wlaidlaw Posted May 28, 2007 Share #81 Posted May 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the meaning of the word "fatigue" should be emphasised again. If something fails due to fatigue then that means it has failed due to having been stressed many times. People here seem to say "many Ms but just one failure, thus no problem". If however we are looking at a fatigue problem then it is more a matter of time rather than of having many samples. The number of cases may increase drastically as the first Ms (that get used with tripod and/or grip) get a bit older. Just a comment on the statistics/probability side of things - I sure hope it is not an issue. Guido, I fear you may be right. My gut feeling is that the high stress episodes, which will lead to these failures are tightening the latch, when the base plate is improperly seated on the rectangular lug on the opposite end of the body to the latch, rather than use on a tripod. Once it has cracked, then use on a tripod will probably be 'the straw which breaks the camel's back' and lead to the actual failure. I am very sensitive to fatigue failures, as in 40 years of racing cars, I have only had two major accidents, both caused by fatigue failures. A failed rear wing support strut put me in hospital for three months and a failed titanium ball joint on a rear track control arm resulted in my now having a metal right ankle joint. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 28, 2007 Posted May 28, 2007 Hi wlaidlaw, Take a look here M9 on tripod - bottom part broken anyone else ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Cindy Flood Posted May 28, 2007 Share #82 Posted May 28, 2007 I would guess that some M8's are more prone to the plate not engaging than others. I never once had a problem putting the plate on my first M8. It engaged in the lug and locked very easily. My second M8 has a plate with a very difficult fit. I put it on over the lug first and push it on. It is a very tight fit and sometimes It is not fully engaged over the lug, even though I can see the lug sticking out of the hole. Then it is really hard to get it off. I now have realized that I need to press the bottom near the lug and make sure that it is really totally in the lug hole. I am now really careful about mounting it correctly as I do put my M8 on a tripod. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted May 28, 2007 Share #83 Posted May 28, 2007 I would guess that some M8's are more prone to the plate not engaging than others. I never once had a problem putting the plate on my first M8. It engaged in the lug and locked very easily. My second M8 has a plate with a very difficult fit. I put it on over the lug first and push it on. It is a very tight fit and sometimes It is not fully engaged over the lug, even though I can see the lug sticking out of the hole. Then it is really hard to get it off. I now have realized that I need to press the bottom near the lug and make sure that it is really totally in the lug hole. I am now really careful about mounting it correctly as I do put my M8 on a tripod. Cindy, Some very gentle work with a set of super-fine locksmith's warding files on the base plate slot, might be called for in your case. My non-handle base is much tighter than my handle one but as the non-handle one is the one with a Manfrotto plate on it, only fitted for very occasional tripod use, I can live with it. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sprow Posted May 28, 2007 Share #84 Posted May 28, 2007 At the risk of seeming grouchy (particularly on Memorial Day here in the US), could we wait awhile to see if this happens to other cameras before too many non-engineers redesign the camera to fix what may be a non-problem. I've used my M8 at least 50 times on a tripod with no problem (or particular concern about future use). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 28, 2007 Share #85 Posted May 28, 2007 Frank, it is not yet a major problem - if the latch is properly engaged on both sides or there are no other causes of stress induced. But - and I can state this as a Professional Engineer - it is a suboptimal design; way inferior to previous models. We are human, we make mistakes. Even Leica does. This should be rectified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted May 28, 2007 Share #86 Posted May 28, 2007 As a landscape photographer I use a tripood for probably 90% of my images. I use an arca swiss style baseplate which stays on the camera all of the time. Thus putting the camera on and off the tripod is done with virtually no stress. The plate I use also contains a wonderful wrist strap for when shooting hand held. I posted some photos of it on the thread about Luigi's half case for those who may be interested. Woody Spedden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted May 28, 2007 Share #87 Posted May 28, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) [quote=george;267014 But - and I can state this as a Professional Engineer - it is a suboptimal design; way inferior to previous models. George, Are you a structural engineer, a materials and processes engineer, or engaged in a similar field that's applicable to the problem? I happen to agree with your assessment based on my limited knowledge of both the problem and the engineering involved. (I'm an industrial designer by training and have considerable work experience.) However, a clarification of your credentials would be helpful to give credence to your statement considering how much is at stake and the number of posts in this thread that strike me as simply hand-wringing BS. There are too many factors involved in the design and production of the M8's cast frame to draw any conclusions based on the photos of one failure. Thanks, Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 28, 2007 Share #88 Posted May 28, 2007 Larry, I am (was) a structural engineer. And we could go into details of how the previous design generated some shear on the closure pins while this can generate a significant torque on a relatively thin bottom of a cast. And because the difference in distances from the fulcrum point, the force is much greater on the current design. But you do not have to be an engineer to see that - I was responding only to a previous post. Common sense tells us that if we can fasten the latch on one end without engaging the pin or plate on the other end then we are creating a significantly increased structural exposure. This is a suboptimal design, ceterum censeo, it should be fixed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted May 28, 2007 Share #89 Posted May 28, 2007 .........This is a suboptimal design, ceterum censeo, it should be fixed. It may or may not be a suboptimal design, but that doesn't not necessarily mean it should be fixed. We are hand wringing about ONE failure. The failure could have originated from a product defect, or possible damage. It is not necessary to redesign a product because of one failure of unknown origin. That doesn't mean I haven't looked at the condition of my casting. It appears to be sound at the stress point. The overall fit seems to be good. I'll be back to you in 5 years or so unless I have a failure. Then we will have two samples for our statistical analysis. Rex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted May 28, 2007 Share #90 Posted May 28, 2007 George, Thanks for your reply, and as I stated, I'm in agreement with your overall assessment as well as regarding what can potentially occur if the baseplate isn't properly engaged. (I also pointed out this problem quite early in this thread.) That said, I'm not the least bit concerned that casting failures will become a widespread -- or even occasional -- problem with the M8. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 28, 2007 Share #91 Posted May 28, 2007 Rex, if you are so confident in the design then why don't you close the latch improperly - which is possible with this design - and then grab the camera by the handgrip and turn it around? But do it over a pillow please. I hate to sound like a complainer that I am not. As some of you may know, I usually take Leica's side. They created an excellent instrument and are fixing the outstanding problems. And I am willing to wait. But, as you may have read before, IMHO this is a suboptimal design that caters to a failure. And not attending to such is not in the Leica tradition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted May 28, 2007 Share #92 Posted May 28, 2007 Rather than call it suboptimal, at this point I would characterise it as merely not being fool-proof, as one has clearly demonstrated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 28, 2007 Share #93 Posted May 28, 2007 I translate suboptimal to mean "could be better" but NOT "containing an inherent and fatal design flaw". Anyone care to disagree or can we move on past the "suboptimal" term? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 28, 2007 Share #94 Posted May 28, 2007 Pete, I just wanted to be polite indicating that it is IMHO less than perfect. Would we be discussing this face to face, I would not hesitate calling it a lousy design of a small detail. Something that eventually has to be fixed by people of technical self-respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 28, 2007 Share #95 Posted May 28, 2007 George, I understand. Otoh, if there has only been 1 reported failure in however-many thousand units sold over 6 months then at this stage it doesn't qualify as a serious design flaw that warrants urgent attention. I would far rather Solms continued its committment to fixing the issues on Guy's list before turning its attention to this. As the saying goes: "If it ain't broke: don't fix it." Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
george + Posted May 28, 2007 Share #96 Posted May 28, 2007 Pete, no argument here. I suggested that Bill, or rather his camera, be made whole, and be done so fast. Then it is up to Leica when, or if, they want to fix the cause. As long - and only as long - that they fix all occurrences in a speedy fashion. And they have been pretty good at similar things in the past. That is why we keep buying their stuff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted May 29, 2007 Share #97 Posted May 29, 2007 Leica should simply change the latch design to be like the M6 and other film Ms. Less room for error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHOTOEIL Posted June 4, 2007 Share #98 Posted June 4, 2007 First, I am NOT an engineer, nor an industrial designer (*) and had no decent technical training, I am just a professional photographer observing and using the tools offered by several manufacturers. But, IMHO, I do repeat IMHO, indeed, as an 'end user', I should not have to worry about any kind of possible 'material fatigues' ore alike. What I see is that Leica worked the other way around. They started from an existing 'shell', the M3 design, and modified it to have some digital technology fitted in. Other brands just take, and design, what is needed for digital imaging, and put an adapted 'shell' around it that might somewhat look like the last SLR they made. This is, IMHO, the price we and Leica pay for tradition and a 'cool positive headstrong attitude'. Yes the M8 is absolutely NOT designed like all the other digital camera's, and I think we have to be grateful for this, otherwise Orwell's 1984 is waiting at the next corner... I am confident that Leica knows what they are doing, but, just like the first Mercedes A, a lot has to (and will) be done, I hope so... Philippe (*) this duos not mean that I dislike these people, on the contrary... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 4, 2007 Share #99 Posted June 4, 2007 One failure in over five thousand cameras. Possibly due to overstressing it by improper use, possibly due to casting error. I think it is a bit over the top to cry "faulty design" right now. Having said that, it would have been better imo if they had followed the original M3 design of the locating lug, it is more user friendly and possibly more robust. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted June 4, 2007 Author Share #100 Posted June 4, 2007 One failure in over five thousand cameras. Possibly due to overstressing it by improper use,..... Would you can to offer specifics about your speculation that it was used “improperly”? It was placed on a tripod and pointed down at an angle to keep dust from falling on the lens. It was latched correctly. I have been using these camera since the 1960s, and have used a variety of tripods with everything from Leica Ms to 8 x 10 view cameras, and none have failed before this. Perhaps when it back focuses I am also using it improperly? And the pretty magenta blacks are my doing too, as was the sudden death of M8 number 1 a couple of days after it arrived? Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.