M240 and X1 dead after flight

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good point PeterP

 

I also travel extensively and have for 45 years with all kinds of camera gear. I take 2 carry ons in the US (TSA) and also US-Europe and elsewhere and the TSA sometimes looks and often do not look, even though I have 2-3 Leica M digital bodies with many lenses and 2 Hasselblad bodies plus lenses and have never had an issue with the TSA or any other countries inspectors except Germany who wanted to see everything. So I showed them everything and went on my way.

[Guest redge]

The advice from person after person in this thread to the effect that one has to be an Idiot to check a camera containing electronics raises a question.

 

It's my understanding that professional photographers and videographers/video crews fairly routinely check their gear. I've frequently seen this myself as luggage comes out on baggage carousels.

 

Some months ago, I checked a digital Nikon camera and lenses and some quite expensive digital sound recording equipment for the simple reason that I was not prepared to carry all this stuff into the cabin. Although I'm insured, there was no damage at all. And it wasn't the first time.

 

It just strains credulity to think that people are walking onto planes with dedicated video cameras and sound gear. I'm willing to wager that it isn't true, and further that they aren't always sending it in advance on cargo flights (which according to some posts here are also an issue). I've personally seen photo crews picking up this kind of gear on carousels on several occasions.

 

Am I wrong about this?

[barjohn]

Probably a few major differences. First, they are packed in shipping containers designed to withstand severe abuse and still protect the contents, second, they probably are well insured and they have back up copies in case something does do wrong and the cases are usually marked as fragile to ensure handlers are aware that the contents are breakable and to encourage better treatment.

 

We ship fragile and expensive electronic test equipment all over the world and it is often in the checked luggage of our technicians being sent to fix a problem. It is extremely well packed in cases with wheels and handles and everything is in foam cutouts designed to specifically protect the item from shock and damage. Very few problems so far (about 10 years that I have been involved).

 

On the other hand, my personal gear is never checked for two reasons: 1) I don't want it damaged and 2) I don't want it stolen and have the burden to prove that some baggage handler or TSA agent took it.

[Guest redge]

Probably a few major differences. First, they are packed in shipping containers designed to withstand severe abuse and still protect the contents, second, they probably are well insured and they have back up copies in case something does do wrong and the cases are usually marked as fragile to ensure handlers are aware that the contents are breakable and to encourage better treatment.

 

We ship fragile and expensive electronic test equipment all over the world and it is often in the checked luggage of our technicians being sent to fix a problem. It is extremely well packed in cases with wheels and handles and everything is in foam cutouts designed to specifically protect the item from shock and damage. Very few problems so far (about 10 years that I have been involved).

 

On the other hand, my personal gear is never checked for two reasons: 1) I don't want it damaged and 2) I don't want it stolen and have the burden to prove that some baggage handler or TSA agent took it.

 

What you are saying is pretty much my own understanding, The issues are physical damage and theft.

 

Those are quite different issues from the claims in this thread. I think that it is important, from the perspective of a reality check, that you have for ten years successfully shipped "fragile and expensive test equipment all over the world ... often in checked luggage".

[Fotofanatiker]

Leica will have to replace the electronic guts which might be expensive.

 

Maybe you can draw a couple of nice typefaces for them and get the electronics replaced for free in return...

[barjohn]

Yes and no, damage to the electronic components is physical damage. Shock, vibration, temperature and X-Rays all do physical damage to electronic circuits and to fragile connectors like delicate ribbon cables with pressure latches. Lots of those in most cameras. While damage to the EEPROM is possible, I would think it is the least likely cause unless it induced a large current arc that caused the EEPROM to change. Having seen how baggage handlers throw luggage around and seen it miss carts or fall from the top of highly stacked carts, shock is a more likely culprit.

[PeterP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Probably a few major differences. First, they are packed in shipping containers designed to withstand severe abuse and still protect the contents, second, they probably are well insured and they have back up copies in case something does do wrong and the cases are usually marked as fragile to ensure handlers are aware that the contents are breakable and to encourage better treatment.

 

We ship fragile and expensive electronic test equipment all over the world and it is often in the checked luggage of our technicians being sent to fix a problem. It is extremely well packed in cases with wheels and handles and everything is in foam cutouts designed to specifically protect the item from shock and damage. Very few problems so far (about 10 years that I have been involved).

 

On the other hand, my personal gear is never checked for two reasons: 1) I don't want it damaged and 2) I don't want it stolen and have the burden to prove that some baggage handler or TSA agent took it.

I agree John, my major concern is theft. I either carry on or pre ship FedEx in proper cases, I would not dream of packing my gear in the luggage!

[Guest redge]

I agree John, my major concern is theft. I either carry on or pre ship FedEx in proper cases, I would not dream of packing my gear in the luggage!

 

Surely this depends on one's departure and arrival airport and whether it is a non-stop flight. If I'm flying from St. John's, Newfoundland to Deer Lake I am not going to be too worried about theft.

 

Yes, I'm inclined to carry my rather expensive film and sound gear on my person, but there are situations where it's a hassle and I'm just not going to do it.

 

I have enough problems dealing with current checked baggage limits, given that they have now become airline profit centres.

 

In my view, some of the comments in this thread border on hysterical. Kind of like the nut case stuff that went on for years, and still goes on, about the alleged perils of running 400 ASA film (or indeed 100 ASA film) through carry-on X-Ray.

[PeterP]

Surely this depends on one's departure and arrival airport and whether it is a non-stop flight. If I'm flying from St. John's, Newfoundland to Deer Lake I am not going to be too worried about theft.

 

Yes, I'm inclined to carry my rather expensive film and sound gear on my person, but there are situations where it's a hassle and I'm just not going to do it.

 

I have enough problems dealing with current checked baggage limits, given that they have now become airline profit centres.

 

In my view, some of the comments in this thread border on hysterical. Kind of like the nut case stuff that went on for years, and still goes on, about the alleged perils of running 400 ASA film (or indeed 100 ASA film) through carry-on X-Ray.

 

Redge, this certainly isn't a topic that is worthy of extensive discussion. That said if I am traveling with $25k+ worth of photo equipment I am going to worry about theft. Even if insured the hassle and inconvenience is far too great. Irrespective of how short or long a flight, theft or damage can occur. For that simple treason I prefer to err on the side of caution, irrespective of baggage handling costs!

[Guest redge]

Redge, this certainly isn't a topic that is worthy of extensive discussion. That said if I am traveling with $25k+ worth of photo equipment I am going to worry about theft. Even if insured the hassle and inconvenience is far too great. Irrespective of how short or long a flight, theft or damage can occur. For that simple treason I prefer to err on the side of caution, irrespective of baggage handling costs!

 

Very good advice.

[pgk]

The issues are physical damage and theft.

I have had stuff both damaged by obvious physical shock AND stolen from TSA padlocked cases - fortunately in neither situation was this a big problem and I could deal with the ensuing problems without too much difficulty. Needless to say nobody was interested in actually finding out what had happened - in the theft case I would have though that there may well be substantial security implications and, given that the flight concerned was in the USA with TSA (or presumably TSA monitored) staff supposedly the only people who should have had access to the luggage, I would have thought some interest should have been shown in how theft happened. In the physical damage situation, a well padded Pelicase had obviously been dropped very heavily ......

[flyalf]

Did you check the batteries for damage and try with new batteries? It might be that its only the batteries that is damaged. When the battery in M are totally drained you get an error somewhat like this.

 

Sorry for your loss and that I might state the obvious

[jaapv]

I have had stuff both damaged by obvious physical shock AND stolen from TSA padlocked cases - fortunately in neither situation was this a big problem and I could deal with the ensuing problems without too much difficulty. Needless to say nobody was interested in actually finding out what had happened - in the theft case I would have though that there may well be substantial security implications and, given that the flight concerned was in the USA with TSA (or presumably TSA monitored) staff supposedly the only people who should have had access to the luggage, I would have thought some interest should have been shown in how theft happened. In the physical damage situation, a well padded Pelicase had obviously been dropped very heavily ......

 

I don't use TSA locks- I am not convinced that the TSA officials are the only ones that have these keys in their possession. I'd rather have the lock broken open, so that I can see that something happened to it - and I always have my luggage wrapped.

[earleygallery]

The advice from person after person in this thread to the effect that one has to be an Idiot to check a camera containing electronics raises a question.

 

It's my understanding that professional photographers and videographers/video crews fairly routinely check their gear. I've frequently seen this myself as luggage comes out on baggage carousels.

 

Some months ago, I checked a digital Nikon camera and lenses and some quite expensive digital sound recording equipment for the simple reason that I was not prepared to carry all this stuff into the cabin. Although I'm insured, there was no damage at all. And it wasn't the first time.

 

It just strains credulity to think that people are walking onto planes with dedicated video cameras and sound gear. I'm willing to wager that it isn't true, and further that they aren't always sending it in advance on cargo flights (which according to some posts here are also an issue). I've personally seen photo crews picking up this kind of gear on carousels on several occasions.

 

Am I wrong about this?

 

I don't have any technical knowledge regarding these issues, but as I said in my initial response to this thread, my main concern would be damage due to the way baggage is often handled, and potential damage done by someone not familiar with the equipment opening the baggage for inspection outside of one's own control.

 

The point was made about the fact that cargo holds are exposed to extreme temperatures which I'm sure could also be a factor, depending on where one is travelling.

 

I'm certain I've checked electrical items into hold luggage before, without any ill effects, but I reiterate that I would not trust relatively fragile, very valuable photographic equipment being outside of my control.

 

I expect baggage handlers/customs inspectors are possibly familiar with professional equipment cases and maybe it's handled differently to 'normal' luggage.

[bocaburger]

Basically what it boils down to is if you let something out of your possession, you have no control over what happens to it. My travel camera gear is insured, but I still would never put it in checked baggage. My car is insured too but I wouldn't park it with the keys in the ignition and a sign "drive me" in the window.

[LocalHero1953]

There are times when I have had to check camera kit in hold baggage, and, yes, on one occasion it was all nicked. The reason for checking it was that it was all insured and replaceable, whereas the commercial documents that I was carrying were irreplaceable (eg tenders and tender docs). So if you have to check it, make sure it is insured.

[Doc Henry]

I

-M9 No sensor problem , bought new (micro spots and micro bubbles (or blisters) on the sensor back to Solms

Henry

You will forgive me, but just information about my M9,bought new (2 ½ years) , so out of warranty, Leica Solms makes me the exchange of sensor ... free !

Good news and thanks Customer Service

End of my message

Thank you for reading

Best

Henry