M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?

[mac11]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The clamp's pressure is nothing for that joint.

Things can get rough though if for instance, you place the camera and a very big lens like 90mm+ on top of a tripod and then you lift the whole set with an forced move to rest it on your shoulder and start running for whatever the reason. That might stress the whole thing yea, but its nowhere meant as "normal use". High G impacts can kill magnesium alloys.

 

It's true 90mm lens was on my M8 when the 'base plate malfunction' happened, but the tripod on which the M8 was attached had all its 3 feet firmly on the white oak flooring of my living room, 6 feet from my family. As another poster have suggested, and also I have implied, the 'impact' that caused the 'base plate malfunction' (2 much tv?!) was from the camera's swiveling movement while on the ball. I can adjust the stiffness (or flexibility) of the ball/camera, and at that time, it was semi-stiff, and the camera tilted forward, when I stepped back from the tripod. When the camera reached the full tilt, it broke off. I saw it as it happened, so supported the camera, but only as it reached the full tilt, and the camera cracked. Of course, the camera was securely in my grasp then.

 

For forum's information, I am a most casual user, with 95% of shots being my family indoors. I never have taken my tripod outdoors, and so didn't have a chance to carry the camera while on the tripod on my shoulder. Besides, I felt instinctively such action would be imprudent.

 

I would not call above a misuse of the camera, but suppose some may say otherwise.

If esteemed Leica's position is that this is an abuse, then wouldn't it severely limit the definition of 'proper use' of the camera? Quite frustrating.

 

oslo terry

[Advertisement]

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

[like_no_other]

It's true 90mm lens was on my M8 when the 'base plate malfunction' happened, but the tripod on which the M8 was attached had all its 3 feet firmly on the white oak flooring of my living room, 6 feet from my family. As another poster have suggested, and also I have implied, the 'impact' that caused the 'base plate malfunction' (2 much tv?!) was from the camera's swiveling movement while on the ball. I can adjust the stiffness (or flexibility) of the ball/camera, and at that time, it was semi-stiff, and the camera tilted forward, when I stepped back from the tripod. When the camera reached the full tilt, it broke off. I saw it as it happened, so supported the camera, but only as it reached the full tilt, and the camera cracked. Of course, the camera was securely in my grasp then.

 

For forum's information, I am a most casual user, with 95% of shots being my family indoors. I never have taken my tripod outdoors, and so didn't have a chance to carry the camera while on the tripod on my shoulder. Besides, I felt instinctively such action would be imprudent.

 

I would not call above a misuse of the camera, but suppose some may say otherwise.

If esteemed Leica's position is that this is an abuse, then wouldn't it severely limit the definition of 'proper use' of the camera? Quite frustrating.

 

oslo terry

 

Ironically the Leica ad showed up while reading this thread, advising M8 customers to beat the M8 with big read boxing gloves. If you were US American I would advise you to tell Leica that you did exactly what they recommend in this ad.

I suppose you know the story of the lady that got $100k for the cat that was killed in the washing machine, that wasn't adressed in the manual.

Or maybe the camera could have fallen down from the tripod hitting your cat. Dangerous little thing this M8 is. Sharp as a knife, take care.

 

What I really try to tell you. Stay confident beside some comments from others. It's not normal that a camera with a 90mm lens breaks in two parts. It's a big joke. Before I would pay €1500 or something like that for repair I would spend this money for something different. I would bring the camera to a materials laboratory to analyze the broken material.

They can tell you if something with the material of your unit was wrong from the beginning or the construction for itself is bad. Let them give you a small expertise if they state that it's the manufacturer's problem.

 

Before you do all this you maybe should write an e-mail to Leica Germany.

[Guest Plaubel]

We tried others first but didn't get what we wanted. It's not jewelry.

 

Well after being 'tried' it certainly won't look like jewelry anymore, would it?

[Guest stnami]

Mani two years in the trenches for the M8 division has left the platoon battle weary and the frontline losses have somewhat jaded their nerves

[ho_co]

... If esteemed Leica's position is that this is an abuse, then wouldn't it severely limit the definition of 'proper use' of the camera? ...

Have you called Leica about the matter? That would be my first recommendation. (In my experience, phone can get better response than email.)

 

You need more information before paying. If the situation is as you describe, I don't see how Leica can hold you liable.

 

Why does Leica consider this your fault? Some similar cases have been handled by Leica at no charge. How is yours different?

 

Is your camera still under warranty? Has it been to Leica or to anyone else for repair while you've had it, under warranty or not? Have you loaned it to someone who might have abused it? Did you buy it new, or was it used or a demonstrator?

[mac11]

Have you called Leica about the matter? That would be my first recommendation. (In my experience, phone can get better response than email.)

 

You need more information before paying. If the situation is as you describe, I don't see how Leica can hold you liable.

 

Why does Leica consider this your fault? Some similar cases have been handled by Leica at no charge. How is yours different?

 

Is your camera still under warranty? Has it been to Leica or to anyone else for repair while you've had it, under warranty or not? Have you loaned it to someone who might have abused it? Did you buy it new, or was it used or a demonstrator?

 

My M8 was ordered before actual 1st camera shipped after several months' wait. Can't remember exactly when that was.. believe ordered around November 2006, and delivered spring 2007. Never lent out, and never under any service. I assume it must be still under warranty, especially with Norwegian worded warranty covers 5 years of some broad basic form/function of consumer goods. Half the time during my possession it has been sitting idle, since I am just a casual user.

 

It's interesting that others have had such damage repaired without cost. I would appreciate it if you could please point me to those posts, as would help when talking to Leica directly, which I have been avoiding since my channel, I assumed, was through the sales channel, and also do not like quick, direct confrontation. I want to gather enough information, and opinions.

 

oslo terry

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

For some reason you see it fit to twist my words to bolster your own opinion.. What do we have here? Four anecdotal cases of body casting failure - one repaired by Leica under warrantee or courtesy, one wrongly or rightly deemed by Leica to be abuse - who are we to set ourselves up as referees?- and two wholly unclear. On this flimsy basis a whole edifice of engineering failure and customer service failure is built. That offends my sense of justice. You may construe that as a defense of Leica - in fact it is an expression of dislike of Internet hype.

[jaapv]

My M8 was ordered before actual 1st camera shipped after several months' wait. Can't remember exactly when that was.. believe ordered around November 2006, and delivered spring 2007. Never lent out, and never under any service. I assume it must be still under warranty, especially with Norwegian worded warranty covers 5 years of some broad basic form/function of consumer goods. Half the time during my possession it has been sitting idle, since I am just a casual user.

 

It's interesting that others have had such damage repaired without cost. I would appreciate it if you could please point me to those posts, as would help when talking to Leica directly, which I have been avoiding since my channel, I assumed, was through the sales channel, and also do not like quick, direct confrontation. I want to gather enough information, and opinions.

 

oslo terry

 

Have you spoken to Leica? In one case they judged a failure of my wife's C-lux 1 to be caused by impact damage. One e-mail explaining the dent they noticed caused them to reconsider and extent warrantee.

[xrogers]

It's interesting that others have had such damage repaired without cost. I would appreciate it if you could please point me to those posts, as would help when talking to Leica directly, which I have been avoiding since my channel, I assumed, was through the sales channel, and also do not like quick, direct confrontation. I want to gather enough information, and opinions.

 

The following quote should get you back to Brent's post about BillH getting his camera fixed (click on the little blue arrow in the quote heading to get to the original post).

 

It is possible to lock the baseplate without engaging the pin in the opposite end, however as soon as you turn the camera on to begin shooting, you get a message on the screen telling you the baseplate is not attached and the camera will not operate. The original poster, Bill Hollinger, was shooting when this happened to his camera, so it could not have been improperly latched.

 

Also, his camera was replaced by Leica (Solms) at no charge.

 

The very first message in this thread is from BillH shortly after his camera failed, so you'll want to reference that message as well.

 

I hope this gets resolved to your satisfaction.

 

--clyde

[ho_co]

Terry--

My feeling: Don't go thru sales channel. Go through Customer Service, who can get you as close as possible to Repair. There should be a contact phone number on your written estimate. If that estimate is generated by your local distributor and not by Solms, you might contact them and if you're not satisfied with their response, request a Solms contact number. Or try the Solms number in your M8 instruction manual.

 

I thought the thread starter had said at some point that the camera was repaired at no charge, but I don't find that post now. Perhaps you should use the forum's 'send email' function to try to reach him and ask him directly.

 

I think that another of the four people reporting the problem also didn't pay, but again that may just be my assumption.

 

Perhaps my belief that Leica has repaired these under warranty is simply wishful thinking, wondering how such a failure could see this as 'abuse.'

 

This is obviously a tricky issue for Leica, as well as an important one for you. They may actually be unaware of other cases of the same part of the camera failing.

 

The best of luck in pursuing this. And do keep us posted.

[xrogers]

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?

 

I don't expect everything about the M8 to be optimal. If there's a problem I'd like it fixed, and I certainly hope mac11 gets warranty coverage, but I have nowhere near enough data to begin talking about or petitioning for a redesign.

 

And gripes about the removable bottom plate are so 2006...

 

It's a long way to Tipparary,

It's a long way to go...

 

--clyde

[vanhulsenbeek]

For some reason you see it fit to twist my words to bolster your own opinion.. What do we have here? Four anecdotal cases of body casting failure - one repaired by Leica under warrantee or courtesy, one wrongly or rightly deemed by Leica to be abuse - who are we to set ourselves up as referees?- and two wholly unclear. On this flimsy basis a whole edifice of engineering failure and customer service failure is built. That offends my sense of justice. You may construe that as a defense of Leica - in fact it is an expression of dislike of Internet hype.

 

Thanks Jaap!

 

Indeed a whole edifice on a flimsy foundation: bound to collapse sooner or later.

The resulting rubble then is the materialisation of the hype: rubbish!

[Guest stnami]

........from Otto Dix

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!

[vanhulsenbeek]

........from Otto Dix

 

Are those "Leica Red Dots":confused:

[Guest stnami]

Research the work and attitde of German artist Otto Dix and you will have your answer

[rob_x2004]

Move over Schlenker:D

[frank_dernie]

I design racing cars as a profession. In my opinion Magnesium is a poor material for camera bodies, though when I have raised this in the past I have upset many (non engineer) camera owners, because many cameras they like are made of this awful stuff nowadays.

 

Not only this, the detail design of this lug on the M8 is very poor from an engineering standpoint, thin gauge and sharp corners. This is not the first example of this failure that I have heard about. Both were when the camera was tripod mounted. This design is marginal at best, I will not be using my much loved M8 on a tripod, unfortunately.

 

Whoever designed this part was very inexperienced with magnesium!

 

I would not be surprised to find that this is the first item on the list of thing to change for the M9.

cheers,

Frank

[wlaidlaw]

I design racing cars as a profession. In my opinion Magnesium is a poor material for camera bodies, though when I have raised this in the past I have upset many (non engineer) camera owners, because many cameras they like are made of this awful stuff nowadays.

 

Not only this, the detail design of this lug on the M8 is very poor from an engineering standpoint, thin gauge and sharp corners. This is not the first example of this failure that I have heard about. Both were when the camera was tripod mounted. This design is marginal at best, I will not be using my much loved M8 on a tripod, unfortunately.

 

Whoever designed this part was very inexperienced with magnesium!

 

I would not be surprised to find that this is the first item on the list of thing to change for the M9.

cheers,

Frank

 

Frank,

 

I totally agree with you. A number of other camera manufacturers have over the years moved over to using titanium alloy pressings for this purpose, which I personally feel is a far more suitable material. If say the pressing had cost €50 more per pair of clamshells (and I suspect the actual cost differential on a 10,000 item run would be less than this), would any potential buyer have baulked at this - I doubt it. This would have made for a far more robust camera. It is not as if Leica is inexperienced in titanium body shells. They have produced titanium versions of both bodies and lenses before.

 

It is no distance from Cologne to Solms, perhaps you could point Leica in the correct direction.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[frank_dernie]

Frank,

 

I totally agree with you. A number of other camera manufacturers have over the years moved over to using titanium alloy pressings for this purpose, which I personally feel is a far more suitable material. If say the pressing had cost €50 more per pair of clamshells (and I suspect the actual cost differential on a 10,000 item run would be less than this), would any potential buyer have baulked at this - I doubt it. This would have made for a far more robust camera. It is not as if Leica is inexperienced in titanium body shells. They have produced titanium versions of both bodies and lenses before.

 

It is no distance from Cologne to Solms, perhaps you could point Leica in the correct direction.

 

Wilson

 

The "problem" in this particular case is that the body is a complex casting subsequently machined and the cost of producing it in Ti would be 10 to 20 times more than a machined mag casting in this case. In addition it would be quite a bit heavier.

I should plan a visit to Solms when I am in Cologne but the races and tests keep me pretty busy all season.

cheers

[wlaidlaw]

The "problem" in this particular case is that the body is a complex casting subsequently machined and the cost of producing it in Ti would be 10 to 20 times more than a machined mag casting in this case. In addition it would be quite a bit heavier.

I should plan a visit to Solms when I am in Cologne but the races and tests keep me pretty busy all season.

cheers

 

Frank,

 

If I recall correctly from the last time I saw a Contax G2 taken apart, how they did it, was to use a fairly simple but robust stamping or maybe hydroforming of titanium sheet for the outside body clamshells. To this was attached a much more complex alloy die-cast chassis, to carry all the mechanisms (motor drive, shutter, electronics printed circuit cards, focusing motor etc etc). I would agree that for its size, the G2 was quite a heavy camera, but I think only fractionally heavier than the nearest Leica equivalent, the M7, in spite of incorporating motor drive and AF. I think my previous Contax RX, would if anything, be lighter than the R8 I had and the RX used a similar method of construction to the G2.

 

Wilson