Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service.

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A couple of legal notes as they apply to the USA since Bill seems to think that statement on the warranty card carries any legal weight.

 

It does, even in the Colonies

 

Suppose your car company wrote in the warranty that they are not responsible for any consequential damage and your brakes fail due to a manufacturing defect and you kill someone. Do you really think that statement in their warranty card will carry any legal weight?

 

Yes.

 

I've owned a couple of American cars. I was astonished and then amused by the number of disclaimers that peppered the handbooks, sun visors and anywhere else there was a flat surface, including the door mirrors and windscreen The best was the disclaimer for the cruise control - "Do not leave the driver's seat while cruise control is engaged".

 

Limitation of liability - look it up, it's nothing new.

 

There are plenty of rich lawyers that could easily disprove that one.

 

We have them too, and have had them a while longer. Rich lawyers get rich by knowing which cases to fight, not by tilting at windmills.

 

Second, most people are not aware of the legal power they have in Small Claims Courts in the US.

 

We have them in the Free World too. Most efficient. I have used them myself on occasion. Again, they will take note of any limitation of liability and disclaimer for consequential loss. That's why they are there.

 

Hard cases make bad law. Leica take exceptional steps as has been evidenced so many times in this forum and in this very thread; they operate in a reasonable way. But they are not a charity.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

...and thus establish a precedent. They would be mad to do so.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect this precedent is long established. Clearly lug failure is so rare an event that no photographer could reasonably be expected to take precautions to prevent its occurrence from having consequential results. The entire point of a camera lug and strap is to ensure the photographer that if used properly, the camera will be safe and secure.

 

So you support the reported position of Leica's decision not to repair lens damage that was caused due to the lug failure? Isn't the cause and effect very clear? How is it possible that they are not responsible? Did someone else put the camera together?

 

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Products_liability

Edited May 15, 2011 by AlanG

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[bill]

So you support the reported position of Leica's decision not to repair lens damage that was caused due to the lug failure?

 

Since, with all due respect to the OP, Leica cannot know what stresses the lugs received prior to the failure, yes of course I do. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[ho_co]

... to ensure the photographer that if used properly, the camera will be safe and secure....

Alan, have you any indication that Christopher "used [the camera and strap lugs] properly"?

 

We know from post http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/180715-regret-purchase-m9-after-2nd-service-5.html#post1703478 that two screws on one lug pulled out of the magnesium casting. We don't know which end of the body. We don't know whether Christopher was in the habit of using a wrist strap while carrying the M9 with Visoflex and 560 Telyt with shoulder grip.

 

I pointed out the reason the lens can't be done; Geoff repeated what I said; let me try again: Here, Christopher is asking for something like "Just fix the flat; don't worry about the rim."

 

Leica cannot repair just part of a lens, and Leica cannot be held responsible for damage done by others.

 

If someone takes a sledgehammer to the rear of my car and two days later my brakes fail due to a faulty part and I run into a cement mixer, the car manufacturer

• is liable for the faulty part;
  
• may be held liable for the damage caused by the failed brakes;
  
• is not liable for the damage done by a sledgehammer-wielding neighbor.
  

[AlanG]

Alan, have you any indication that Christopher "used [the camera and strap lugs] properly"?

 

 

In the first post and in a subsequent post he said the lug simply came unscrewed and these screws were not stripped out or broken. Nor was the lug mounting area broken. Perhaps the threading was incorrect or the screws were not tightened properly. But it does not matter because he also said that Leica agreed that this was their fault and will repair the lug for N/C. If he had somehow "used the camera and strap lugs" improperly, they would have said so. Leica just does not feel this responsibility extends to the cosmetic damage to the lens that the OP claims was caused by the failure of the lug.

 

Additionally, it is also reasonable to suspect a possibility that the lens was knocked out of alignment or otherwise damaged by this impact. And Leica cannot simply say that a previous servicing by someone else releases them from responsibility of damage that may have been caused by their admitted negligence in constructing the body. To that extent, they should at least examine the lens thoroughly for no charge. And only then could they make their case for any lens problem being a pre-existing condition. How much could this cost them? Since when does it cost 400 euros to simply check a lens?

 

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

Considering the number of problems in this one body I would think that Leica would try a bit harder to make this customer happy.

 

"Alan: This was surprising to me as well. The Lugs are held to the body with 2 screws,

both of which appeared to be fine, no stress, bends, cracks, etc... They simply seemed

to have worked themselves from the body. What is surprising to me is there was no

warning. If they slowly 'unscrewed' themselves then I would've imagined I'd have noticed

beforehand. I can only surmise they literally slipped out of the sockets."

Edited May 16, 2011 by AlanG

[ho_co]

Alan, they've already checked the lens at no charge. It will cost €400 to fix it.

 

From the way I read the section you cite from the post I referenced, Christopher says the screws were undamaged, but that he would have noticed if they had unscrewed. But you say that the screws unscrewed. Perhaps they're short enough that he didn't notice them unscrewing.

 

I don't find the place where he says the magnesium housing didn't strip or break. [EDIT--Oh, I see you've deleted that part from your post; thanks!] I may have already mentioned my concerns about the casting.

 

We're all still trying to make sense of it, IMO.

 

In his Anatomy, Mark didn't remove the lugs. There are a couple pictures where you can see how robust the lugs themselves are, but I can't tell how they're anchored to the clamshell. Does anyone have a comparison to the way the M7 or M3 lugs are anchored?

 

 

 

 

Christopher, could you perhaps just quote the paperwork you got from Leica in regard to the repair? That may not help, but maybe if we're lucky we'll gain some information. In my case, too often they just quote my complaint back to me, without stating what that means to them or what they discovered in their analysis.

 

I'd like to hear what work they feel needs to be done and what parts are needed, as they wrote it on the estimate.

 

Did you by any chance photograph the area where the strap lug pulled off? Did the whole screws including screwheads pull out and stay attached to the strap lug? I'm not sure how the lugs attach, but if it's by two screws, they must have heads on the inside, right? Are they flathead, Philips, Torx? Or did they fall into the body, having detached themselves from the lug?

 

Do you have any pictures of any parts left from before you sent the camera in?

Edited May 16, 2011 by ho_co

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan, they've already checked the lens at no charge. It will cost €400 to fix it.

 

From the way I read the section you cite from the post I referenced, Christopher says the screws were undamaged, but that he would have noticed if they had unscrewed. But you say that the screws unscrewed. Perhaps they're short enough that he didn't notice them unscrewing.

 

I suspect he spent his spare time spinning the camera around his head by the strap connected only to one lug. (Even then it should hold up.)

 

Do you know what "irrelevant" means? They already admitted the lug failure was their fault. That issue is closed.

 

And his first post said this:

 

"If I want them to check it out it'll cost around 400 euros minimum." He did not say that Leica said what was wrong with the lens or give a quote for "repairing" it.

 

Keep in mind that I'm only posting as an exercise in logic and "reasonableness" based on the information that has been presented by the OP. For all I know. he disassembled the camera, loosened the lug screws and put it all back together as part of a grand plan to get some marks on the lens barrel fixed.

 

This is only one aspect of his post titled "Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service." I think I'll accept that he genuinely feels wronged and nothing you and other posters have written has changed his view about that.

Edited May 16, 2011 by AlanG

[erl]

I own an M6 TTL, it has never failed and I have complete confidence in its reliability.

 

As for the M9 it has taken me a while to accept this as it cost me so much, but my experience is they're the most unreliable full frame digital ever made.

 

hydeca, comparing the film M with the digital M is not a reasonable measure. I think ALL film cameras are probably more reliable than ALL digital cameras.

 

As for the M9 being the most unreliable FF camera in your experience, well I accept that, but I would be surprised if that is taken as a real measure or test of the camera, based on a sample of one. I'm not trying to be an apologist for Leica here, just allowing for alternative examples, such as my experience, which is almost the opposite of yours, but also not indicative of the global situation.

 

The real weakness in Leica, I think, is the slow service turaround, which frankly I don't think can be improved because of the size of the company. What could be improved it release of the facility and permission for global service technitians to perform more work to obviate constant (slow) return to Solms.

 

Problems such as experienced by the OP could be greatly reduce with localized service. Another example, I cannot spare my 35mm Cron to be sent back to Solms for 6 bit coding (turnaround estimated at 4 - 6 weeks) whereas my local authorized leica Service technitian could do it, but Leica will not release the parts to permit him to do it, despite the fact he is trained and qualified. He would do it almost while I have a coffee!

[ho_co]

Alan, I've read what the OP said.

 

In fact--if you read the thread--the €400 is the estimate on repairing the lens. Both Geoff and I pointed that out, and Christopher acknowledged the fact.

 

The question of responsibility has been resolved, IMO, and Leica is behaving reasonably.

 

What concern me are the details of the case and exactly where and how the failure occurred. That's the only reason I'm here.

[hamey]

I guess with a statement this absurd you have to shout to try and hide the distinct lack of truth in it

 

Good luck trying to get the same level of image quality out of your G9 as you would from a Leica. But perhaps that's of no concern to you.

 

To you and others who disliked my opinion.

 

Call it what you like, I do not or never expected my Canon G9 to be as as good as the M9.

Compared to the M9 The Canon G9 is a CHEAP point and shoot camera that I use as secondary, all my Photography is taken on SLIDE FILM using a combination of Leica cameras, R8/9, two R7's and the M7 with numerious lenses.

The SL is now retired,The R3. and the R4/ R4s have been traded in.

 

I have been using Leica gear since 1972 so surely it gives me some experience in their equipment and if I have to tell you the problams I have had over the years I could write abook on it.

 

So for a cheap little Digicam BY LEICA STANDARDS it has NEVER LET ME DOWN IN 3 YEARS.

It goes to work with me everyday, gets knocked around in MY WORK BAG etc etc.

Simply it has been a remarkable little camera AND I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY ANOTHER.

 

AND THATS MY POINT OF VIEW.

 

PS..... It's obvious you did'nt like the show pony, how many other Camera manufacturies produced so many special editions over the years, and by the way can you buy the M9 in pig, snake, or lizard skins.

 

LOL.

[ChristopherGrant]

As soon as the camera is back I'll post what details I can from the service report.

 

I can't shed anymore light on why the lug failed other than the 'guess' that the

screws simply unscrewed themselves rather quickly causing the lug to fall away.

Unfortunately I didn't photograph the problem before sending it in.

[jaapv]

To you and others who disliked my opinion.

 

Call it what you like, I do not or never expected my Canon G9 to be as as good as the M9.

Compared to the M9 The Canon G9 is a CHEAP point and shoot camera that I use as secondary, all my Photography is taken on SLIDE FILM using a combination of Leica cameras, R8/9, two R7's and the M7 with numerious lenses.

The SL is now retired,The R3. and the R4/ R4s have been traded in.

 

I have been using Leica gear since 1972 so surely it gives me some experience in their equipment and if I have to tell you the problams I have had over the years I could write abook on it.

 

So for a cheap little Digicam BY LEICA STANDARDS it has NEVER LET ME DOWN IN 3 YEARS.

It goes to work with me everyday, gets knocked around in MY WORK BAG etc etc.

Simply it has been a remarkable little camera AND I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY ANOTHER.

 

AND THATS MY POINT OF VIEW.

 

PS..... It's obvious you did'nt like the show pony, how many other Camera manufacturies produced so many special editions over the years, and by the way can you buy the M9 in pig, snake, or lizard skins.

 

LOL.

 

 

Why all the shouting?

[MarkP]

To you and others who disliked my opinion.

 

Call it what you like, I do not or never expected my Canon G9 to be as as good as the M9.

Compared to the M9 The Canon G9 is a CHEAP point and shoot camera that I use as secondary, all my Photography is taken on SLIDE FILM using a combination of Leica cameras, R8/9, two R7's and the M7 with numerious lenses.

The SL is now retired,The R3. and the R4/ R4s have been traded in.

 

I have been using Leica gear since 1972 so surely it gives me some experience in their equipment and if I have to tell you the problams I have had over the years I could write abook on it.

 

So for a cheap little Digicam BY LEICA STANDARDS it has NEVER LET ME DOWN IN 3 YEARS.

It goes to work with me everyday, gets knocked around in MY WORK BAG etc etc.

Simply it has been a remarkable little camera AND I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY ANOTHER.

 

AND THATS MY POINT OF VIEW.

 

PS..... It's obvious you did'nt like the show pony, how many other Camera manufacturies produced so many special editions over the years, and by the way can you buy the M9 in pig, snake, or lizard skins.

 

LOL.

 

Hi Hamey,

 

then you need to clarify your comment from the beginning so that it is taken in context and your opinion is made clear! It was not which is why so many people went off at you (me included). This confirms my belief in the limitations of brief truncated electronic communication such as email and these posts, and that it is important to clarify ones statements.

 

As you know (and is your personal experience),the bulk of digital Ms and their lenses are bought for use not display. There are, by definition, very few 'show ponies', the 'great' collectible M6/7/8/9s: White, Hermes, Jean Paul Gaultier, Titanium, Panda, Hammer-beaten, Royal Wedding, Thai Jubilee, Year of the Rooster, Dragon (gold), Harrods, 150 Jahre Photographie, Milenium, Canon G9 Reliability, Platinum with Diamond Brunei, Madonna, Osama BL, Nieman Marcus, Jaguar XK, and most importantly my wedding anniversary editions!

 

Regards,

Mark

Edited May 16, 2011 by MarkP

[Dabow]

To you and others who disliked my opinion.

 

Call it what you like, I do not or never expected my Canon G9 to be as as good as the M9.

Compared to the M9 The Canon G9 is a CHEAP point and shoot camera that I use as secondary, all my Photography is taken on SLIDE FILM using a combination of Leica cameras, R8/9, two R7's and the M7 with numerious lenses.

The SL is now retired,The R3. and the R4/ R4s have been traded in.

 

I have been using Leica gear since 1972 so surely it gives me some experience in their equipment and if I have to tell you the problams I have had over the years I could write abook on it.

 

So for a cheap little Digicam BY LEICA STANDARDS it has NEVER LET ME DOWN IN 3 YEARS.

It goes to work with me everyday, gets knocked around in MY WORK BAG etc etc.

Simply it has been a remarkable little camera AND I WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY ANOTHER.

 

AND THATS MY POINT OF VIEW.

 

PS..... It's obvious you did'nt like the show pony, how many other Camera manufacturies produced so many special editions over the years, and by the way can you buy the M9 in pig, snake, or lizard skins.

 

LOL.

 

You seem to be having a real problem with your caps-lock. Perhaps something else that needs a repair?

 

Pardon me (and others) for not being able to read your mind. If you limit the content you only have yourself to blame for the return. It also begs the question why you have so much Leica gear seeing as you appear to be so against it. Glutton for punishment.

 

Perhaps to recuperate some of the repair costs you've had to sustain over the years you can write your book?

 

Levity aside, you're comparison is poor. I had a Praktica and a Zenit many moons ago. I could've dropped them off a cliff it wouldn't have surprised me if they still worked, but I wouldn't want to use them for professional work.

[jaques]

Bill: for someone who seemingly knows nothing about the law you pontificate as an expert. That Leica has a clause in their warranty that says consequential damage is not covered- means absolutely nothing. Indeed even if they offered no warranty at all they would still be liable for their products.

 

And your analogy about a gun was completely ludicrous. If you purchased a gun- took it to the range- had it misfire and blow your hand off- would you just accept the clause in the warranty that says 'consequential' damage is not covered? Maybe if your were a glock fanboy you would?

 

To suggest that what is written in a warranty will determine how the matter is handled by a court shows a monumental failure in comprehending the way in which the law operates.

 

Or am I being too PC? What does that even mean with you- I know it is some sort of insult- but what type exactly?

 

For what its worth I think the OP has been very reasonable in his expectations of Leica service. I think Leica has let him down. This is just my opinion- but the fact is if Leica had repaired the lens- this thread probably wouldn't exist- Leica's reputation would be fractionally better in the market- and they would have another satisfied customer.

 

Also they would have acted in a responsible manner, and in accordance with a manufacturer who sells elite cameras that cost 7000USD. For this kind of money service should be exemplary- and that may mean covering consequential losses where you are liable in certain cases. If you ask me it is just good business practice.

 

If this thread had the affect of turning just one buyer off Leica products- Leica could lose thousands of dollars in potential sales.

[AlanG]

Many years ago I bought a $20 watch from a vendor on the street in NYC. Some time went by and the emblem on the stem fell off. A year later I was back in NYC and showed it to another street vendor. Even though he had no connection with the watch I owned, he took mine and gave me a new one. Now that is standing behind a product and trying to make a satisfied customer by positively representing the entire industry of street vendors. What is it that he gets that Leica doesn't?

Edited May 17, 2011 by AlanG

[bill]

... This is just my opinion...

 

Isn't it just. Probably best to stick to facts in future, old chap .

 

These threads crop up occasionally; I am sure there are equivalents on othe forums, for other brands. FWIW I think the OP has approached the whole thing reasonably. Unlike others here I think Leica has too. This is just my opinion, of course. Equally I can't see that there is much meat left on this bone for the knockers - I mean, come on, Leica = street vendor? Yeh right...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

I have sympathy with the member with the stud failure. The studs suffered a catastrophic failure, leading to damage to a lens. I would have thought that this was of a different order of magnitude than some other consequential losses one might imagine.

 

If I were in CS in Solms, I would have opened up my "Goodwill" drawer and, without prejudice, would have mended the broken lens.

 

We would now have a customer on here, singing their praises, as opposed to the opposite.

Edited May 17, 2011 by andybarton

[jaapv]

Many years ago I bought a $20 watch from a vendor on the street in NYC. Some time went by and the emblem on the stem fell off. A year later I was back in NYC and showed it to another street vendor. Even though he had no connection with the watch I owned, he took mine and gave me a new one. Now that is standing behind a product and trying to make a satisfied customer by positively representing the entire industry of street vendors.

What is it that he gets that Leica doesn't?

A 1$ watch that he sells for 20$?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaques]

Isn't it just. Probably best to stick to facts in future, old chap .

 

...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

Nice one Bill. Brilliant come back- as you seemingly have no meaningful reply you employ a condescending tone of superiority laced up in false jocularity... and then peppered with smileys.

 

Scintillating stuff. Reminds me of the words of one of your countrymen:

 

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing."