sean_reid Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share #61 Posted February 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, the numbers are what they are, as you say, but since the set was self-selecting, they don't prove anything at all. All we know is that of the 140 who answered, 13 had their M8 die, nothing more. Nothing about the general set at all. If you think about it, this makes sense. For example, it is likely that people who had their M8 die on them are *much* more likely to answer, to make sure that their voice was heard. For this survey to be statistically valid for the purpose of saying anything about the entire set of M8 owners, the people answering should have been chosen at random from the entire set of M8 owners, not self-selected from M8 owners who read this forum, and happened to be here on the dates in question. Carsten, Let me state *again* that these results are not represented as generalizing to the larger population of all M8s sold. But I do suggest that the people who are complaining about this poll go out and do the kind of study that they are suggesting. I'll look forward to seeing those results. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Hi sean_reid, Take a look here Results of M8 Lockup/Failure Survey. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jrc Posted February 16, 2007 Share #62 Posted February 16, 2007 Jamie -- didn't know you were a pro. 8 ) The point I was trying to make actually was a reflection of the word "meaningless." Sean's numbers are not meaningless, they just wouldn't meet the standards of social science research. There are several possible sets of information available to us, and all of them have flaws. Despite the flaws, one thing they tend to agree upon is that there are failures, and the failure rate is probably -- note the "probably" -- above the acceptable limit for an expensive high-quality piece of photography equipment. As I noted in my original post, I wouldn't want to try to put an exact number on it, either. To know the actual failure rate, you'd have to have several pieces of proprietary information that I'm sure Leica won't release. But based on the few limited and flawed sets of information we have, I would think that the failure rate is above the acceptable limits. The contrary evidence is simple: Solms says that the rate is not unacceptably high. I would like to see a number from them. The other question I have is this: What is the failure rate for professional photographers only, and only for those with more than (say) 5000 actuations. Sean suspects the cause may be related to static electricity, but Solms has replied that the camera is quite well-protected. I'm wondering if the failure rate is higher for those with a higher number of actuations. If it is, that would suggest that many people might experience problems as we use the cameras, and that the problem may be hardware related. I would think this would be a survey that would be relatively easy to do, since therer are a limited number of pros who post here. JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 16, 2007 Share #63 Posted February 16, 2007 I have about 6 k on one camera alone and the other about 3 or 4k so far that has not been the case and it happened to me within the first 1k on the one body and this was 1.06 and a complete failure like Seans. Nothing since 1.09 and i don't expect it to happen anytime soon either again. I'm sure leica has been working on it my camera was one of the first to go down 3 months ago in December . I beleieve it was exactly Dec. 11th i was on a shoot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted February 16, 2007 Share #64 Posted February 16, 2007 Oy vay! (sp?) To me it's indisputable that we know more after Sean's survey than before. Arguing much beyond that seems diminishing returns. Back the the issue of lockups: I haven't had a lockup where I had to take the battery out, but I have had to turn the camera off and back on. I think this generally happens when I've been shooting rapidly, and I try to zoom in on an image on the LCD or do some other function before the camera is done writing. If I slow down to the camera's pace I don't seem to have problems. This seems to fit Sandy's hypothesis. Sure I hope this is cleared up with future firmware, but it may point to a way to be trouble free until then. Unless you're dealing with high static environment like Sean was.(like the forum. !:^) Best, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted February 16, 2007 Share #65 Posted February 16, 2007 Typically, for electronic products, what you'd expect to find is that if the cause is a manufacturing defect, failures would be greater in the first few hundred (or maybe thousand) actuations, gradually tailing off over time - what's known as the bathtub curve, because the curve goes up again much later as the product wears out. However, if the failure is a design problem, e.g., firmware, the failure rate would be constant with use. In that case, the pros would probably see more failures, just because they use the M8 more Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share #66 Posted February 16, 2007 Jamie -- didn't know you were a pro. 8 ) The point I was trying to make actually was a reflection of the word "meaningless." Sean's numbers are not meaningless, they just wouldn't meet the standards of social science research. There are several possible sets of information available to us, and all of them have flaws. Despite the flaws, one thing they tend to agree upon is that there are failures, and the failure rate is probably -- note the "probably" -- above the acceptable limit for an expensive high-quality piece of photography equipment. As I noted in my original post, I wouldn't want to try to put an exact number on it, either. To know the actual failure rate, you'd have to have several pieces of proprietary information that I'm sure Leica won't release. But based on the few limited and flawed sets of information we have, I would think that the failure rate is above the acceptable limits. The contrary evidence is simple: Solms says that the rate is not unacceptably high. I would like to see a number from them. The other question I have is this: What is the failure rate for professional photographers only, and only for those with more than (say) 5000 actuations. Sean suspects the cause may be related to static electricity, but Solms has replied that the camera is quite well-protected. I'm wondering if the failure rate is higher for those with a higher number of actuations. If it is, that would suggest that many people might experience problems as we use the cameras, and that the problem may be hardware related. I would think this would be a survey that would be relatively easy to do, since therer are a limited number of pros who post here. JC Hi John, The camera may indeed be well protected against static electricity but that doesn't necessarily mean that static couldn't cause some data in the camera to be corrupted (as Sandy suggested earlier in this thread). Guy and I are both professional photographers who have made thousands of exposures with the M8 and we both experienced this failure. I'm not sure what the experiences have been for other professional photographers working with the M8. You wrote: "I'm wondering if the failure rate is higher for those with a higher number of actuations. If it is, that would suggest that many people might experience problems as we use the cameras, and that the problem may be hardware related." Another possible inference, if there did seem to be a correlation, would be that professionals, and others who use the M8 extensively, are exposing it to a wider range of conditions (even indoors) than some others. In reality, Leica is not going to issue the data that would be needed to calculate the overall failure rate for the M8. Virtually no company releases that kind of information. I also suspect that the various critics who've posted in this thread will not do their own research using random sampling with a sample size of, say, 1000 M8 bodies. If they do, that will be great. In life, I've found that for every one person who actually does something, there will be perhaps a hundred more who criticize that and talk about how it should have been done better. Few of them ever actually take action to do it better, however. Such is life. Otherwise, we need to work with whatever information we can gather and a survey that covers 140 cameras is more useful that people's vague impressions of failure rates from reading forum posts. 13 out of 140 is enough that the problem certainly merits Leica's attention. People need to understand what kinds of information do and do not generalize to a larger population (all M8s sold, for example). One of my primary reasons for doing this was to try to find out how isolated an incident my failure was and then to relay what I found out to Leica. That's what I've done. Those who want to do more extensive research with all the trimmings should have at it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted February 16, 2007 Share #67 Posted February 16, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The important part is Leica's ears are to the wall and can hear the results and that is really all we care about. I know Leica has heard my words on this subject and i know Seans as well. Not to mention the other folks and camera's that have arrived at there door step begging for life. We can argue until the cows come home on results of Seans survey but really the point is there is some data to go by and i am sure leica's failure rate above 0 is to high for them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted February 16, 2007 Share #68 Posted February 16, 2007 <snipped> Virtually no company releases that kind of information. <snipped> Sean Oh, but they do, Sean it's very standard in many companies to provide "mean time to failure' for their products. It's pretty standard in the aeronautical industry to have that information on systems and sub-system. In fact, I would look very favorable on camera companies doing the same with their high end pro products. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share #69 Posted February 16, 2007 Oh, but they do, Sean it's very standard in many companies to provide "mean time to failure' for their products. It's pretty standard in the aeronautical industry to have that information on systems and sub-system. In fact, I would look very favorable on camera companies doing the same with their high end pro products. Mean time to failure is a different kind of information all together. That relates to predicted life of a healthy unit under normal use. As an experiment, try to contact any major camera company, pick one of their models and ask for total sales to date and total number of units returned to them because of electronic failure. I'll be curious to see what data you get. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 16, 2007 Share #70 Posted February 16, 2007 Jamie -- didn't know you were a pro. 8 ) The point I was trying to make actually was a reflection of the word "meaningless." Sean's numbers are not meaningless, they just wouldn't meet the standards of social science research.{snipped} This really is the last thing I'm going to say on this, because I have a feeling I'm just digging myself a deeper hole today, and fumbling all over my words. I apologise for writing too quickly. I shouldn't have used the term "meaningless" at all, or at least without a qualifier, but I was responding to the post that said the numbers could be used as the basis for an general estimate or a developing trend. They simply can't be used for that purpose, if I understand the context correctly. What the results (and not necessarily the numbers) meaningfully do is point to areas of concern which seem--and again I emphasize seem--to be reproduceable. So I meant the numbers--not the results--are 'meaningless outside their context,' which Sean has basically said again and again. Once again, I'm not arguing that what Sean did was meaningless. Not in the slightest. I'm only writing this now because I don't want the wrong impression to become, as a matter of normal course, an Internet Fact. Like wikieality (for you Colbert Report fans). To suggest that people won't get hung up in stuff like percentages is a bit hopeful. Before you know it, there's a dPreview forum article saying how the M8 failure rate is 9%--even without magenta blacks! Or Blasko will be using the statistics As for doing a valid quantitative study or survey on failure rates and the M8, there is only one body with the resources and the data that can do that, and that's Leica. I assume they're tracking that, as any good company would do. Finally, so people are clear about what I think about this, I want to thank Sean for going to the trouble to pull together this information. And while all of us may disagree on the way the information gets presented, we're in total agreement that it's extremely useful for Leica. Sean has, once again, done the community an extremely valuable service! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted February 17, 2007 Share #71 Posted February 17, 2007 Hi Sean, Just read your article; thanks for your hard work! Your numbers seem very believable. In the thread “Oh oh … Me Too” you started on Jan. 20 I had estimated a failure rate of 5% to 10% based on a quick back of the envelope calculation. Your numbers are right in that range. I beleive that your work has served the M8 community very well. Take care! Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted February 17, 2007 Share #72 Posted February 17, 2007 Jamie: Actually, I think we're in complete agreement; maybe my words were just more encrusted in bullsh*t. 8-) JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted February 17, 2007 Share #73 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, Thanks for the exercise. Despite its limitation (sample selection), it is an informative one! I would be interested to see the same survey 6 months from now. On another note, is Leica trying to get around the IR sensitivity issue and to find a solution that will not require the use of IR filters? Maybe for next year? Samir Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share #74 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, Thanks for the exercise. Despite its limitation (sample selection), it is an informative one! I would be interested to see the same survey 6 months from now. On another note, is Leica trying to get around the IR sensitivity issue and to find a solution that will not require the use of IR filters? Maybe for next year? Samir Samir, I'm going to pass the baton now and suggest that another member of the forum do the next survey (perhaps a masochist <G>). Right now, this little sample of 140 cameras is (to the best of my knowledge) the only data available to the public on this aspect of the M8. While it has its limitations, its more useful than rough impressions gained by Internet discussion and gossip. Again, if someone is able to do a larger study with randomly selected subjects that will be just great. I can't wait to read it. Earlier today I was explaining to my daughter just what these people were complaining about (she looked in on the posts to figure out why I was growling at my monitor) and I then told her what would be needed to do the kind of study some people here are suggesting. That would begin with having a very large list of people who can be verified as M8 owners (preferably about a 1000 to make random selections from), getting their personal contact information, contacting them randomly, etc. She just shook her head and said to me with a disgusted look..."Some people!". Even with that imaginary research, one would be relying on self-report which is itself a notoriously suspect method. Leica is the only one who has the real data needed for a full analysis and they (understandably) aren't talking. I have no knowledge of Leica working on a solution for the M8 that does not include external IR filters. Their efforts seem to be concentrated on making the camera function as well as possible with external IR filters. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted February 17, 2007 Share #75 Posted February 17, 2007 Samir, I'm going to pass the baton now and suggest that another member of the forum do the next survey (perhaps a masochist <G>). Right now, this little sample of 140 cameras is (to the best of my knowledge) the only data available to the public on this aspect of the M8....................... I have no knowledge of Leica working on a solution for the M8 that does not include external IR filters. Their efforts seem to be concentrated on making the camera function as well as possible with external IR filters. Cheers, Sean I monitored the answers to you questionaire pretty closely as the deliver date of my backordered M8 moved forword. My quess was around 10% of the units suffered from an infant mortality problem and that was a risk I was willing to take. So far my camera has been trouble free....knock on wood. In any case I'm not selling my RD1 anytime soon. I got my first 486 filter and have been pleasantly surprised at the fact that it seems to solve ALL the IR problems (expected) without looking obnouxious. I was afraid that I would look like a terrorist carrying a death ray gun around with me. The filter looks like nothing in reality. In fact the color of the coating on the lens itself is as noticeable. About the only issue left is the cyan vignetting thing which should be solved in 1.10. Oh, and I'm learning some self coding skills. Oh, and I forget learning a few dremel skills to get the right viewfinder frameline to show up with my 40mm Nokton Gives me something to do in my spare time. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted February 17, 2007 Share #76 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, just wanted to say: Thanks for all the information and hard work. Cheers, Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted February 17, 2007 Share #77 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, I thought your work was done systematically enough to put some bounds on the size of the lockup problem (and I said so). You don't have to do Leica's work for them, and can't. It helped to have those numbers dragged out to get a sense of the size of the problem just within this community, and that you have accomplished. regards, scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share #78 Posted February 17, 2007 I got my first 486 filter and have been pleasantly surprised at the fact that it seems to solve ALL the IR problems (expected) without looking obnouxious. I was afraid that I would look like a terrorist carrying a death ray gun around with me. The filter looks like nothing in reality. In fact the color of the coating on the lens itself is as noticeable. Rex Hi Rex, I'm glad that you finally got your camera. I've said (and written) several times that I think people's concern about the visibility of the IR filter is not necessary. I've been using those filters for all kinds of work since October. John's milling of the adapters (indents for the coding) works beautifully. I've had five of mine cut and am going to send him two more. I know you've got a machine shop but if you don't want to do this, talk to John. I've been surprised that he isn't flooded with requests. Enjoy. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share #79 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, just wanted to say: Thanks for all the information and hard work. Cheers, Peter Thanks Peter. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share #80 Posted February 17, 2007 Sean, I thought your work was done systematically enough to put some bounds on the size of the lockup problem (and I said so). You don't have to do Leica's work for them, and can't. It helped to have those numbers dragged out to get a sense of the size of the problem just within this community, and that you have accomplished. regards, scott Hi Scott, Thanks, that's what I was trying to do. Leica, to be sure, keeps close tabs on this kind of information but they (understandably) are keeping the data internal. I have no reason to doubt their comment that electronic failure rate for M8s is well below 9%. I also think it is possible that a change in the firmware could eliminate this risk. Meanwhile, I'll be shooting with the M8 today. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.