diogenis Posted August 12, 2008 Share #141 Posted August 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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: Godfrey, Do you have any pictures taken prior servicing of your camera? Do you also have the receipt if in the end you DID serviced it, with those $700 asked? Because if you do, then Leica simply lies... And tbh, I can't believe this is even thinkable for a German gmbh company. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 12, 2008 Posted August 12, 2008 Hi diogenis, Take a look here M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
lct Posted August 12, 2008 Share #142 Posted August 12, 2008 ...I just contacted Leica in Solms in order to get an official statement about this topic.... This story is hardly believable as Leica wouldn't have a single chance to win a law suit like that. Well done Andreas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 12, 2008 Share #143 Posted August 12, 2008 The only thing I can think of is that the camera was sent to Leica for repair and the person assessing the damage was unaware that it occured while on a tripod. I can't believe that anyone at Leica would say that the damage was caused by the user if they had known it had happened on a tripod. That would be stupid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 12, 2008 Share #144 Posted August 12, 2008 Pretty freaky stuff...............this will send the ward into a frazzle spin, better close my eyes and drop a yellow one so I can sleep til it's all over rip van leica Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansg Posted August 12, 2008 Share #145 Posted August 12, 2008 Something to watch for with these cameras. I was checking the focus of my 50 f1.4ASPH, and had the camera tilted forward and it suddenly came off the tripod. I thought I had forgotten to close the clamp on the tripod head, but when I looked at the camera I could see what happened. I don’t know if this was just metal fatigue with my particular camera (which has never been dropped or abused), or an inherent design weakness. It looks like a design weakness, because exactly the same happened to me last year. In my case, the WATE was attached to the camera. In fact, I had the camera on loan because my own camera was for a repair job in Solms. Leica fixed the (loan) camera for approx. Euro 500,- Hans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted August 12, 2008 Share #146 Posted August 12, 2008 Is that four now? Still a very, very small statistical sample, but growing. It will be interesting to read Leica's response. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 12, 2008 Share #147 Posted August 12, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) This story is hardly believable as Leica wouldn't have a single chance to win a law suit like that. Well done Andreas. Exactly my feeling. If it happened to me my next stop would be my German lawyer... In fact this is clearly a manufacturing defect, which under European law is not even subject to the two year limitation of warrantee. I think there is at least a miscommunication here somewhere. A good thing to get Leica to comment, Andreas. This is not like Leica customer service as I've experienced it up to now at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 12, 2008 Share #148 Posted August 12, 2008 I'm sure Leica have set up a casting on a rig and applied a load to the base plate to see when it breaks. These examples may be down to that limit being exceeded or else they may be down to poor metallurgy - contamination or incorrect processing/heat treatment. AFAIK, the casting is made - cast, machined, painted - in Portugal and it's unfortunately the case that the finishing on the areas you don't normally see (until some idiot takes his camera apart and posts images on the internet) is not the best. For example, there are areas where the paint is scraped off to make a good ground connection. I'm sure the girls at Sendai don't have to get their craft knives out to do the same. Leica need to look at each and every failure to determine the cause - replacing the back half of the casting is a few minutes work but replacing the front casting is a major job, requiring complete setup of the sensor and rangefinder. If it's down to a design defect, they need to improve the strengthing and increase the corner radii to reduce the change of fractures starting. If, on the other hand it's down to flaws in the metallurgy, I think they need to bring it back to Germany where I'm quite sure some specialist in the Mittelstand will step up to do the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted August 12, 2008 Share #149 Posted August 12, 2008 "If it's down to a design defect, they need to improve the strengthing and increase the corner radii to reduce the change of fractures starting. If, on the other hand it's down to flaws in the metallurgy, I think they need to bring it back to Germany where I'm quite sure some specialist in the Mittelstand will step up to do the job." That's exactly what they did with most new parts (like M6->M6TTL, new top plate = zinc-die-cast from Portugal replaced with CNC-machined-brass from Germany), I'm not sure with the switch from Al-inner-body -> Mg!? Die-cast is a very sensitive process and difficult to control, even in Formula1-race-cars die-cast parts break because of the slightest failure during the casting process (which are not necessarily noticeable with ultrasound or x-rays). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 12, 2008 Share #150 Posted August 12, 2008 Yes, but you don't hear of castings breaking on a Nikon or even ( ) a Canon. Something is wrong, somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted August 12, 2008 Share #151 Posted August 12, 2008 looks to me like Leica should replace this. Now.. if said poster was STANDING on top of his "vertically mounted M8 attached to his tripod".. then... I'd consider it a "misuse" of the camera.. but if he mounted it as normal 'vertically' on a tripod then the M8 should easily have withstood the stress.. One would think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted August 12, 2008 Share #152 Posted August 12, 2008 Die-cast is a very sensitive process and difficult to control, even in Formula1-race-cars die-cast parts break because of the slightest failure during the casting process (which are not necessarily noticeable with ultrasound or x-rays). Perhaps we should ask frank_dernie about this (he posted earlier in the thread), assuming he's the Frank Dernie. Sorry georg, not sure if you're a Formula 1 designer also:) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted August 12, 2008 Share #153 Posted August 12, 2008 ...assuming he's the Frank Dernie I believe he is <grin>. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted August 12, 2008 Share #154 Posted August 12, 2008 I'm sure Leica have set up a casting on a rig and applied a load to the base plate to see when it breaks. The OP is a very good friend of mine and I recall him telling me that Leica (Solms) had tried to replicate the failure in their testing lab and had been unable to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkie Posted August 12, 2008 Share #155 Posted August 12, 2008 yeah.. well.. could have been one of out of 10,000 that just wasn't "up to scratch" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted August 12, 2008 Share #156 Posted August 12, 2008 The OP is a very good friend of mine and I recall him telling me that Leica (Solms) had tried to replicate the failure in their testing lab and had been unable to do so. They weren't pushing hard enough then. Clearly, if you clamp the camera, screw a rod into the tripod socket and then pull on the other end with a hydraulic jack, something is going to give way at some point and common sense suggests either the circular latching mechanism or the casting... I expect this is much more down to sample variation, bad castings with dislocations in the metallic structure. As I said, just as well they don't make 777 wing roots in their spare time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmr Posted August 12, 2008 Share #157 Posted August 12, 2008 This thread is long... so forgive me if this is mentioned before... Looks to me the locking mechanism of the M8 is different to other Ms. M8 locks to the outside other body, maybe the thinnest part? The other M, like M6, M7 and MP, it locks to the middle portion of the body where the "How To Load the Film" diagram is. So the body and the internal mechanism shares the stress.Giving it a more secure and stronger fit. The M8 locks at the outside body corner, may be the thinnest part of the body, and where the seam is located.... i.e. 100% on the body causing more stress. Hmmmm.... interesting turn of events for the M8 again. Tripod? M8 is for handheld and I guess Leica took that to heart. Robert. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted August 12, 2008 Share #158 Posted August 12, 2008 I expect this is much more down to sample variation, bad castings with dislocations in the metallic structure. As I said, just as well they don't make 777 wing roots in their spare time. In addition to the variation from bad castings, there could be variations of fit. I am not an engineer but isn't it possible that the locking mechanisms on some cameras will apply more force than others just by the act of turning the clamp? (At least one other poster also suggested this.) Could this cause metal fatigue over time that first leads to a small crack and then to breakage when under a load. If that is true, simply taking a new camera and putting it under a stress test may not replicate what is actually happening with cameras under use. In any case, it can't be that hard to re-design or re-enforce the attachment point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted August 12, 2008 Share #159 Posted August 12, 2008 A bad idea that's been used on M cameras for over 50 years. Yes, but during the film era there was a functional reason for this design. In the digital era there isn't -- there's no worry about keeping the film flat. And lmr's post (#157) explains how it was done differently and better on the film cameras. So now it's both a bad idea and badly executed. Good design suggests that objects shouldn't be carried by their doors or other removable parts. We don't lift a car or a refrigerator by its door. We don't carry a computer by its dvd tray. If the design requires carrying the object by it's door or other removable part, then the parts really have to be made to withstand the expected stresses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted August 12, 2008 Share #160 Posted August 12, 2008 It's very likely that this specific part of the holding-mechanism of the base-plate is the weakest link of the system (the other side is a steel/brass-combination, the tripod mount itself is also steel) with it's ~2mm thick mg-die-cast. But from my personal experience and compared to other mechanical parts in the camera-industry this is very likely to be enough. Of course, the base-plate can be ripped apart - just a matter of strength applied to it and of course production-failures during the cast-process (it can affect a series of bodies - die-cast is a serial-production process) will cause failure, too. But a design failure seems really unlikely, for whatever reason you will find the strangest comments on the internet - claiming that Leica accusing someone of user error and let him pay 700$ seems to be one of them... I'm using mine since 1 1/2 years now, horizontally, vertically - nothing happened (of course)! But another fact is that we can hardly tell anything about the quality of the casting-process, or the mechanical consturction - only Leica knows. From what I see, the fitting, the quality of the surfaces etc. is top-notch - but that's just the "outside perspective". "Sorry georg, not sure if you're a Formula 1 designer also" I'm an engineer and I've worked for company that made components for Le Mans-winning-cars - I hope that's enough and my comments written in poor English are appreciated anyway ;-) @marknorton You can even find pictures in the net showing broken bodies from Nikon/Canon... But the tripod mount is not the weakest point in these systems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.