M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would you can to offer specifics about your speculation that it was used “improperly”? It was placed on a tripod and pointed down at an angle to keep dust from falling on the lens. It was latched correctly. I have been using these camera since the 1960s, and have used a variety of tripods with everything from Leica Ms to 8 x 10 view cameras, and none have failed before this. Perhaps when it back focuses I am also using it improperly? And the pretty magenta blacks are my doing too, as was the sudden death of M8 number 1 a couple of days after it arrived?

 

Bill

 

 

Whoa! No offense implied. I said possibly. One could easily force it by not seating the lug properly, without noticing. I have been using M's for over 35 years and find this system less easy to use. And I said it could be a casting fault as well.

[Guest hagen]

Would you can to offer specifics about your speculation that it was used “improperly”? It was placed on a tripod and pointed down at an angle to keep dust from falling on the lens. It was latched correctly. I have been using these camera since the 1960s, and have used a variety of tripods with everything from Leica Ms to 8 x 10 view cameras, and none have failed before this. Perhaps when it back focuses I am also using it improperly? And the pretty magenta blacks are my doing too, as was the sudden death of M8 number 1 a couple of days after it arrived?

 

Bill

 

What does Leica say to this failure?

[larry]

It was reported earlier in this thread that Leica was unable to replicate the failure. One camera out of thousands -- this thread really deserves to die once and for all.

 

Larry

[sean_reid]

What does Leica say to this failure?

 

See my post above.

 

Cheers,

[frank_dernie]

Magnesium is a very poor material structurally. I have been very disappointed that these weak light alloys have been adopted for camera shells in recent years. The detail design in this case is also poor, with a small cross section of material, which most designers such as myself consider to be "non-structural", carrying an indeterminant but potentially large load when the camera is tripod mounted.

I haven't used mine on a tripod and probably never will!

[kepstein]

After close examination of my baseplate locking side I see where there is a cracked off section that someone has tried to repair. See the images.

I'm going to be sending my M8 in to NJ shortly for the brass colored spots that seem to be under the cover glass so I will also send these images in with it and a very stern letter about the spots and this repair done on a $5000 camera that is supposed to be NEW.

 

To the OP can I make a copy of your image to send in with my camera?

 

I just looked at mine with a magnifier, and I see a similar paint touch-up area as yours. Is this not typical to all M8s?

 

Thanks,

Ken

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just looked at mine with a magnifier, and I see a similar paint touch-up area as yours. Is this not typical to all M8s?

 

Thanks,

Ken

 

If you look at the images I posted you can SEE where a piece has cracked off right at the seam between the 2 body halfs. No this is NOT right. It just not a paint touch up on my M8 but a actual piece that chipped/cracked off and then was glued back in place. In one of the images you can see a shiny spot on the bottom where someone filed/milled it down so it wouldn't protrude past the bottom, and was never touched with any paint.

 

Sorry but a repaired crack in the main body housing make it a USED camera or a camera that was not assembled correctly.

 

My unit is one of the first batch produced, if you can judge that by serial #, and more then likely went back to Solms for the fixes before it was ever sold to anyone. I bought it at the end of January 07. So in that process, more then likely when the tech was prying apart the 2 half cases, that corner got chipped off. It should of had a replace half applied at that time. NOT the piece glued back on.

[barjohn]

It does not appear to be there on mine.

[godfrey]

I was using my Leica M8 on a tripod shooting vertically and it fell off. When I looked at it I found the same thing as billh. The body had broken away and the base plate could no longer be attached.

I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera and they would charge me $700+ to fix it.

It's obvioulsy a design flaw when it has happened to so many others. Don't shoot vertically on a tripod or you too will get to pay $700 to get it fixed--warranty period or not.

 

godfrey:

[marknorton]

That is clearly a ridiculous response by some Leica idiot. I would not accept their opinion for one minute. If you cannot get them to repair it free of charge, I would get in touch with Christian Erhardt who is one of the bigger Leica wastes of space and tell him some home truths. If that fails, send the bits to Stefan Daniel at Leica Solms and tell him to fix it. If that fails, send the bits to Dr Andreas Kaufmann and tell him to wipe the silly grin off his face and fix it.

 

Leica really have to stop this nonsense.

 

Good luck.

[george +]

Oh Godfrey, that is terrible.

 

But what nonsense from Leica. Vertical shooting on a tripod is quite normal. That is why the Leica made ballheads provide for it. And there is no mention, that I can recall, in the manual about not using it that way.

 

Hope it gets fixed well, there is support here for your argument that it is regular use.

[Bill W]

That is clearly a ridiculous response by some Leica idiot. I would not accept their opinion for one minute. If you cannot get them to repair it free of charge, I would get in touch with Christian Erhardt who is one of the bigger Leica wastes of space and tell him some home truths. If that fails, send the bits to Stefan Daniel at Leica Solms and tell him to fix it. If that fails, send the bits to Dr Andreas Kaufmann and tell him to wipe the silly grin off his face and fix it.

 

Leica really have to stop this nonsense.

 

Good luck.

UUUUUUUUH Mark Uh tell us how you really feel!!!! I totally agree that someone stating that shooting verticle on a tripod is misuse of a camera is ridiculous. If that is the case they should not even put a tripod screw on the baseplate or have strict warning labels on the baseplate RIGHT!!!!!

[marknorton]

Bill, if there's one message we in Europe get from this forum, it's that Leica NJ service is absolutely terrible. My own experience of Leica UK is similar, though to be fair, a few people who have been able to make contact by phone have been more successful.

 

Leica really do have to sort out their customer service. Avoiding people who know little and care less would be a start. That's why I deal only with Leica Solms direct; difficult for people in the US with the issues of shipping and customs.

 

I've previously been flamed by criticising Christian Erhardt; he is (or was, maybe he's been dumped already) the customer face of Leica US and, like it or not, carries responsibility for Leica US customer service. If it isn't him, who is it?

[wlaidlaw]

What an unbelievable piece of bulls€€t from Leica. Next they will be telling us it is just a display camera and that taking photographs invalidates the warranty. I have just checked my handbook and there is nothing at all about vertical use on a tripod. I think the stress is in any case, lower in the vertical position than the horizontal.

 

Any court (and a minor claims court will deal with this, at very little expense to the claimant) would dismiss Leica's suggestion in seconds and award costs against them, as well as the repair cost. It might be worth involving your local consumer organisation, who will often write a letter for you.

 

When you hear things like this, it makes you despair for Leica. Mind you most other manufacturers are not a lot better. I have been trying to get Sony to repair a faulty LCD TV (new in April) for two months now. They agree it is up to them to repair it but little ever seems to happen other than someone turning up from Sony (third one due tomorrow) and agreeing it needs repair but saying they don't have the necessary parts (with them, at the depot, in the country - take your choice).

 

Wilson

[stunsworth]

What was the exact wording of Leica's response? It seems inconceivable that a camera manufacturer would say something so stupid.

[Bill W]

Bill, if there's one message we in Europe get from this forum, it's that Leica NJ service is absolutely terrible. My own experience of Leica UK is similar, though to be fair, a few people who have been able to make contact by phone have been more successful.

 

Leica really do have to sort out their customer service. Avoiding people who know little and care less would be a start. That's why I deal only with Leica Solms direct; difficult for people in the US with the issues of shipping and customs.

 

I've previously been flamed by criticising Christian Erhardt; he is (or was, maybe he's been dumped already) the customer face of Leica US and, like it or not, carries responsibility for Leica US customer service. If it isn't him, who is it?

Mark,

Not sure if Christian is still in charge of service, I believe he went into sales if I am not mistaken. But if the camera in question is still in warranty, there absolutley should be no question of repairing it unless it was due to an accident like dropping it but that would be covered if it were passport warranty. I am not sure if the M8 gets passport in the USA. My experience with Leica NJ has been mixed. Trying to find out something on your issue was awful. You never got any call back if you left a message at least I did not. I had to keep calling till I got someone and then it was oh we shipped that yesterday. It would show up but was probably not shipped till I called and this was just for lens coding. Luckily, I have had very few problems that required shipping to NJ.

[Shootist]

I was using my Leica M8 on a tripod shooting vertically and it fell off. When I looked at it I found the same thing as billh.

 

You say VERTICALLY, was that in the portrait position or with the lens pointing straight up or down?

If it was in the portrait position was the base locking lug up or down?

I'd like to see pictures of this ( I know you said it looks just like the OP of this thread). I hope you took some for your records.

Even IF you used it with the lens pointing straight up or down, which may exert more force on the base plate and in my opinion is a OK way to use the camera, this type of breakage/failure shouldn't happen. Never happened on any of my film M's or other make cameras.

 

The body had broken away and the base plate could no longer be attached.

I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera and they would charge me $700+ to fix it.

It's obvioulsy a design flaw when it has happened to so many others. Don't shoot vertically on a tripod or you too will get to pay $700 to get it fixed--warranty period or not.

 

godfrey:

[marknorton]

Mark,

Not sure if Christian is still in charge of service, I believe he went into sales if I am not mistaken

 

Doesn't matter. He is/was the public face of Leica NJ so takes the rap of quality SNAFUs. Since when has "I'm in sales" allowed someone to escape from complaints about lousy customer service?

[AlanG]

There is no way that piece should break and repair should be covered whether under warranty or not.

 

I am not a lawyer but I'd have to look at this as a potential liability issue. What if the camera fell off the tripod and injured someone? For instance if you were working on the roof or balcony of a building? I bet if it happened to me and the falling camera hurt someone, my insurance company would be going after Leica.

 

However, anyone reading this now is aware of the potential problem and must take precautions such as tethering the camera by the strap so it can't fall. (This is standard procedure when working from helicopters.) And since there have been two reports noted on this site, Leica now has an obligation at minimum to notify owners of the potential risk and probably should consider a recall of the cameras to modify them. Otherwise they are running the risk of being held negligent should anyone get hurt or killed by a falling camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

Now let's think this through before we talk of ruining Leica with wholesale camera recalls. You have 2 reported instances out of an estimated 20,000 cameras sold, which equates to a failure rate of 0.01%.

 

Risk is calculated by multiplying likelihood by severity to produce a figure that can be compared to bring meaning.

 

In this instance, the worst severity, I suppose, could be death if an M8 fell on a person from height and struck them in a damaging way.

 

The likelihood would be the known failure rate of 0.01% multiplied by the likelihood of an M8 being at height and mounted on a tripod and in such a position that it could fall onto a person below and its actually falling and striking that person and that person suffers serious injury or death (may God forfend).

 

The result would be highly subjective because the likelihoods (of an M8 being at height etc) would be subjective and therefore prone to inaccuracy but I'd be willing to wager that, since we're already starting with a failure rate of 1 in 10,000, the likelihood would equate to a much worse chance than winning the lottery in the UK (1 in 14,000,000).

 

In other words it's negligible and if by a sheer fluke it did happen (and you can't discount that anymore than you could discount your car being hit by Skylab) then no court could reasonably convict you of negligence. If you want to test it, try insuring your car against being hit by Skylab and see if your insurance company will offer you a price.

 

Pete.