hankg Posted May 23, 2007 Share #41 Posted May 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would be great if once Leica have investigated they could reply to all of us Yes, this is potentialy more serious then any of the other problems. They should do rigorous testing and advise as to how much of a problem it is and what sorts of usage to avoid and see if it is possible to reinforce the areas in question in any way. Once these camera's are out of warranty their value could drop to close to zero if as the metal ages the possibility of a failure becomes more likely. Digital depreciation is bad enough adding a fatal design flaw to the first model will make it much worse. If it is a flaw in all the cameras Leica should extend the warranty for this type of failure. 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!
Chuck Hatcher Posted May 23, 2007 Share #42 Posted May 23, 2007 By the way, why does the bottom cover have to be installed for the camera to operate? If you have ever needed to format a bunch of memory cards it must have occurred to you that putting it on and taking it off over and over in that situation is a useless exercise. What I'm wondering is whether it has a function beyond tripod mount and dust cover. Does it add rigidity to the camera? I guess if a failure like this occurs you might be able to continue with a duct tape repair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gravastar Posted May 23, 2007 Share #43 Posted May 23, 2007 By the way, why does the bottom cover have to be installed for the camera to operate? If you have ever needed to format a bunch of memory cards it must have occurred to you that putting it on and taking it off over and over in that situation is a useless exercise. What I'm wondering is whether it has a function beyond tripod mount and dust cover. Does it add rigidity to the camera? I guess if a failure like this occurs you might be able to continue with a duct tape repair. Yes it does. There's a "nipple" on the base plate near the battery end that activates a microswitch on one of the circuit boards. You can't do anything without the switch being operated. Bob. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted May 23, 2007 Share #44 Posted May 23, 2007 Bill, sorry you've had this problem. Could this flaw be related to a particular batch of serial numbers? I've checked mine over using a magnifying glass and I cannot see the beginning of any stress fractures. I also don't believe this is related to the tripod mount hole, per se. There may have been a re-existing condtion (sounds like a visit to your doctor, hmm?) which precipitated the physical damage. I really don't suppose that would make anyone feel any better if it happened to you, so I would put the evidence on Leica's doorstep and see what they have to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted May 23, 2007 Author Share #45 Posted May 23, 2007 ......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).... Hi Mark, I learned that lesson a long time ago - the hard way, of course. I emailed my dealer and Leica (in Germany) and sent the photos, asking what they wanted me to do with the camera, but I have not heard from them yet. I sent a 35mm lens to Canon for repair 5 days ago, and email and a tracking number from them shows it will be delivered before 3PM today, which is a good thing because I will have to use the Canon for awhile now. My fall back idea is to send the broken, ill-focusing M8 to the person on this list who was so curious he completely disassembled an M8 - surely he will find a fix and return it better than new. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_nyc Posted May 23, 2007 Share #46 Posted May 23, 2007 I have a sinking feeling that this is the first of many of this type of failure. I also can't imagine any modification that Leica could make without fundamentaly changing the shell/bottom plate design. The tits-on-bull comment is dead-on, IMHO. There's no reason, except for nostalgia, to have included the removable bottom plate at all in the M8. Not only that, they made its attachment much less robust than in previous M designs. This is all water under the bridge, I'm afraid. I think the best we can hope for is that if these failures start occuring with any frequency, that Leica will make a statement acknowledging the problem and providing some sort of efficient method of dealing with the repairs/replacements. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted May 23, 2007 Share #47 Posted May 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) The tits-on-bull comment is dead-on, IMHO. There's no reason, except for nostalgia, to have included the removable bottom plate at all in the M8. Not only that, they made its attachment much less robust than in previous M designs. This is all water under the bridge, I'm afraid. I think the best we can hope for is that if these failures start occuring with any frequency, that Leica will make a statement acknowledging the problem and providing some sort of efficient method of dealing with the repairs/replacements. John True. A very easy solution for Leica to implement is to simply rotate the latching mechnism 180 degrees and secure the "lip" to that part of the body instead of to the side of the camera housing. This will eliminate any stress on the thin part of the frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Hatcher Posted May 23, 2007 Share #48 Posted May 23, 2007 ...You can't do anything without the switch being operated... Yes, but WHY? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted May 23, 2007 Share #49 Posted May 23, 2007 I'm hoping that this failure is specific to Bill's camera or to only certain batches of cameras in the overall production run, etc. For the moment, we don't yet have evidence that this is endemic to the materials/design/construction, per se, rather than to a specific number of bodies (numbering from 1 to ?). Either could be the case but, as yet, one couldn't say. For what its worth, I've worked with at least four M8 bodies and three of them have seen heavy tripod use (because of all the lens testing I do) as well as almost constant removal/reinstallation of the base plate cover (for logistical reasons related to testing) and I've not seen any evidence of cracking or breakage *in those bodies*. The heaviest lens I've used a lot on the M8 is the Zeiss 15, which weighs 17.7 oz. What happened to Bill's camera is awful but, in absence of evidence to the contrary, lets hope that its an issue with a specific batch of metal, etc. I don't plan to take any special precautions with my M8 on a tripod and I'll see how it holds up. In short, we need a larger sample. Ironically, though, I'm hoping that we don't end up with one. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted May 23, 2007 Share #50 Posted May 23, 2007 What happened to Bill's camera is disturbing, but it's certainly not a trend or necessarily an indication of a fatally flawed design. My own background in materials and processes leads me to believe that this failure was perhaps caused by the combination of a flawed casting and torque being applied perpendicular to the casting. Normally, the applied force is parallel to the casting when the baseplate is tightened, which shouldn't cause a break like this provided the latch was properly adjusted. The bottom of the casting seats in the bottom of the baseplate, so normal tripod mounting shouldn't allow much if any baseplate movement. However, I would say that failing to engage the flange on the other end of the baseplate could be part of the recipe for this sort of failure. The film Ms seem to have a much more robust casting and location for the latch, but this wasn't an option for the M8. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted May 23, 2007 Share #51 Posted May 23, 2007 True. A very easy solution for Leica to implement is to simply rotate the latching mechnism 180 degrees and secure the "lip" to that part of the body instead of to the side of the camera housing. This will eliminate any stress on the thin part of the frame. But isn't this part even weaker than the magnesium outer shell? I don't have an M8 to hand but I seem to remember the inner part is a simple plastic moulding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Motivfindender Posted May 23, 2007 Share #52 Posted May 23, 2007 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. We think about the same thing, Bob. But - I think, there is no reason to panic, because there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that this is a problem concerning more than just 2 o 3 M-8 of the whole production, don´t you agree all, guys? Thinking in terms of production volume, this event has hapened to shurely far minor to 0.1 percent of the whole production, guys... crossing a street may even be more significant end up in a problem than this will do... I am shure, Leica will instantly change the body and ship a new one to the unlucky owner. And - focus a little bit more on the outstanding performance in image quality of this camera which has no serious competition on the market, guys... Greetings dirk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englander Posted May 23, 2007 Share #53 Posted May 23, 2007 Mark Norton, From the lower right hand corner of your disassembly photo Shutter wind 2 jpg it looks as if there is a difference in metal between the rest of the body and where the latch-lip is attached. The rest of the body looks black, but at the attachment point it is silver. Can you tell us how the latch-lip is attached to the body or if is it actually part of the body? The little screws seem to hold the brass in place but not the entire lip. Thanks, as always, Joe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted May 23, 2007 Share #54 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. After seeing these photos, I can say with certainty my M8 will never be attached to a tripod. For me, this isn't much of a sacrifice because I've always appreciated the hand-holdability of the M system and very rarely use one anyway. I think it was very important for Bill to make us all aware of this potential weakness in our cameras and this thread may have prevented a lot of future problems. Thank you, Bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 23, 2007 Share #55 Posted May 23, 2007 With the M8 we can close the latch without engaging the little flat lip on the opposing side. If that happens it is really easy to break the weak magnesium cast by bending the baseplate away from the camera. This closing of the latch without engaging the lip was not possible on previous designs, including the M5 which had larger components and a better base under the latch. It is simply a bad design which will have to be attended to. Be very careful with closing your bottom plates, I have misengaged mine several times. The ones who never did this should throw the first stone. And Bill deserves a fix. Fast - and without questions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted May 23, 2007 Share #56 Posted May 23, 2007 I have never misaligned the base plate as you discribe. I am so use to film M's that the first thing you do when putting the bottom plate on is make sure it is over the lug on the non-locking side. Otherwise the bottom plate would not lock in place. I carry this over to the M8. Stone(s) thrown. For the first couple of weeks after receiving the M8 I kept grabbing it like my film M's to take the base plate off and always have to change my grip on it to get to the locking lever. With the M8 we can close the latch without engaging the little flat lip on the opposing side. If that happens it is really easy to break the weak magnesium cast by bending the baseplate away from the camera. This closing of the latch without engaging the lip was not possible on previous designs, including the M5 which had larger components and a better base under the latch. It is simply a bad design which will have to be attended to. Be very careful with closing your bottom plates, I have misengaged mine several times. The ones who never did this should throw the first stone. And Bill deserves a fix. Fast - and without questions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted May 23, 2007 Share #57 Posted May 23, 2007 With the M8 we can close the latch without engaging the little flat lip on the opposing side. If that happens it is really easy to break the weak magnesium cast by bending the baseplate away from the camera.QUOTE] George, I'm glad you said this, too -- I pointed out this weakness in an earlier thread. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted May 23, 2007 Share #58 Posted May 23, 2007 I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of Leica taking any action to redesign the assembly unless there are an enormous number of failures. Until then it will more than surely be characterised as a rare possibility occuring as a result of extraordinary stress applied whilst affixed to a tripod, and repaired under warranty with new but identical parts. Given that the majority of M8s will rarely if ever be tripoded, I don't foresee enough of them breaking that Leica would be forced to concede a design flaw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirvine Posted May 23, 2007 Share #59 Posted May 23, 2007 I hate the fact that you can close the base plate without engaging the hook on the other side from the locking mechanism. I've done this a bunch of times and now my base plate is slightly wobbly when properly mounted (indicating some distortion) and is a prime candidate for this kind of breakage. If they're going to put a useless baseplate on the camera, why not make it bulletproof? Esp since they don't need to make room for film transport or much of anything at all down there on the bottom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrosell Posted May 23, 2007 Share #60 Posted May 23, 2007 @Billh Sorry to know about your fearsome faliure. Would you be so kind as to state the serial number (or at least the first four numbers) of your camera? Thanks in advance. Horacio Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.