M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?

[diogenis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not questioning Wilson here. I know that natural properties of hard and light alloys like that magnesium or metals like Aluminum, risk the danger of braking but for this to happen you need a high impact. Iron and steel can also break but it needs a different amount of impact.

What I am saying is, that force is applied in a ratio in both that hinge and the other end (the steel lip if you like), so its not just the hinge alone, and the other end is steel: it absorbs quite a punch, which is evident and the reason why none else have these failures. If it was something as serious as bad alloys, we would have seen a whole series of cameras to fail.

I do insist that the baseplate is properly attached. Are there better ways to do it? Maybe they are, but are they necessary?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

I can only say that I crashed one M8, which flattened and bent the baseplate and cracked the bodyshell around the lens mount through the reactive force of the impact on the lens (just a small Summicron 35 asph, which had its focussing helix deformed too) but the baseplate locking mechanism was still functioning properly and the undoubted excessive forces on the lip of the camera body had fractured nothing.

[diogenis]

Who says the pin at the other end has to be the centre of rotation? Final fracture probably a lever from the latch to the rim of the base plate or body shell somewhere close to it. After it fails, then it rotates about the pin at the other end.

 

Then, who needs that pin? It's better without it, easier to place the baseplate as well

[AlanG]

The bottom line is that if the camera's casting breaks, Leica will say it is your fault and will charge you for repair. So they don't achnowledge any problem with the design or casting. This seems ridiculous to me.

 

I can't remember hearing of a single incident of another camera that broke from being used on a tripod. I think if you took an old Nikon F you'd probably have to work pretty hard at abusing it before you broke its casting.

[fotografr]

The bottom line is that if the camera's casting breaks, Leica will say it is your fault and will charge you for repair. So they don't achnowledge any problem with the design or casting. This seems ridiculous to me.

 

Let's keep in mind that Leica have stood behind their product in the original case. As I stated several posts ago in this thread, when the OPs camera broke, Leica replaced it at no charge.

[vanhulsenbeek]

The bottom line is that if the camera's casting breaks, Leica will say it is your fault and will charge you for repair. So they don't achnowledge any problem with the design or casting.....................

 

Sorry, but I may have missed something: do we have a verified answer from a Leica offical on the very 4 similar instances of failure as started this thread?

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, but I may have missed something: do we have a verified answer from a Leica offical on the very 4 similar instances of failure as started this thread?

We have the original poster that a friend states that the camera was replaced free of charge. Then we have at least 2 other reports of the same thing happening and Leica wants to CHARGE $$$$ for the repair.

[vanhulsenbeek]

We have the original poster that a friend states that the camera was replaced free of charge. Then we have at least 2 other reports of the same thing happening and Leica wants to CHARGE $$$$ for the repair.

 

So all posts (other then the 3 reports you mention) stating Leica says/does/should do this or Leica says/does/should do that are all based on conjecture?

 

Seems an unkind but fair assesment of this thread to me

[terrycioni]

Agreed Howard, and believe me I keep trying to as you put it "set them straight". Although recently - I have simply been watching the continual pounding the M8 takes but still survives it all.

 

As a complete and total off topic aside - I was walking along Sunset Beach here in Vancouver the other night and a young fellow sporting the latest Nikon (keep in mind I am an old fart) walked up to me and said and I quote here, "a real camera". I asked him if he want to try it out - which he did (he fell in love). I suggested he pick-up a good user Leica M as a starter.... Interestingly he knew exactly where to look here in Vancouver. All still fun!

 

Best To All. Terry.

 

Terry--

Very well said. But so far, I think we're aware of four or perhaps only three examples of this occurrence. Similarly, I think we're aware of four cases of M8 shutters self-destructing, though in one of those, Leica ruled that it was a user-caused event. These aren't big numbers.

 

Andreas has said he will let us know if and when Solms takes a stand on the matter. As long as cases are few, Leica can't take a position.

 

As for others citing this as a black eye for Leica, that's a pity, but it's not Leica's problem. There will always be uninformed people. It's up to us to set them straight where possible.

[Shootist]

So all posts (other then the 3 reports you mention) stating Leica says/does/should do this or Leica says/does/should do that are all based on conjecture?

 

Seems an unkind but fair assesment of this thread to me

What conjecture are you referring to? I see at least 3 M8's that have the same break in the same place, at the base plate locking lug on the body.

I haven't tried it but I would guess it takes great force to break the camera body at that point IF the body didn't already have some type of fault at that point.

To me this type of break is clearly a defect in those bodies and IF you could cause the same break with little force then every M8 is subject to this, at some point. Clearly a defect in design.

If you look at the image posted by Mark Norton of the front half of the body shell you can clearly see a hollowed out spot just underneath the locking lug. Leica chose to weaken, make thinner, the body at the one point where the base plate locks onto the body. If that hollow wasn't there I doubt these breaks would of happened.

[Guest DuquesneG]

First, the latching point could have been reinforced on the inside of the camera; there's plenty of space to do so.

 

For Leica, I think they should add reinforcement to the casting and look closely at their casting process.

 

If you look at the original photo on the first page, you see that the casting is made in 2 halves that come together midway around the end curve. The piece that broke was where that half of the casting butts against the other. If the rim/lip (either by different design, or by a reinforcing brace) did not have that split in the middle, I believe that no normal use (read: tripod) would cause such breakage.

[jaapv]

three breaks - 0.01 % without real specification of the circumstances and any analysis of the cuse - I must agree with Sander`- a lot to do about nothing - or very little at most. Yes - it may be the weakest point - but any construction has a weakest point. Eliminate it and another will emerge.. One of my dental chairs broke in two when a 150 kg patient sat on it - did I get guarantee on a professional piece of equipment? No, three years old and one year guarantee - it cost me 15.000 Euro for a new one....Did I have recourse to law? - unfortunately not. European law applies to consumer goods, not to professional equipment.... Even if the maker told me: "It is the weakest point of the chair -they've been known to break there before. It may be a small casting failure in the light alloy used."

[vanhulsenbeek]

Even if the maker told me: "It is the weakest point of the chair -they've been known to break there before. It may be a small casting failure in the light alloy used."

 

Thanks Jaap. I sympathize with you: any construction sucks, in very small percentages. But it really sucks when that hits you!

[marknorton]

If you look at the original photo on the first page, you see that the casting is made in 2 halves that come together midway around the end curve. The piece that broke was where that half of the casting butts against the other. If the rim/lip (either by different design, or by a reinforcing brace) did not have that split in the middle, I believe that no normal use (read: tripod) would cause such breakage.

 

The entire lip does not have a split in the middle, it's part of the front casting and not attached in any way to the rear casting...

 

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!

[Guest DuquesneG]

The entire lip does not have a split in the middle, it's part of the front casting and not attached in any way to the rear casting...

 

[ATTACH]100001[/ATTACH]

 

Hi, the "split" in the peripheral lip I was talking about was where the front casting butts against the rear casting. If there was a brace attached inboard of the lip attached to both casting halves, thereby joining them together, I believe it would buttress that part of the front casting lip that breaks.

[plasticman]

three breaks - 0.01 % without real specification of the circumstances and any analysis of the cuse - I must agree with Sander`- a lot to do about nothing - or very little at most. Yes - it may be the weakest point - but any construction has a weakest point. Eliminate it and another will emerge.. One of my dental chairs broke in two when a 150 kg patient sat on it - did I get guarantee on a professional piece of equipment? No, three years old and one year guarantee - it cost me 15.000 Euro for a new one....Did I have recourse to law? - unfortunately not. European law applies to consumer goods, not to professional equipment.... Even if the maker told me: "It is the weakest point of the chair -they've been known to break there before. It may be a small casting failure in the light alloy used."

 

I'm intrigued by your post Jaap - you're an intelligent person, and I know you're aware of the fallacy of many of your own arguments on this forum. For instance, the percentage you use - we both know that it's a meaningless figure: there's absolutely no way that every M8 user who has a problem with their camera will post it on this thread. Furthermore, one person who posted a problem and was then branded an outright liar (and that implication lingers on) is obviously no encouragement to others to report problems they may be having with the M8.

 

As for the design decisions - when I read a sentence like "any construction has a weakest point. Eliminate it and another will emerge" I wonder where your defense of the M8 might stop? Can you not accept that this decision to construct a separate baseplate - apparently attached in a rather weaker fashion than on film Ms - might possibly not have been an optimal design for a digital camera that had no intrinsic need of this functionality?

 

Anyway, while your dental anecdotes are interesting, and the expense of a new chair much greater than a replacement M8, I fail to understand why any M8 user might not want Leica to get to the bottom of this potential problem. Surely this could only be of benefit to M8 users generally? Brushing a potential problem under the carpet just to stop yet another internet rumor can't possibly be a good solution for anyone.

 

Mani

[farnz]

I'm intrigued by your post Jaap - you're an intelligent person, and I know you're aware of the fallacy of many of your own arguments on this forum.

Ahhh ... the old 'one-two' eh, Mani? Set 'em up with a veiled compliment and knock 'em down with a subjective judgement posing as a truism. And since you claim to "know" what Jaap is thinking you must be psychic too.

 

...- we both know that it's a meaningless figure: ...

Perhaps so, but would you care to venture and support your own to put us right?

 

... Brushing a potential problem under the carpet just to stop yet another internet rumor can't possibly be a good solution for anyone.

So true, but neither can fuelling an internet rumour so that it's blown out of proportion can it? It's easy enough to start a forest fire under the right conditions but not so easy to extinguish it; controlled burn-offs are far more productive although not easy to contain.

 

Pete.

[markgay]

Anyone want to consider that the two bottom sides of the camera are those most likely to get bashed - either during production or by the owner? With or without the base plate afixed.

 

Could get in the way of a good story, but it seems likely to me.

 

Especially as the contra-argument, is the lack of any damage to those same joints when the camera is supported UNDER CONSIDERABLY GREATER FORCE by the hand grip (which fixes entirely and solely to the base plate).

 

My Ricoh GR1 was also made of magnesium or was it titanium (frankly I don't give a monkeys) but I can recount the absolutely true story of how my late and very beautiful Basset Hound chewed the heck out of it.

 

Tough alloy! Grrrrrr.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

... I do insist that the baseplate is properly attached. Are there better ways to do it? Maybe they are, but are they necessary?

I think that's one of the questions we're all trying to answer. The deeper one isn't an attempt to redesign the camera, but an attempt to discover pattern or cause of these few reported failures of the casting.

 

I think we'd also like to get some understanding of why some of these casting failures have been handled under warranty and others haven't. Is there a difference in the way the break occurred, i.e. a sign of abuse in some cases that's lacking in others? Are some of the cameras still under initial warranty period and others not?

 

... As for the design decisions - when I read a sentence like "any construction has a weakest point. Eliminate it and another will emerge" I wonder where your defense of the M8 might stop?

Mani--Hilarious!

 

Nifty anecdote: "Why, when I read XXX, that causes me to think of something totally different and unrelated to the topic at hand. And I'll use it to try to bash someone with a better grasp of logic than mine ad hominem."

[ho_co]

... I was walking along Sunset Beach here in Vancouver the other night and a young fellow sporting the latest Nikon (keep in mind I am an old fart) walked up to me and said and I quote here, "a real camera". I asked him if he want to try it out - which he did (he fell in love). I suggested he pick-up a good user Leica M as a starter.... Interestingly he knew exactly where to look here in Vancouver. ...

Bravo, Terry!

 

Interesting, how some Brand X users understand why Leica is still there, while others still mouth the complaint that Leica is just jewelry for us older guys who don't know any better. (I must admit, as I watch Leica's prices climb, I'm tending more and more to understand the argument. )

 

And you did right to let him try it. Once you handle a camera like this, it's hard to be satisfied with something else.

 

And one day, we can hope, even the skeptics will realize: For all of us using Leica, it wasn't our first camera. We tried others first but didn't get what we wanted. It's not jewelry.