

[Dabow]

"Oops! Mr Leica, I have dropped my camera. it was fitted at the time with my brand new Noctilux, which bounced off and rolled away into a storm drain. Clearly the mount was at fault. Please supply me with a new Noctilux as a gesture of goodwill..."

 

Wow! Really... WOW! I really hope that Leica don't view all of their customers who bring cameras back to them with faults caused by poor construction in this cynical manner. Regarding all customers as potential cheats is a public relations disaster!

[Dabow]

It is very likely your camera will not fail you.

But boy, aren't you spoiling your own fun

 

Enjoy your trip in your hot air balloon! Oh, by the way, one of the straps gave way last week and everyone plunged to their deaths... But not to worry, yours should be fine.

 

So tell me, just how comfortable would your ride be?

 

I think it's called human nature.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M. Valdemar]

You are talking about consequential loss. I buy a gun. I shoot you. You sue Smith & Wesson... I think not. leica will limit their liability, not unreasonably, to that which is under their control. They are not responsible for all the variables - how and where you use the camera, what lens you choise to mount when - that is all down to you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

That is an irrational argument. Your logic is at fault. This is the correct scenario:

 

" I buy a gun. I engage the safety mechanism on the gun. The safety mechanism fails to prevent the gun from firing and the gun discharges on the counter of the store. You are shot in the foot."