biglouis Posted August 13, 2008 Share #181 Posted August 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yeah...Im starting to wonder if this camera is worth the hassle anymore. My lenses arent locking in place... the magenta nightmare.... and now a poss. baseplate failure. Might just punt on this and get the new 5d update. Sad to say this....... I really used to love this camera. I'm assuming you own an M8. Has the picture quality degraded because of the possible base plate failure? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 13, 2008 Posted August 13, 2008 Hi biglouis, Take a look here M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted August 13, 2008 Share #182 Posted August 13, 2008 Yeah...Im starting to wonder if this camera is worth the hassle anymore. My lenses arent locking in place... the magenta nightmare.... and now a poss. baseplate failure. Might just punt on this and get the new 5d update. Sad to say this....... I really used to love this camera. Lenses not locking in place:confused: Are we talking about the same camera? Magenta nightmare? What about filters?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Kelly Posted August 13, 2008 Share #183 Posted August 13, 2008 I've assumed that Leica must have a reason for putting what feels to me like an inferior baseplate on the M8, compared to say the baseplate on the M6 TTL I owned, onto the camera. LouisB I do not think that it is the base plate per se that is inferior, rather that the locking mechanism can induce stresses in the clam shell that will in some instances (4 I believe to date) cause the assembly to fail. There must be ~20K M8's out there which is 0.02%, not a high number, but disasterous for those poor people affected. Has anyone collected the serial numbers? Could it be related to a bad batch or is it random and 'perhaps' related to usage? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted August 13, 2008 Share #184 Posted August 13, 2008 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. Good point. And if the design includes a tripod socket the user may assume that it is safe to use it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 13, 2008 Share #185 Posted August 13, 2008 Originally Posted by morffin Yeah...Im starting to wonder if this camera is worth the hassle anymore. My lenses arent locking in place... the magenta nightmare.... and now a poss. baseplate failure. Might just punt on this and get the new 5d update. Sad to say this....... I really used to love this camera. Lenses not locking in place:confused: Are we talking about the same camera? Magenta nightmare? What about filters?? That post by morffin has got to be one of the most inane I have ever read on this forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted August 13, 2008 Share #186 Posted August 13, 2008 The poster who reopened this thread has so far only posted that one message to the forum - and that was 5 days ago. I think it would be useful if he responded to some of the questions that have been asked regarding Leica's actual response. I agree, Steve. More information about this, together with Leica's response to the heads-up from Andreas, would provide some much needed clarity. One of the potential pitfalls of the internet is that rumour, conjecture, speculation and third-party information rapidly turn the possible or probable into accepted fact. I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but the point is that no-one really knows. Yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2008 Share #187 Posted August 13, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) That post by morffin has got to be one of the most inane I have ever read on this forum Surprising too; the guy seems to be a pro. Quite good stuff on his site too... That he cannot handle IR contamination is amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted August 13, 2008 Share #188 Posted August 13, 2008 Surprising too; the guy seems to be a pro. Quite good stuff on his site too... That he cannot handle IR contamination is amazing. Are You patronizing morffin? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2008 Share #189 Posted August 13, 2008 No I am not. What is wrong by saying I like his work? Or by saying I am surprised by his post in this context? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted August 13, 2008 Share #190 Posted August 13, 2008 It lies - in my humble opinion - in the juxtaposition of his esteemed qualities as a photografer to his insinuated incompetence of dealing with the M8's high susceptibility to infrared and red light. The latter of which regrettably is not cured by the use of filters. in other words: You start Your judgement on poor morffin with a captatio benevolentiae to bolster up the good whack on the butt the end of Your sentence gives him. This is a classical rhethorical figure to belittle someone. But if that was none of Your purpose I must ask You to accept my apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2008 Share #191 Posted August 13, 2008 Not intentional from my side, and no need for apologies either Clarification always makes sense. Mr. Morffin obviously knows how to handle colour - see his image of the girl against the curtains, which makes the outburst even less understandable. Btw I don't understand your remark that IR cannot be filtered by IR cut filters...All sensors are sensitive to IR. The only difference between various cameras is the location of the IR cut filter. In front of the sensor or in front of the lens.....Edit: Sorry, I see now you mean reds. That is a matter of profiling the RAWconverter mainly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted August 13, 2008 Share #192 Posted August 13, 2008 I'm assuming you own an M8. Has the picture quality degraded because of the possible base plate failure? LouisB If I become afraid to put it on a tripod when I should, then yes, my picture quality has degraded. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted August 13, 2008 Share #193 Posted August 13, 2008 If I become afraid to put it on a tripod when I should, then yes, my picture quality has degraded. Until later, Clyde Good point which I had not thought of when I left the comment..... I certainly think twice about using a tripod but then I rarely use one anyway.... so yes, I can see where for some photographers this could affect their work. LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted August 13, 2008 Share #194 Posted August 13, 2008 Good point. And if the design includes a tripod socket the user may assume that it is safe to use it. Are you talking about the socket on the base plate which is for attaching a case? Someone didn't try to fix a tripod to that did they?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted August 13, 2008 Share #195 Posted August 13, 2008 Are you talking about the socket on the base plate which is for attaching a case? Someone didn't try to fix a tripod to that did they?? :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morffin Posted August 13, 2008 Share #196 Posted August 13, 2008 The inane Mr. Morffin here. Yes, I do know how to use the filters..... it is a major hassle on very wide lenses. No....the image quality is still great... but there is more to using a camera than the image quality...I would still be shooting 4x5 Velvia if that were the only factor in selecting a prof. tool. I'm a hard working pro...shot 200 assignments last year....I cant worry about a camera falling off a tripod...or having to fudge with my lenses to get them to lock in place. I dont think there are bigger M8 cheerleaders on this board than me... but the broken base plate might have been the straw that breaks the deal for me. Thanks for the nice words about my web site...all those shots are over 5 years old..I've been too busy to update the site....I guess that's a good thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted August 13, 2008 Share #197 Posted August 13, 2008 Hi! I hope I did not stand on your toes. If so - without any malice, I can assure you. The filter issue - it has been chewed to the bone I think, but most users seem to fit and forget them. As for the lens mounting, I really do not understand your problem. When I compare with my M3 the only difference I feel is 52 years of use, making the M3 a bit more smooth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morffin Posted August 13, 2008 Share #198 Posted August 13, 2008 Thanks. No..the lens problem has been covered on a diff. thread. The lenses dont lock in place. I have some down time these next couple of weeks (The dreaded August....the Horses Latitude of freelance photography )....going to take the body in for repair...hope to be able to find a dealer in NYC that can fix it fast. As for the filters... i have them on my normal lenses but cant use them on my ultra wide due ( VC 12 ) to major vignetting. No problems at all w/ magenta cast on the others. You didnt step on my toes and no offense was taken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted August 13, 2008 Share #199 Posted August 13, 2008 Thanks. going to take the body in for repair...hope to be able to find a dealer in NYC that can fix it fast. You didnt step on my toes and no offense was taken. Don't take it to a dealer! Drive it over to Allendale NJ to Leica USA and have someone there look at it. Could be you have it fixed in one to two hours instead of 2-3 WEEKS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted August 13, 2008 Share #200 Posted August 13, 2008 As for the filters... i have them on my normal lenses but cant use them on my ultra wide due ( VC 12 ) to major vignetting. ... Suggestion: Use the 489 filter instead of the 486. No cyan drift; generally negligible difference of WB compared to the 486. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.