newyorkone Posted June 15, 2007 Share #21 Posted June 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It must be satisfying indeed to be the head of a company where customers thank you for not charging them for warranty repairs on their $5000 camera you've kept from them for two and a half months. Indeed, YES, the companies that still have a soul and don't just mass produce junk and destroy the world in the process, get a little more benefit of the doubt in my book. Just IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Hi newyorkone, Take a look here M8 Shutter Blade fracture. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
reven Posted June 15, 2007 Share #22 Posted June 15, 2007 Looks like I don't have that luck... here they wanted to charge a lot of money on, warranty repairs, but I'm really frefusing to pay any cent... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2007 Share #23 Posted June 15, 2007 It must be satisfying indeed to be the head of a company where customers thank you for not charging them for warranty repairs on their $5000 camera you've kept from them for two and a half months. I can quite see why a less scrupulous company would classify this as " mechanical damage not covered by warranty". A thank you is indeed fitting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laki Posted June 15, 2007 Share #24 Posted June 15, 2007 About 10 weeks later, in comes Fritz (no longer on the fritz) from the fatherland. Replaced shutter, November early adopter syndrome operational upgrade, firmware topped up to current.......all no charge. thankyou Leica. Lucky for me I wasn't charged by Canada Customs for smuggling dust on the sensor from Germany:rolleyes: Robert interesting choice of words you use...sounds quite old minded and not funny at all. you should just be glad they didnt charge you, though i doubt they will be still that generous while reading posts like yours with those terms you use. i wouldnt be that generous in their place. oh and btw, the shutter looks it it was damaged by some lens, so i dont think it leicas fault when people are not able to check the compatibility list of lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted June 15, 2007 Share #25 Posted June 15, 2007 the shutter looks it it was damaged by some lens, so i dont think it leicas fault when people are not able to check the compatibility list of lenses. If you take the trouble to read the thread, Laki, he's been quite clear that he doesn't even own an incompatible lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2007 Share #26 Posted June 15, 2007 If you take the trouble to read the thread, Laki, he's been quite clear that he doesn't even own an incompatible lens. But it is clear that something must have caused the mechanical damage to that shutter. Whatever it was, it is really good service not to exclude that from the guarantee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Lad Posted June 15, 2007 Share #27 Posted June 15, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) interesting choice of words you use...sounds quite old minded and not funny at all. ................................................................................... I think you are reading too much into the words, I am sure neelin did not mean any offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laki Posted June 15, 2007 Share #28 Posted June 15, 2007 If you take the trouble to read the thread, Laki, he's been quite clear that he doesn't even own an incompatible lens. i did read the whole thread, so what? the photo shows that the blade was touched by something and because he says he doesnt own any incompatible lens, does that mean that the blade was broken by the hand of god? LMAO saying is one thing, believeing another Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laki Posted June 15, 2007 Share #29 Posted June 15, 2007 I think you are reading too much into the words, I am sure neelin did not mean any offence. ok, if he didnt mean it, then it comes out the worng way. those terms have a special meaning and are way differetn of the normal language used. i m not german but was born in germany, live there and have my company there, so i might be more sensible on jokes like that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 15, 2007 Share #30 Posted June 15, 2007 i did read the whole thread, so what? the photo shows that the blade was touched by something and because he says he doesnt own any incompatible lens, does that mean that the blade was broken by the hand of god? LMAO saying is one thing, believeing another Just look at the photograph: the hand of God is a lot more gentle and does not produce puncture marks and a tear in the blade. So some mechanical influence must have done it. Was it a lens? No, not only judging by the post but also by the nature of the damage. It is hard to see how a lens could produce that. Was it some foreign object that entered the camera mouth unnoticed? Maybe but not likely. A residual piece of matter from the manufacturing process? The most likely explanation. But my point was not that. It was that most camera makers would have told him: "This is mechanical damage by user error - see your insurance agent." Regardless of how unfair that might be. Leica clearly had another attitude. Kudos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted June 15, 2007 Share #31 Posted June 15, 2007 i did read the whole thread, so what? the photo shows that the blade was touched by something and because he says he doesnt own any incompatible lens, does that mean that the blade was broken by the hand of god? LMAO saying is one thing, believeing another So let's get this straight - you prefer an impossible explanation (that a lens that was never on the camera caused the damage) to an implausible one (that the hand of God did it)? Focusing on causes which have already been eliminated does not move the discussion forward in any way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reven Posted June 15, 2007 Share #32 Posted June 15, 2007 You really don't have to touch these shutters at all. They have a very bad quality and I saw a new one, which had a very similar fracture... Just after opening the box... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laki Posted June 15, 2007 Share #33 Posted June 15, 2007 So let's get this straight - you prefer an impossible explanation (that a lens that was never on the camera caused the damage) to an implausible one (that the hand of God did it)? Focusing on causes which have already been eliminated does not move the discussion forward in any way. so you know exactly what lenses where on that camera? or what happened while cleaning the sensor? so it must have a self destruction build in...case closed for me, useless to discuss, he should be happy that it cost him nothing to get it repaired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 15, 2007 Share #34 Posted June 15, 2007 My guess (since that's what we're doing) is that Leica knew the reason for the breakage was shutter failure and not abuse. Maybe that is why they repaired it under warranty. The owner didn't give any indication that Leica claimed the owner caused it. And the owner says he is not aware of doing anything that could damage it. Why would he have made this post inthe first place if he knew he had done something to cause the damage? - wrong lens, mishap while cleaning, etc.. I've had leaf shutter blades tear and there was no way that anything could have touched them. (Except another balde.) Why can't this be true with focal plane blades? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted June 15, 2007 Share #35 Posted June 15, 2007 so you know exactly what lenses where on that camera? You said you read the thread, so, like me, you know exactly what lenses were on the camera, because Robert gave us all the complete list - here's the quote: I've got the cv 50/1.5, 40/1.4, 28/1.9, 15/4.5 & the Canon 50/0.95 none of which can be rotated/pivoted in any way to get in here (i checked including close/far focus.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neelin Posted June 16, 2007 Author Share #36 Posted June 16, 2007 Yes on the language issue I'm probably guilty. I do have a sarcastic streak in me (ONLY on the dust coming back on the sensor, but none intended elsewhere.) I do thank Leica & I did like the camera enough to buy a second because I knew I wouldn't be getting the repair done quickly. On April 24th on another thread I found what I think caused the damage, but I'm not sure, and I do have to thank Leica for "eating" the repair on something that they could have been sticky about. here's the other: Here's my "MagnaLux 21mm f/120" from Leica goodies. WARNING***what I now suspect fractured the shutter on my M8 (Franz is off getting fixed, but I picked up Frankie to keep me company) was one of the tabs of the body (leica goodies spin) cap breaking off & falling into the camera unbeknownst to be**** Leica User Forum I can't think of a more reliable sensor dust mapper than a pinhole lens. > OMG! I can just see it now New Lieca business opportunity xxxxx Pinhole, M mount .1mm f/120.5, brings up 28mm lines, available black or chrome $500.00 SRP I gotta get one -bob That's a bargain compared to the 21mm-480mm zoom pinhole [coded of course] Robert ....as you can see the LeicaGoodies bodycap turned pinhole lense upon inspection is missing part of a plastic tab that locks into the body. I suspect this was loose inside the camera for a while although I never suspected this before I sent it off for repair. I hope you can forgive me for not including the pinhole lens in the combo that I had on the camera, it's easy to forget because I kind of don't treat it seriously as a lens. In any event, I can't say for sure the missing tab was ever on the pinhole lens but at this point to me it seems like the most plausible explanation IF it was caused by an action of mine. Lighten up, anybody want to buy a rangefinder coupled 21-480mm zoom pinhole with an M mount & coded? (no it's not empty rolls of toilet paper & duct tape, that's just it's anti-theft disguise ) Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted June 16, 2007 Share #37 Posted June 16, 2007 I had the same situation as I referenced earlier in this thread. I can totally guarantee that no lens other than 34 'cron and CV 15 and 25 (all purchased new) have ever been on this camera, and I have never cleaned the sensor or entered the shutter chamber in any way. The shutter developed a split in one of the leaves completely on its own. My guess is some stray particle from either the manufacturing process or subsequent disintegration caused it. This was an early November model. It has been back at Leica since April 3 and is supposedly on its way back to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laki Posted June 16, 2007 Share #38 Posted June 16, 2007 You said you read the thread, so, like me, you know exactly what lenses were on the camera, because Robert gave us all the complete list - here's the quote: I've got the cv 50/1.5, 40/1.4, 28/1.9, 15/4.5 & the Canon 50/0.95 none of which can be rotated/pivoted in any way to get in here (i checked including close/far focus.) so now read roberts explanation under your post and then maybe chill out.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted June 16, 2007 Share #39 Posted June 16, 2007 As I read Robert's post, he's saying that the problem may have been caused by a piece of plastic breaking off of a body cap. A body cap is of course neither a lens nor incompatible (the camera comes supplied with one!), even when it has a hole in it, so the list of incompatible lenses, which you recommended reading as a way to avoid this problem, would not have advised against using a body cap and would not have prevented the damage. This kind of problem isn't unique to M8s, by the way. I had a body cap mounting flange fracture on an M3 and damage its cloth shutter, requiring a repair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.