jaapv Posted May 27, 2017 Share #41 Posted May 27, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just examine the lock on my plate. The closed and folded down latch can absolutely NOT turn enough so that it could open by itself. The "countersink" is designed in a marvellous oval way that makes it impossible to turn the latch without folding it up. The sink is NOT round. Just a wonderful design element. Nobody knows now in detail what really happened to you. I would just go to buy a new one. And you can be very happy to see that your camera is not scratched. Once the plate is replaced there will be not the slightest damage left. Back to the design: That plate is an original design element that would NEVER ever be omitted as long as there is an M camera. As we all know, and for many of us it was a reason to own an M, the design of that camera is most precious today and no marketing guru ever would dare to make such critical changes. The style is BAUHAUS. A period when they created beautiful design and architecture. As a consequence of the OLD design the users have to be extremely careful with the camera. The design resembles an antique piece of furniture that is most valuable. And still the drawer opens never as smoothly as the drawer of an IKEA furniture. We have to simply accept that fact. I still prefer my old furnitures. I accept many inconveniences but I am still persuaded that in total the M10 is an excellent camera for ME. Of course i feel very sorry for you. But you can easily solve your problem. Bauhaus was from 1919 to 1933 and went out with WWII. This camera was designed in 1954. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 27, 2017 Posted May 27, 2017 Hi jaapv, Take a look here M10 Bottom Plate Issue. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted May 27, 2017 Share #42 Posted May 27, 2017 Bauhaus was from 1919 to 1933 and went out with WWII. This camera was designed in 1954. The philosophical influence of the Bauhaus continued regardless of it being closed in 1933 (and failed to be revived by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe.) It is arguable whether the movement influenced Barnack and I won't get into that, but the enthusiasm of Bauhaus photographers for small, easily portable cameras was clear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 27, 2017 Share #43 Posted May 27, 2017 That is true, and the baseplate is a carry-over from the Barnack cameras, but it is highly doubtful whether its presence was dictated by design considerations. Leica always mentions engineering reasons. Anyway, after nearly a century of baseplates it is doubtful whether it ever will be dropped. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted May 27, 2017 Share #44 Posted May 27, 2017 That is true, and the baseplate is a carry-over from the Barnack cameras, but it is highly doubtful whether its presence was dictated by design considerations. Leica always mentions engineering reasons. Anyway, after nearly a century of baseplates it is doubtful whether it ever will be dropped. The TO seems to have done that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 27, 2017 Share #45 Posted May 27, 2017 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted May 27, 2017 Share #46 Posted May 27, 2017 That is true, and the baseplate is a carry-over from the Barnack cameras, but it is highly doubtful whether its presence was dictated by design considerations. Leica always mentions engineering reasons. Anyway, after nearly a century of baseplates it is doubtful whether it ever will be dropped. One definitely got dropped. Hence this thread. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 30, 2017 Share #47 Posted May 30, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) If there's enough room to spare, all kinds of doors and flaps and sockets and click-lock latches can be included. But not in the M10. Of course a solution to removable bottom plate could be found. Of course there are alternative solutions. But all of them have a drawback or two. All things considered, the traditional bottom plate still is the best solution. Who can tell if it is a design decision driven by necessity or marketing. FWIW my money's on marketing ... Sure. Some are more into conspiration theories than others. Do you remember the stupid design on M9 that has a tripod socket part of the bottom plate ...? Yes ... except it wasn't stupid. ... and the whole arrangement wobbled when mounted on tripod? No. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
satureyes Posted June 3, 2017 Share #48 Posted June 3, 2017 You know the rules of Leicadom. 'Thou shalt never criticise any of the design of a Leica camera' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted June 3, 2017 Share #49 Posted June 3, 2017 If it was such a brilliant design why then Leica drop that and in M240 tripod socked is part of camera body? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 3, 2017 Share #50 Posted June 3, 2017 Because there were one or two cases of the camera and tripod tipping over and as impact damage the bottom plate broke loose. This design is more robust. It is a tradeoff between practicality and strength. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted June 4, 2017 Share #51 Posted June 4, 2017 Because there were one or two cases of the camera and tripod tipping over and as impact damage the bottom plate broke loose. This design is more robust. It is a tradeoff between practicality and strength. My point all along. I do not see it as some sort of trade off, but as a much better engineering approach. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 4, 2017 Share #52 Posted June 4, 2017 Well, having the bush in the bottom plate allows changing of card and battery without unscrewing the tripod, and one can have an Arca-Swiss plate, or any other screw-in accessory, attached permanently. Having the bush in the camera body will lock the plate in permanently. I had to replace the original plate by a Leicatime one for that reason. The Leicatime one has a flap and despite being very well built, there is always a risk of bending or breaking the flap. So the trade-off is solidity versus loss of function. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M10Alpine Posted June 4, 2017 Author Share #53 Posted June 4, 2017 We nearly 100 years ago Oskar Barnak used a very similar design. This is the bottom plate on my Leica I model C from c1930 I'm going to go out on a limb here and say its 100% user error. Attach the plate properly and try to make it to come off...let us know what you find. Well - I did not find my base plate... Upside is that I use my Q now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 4, 2017 Share #54 Posted June 4, 2017 If it was such a brilliant design why then Leica drop that and in M240 tripod socked is part of camera body? In a fit of radical adherence to the Leica philosophy I propose that M models have NO tripod socket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted June 5, 2017 Share #55 Posted June 5, 2017 We Well - I did not find my base plate... Upside is that I use my Q now. I am just thinking. What if you simply tape a tiny magnet on the body so that it senses that bottom plate is on. This will allow you to shoot while you wait for replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schattenundlicht Posted June 5, 2017 Share #56 Posted June 5, 2017 Although I fully agree (and sympathize) with the general verdict of user error with regard to the incident at hand, I myself, from the very beginning, had the impression of my M10's bottom plate and locking mechanism feeling a bit more flimsy than on my M9 and M7. It may be the same design principle, but there seem to be differences in material thickness and tolerances. It just feels different, less solid. I always closed my previous M's without consciously thinking about it, whereas with the M10 it tends to be a rather deliberate process - of course even more so after reading this thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted June 5, 2017 Share #57 Posted June 5, 2017 In a fit of radical adherence to the Leica philosophy I propose that M models have NO tripod socket. Having no tripod socket would increase the price of M10 by about EUR700 in my estimate. Before too long you would have number of third party tripod socket solution anyway. So lets leave it as it is. I use it with L-plate and it works very well, thank you. Although it is frown upon in some quotas of Leica uses being compared to towing a caravan by a Porsche 911. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
-ph- Posted June 6, 2017 Share #58 Posted June 6, 2017 While I overall like the general idea of the Leica bottom plate, the way it is implemented in the M10 just creates a big usability problem with using tripods. I never had the feeling of instability with my M9 and it should have been possible to just strengthen the connection further to keep the tripod socket in the plate. Alternatively, they could have considered just having half of a plate, on one side of the tripod socket, just uncovering battery and SD card. Of of course, somewhere a small USB-C port, allowing data and charge access without removing the bottom plate... Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 6, 2017 Share #59 Posted June 6, 2017 IMO they should just have implemented the M3 bottom plate engineering. It hasn't given a problem in over 60 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.