hankg Posted May 23, 2007 Share #21 Posted May 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I wonder if a long RRS arca plate (rather then a small one) in a Arca style clamp would reduce the stress on the base plate when mounted on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 23, 2007 Posted May 23, 2007 Hi hankg, Take a look here M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted May 23, 2007 Share #22 Posted May 23, 2007 Outch,small cast lip cantelievered off of a thin casting at a right angle is just the thing to cause a stress concentration. The wear strip/reinforcement should help a little as long as those screws are snug, but this design seems hazerdous for a metal as non-ductile as (I assume) pressure cast magnesium. -bob This is just incredible to me. I can't remember ever seeing anything like it. At first I thought it might just be a single defective camera. (And it may be that is the case.) But then I read these posts, looked at the design and thought about how people use a camera on a tripod. (Especially with a ball head.) So I ask everyone to consider - When you use a camera on a tripod, do you ever have the pan or tilt controls set with a fair amount of friction and then push on the body to tilt or rotate the camera slightly? I know I have done this many times without thinking about it. In the case of the M8, that kind of treatment might put too much torque on the baseplate locking mechanism. I think a geared head that is controlled by knobs, or one that you manipulate via handles might give a little margin of safety by avoiding the need to press on the camera to move it. (I don't think it would be a good idea to carry around a tripod with the camera attached either.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted May 23, 2007 Share #23 Posted May 23, 2007 It may be a design flaw that was missed -if the camera was not stress tested on a tripod in what would likely be the worst sort of load/stress conditions the camera might encounter in use. If so that is pretty scary as every time you mount the camera on a tripod or handle in a way that puts stress on the base you would be risking totaling the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted May 23, 2007 Share #24 Posted May 23, 2007 What's scary is that this failure in the future will put the M8 beyond economical repair. It's OK while the camera is in warranty, maybe for a couple of years afterwards - maximum - but beyond that, the cost of the repair will exceed the value of the camera. Forgot to mention too that the viewfinder/rangefinder attaches to the same casting so the camera would need a complete rangefinder setup as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2007 Share #25 Posted May 23, 2007 What's scary is that this failure in the future will put the M8 beyond economical repair. It's OK while the camera is in warranty, maybe for a couple of year afterwards - maximum - but beyond that, the cost of the repair will exceed the value of the camera. Forgot to mention that that viewfinder/rangefinder attaches to the same casting so the camera would need a complete rangefinder setup as well. Maybe a reasonable solution would be a redesigned baseplate with a little door for the battery and one for the card. This baseplate could be securely attached to the camera via screws and would be an economical if not elegant repair. (Perhaps a third pary source could design one.) You'd need a pretty small tripod head or plate to not block access to the memory card. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertwright Posted May 23, 2007 Share #26 Posted May 23, 2007 so what is the body of the M7 or M6 made of? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted May 23, 2007 Share #27 Posted May 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Bill, This is terrible. I compared the thickness of the M8 body shell to that of all previous M film bodies and it is definitely thinner. Add to that the different way of attaching the baseplate to the body, re-located tripod socket and you have a recipe for disaster. As Mark correctly points out above, this kind of failure with the camera out of warranty would be a hair tearing experience. I was certain that Leica would sort out all the software, magenta, and cyan issues, but this is a problem of an entirely different magnitude. I am eager to get the M8 and sold a whole bunch of older Leica equipment to finance it to keep my wife happy. But every time I get close to call B&H, another disaster strikes......... I guess the Digilux 2 and Panasonic DMC-FZ30 will stay with me a while longer. Not to mention the M film bodies......... Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted May 23, 2007 Share #28 Posted May 23, 2007 1: It's not the baseplate that failed, but the body casting, which is far more serious, as many people have already said. 2: Some other camera brands include instructions not to carry a tripod with camera attached. Now I see why. 3: Alan is correct about a simple fix such as a firmly mounted baseplate with doors to access battery and card, though that doesn't help ergonomics. 4: What about designing a half-plate that has the fittings necessary to tell the camera that the baseplate is attached, but leaves the battery and card uncovered? That may be less feasible than Alan's suggestion and certainly isn't more ergonomic. We could cover the opening with gaffer's tape. 5: Mark--"It's okay during warranty"? Yes, from our point of view, but what about Leica's? Looks to me as if they better find a solution fast. It will be expensive if they have to repair all bodies in the pipeline or already shipped. 6: In the German section there's a thread (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-kundenforum/25007-zinkfrass-und-ausbluehungen.html) about previous problems with M6 and R5 when the top-plate supplier messed up in QC. But this looks like a design problem which probably began with having to break the body into two parts to get all the pieces into place. 7: Ken--At least tits on a bull would be of biological interest; I don't see any redeeming value with this matter. 8: This may be Leica's biggest problem yet with the M8. Free filters and a lens discount won't help here. 9: Maybe I'm just pessimistic. One swallow doesn't make the summer. But as Jan said, this is serious and it comes just when we thought the major snags were behind us. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 23, 2007 Share #29 Posted May 23, 2007 Looking at the photos, it seems to me that this is a stress crystalline fatigue failure that started at the centre and then propagated round to the front of the camera, where the failure looks like a straightforward non-fatigue stress failure. Magnesium alloys can be very susceptible to this problem and it will get worse, as most of these alloys age harden and if there is any corrosion that multiplies the problem. That is the reason that you are not supposed to race cars on Magnesium alloys wheels older than 5 years, unless they have been annealed and crack tested. I would not be surprised if there were a rash of these failures. All it takes to start it, is a number of what are called dissociations in close proximity in the casting and these cause stress concentration at the atomic level. With continuing stress, they migrate until they join up at the crystal boundaries and then it is like a sheet of paper ripping along a dotted line. All very worrying. Sorry you had to be the first one Bill. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest licht Posted May 23, 2007 Share #30 Posted May 23, 2007 Here is a picture of the body of my M6TTL: 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! This construction is much more durable I think. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! This construction is much more durable I think. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/178369-m9-on-tripod-bottom-part-broken-anyone-else/?do=findComment&comment=262491'>More sharing options...
Eoin Posted May 23, 2007 Share #31 Posted May 23, 2007 Eion, I can't because it still has the piece of broken metal, and I want to sent it to Leica so they can see exactly how it failed. Bill, I was suggesting you just place the base plate with the clamp attached on to the ballhead and close the locking leaver slowly to see if there is any distortion of the camera base plate as the clamp tightens. I've had a look at my own M8 which I don't use clamps or plates on. It looks OK except for a slight distortion of the outer radius of this area. The distortion is minimal and may be a by product of the casting. I do how ever notice that both the std and hand grip plates require a little pressure to press home before turning the lock which is reasonably stiff. This now has me very worried taking the longterm view with stress fractures and so forth. I use a luigi half case or a grip when naked, I may consider butchering the grip plate with holes for the SD card and battery and leave the plate in place. The more I look at the thin metal and think of the stresses of battery removal every 600 shots and card removal every 180 shots, requires one to remove the plate at minimum 3 times every 600 shots, the more I think this is a problem waiting to happen. It's fine while the camera is under warranty, 6 months gone now from 24 months warranty, but as mark has said, it may very well become uneconomic beyond the warranty period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 23, 2007 Share #32 Posted May 23, 2007 This construction is much more durable I think. Indeed. I think the M6/7 body shell is made from aluminium, a much less brittle material than magnesium (somebody correct me if I'm wrong about this). That the M8 has a weaker construction should not come as a surprise - you only have to pick up an M8 after years of using other M cameras to feel the cheapnes. What is surprising is how susceptible to failure this point of the camera now looks. I have always thought that the baseplate latch area was a potential weak point but I was thinking the plastic/metal sandwich that holds the baseplate latch in place was the weakness - I had no idea that the body casting itself was the part likely to fail. What is particularly alarming is that Bill was only using the 50/1.4 - a commonly used lens of fairly average size and weight in today's M system. I'd imagine Leica are horrified to see this. I get the sense that Leica are only just getting over the loss of credibility resulting from the magenta/IR fiasco. The last thing the company wants to be doing now is issuing a recommendation that it's flagship product should not be used on a tripod Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodda Posted May 23, 2007 Share #33 Posted May 23, 2007 I would be great if once Leica have investigated they could reply to all of us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted May 23, 2007 Share #34 Posted May 23, 2007 The M6 also uses a die cast body but the base plate fastens to the inner structure and the tripod socket is offset to one side which reduces the force which the fastening has to resist compared to it being in the centre. This might be an isolated example of bad metallurgy, it might be part of a bad batch or it might be a fundamental design problem. Whichever it is, I think you need to send your pictures urgently to Leica Customer Service directly bypassing Leica NJ (just I would avoid waking Leica UK from their slumbers). What fixes could there be? A thicker wall in the area of the fastening? Possibly but space is tight if you want to be compatible with the existing base plates and grips. A different material? The alloy will have been chosen for its dimensional stability - you dont want the sensor wandering around in relation to where the lens is mounted as the temperature changes, otherwise what's the point of using 0.01mm shims to align the sensor? I don't think news of this failure is going to have them jumping for joy... For the rest of us, it's clear that great care is required when using the M8 on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 23, 2007 Share #35 Posted May 23, 2007 For the rest of us, it's clear that great care is required when using the M8 on a tripod. I suspect all of us have been guilty of half undoing a ball head and getting the angle right by moving the camera around to exactly the right position. It certainly looks as if this is a no-no on the M8. The lens I am most likely to use on a tripod is the Noctilux, which obviously is much heavier than a 50 lux. It is also more expensive when it drops on the floor. I have examined my M8 through a 20x magnifying glass and it looks OK at the moment. I can see this will have to be a regular procedure. I note someone else said they had to apply pressure to the base to get the latch to start. I don't have to do this with either of my bases, which must reduce one source of stress. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted May 23, 2007 Share #36 Posted May 23, 2007 If you think of the opposite end of the baseplate as being the pivot point, the tripod mount on an M6 is 14mm away and the fastening is 110mm away (1:8, approximately). On an M8, the tripod mount is 67mm away and the fastening is 133mm away (1:2 approximately). That means that for a given lateral force on the tripod mount, aligned along the body length and towards the pivot, the tensile force on the base plate fastening point is 4 times on an M8 what it is on an M6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hagen Posted May 23, 2007 Share #37 Posted May 23, 2007 The problem is not mounting the camera with a heavy lens on a tripod. In this particular case it might be a material failure in combination with the alternating forces cause by opening and closing which could theoretically lead to a material fatigue and in consequence to a breakage. What makes me wondering is that this breakage occurs after such a short time of use. I would contact Leica requesting their comment. Please keep us informed. Regards Wolfgang Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Motivfindender Posted May 23, 2007 Share #38 Posted May 23, 2007 Hi there, if you look at the photo: I think, there is a cheap solution for those, who´s Body is still ok: You see the big round plate with one single, big screw in it´s center? If this has NOT to move around, you can mount a modified plate, which protecs the unstable part of the Body, which has broken, as a counterpart, which multiplies the force/Surface relation of the deleterious constructionarea by more than factor 10! And - much more - you can glue it in teh region of contact with the Body. Glueing is nowadays more stable AND absorbs much more potentially desastrous energy at the point of minor resistance. Remind: the windscreen of your car resists nearly every type of crash and is part of the "shell" to protect you inside ! Much more - this method would be as cheap as skilfull repair of the Cameras already made AND quite easy for immediate stabilisation in the production line. What do you think about it? Greetings Dirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted May 23, 2007 Share #39 Posted May 23, 2007 ......I think, there is a cheap solution for those, who´s Body is still ok: You see the big round plate with one single, big screw in it´s center? If this has NOT to move around, you can mount a modified plate, which protecs the unstable part of the Body, which has broken, as a counterpart, which multiplies the force/Surface relation of the deleterious constructionarea by more than factor 10! ......................Dirk I'm not sure if we are both thinking about the same part, but I wonder if the curved brass plate could be modified and extended so that it could also be attached to the other half of the casting. It would have to be screwed (possibly weakening the casting?) to the other half rather than glued since service access would still be required. In addition a curved reinforcing strip could be glued where the additional screws would be needed. I've realised to make this work you also have to rotate the position of the locking plate in the base so that engages the lengthened strip correctly. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted May 23, 2007 Share #40 Posted May 23, 2007 Ouch. Reminds me of when I cracked the body shell on my M6ttl. It took a spill with the 90 Cron mounted. Lens was ok, but the body cracked at the 12 o'clock positon of the lensmount. Sherry K. swapped the shell and put her back together. That was about 6 years ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.