Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ken_tanaka

A Poor Record for the M8 in the Antarctic

Recommended Posts

I'm quite surprised here, the Canons are sports cameras that are actually rated for rain, hours of it, by the manufacturer. And in Japan itself the humidity during rainy season is pervasive. Something seems to have gone seriously with the 1Ds2.

 

Edmund

 

A number of the Canons had problems on the LL trip, but when you read what people were doing with them -- wandering around South Georgia in the rain, without protection, water streaming off their cameras, you can't be too surprised. For electronic machines

JC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a type of dog, apparently.

 

 

Yeah, it's a Dog:)

 

Here's a link:

 

Riesenschnauzer

 

My family has had them since the 40-ties.

 

Sorry I spelled the name in Swedish, It's Riesenschnauzer. Or Giant Schnauzer I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Nikon user, as well as an M8 owner, so I was pleased with the non-failure rate, but I also wouldn't be too suprised if most of those D200s were backup cameras, and so didn't get a front-line beating.

John, I agree with your thoughts about the M8. I love the camera but I wouldn't rely only on it (even with a second one as a backup) for such trips.

I'd have some reserves also for the DMR, which I love to death otherwise.

I'd be more confident with a couple of Canon's, or better Nikon's.

 

As for the D200 being backup cameras, from M.Reichmann's words I understand the contrary.

He wrote: "There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures".

 

I gifted my brother with a D200 last year and I have to say that it is very well built indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your position I would probably feel the same, but I feel it is not quite fair to pin this on an unsealed camera taken into a harsh environment. /QUOTE]

 

Jaap,

 

Brent was not citing that as an example when he said he will not take his M8 on a job - rather it is his personal experience with the M8. He has had two M8 failures so far and is waiting for the third to arrive. He would have to be delusional not to be very wary at this point. I totally agree with him. I hate toting those big heavy Canons and lenses around with me, but until all these failures are sorted out and we finally feel comfortable with the reliability, I doubt many people will want to put themselves in a position where they must rely on one (or perhaps even two or more) M8 bodies.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid the overall point is, you can't rely on the M8. It's wonderful to use, the photos can be astonishing, and it breaks down way too often. Despite the apologists on this forum, I think most of us realize that by now. If I were a pro, I wouldn't count on being able to finish a shoot with M8s, even with a backup; I'd want at least three bodies, and maybe four. With a Canon or a Nikon, I'd feel safe with two.

 

A number of the Canons had problems on the LL trip, but when you read what people were doing with them -- wandering around South Georgia in the rain, without protection, water streaming off their cameras, you can't be too surprised. For electronic machines with moving parts, there is a limit.

 

I'm a Nikon user, as well as an M8 owner, so I was pleased with the non-failure rate, but I also wouldn't be too suprised if most of those D200s were backup cameras, and so didn't get a front-line beating.

 

The LL article (or maybe the discussion of the article) says that there was one film shooter -- he lost his luggage, and had only three rolls of film for the entire trip.

 

I don't have a poblem with a bunch of people go on a photo trip like this. I wouldn't want to do it too often, but it sounds like it'd be fun once in a while.

 

JC

 

 

That's ridiculous, and the sample size here is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. You saying, "it breaks down way too often", is meaningless in this context.

 

Look, most digital stuff now is all the same, really. The manufacturer of the part TELLS you how to interface to the chips, and you follow their playbook. That's pretty much it. That means that at least ninty-five percent of the design work is done for you, and it also means that, like it or not, the electronics in a Canon/Nikon/Oly/Sony/PanaLeica are all about the same. The same tolerances, the same PC board materials, the same design on power supplies.

 

The differences are in lenses and body shape - that's about it.

 

So, if a camera is "failing", it is likely "failing" under the same conditions that a lot of other similar things would fail under.

 

I don't expect a lot of people on here to be involved in electronics and or mechanical design, but I DO expect clear thinking. I do expect more of a person than simplistic and badly thought out arguments. I'm not an apologist for Leica, I still find the need to have an IR filter on a lens or risk color shifting to be a badly thought out annoyance. However, letting people say things that apparently just fell out of their brains onto the floor without challenge is anathema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, it's a Dog:)

 

Here's a link:

 

Riesenschnauzer

 

My family has had them since the 40-ties.

 

Sorry I spelled the name in Swedish, It's Riesenschnauzer. Or Giant Schnauzer I guess.

 

Neat! One of these guys lives behind us. His name is Otto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway this guy was the most unlucky...

 

One person was shooting film, with a Mamiya 7 II, but since his luggage was lost on the way to Argentina he only had 3 rolls of film for the entire trip.

 

Could you image to have only 30 frames at disposal for 20 days overthere ?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite surprised here, the Canons are sports cameras that are actually rated for rain, hours of it, by the manufacturer. And in Japan itself the humidity during rainy season is pervasive. Something seems to have gone seriously with the 1Ds2.

 

Edmund

 

Keeping water OUT of a camera isn't the same as keeping water already in the camera from leaving the vapor state and becoming a liquid and or a solid.

 

In other words, when a camera is "involved" in a humid atmosphere, say you brought it thru a tropical atmosphere before you got to the Antarctic, and you changed memory cards or batteries in that warm, humid atmosphere, then the inside of the camera is "charged" with water vapor. As long as it stays a vapor, kewl.

 

However, it won't stay a vapor.

 

You bring the camera from your warm, most point of departure onto a ship, and the ship heads south. All well and good, because the camera and the ship are still warm. You make the situation worse by taking pix of the other photogs out on deck while still in warm waters, and you probably get even more warm, moist air into the camera. You go back inside, leave the camera, and as the outside temp decreases the ship is buttoned up and humidity in the ship goes up even more - because people are still breathing. The camera is, maybe, "weather sealed", but not sealed against water vapor.

 

Now you decide to go outside and take pix of icebergs. The temp drops drastically and the water vapor in the camera condenses. The water can't get out because of the weather seals. Every time you go back into the ship the situation gets worse, because while a lot of the water liquid goes back to vapor, not all of it necessarily will. So the camera gets another dose of humidity inside the ship, and more water in liquid form will build up, somewhere, every time you go outside.

 

Actually, in this kind of a situation, NOT having weather seals might be a better deal because water in liquid form might have a better chance of getting out of the body before it builds up, runs over and shorts something out.

 

 

Dana Curtis Kincaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also I would probably feel a bit like doing "Malen nach Zahlen", I dont know the english word, but it means paiting by connecting points which have numbers, and in the end there is an image.

Thomas--

Your description sounds like "connect the dots," where one starts with a piece of paper blank except for numbered dots, then draws a line from one number to the next consecutively. ("Connect the dots" has an extended use implying 'Use your head, the answer is right in front of you': "It's clear who's responsible, just connect the dots.")

 

The actual phrase "Malen nach Zahlen" reminds of a similar phrase that Jaap posted, "paint by numbers," which refers to a sheet of paper/canvas with various areas dileneated, each containing a number onto which one paints a specific color based on that number, e.g. fill all sections labeled '1' with yellow, fill all sections labeled '2' with blue, etc.

 

In 'paint by numbers,' one ends up with a copy of a recognized art work.

 

In 'connect the dots,' a previously unseen line drawing emerges.

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's ridiculous, and the sample size here is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. You saying, "it breaks down way too often", is meaningless in this context.

 

The differences are in lenses and body shape - that's about it.

 

.

 

 

If Leica sold a thousand M8's and only 100 of those owners posted on this site and 60% of them had problems then likely that percentage or close to it would also be in the other 900 sold.

 

Also if you think that the only difference in cameras is the shape of the body and lenses then you have a lot to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's ridiculous, and the sample size here is so small as to be statistically irrelevant. You saying, "it breaks down way too often", is meaningless in this context.

 

Look, most digital stuff now is all the same, really. The manufacturer of the part TELLS you how to interface to the chips, and you follow their playbook. That's pretty much it. That means that at least ninty-five percent of the design work is done for you, and it also means that, like it or not, the electronics in a Canon/Nikon/Oly/Sony/PanaLeica are all about the same. The same tolerances, the same PC board materials, the same design on power supplies.

 

The differences are in lenses and body shape - that's about it.

 

So, if a camera is "failing", it is likely "failing" under the same conditions that a lot of other similar things would fail under.

 

I don't expect a lot of people on here to be involved in electronics and or mechanical design, but I DO expect clear thinking. I do expect more of a person than simplistic and badly thought out arguments. I'm not an apologist for Leica, I still find the need to have an IR filter on a lens or risk color shifting to be a badly thought out annoyance. However, letting people say things that apparently just fell out of their brains onto the floor without challenge is anathema.

 

This is not even wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, guys!

 

The M8 has been on the market for 4 months.

 

As pointed out by Larry above, the first AE-1's had a high failure rate, but Canon survived.

 

If I'm not in error, the early M3's also were rather unreliable; but today many of us feel that camera is our most reliable piece of equipment.

 

Yes, the M8 today is less reliable than we would like, but we are the early adopters and enthusiasts, the beta testers. We will find the problems first, and Leica will fix them.

 

Don't say, "I wouldn't trust the M8, I'd definitely have a backup camera along," unless you affix the word "today." You are right, the M8 hasn't proven itself in its first four months.

 

But it's too early to write the M8 off as a professional camera. You can't predict the future, but someone idly perusing this forum could easily get the idea that, "Hey, the people on the Leica Forum are saying that the M8 just isn't up to snuff."

 

And it's too early for that!

 

--HC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Leica sold a thousand M8's and only 100 of those owners posted on this site and 60% of them had problems then likely that percentage or close to it would also be in the other 900 sold.

 

Also if you think that the only difference in cameras is the shape of the body and lenses then you have a lot to learn.

 

"Also if you think that the only difference in cameras is the shape of the body and lenses then you have a lot to learn."

 

Not really. I would be over my head regarding mechanical design, but not in electronics. For example, even shutters are built to fit multiple brands of cameras these days. Switches are too. It is way, way too expensive to custom make every button, motor, LED and sensor, so even an expensive object like an M8 will have many catalog parts that half a thousand other designs are using as well. Caps, ICs, resistors, PC boards, LEDs, switches, ribbon cable aren't custom made unless you absolutely HAVE to have something out of the ordinary.

 

"If Leica sold a thousand M8's and only 100 of those owners posted on this site and 60% of them had problems then likely that percentage or close to it would also be in the other 900 sold."

 

That's an axiom. Unfortunately it is an axiom based on an assumption. You are assuming that all one thousand cameras are all the same. You are failing do discount any number of variables such as:

 

"The sixty owners of the cameras with problems are early adopters and Leica changed x after number sixty came off the assembly line."

 

You are making a blanket statement based on the same sort of logic that led members of Congress to say that Terry Schaivo's brain hadn't turned to mush, just because they saw a video tape.

 

For example, a certain number of Porsche 944 Turbos had exhaust manifold cracking problems. By your logic, if 1000 Porsche Turbos were sold, one hundred people posted experiences on web boards, and sixty of those one hundred said their their exhaust manifolds had cracked, then by your (faulty) logic, sixty percent of the one thousand 944 Turbos would have cracked manifolds. However, Porsche fixed the problem at some time in the sample, some of the thousand cars will have the fix and some will not, so your logic falls completely apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Also if you think that the only difference in cameras is the shape of the body and lenses then you have a lot to learn."

 

Not really. I would be over my head regarding mechanical design, but not in electronics.

 

"If Leica sold a thousand M8's and only 100 of those owners posted on this site and 60% of them had problems then likely that percentage or close to it would also be in the other 900 sold."

 

That's an axiom. Unfortunately it is an axiom based on an assumption. You are assuming that all one thousand cameras are all the same. You are failing do discount any number of variables such as:

 

"The sixty owners of the cameras with problems are early adopters and Leica changed x after number sixty came off the assembly line."

 

You are making a blanket statement based on the same sort of logic that led members of Congress to say that Terry Schaivo's brain hadn't turned to mush, just because they saw a video tape.

 

For example, a certain number of Porsche 944 Turbos had exhaust manifold cracking problems. By your logic, if 1000 Porsche Turbos were sold, one hundred people posted experiences on web boards, and sixty of those one hundred said their their exhaust manifolds had cracked, then by your (faulty) logic, sixty percent of the one thousand 944 Turbos would have cracked manifolds. However, Porsche fixed the problem at some time in the sample, some of the thousand cars will have the fix and some will not, so your logic falls completely apart.

 

 

You forget one thing: owners of broken down articles are more likely to complain on the Internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm quite surprised here, the Canons are sports cameras that are actually rated for rain, hours of it, by the manufacturer. And in Japan itself the humidity during rainy season is pervasive. Something seems to have gone seriously with the 1Ds2.

 

Edmund

I had a 1ds fail completely in heavy rain in Brazil - the camera was a total loss. User error: I had a non-sealed lens (24mm ts) on the body. The weather sealing only works with a sealed lens and then only if a filter is screwed on it. The salt spray going back and forth in a Zodiac is probably worse than the cold.

 

One or two failures out of four bodies is a very poor showing on Leica's part. I have no trouble with mine but I wouldn't be without a second body as a backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a 1ds fail completely in heavy rain in Brazil - the camera was a total loss. User error: I had a non-sealed lens (24mm ts) on the body. The weather sealing only works with a sealed lens and then only if a filter is screwed on it. The salt spray going back and forth in a Zodiac is probably worse than the cold.

 

Most of the participants in the group photograph have non-sealed lenses on their cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I haven't forgotten it, nor does it prove a point.

 

Nor does any other statement based on forum postings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×