M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well of course not!

 

It's the body casting that's failing, not the base plates.

 

They're staying attached to the tripod just fine. :)

 

(One must learn to be quite specific when dealing with Leica... )

 

Right Right Right. This is not about the base plate failing, the base plate is fine. It's the body that fails @ the base plate locking lug.

 

So Morffin did they fix the lens locking problem?

[Advertisement]

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

[diogenis]

The real problem isn't about what Godfrey is or is not. I'm sure most don't even care. We are all interested whether there is a real issue with the baseplate and M8, and for that, we should only wait for a formal answer from Leica itself. Till we get that answer, we will keep using the camera as intended ...with a tripod!

Im sure the last thing Leica needs/wants is negative reputation for a camera that breaks in normal photography use

[Shootist]

The real problem isn't about what Godfrey is or is not. I'm sure most don't even care. We are all interested whether there is a real issue with the baseplate and M8, and for that, we should only wait for a formal answer from Leica itself. Till we get that answer, we will keep using the camera as intended ...with a tripod!

Im sure the last thing Leica needs/wants is negative reputation for a camera that breaks in normal photography use

There is no issue with the base plate. WE, as a group, must stop using this term, "Base Plate Failure".

It is the BODY that is failing and it has nothing to do with the base plate. I have yet to see any Base Plate fail. The base is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, Lock onto the body. And any base plate that came from a camera where the body has failed will still fit and lock on another body that hasn't failed.

[diogenis]

ok ok I rephrase:

 

The real problem isn't about what Godfrey is or is not. I'm sure most don't even care. We are all interested whether there is a real issue with the baseplate and M8 body breaking, and for that, we should only wait for a formal answer from Leica itself. Till we get that answer, we will keep using the camera as intended ...with a tripod!

Im sure the last thing Leica needs/wants is negative reputation for a camera that breaks in normal photography use.

[Shootist]

ok ok I rephrase:

 

The real problem isn't about what Godfrey is or is not. I'm sure most don't even care. We are all interested whether there is a real issue with the baseplate and M8 body breaking, and for that, we should only wait for a formal answer from Leica itself. Till we get that answer, we will keep using the camera as intended ...with a tripod!

Im sure the last thing Leica needs/wants is negative reputation for a camera that breaks in normal photography use.

I agree it is not about Godfrey. For all we know he did have the same failure and figured he'd post about it so others would know. Why else dig up a year + old thread.

As we now know there have been other failure of the same kind, exactly.

The idea that Leica think this is user error, misuse, is ridiculous.

I still like to hear back from the Original starter of this thread as to whether or not Leica charge him for the repair or if it ws covered under warranty.

[Guest DuquesneG]

Question: I read on another forum just now, someone brought up the subject of the M8 grip putting stress on the same place. I've been using a grip on both my M8s and I've yanked them from the bag and held them at my side (vertically), mostly hanging by my fingers on the grip, and swung them up to my eye, again, mostly by the grip. I've seen and talked to others who do that too, and nobody's has shorn off the casting.

 

So maybe what we have are a few castings that were brittle and/or weak and should have been rejected (what are the chances they test each one scientifically?), coupled with an uninformed response by someone at Leica. When I think about it, every one of the M8's issues were exacerbated by the way Leica handled the PR.

[markgay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

DuquesneG, I raised the point about handgrips a couple of days ago, rhetorically:

 

“Why has no one mentioned the Leica handgrip for the M8. I have one and it is merely an extension of the base plate. The entire weight of the camera, plus Noctilux, is supported on an angle of the base plate and camera housing.

Anyone heard of a problem!” ie, No.

 

For good measure, I added a Russian joke, in which a man chides his wife for worrying about things that may never happen, a chronic affliction of many visitors to these pages.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failure-9.html

 

Regards,

Mark

[PeterP]

Question: I read on another forum just now, someone brought up the subject of the M8 grip putting stress on the same place. I've been using a grip on both my M8s and I've yanked them from the bag and held them at my side (vertically), mostly hanging by my fingers on the grip, and swung them up to my eye, again, mostly by the grip. I've seen and talked to others who do that too, and nobody's has shorn off the casting.

 

So maybe what we have are a few castings that were brittle and/or weak and should have been rejected (what are the chances they test each one scientifically?), coupled with an uninformed response by someone at Leica. When I think about it, every one of the M8's issues were exacerbated by the way Leica handled the PR.

 

Don't confuse weight with torque .

[george +]

With all due respect, please allow me to re-state my opinion of some while ago.

 

I think, just think, that the failure occurs when the baseplate is not properly attached to the camera body!

 

Yes, with the M8, unlike previous M models, it is possible to lock the baseplate to the body without engaging the connection on the opposite end. It has happened to me - a few times. Now when the baseplate is locked to the body in such a skewed fashion then the connection on the lock side can brake. That thin sliver of a connector was a bad idea.

 

This, allowing the lock to be closed without the baseplate being properly aligned on the base, is a design fault. Hard to fix.

[Guest DuquesneG]

Don't confuse weight with torque .

 

I haven't taught freshman physics since I was a doctoral candidate, but I think I've still got the basics down pat. You know what they say about assumptions Re-read what I said in re: "I've yanked them from the bag [by the grip]" and "and swung them up to my eye, again, mostly by the grip". BTW, your usage of "torque" is incorrect. Torque is rotational force, which would not be applicable to the major force on the body casting edge either with a grip attached or while the camera is mounted vertically on a tripod. I could draw you a vector diagram but since you are an expert I'm sure you can do that for yourself....

[bill]

Don't confuse weight with torque .

 

I can't tell torque from mutter...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Amoment]

I can't tell torque from mutter...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

Spreading confusion?

 

Stuart

[dcoombs]

With all due respect, please allow me to re-state my opinion of some while ago.

 

I think, just think, that the failure occurs when the baseplate is not properly attached to the camera body!

 

Yes, with the M8, unlike previous M models, it is possible to lock the baseplate to the body without engaging the connection on the opposite end. It has happened to me - a few times. Now when the baseplate is locked to the body in such a skewed fashion then the connection on the lock side can brake. That thin sliver of a connector was a bad idea.

 

This, allowing the lock to be closed without the baseplate being properly aligned on the base, is a design fault. Hard to fix.

 

It's been my experience, more than once, that when I misalign the baseplate that the camera beeps and tells me that the baseplate is not correctly locked. Then I fix it. This is not difficult to manage...

[PeterP]

I haven't taught freshman physics since I was a doctoral candidate, but I think I've still got the basics down pat. You know what they say about assumptions Re-read what I said in re: "I've yanked them from the bag [by the grip]" and "and swung them up to my eye, again, mostly by the grip". BTW, your usage of "torque" is incorrect. Torque is rotational force, which would not be applicable to the major force on the body casting edge either with a grip attached or while the camera is mounted vertically on a tripod. I could draw you a vector diagram but since you are an expert I'm sure you can do that for yourself....

 

 

Attached is a diagram .

 

As was mentioned earlier in this thread . A lot of us , when the camera is mounted on a tripod , tend to push against the camera to adjust its position . That would be a rotational force (torque) . This tends to exert an upward force on the locking mechanism , may not be torque - but caused by torque .

I am not one for long post , but I think this explains what I was referring to. And if I was wrong I stand corrected .

 

PS Sir do beware - Carelessly ripping the camera from your bag and swinging to you eye could cause injury. Either to yourself or your subject

 

 

PeterP

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!

[fotografr]

With all due respect, please allow me to re-state my opinion of some while ago.

 

I think, just think, that the failure occurs when the baseplate is not properly attached to the camera body!

 

Yes, with the M8, unlike previous M models, it is possible to lock the baseplate to the body without engaging the connection on the opposite end. It has happened to me - a few times. Now when the baseplate is locked to the body in such a skewed fashion then the connection on the lock side can brake. That thin sliver of a connector was a bad idea.

 

This, allowing the lock to be closed without the baseplate being properly aligned on the base, is a design fault. Hard to fix.

 

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.

[george +]

Yes Brent, I have read the posts.

 

You are right about the message and the inability to take pictures - once the camera is switched on. But in a rush you can mount a misclosed M8 on a tripod - before switching it on - and it can brake.

 

That is the most likely way I can see it happen. Luckily these failures are not at all frequent, but they can happen. Publicizing this helps avoid the possibility of failure.

[mmk60]

Attached is a diagram .

 

As was mentioned earlier in this thread . A lot of us , when the camera is mounted on a tripod , tend to push against the camera to adjust its position . That would be a rotational force (torque) . This tends to exert an upward force on the locking mechanism , may not be torque - but caused by torque .

I am not one for long post , but I think this explains what I was referring to. And if I was wrong I stand corrected .

 

PS Sir do beware - Carelessly ripping the camera from your bag and swinging to you eye could cause injury. Either to yourself or your subject

 

 

PeterP

 

 

Nice diagram!

 

That "upward force" induces "torque/bending force" on the broken part of the body via the fixed locking nail because the rotating locking nail (on the base plate) pulls the fixed locking nail, with the pin being a pivot point. I think.....

 

The arc at the ends of the body, I think, should make the structure stronger, though...

[farnz]

There's been a large amount of worry and hand-wringing displayed in this thread about whether the camera's base-plate latching mechanism will soon or eventually fail in the way that Bill Hollinger's M8 did in the OP.

 

I think there's something that M8 owners who are concerned can do to help them to sleep better at night.

 

When the base plate is attached to the camera, the action of closing the latch forces the runner into the space between the body and the sill that holds the base plate in place. This runner (rightly) introduces a degree of stress to the underside of the sill to keep the base plate tight onto the camera. So while the base plate is on the camera the sill is under a degree of stress (which is not a problem because metal is designed to withstand the forces produced by stress).

 

But if you're concerned about failure of the latching mechanism then leave the camera's base plate off the camera or undone when the camera's not in use. This will remove the stress that could contribute to eventual metal fatigue.

 

(I will add that I personally see no need to do this but if it will help someone sleep better then they should consider it. )

 

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest flatfour]

I have been reading these comments since almost the first and I still can't see that there is much loading on the broken section. I don't have an M8 but the broken piece seems to me to be more of a light trap than a stress bearing part. Of course if the camera fell off the tripod and the plate detached there could be a very sharp knock to this - as Bill says - somewhat brittle structure. It doesn't seem to add up to me, or am I being blind ?

[farnz]

I have been reading these comments since almost the first and I still can't see that there is much loading on the broken section. I don't have an M8 but the broken piece seems to me to be more of a light trap than a stress bearing part. Of course if the camera fell off the tripod and the plate detached there could be a very sharp knock to this - as Bill says - somewhat brittle structure. It doesn't seem to add up to me, or am I being blind ?

Anthony,

 

I agree with you, which is why I said "... a degree of stress ...". It's not very much but it is there and will contribute to a failure although not necessarily cause one.

 

Pete.