Regret Purchase of M9 after 2nd service.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

there are a lot of strange analogies in this thread... No one would expect Leica to hand out lenses like they were cherries. This is simply absurd.

 

Well read. That was exactly the content of my post.

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Once upon a time, Leitz has a showroom in central London with a maintenance service, they would not sell over the counter but would let you handle and brouse.

 

They did not advertise that they would repair while you waited but did and would, I had a damaged M mount on a lens swapped, while a sales person 3rd degreed me about camera equipment. At the time I thought the cost was cheap in real terms.

 

For a year or so Leica have (again) had a shop in central London which now sells new kit direct to customers and they can at least clean sensors, donno if they will strip a camera like they used to...

 

I'm not sure how much their profit margin has changed today. Then they were still competing with Canon for rfdr sales, and not doing too badly in volume terms.

 

Noel

[erl]

Bill, I agree with some of what you write, but the rest.....! Well I'm too tired to detail it now, but re-read your post and see if you totally agree with it. I'm off to bed now. Back sometime tomorrow.

[AlanG]

Flattery will get you anywhere

 

I bought an MP from Leica last year. I mount lenses to it. I also have a Lens Carrier M, which means for the uninitiated that I can have two lenses attached to the body at the same time. A strap lug failure for me could result in both being damaged. It is my choice what lenses I mount. It is my choice to use the lens carrier and hence "increase my risk". I take responsibility for my choices and my actions.

 

Bill

 

Do you know how much weight those lugs should be able to handle? Do you have an expectation that carrying a lens on that device overloads it? Isn't the lens carrier M made by Leica for this use? Does Leica recommend against using this device on the M9 and has Leica set some kind of limit on how much weight can be supported by those lugs?

 

Without the above information, especially some kind of limit from Leica, I don't see why you conclude that you take all of the risk. Even if you have insurance there may be a deductible and your rates may go up after a claim. But if you don't expect Leica to cover your butt when they screw up, that is your choice. However the OP has no obligation to think the way you do and give up his rights.

 

Since we are into analogies consider if you bought new tires for your car and a wheel fell off ten minutes after you left the shop. This caused you to crash and damage the right front of your car. Well it would be reasonable to expect the shop to pay for the damage caused by the accident but not have to pay to repair pre-existing dents that were on the left side of the car. And if I called my insurance company, they would get the shop's insurance company to pay for it not them.

 

Now you say your gear is insured and let's assume you have business liability insurance for photography. And assume that your lug failed while you were photographing a child below you and the camera hit his head and caused a serious injury. The parents sue you for $1,000,000 due to your negligence. Will you just pay the million or would you expect your insurance company to handle this? At which point, the insurance company will go after Leica and that little disclaimer won't be worth the paper it is written on.

[AlanG]

I must agree with Jaap on this. It's easy to create some goodwill when you know that this costumer will tell everybody he got a watch for free, because his first was broken. Great advertisement. But the watch seller also knows that he has a margin on the next watch of 20 times its value.

 

I hate to be so blunt but I feel this is just a giant leap to draw from my example which was simply to illustrate the extreme possibility of the concept of service, not to analyze its viability.

 

You assume information that has not been presented. I never previously told that story to anyone and the vendor certainly could not "know" that I would tell everybody that I got a replacement watch for free. And if I did, what is the likelihood that my friends in Washington DC would find this vendor in NYC and give him some business?

 

Plus how do you know what his margins are? Have you sold watches on the street before? Maybe a few bucks mean a lot to him. His reasons for giving me the watch are not an issue at all. Maybe he had a moment of religious enlightenment and was starting to give away all of his possessions. I just don't know.

[bill]

Since we are into analogies consider if you bought new tires for your car and a wheel fell off ten minutes after you left the shop. This caused you to crash and damage the right front of your car.

 

*sigh*

 

Getting bored with this now.

 

Let us dwell for a moment on your scenario. If the wheel fell off as you described, ten minutes after I left the garage, when I hit a pothole whilst I was doing 140mph overtaking another vehicle on a sharp right-hand bend, do you still think the garage should pay up?

 

Each case has to be judged on its merits. No company is going to be so stupid as to accept unlimited liability or consequential loss, hence the disclaimers. If they were as worthless as you and others seem to think they are, why does anyone bother?

 

In my example with the Lens Carrier-M I have offset my risk through insurance. That's me taking responsibility and not expecting Leica to bail me out. How my insurance company chooses to offset their risk is up to them. But I can tell you this - they don't waste their time and money tilting at windmills trying to overturn every limitation of liability disclaimer.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

*sigh*

 

Getting bored with this now.

 

Let us dwell for a moment on your scenario. If the wheel fell off as you described, ten minutes after I left the garage, when I hit a pothole whilst I was doing 140mph overtaking another vehicle on a sharp right-hand bend, do you still think the garage should pay up?

 

Bill

 

Got it. As long as one uses the item reasonably and in the case of the car, stays within the law, then you agree with me. (Let's assume the wheel fell off because the lug nuts were not tight.)

 

You chose to insure the camera and deal with your insurance company and not with Leica. (And absorb any deductible or hiked fees that result.) But if you didn't have any liability insurance and your camera hurt the kid, would you pay the $1,000,000 or would you sue Leica? It all may come down to what the cost is and what each person is willing to accept in order to avoid a hassle. I for one could have probably made 400 euros in the time I spent on this thread. So I must be nuts.

 

In any case, I think your view of your responsibility vs. Leica's can't be projected onto others.

[bill]

I think your view of your responsibility vs. Leica's can't be projected onto others.

 

Pot. Kettle.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Pot. Kettle.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Not at all. I have no problem with you not pressing Leica in a similar circumstance. It is up to each person to decide to press one's rights. (Which may vary due to jurisdiction.) The fact that you don't feel it is correct for one to make this Leica's responsibility does not somehow eliminate their responsibility. So I put up the extreme hypothetical example of the kid and $1,000,000 to see if you'd draw the line somewhere and say that in such a case, you'd expect Leica to pay or be at least partially responsible. You didn't reply to that.

 

A lot of people think the McDonalds hot coffee lawsuit was misguided. But how many of those have read about the case? After all, how common is it to end up needing skin grafts from spilling hot coffee on one's legs? She originally just wanted to get her hospital bills paid.

[bill]

Of course not Alan. I'm not interested in playing your hypothetical games. My position is clear, consistent and logical, as is that of Leica.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[AlanG]

Of course not Alan. I'm not interested in playing your hypothetical games. My position is clear, consistent and logical, as is that of Leica.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

This from the man going 140mph into a pothole?

[Paulus]

Zitat von jaques

there are a lot of strange analogies in this thread... No one would expect Leica to hand out lenses like they were cherries. This is simply absurd.

 

 

 

 

Is there somewhere a thread, where we could be more positive about Leica. What about this story.

 

My late father in law was a doctor in gynaecology. At a visit at Leica, he told them that he had a better way to make photo's by means of a microscope. They talked about it and the Leica man asked him , if they could use his idea. He said, they could use it for free.

 

Before he left, they gave him a wooden box. In the box ( we still got it ) was a brand new Leica M5 , 2/35mm,2/50mm ,2,8/90mm, visoflex, and a 200mm . Nice gesture, don't you think?

 

O.k. they could probably gain something, but they easily could give him less. Just a M5 with a 2/35mm perhaps.

 

So sometimes Leica gives things away.

[k_g_wolf ✝]

Great story and thx a lot for sharing this information about your father in law.

 

But it should be kept in mind, that these were the old LEITZ- days and not

the LEICA- times in which the co. almost got overwhelmed by globalization.

 

There used to be more gentlemen around in the industry than nowadays.

 

 

 

Best

GEORG

[erl]

I agree, some of us are not going to agree. But that's OK.

 

To finalize my input to the cemantics, I think it should be clear that any claims be directed at the cause. If the OP can demonstrate reasonably that the cause of his lens damage was due to the lug failure, that should form a clearcut case. No further discussion needed.

 

Here endeth the lesson.

 

(glad I went to bed early last night!)

[hoppyman]

Erl worth repeating I think, that Christopher has been entirely reasonable throughout and we all sympathise with him for a series of difficulties with his M9 too.

 

Going back through the thread , he has both listened to comment and responded fairly too.

Worth noting too that the actual damage caused to Christopher's lens due to the broken lug was limited to minor cosmetic damage.

 

We always get a range of comment/opinion on warranty/responsibility/business practices in these discussions.

Some posters (not Christopher himself) are advocating that the pre-existing problems, not related to the minor cosmetic damage should be fixed for free as well. I disagree that they are covered by warranty conditions but wish Christopher well for any goodwill gestures by Leica Camera.

 

In case anyone accuses me again of always supporting Leica without question, I'm currently trying to resolve a warranty dispute on an ex-demo lens myself. I plan to respond as reasonably as Christopher has. I have been very well looked after in all previous dealings.

[IkarusJohn]

Phew, what a read!

 

Some pages back, Jaques, I think, wrote:

If YOU had a new M9 under warranty- and the strap lugs failed due to defective manufacturing- directly causing damage to YOUR lens- would you be happy with leica's refusal to service/repair/exchange the lens?

Lots of legal advice has flowed in these pages, with insufficient consideration (in both senses), I'm sorry to say.

 

Here's the thing - what would you claim, and from whom. Easy first part, I guess - cost of repairing the damaged lens from Leica.

 

On what grounds? Again, relatively simple - in contract. You bought the camera ultimately from Leica subject to a printed manufacturer's warranty. The terms of that contract may well exclude liability for consequential loss and damage (as my compatriot found in his X1 paperwork). The damage to the lens is consequential, and therefore would be excluded.

 

Is that limitation of liability enforceable? Well, that depends on the applicable law. In some countries, you may contract to apply any law you like (many US contracts impose the law of Delaware and other places I'm unlikely to visit). In most countries, there is consumer protection legislation. In many states in the US, any limitation or exclusion of your legal rights must be brought to your attention (if you've every wondered why so many consumer warranties have those long incomprehensible paragraphs IN CAPITAL LETTERS, now you know why).

 

It is standard practice to exclude consequential loss in product warranties, as it is standard practice to limit liability to the cost of the goods. That is an entirely normal commercial position to take in any international and most domestic trade.

 

As a matter of pure contract, the camera body is designed to take a lens in normal use. It is an entirely reasonable position to take to assume that the lugs will hold, with a lens attached. As a matter of contract (applying a fairly universal application of the law internationally), if Leica make a camera with lugs, and they sell a $10,000 lens to go on it (a noct, for example), then it is fair to assume that the lugs will take that weight (camera and lens) in normal use. If it fails in normal use, it is entirely foreseeable that a very expensive lens will get damaged. You could reasonably expect the cost of repair or replacement of the lens to also be covered.

 

So, under normal contractual expectations, if the damage to the lens arose from the camera falling, and that falling arose directly from the lug failure, the damage would be recoverable.

 

However, as the claim is in contract, the terms of the contract limiting liability apply (normally). So, Leica expects you to insure your lens, and your insurer to cover the cost of repair without any ability to recover from Leica. No one will complain, as it is a standard condition of sale. Most suppliers will only cover the cost of repair to the goods themselves, whoever made them. That is not unreasonable - the damage to the camera is the damage to the camera - if you include the cost of the lens, that could range from the cost of repairing a $500 CV lens to a $10,000 Noct. That is not something which Leica can control, so typically this sort of cost is left to the customer to insure.

 

The only issue, then, is whether or not the applicable consumer law would apply, and it would hold the limitation unenforceable. For that, we need to know which law applies, and whether or not the limitation would fall foul of that law - it would actually be unusual if it did. Exclusions for consequential loss are entirely normal commercial terms.

 

Now, I'd better get back to being paid for this sort of advice ...

 

Cheers

John

[lct]

... Exclusions for consequential loss are entirely normal commercial terms...

But don't affect consumers' statutory rights in many legislations. This is reminded in EU warranty cards generally, including Leica's.

[bill]

John, thank you for explaining so concisely the legal principles I was clearly not getting across. I am indebted to you.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[hamey]

I

 

I've already stressed in this thread somewhere that if Leica let me down at any juncture I will sell on and move on without a moments hesitation. So far, touch wood, my Leica gear has been very reliable and hasn't had to suffer a return to Solms. Could be if that day ever comes and I feel Leica treat me, as a customer, poorly - my impression of the company will swiftly change.

 

So I sympathise with those users who have had issues, but I can't empathise... yet. What keeps me with the brand is the excellent image quality I get from my Leica. The sharpness and contrast I get from Leica is head and shoulders above anything I could achieve with Canon gear and L glass (in my experience). The only thing that comes close is my Zeiss primes on my Canon. There's also the size and portability of the Leica gear over my much heavier Canon outfit.

 

So, in summary, it's not about the brand name and the elitist element, it's about the end picture. Simple as. If Canon came out with a Camera that could match what I get from my Leica I'd happily stay with just the one manufacturer.

 

 

Dabow.

 

As I have made many complaints over the years, never once have I complained on their optics.

They are simply superb, thats why my prime photography is still with LEICA.

 

Ken.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ChristopherGrant]

The camera was returned to me yesterday, here's the findings.

 

Service Report (word for word)

(strong traces of using) Leica

Replace carrying strap loop

Adjust Range Finder

Clean Range Finder

Fab: Rep.# (I omitted this)

 

Video of camera showing use and lens 'damage'

Christopher Grant Fotograf

 

Sorry for the poor quality of video, I'm a little tired this morning (jet lag).

In my opinion I believe the minimum was done in customer service though

I am satisfied. I don't believe the scratch on the sensor was Leica's fault

though I understand there were some manufacturing issues not too long

ago that caused some sensors to scratch easily.

 

Do I like using the camera? Absolutely. I love it when it's working and have

no plans to sell it.

 

Do I regret buying the camera? Absolutely, at least this particular one.

It seems many others here have used their cameras more than I and without

any problems.

 

Hope this helps anyone interested.