Question about M9-P strategy

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can say for sure that I am a registered M9 customer / user and I never received any official communication directly from Leica about the issue. I did of course receive emails about the status of my repair once I had sent the camera in.

 

I did however receive an email from my brother on 15.05.2017 reminding me to get my M9 fixed (although I had already done so by then), linking to an announcement on their website (http://en.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2017/CCD-sensors-of-the-Leica-M9-M9-P-M-Monochrom-and-M-E-camera-models).

 

But as you say... customers are in no obligation to constantly monitor websites. And anyway, this is an announcement about the ending of the "goodwill" period. How about warning each and every potentially affected customer about the issue as soon as it was discovered? That is what should have been done, and, as far as I know, not a single customer was directly warned by Leica about the issue. Now, I am grateful about them repairing my camera at minimal cost (it was over 5 years after I got the camera) but "goodwill"? I don't think so.

[jaapv]

I think that my rather non-Leica-friendly position on this issue is well known, so don't flame me for a few counter-arguments. This was not a general recall, but a company policy. A general notification is not legally required in that case. Nor is it clear that the camera of a user who is happily snapping away without noticing a problem is "unfit for purpose". Devil's advocate .

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stray cat]

But, Jaap, in Tim's case (and obviously in Ian's and Mark's cases), he was well aware the camera had a problem - he was just preoccupied with other, far more pressing things and thought he'd get around to sending it to Leica sometime. That they stopped the support they generously offered without - it would seem - even letting their registered customers know they were going to do that - is unconscionable.

[Topsy]

I am a newbie to Leica, I have bought 3 M9s in the last 12 months all with paperwork proving they have had their sensors replaced, I don't qualify as a "registered owner" though nor am I an expert on customer rights. I have to say though I was looking at Leicas for years wanting to get into them and have known for years that the M8 had IR issues and the M9 had sensor corrosion issues the Internet is full of stories, I also knew the free replacement was coming to an end because the internet was full of that also. I am not trying to be provocative here but it seems to me that the information was freely available so any pursuance for compensation will likely fail on that premise. 

[jaapv]

But, Jaap, in Tim's case (and obviously in Ian's and Mark's cases), he was well aware the camera had a problem - he was just preoccupied with other, far more pressing things and thought he'd get around to sending it to Leica sometime. That they stopped the support they generously offered without - it would seem - even letting their registered customers know they were going to do that - is unconscionable.

Well, it was well publicized, albeit not on a personal level. They could have done so, it might have been the right thing to do from the viewpoint of the customer, but they were, in my view, not under a legal obligation to do so as it was not a general recall. 

To be pedantic: the support is not completely stopped, the repair is still done for about half the regular cost. 

 

I can well imagine the difficulty of this management decision: loss of reputation against cost and strain on the repair service, probably combined with a sensor supplier pulling the other way. Don't forget that this is the third owner of Kodak's sensor making facility company and it is not unthinkable that the supply contract was up for renewal.

 

All in all an ugly mess.

[Gobert]

I think that my rather non-Leica-friendly position on this issue is well known, so don't flame me for a few counter-arguments. This was not a general recall, but a company policy. A general notification is not legally required in that case. Nor is it clear that the camera of a user who is happily snapping away without noticing a problem is "unfit for purpose". Devil's advocate .

A recall is something completely different. That’s directed by the autorities in case of f/e a possible dangerous situation. In case of a camera, I cannot imagine what that would be.

As said, we are dealing now with regular warranty provisions, which might differ from country to country. Even in the Netherlands, where we have warranty during “expected lifetime”, a contribution from the consumer is by jurisprudenz accepted in case the expected lifetime will be extensively extended because of the repair.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but this extended "fit for use" protection has a time limit, depending on the product and is - at least in the Netherlands -and I suspect nearly everywhere else-, subject to judgement by a court of law. As you say, there might be be a "new for old" contribution involved.

Five years appears, to me, to be the kind of time limit that is imposed on a digital camera.

My remark about a general recall is related to a supposed obligation to inform the customer.

[Gobert]

What “expected lifetime” is, is quite discussable. Regretfully, it’s an “open norm” and it doesn’t sufficient take into account the actual usage. Besides that, it’s only applicable on purchases by consumers.

[ianman]

Well, it was well publicized, ...

Yes, by users and forums and other such channels. By the time it became well known I had already put my M9 away and was not using it as it was, well, unusable. I first saw the issue on Sept 1st 2012, I know that because I saw it when I was doing a quick sensor clean on the morning of the one and only wedding I have shot. This is less than 3 years after getting the camera... surely well within any self-respecting companies "expected lifetime" for a premium product. I didn't hear anything "official" about the problem because I was sick and tired of the bad quality of the sensor (I'm not talking about the superb image quality here) and was not following Leica news.

 

I'm not suggesting that a general recall was required. What I cannot understand is that when the issue became known to them, they didn't have the decency to contact registered owners just to warn them. Users would not even have to take the camera to be checked as it was so obvious on photos whether the sensor had the issue or not.

 

Saying "Well, it was well publicized..." just doesn't cut it. Consumers are in no obligation to be on forums, to check out manufacturers or rumour websites, and you cannot fault a product owner for not knowing about flawed components in products they use.

Edited June 9, 2018 by ianman

[jaapv]

There are many guaranty policies that are not communicated to individual customers, by many firms...

It would have been the nice thing to do, I would have applauded them for it, but it was by no means an obligation.

[ianman]

It would have been the nice thing to do, I would have applauded them for it, but it was by no means an obligation.

 

Almost... it would have been the right thing to do!

 

Edit: It was a major flaw of one of the principal components of a premium product... even if there was no legal obligation - and I'm far from convinced that there was not, there was a moral one.

Edited June 9, 2018 by ianman

[Gobert]

 

@jaapv

That’s correct. But many warranty policies are based on individual judgement as most warranty claims differ from each other. Publishing more internal guidelines would only lead to more discussions.

 

I would like to emphazise that “open norms” are a disaster for consumers, retailers and producers. In the end there is always a party who is not satisfied. The general European system is much better. Two years, period!

Edited June 9, 2018 by Gobert

[stray cat]

Ian, I agree. Leica is not Canon selling bucketloads of cameras. They keep details of registered owners - it would be well within their ethos to keep that relatively low number of customers aware - both of what they do well, and what they can do to prevent those customers becoming dissatisfied with their product. Because I think it would be fair to say that a LOT of Leica customers have been pretty hacked off with sensor problems from Leica.

[ianman]

There are many guaranty policies that are not communicated to individual customers, by many firms...

 

That is like a kid saying "I didn't pass my exam, but neither did a lot of other kids"... or "we were just following orders"

[MarkP]

Jaap, with respect, I completely disagree with your position on this.  Leica fitted a component subsequently found to be at significant risk of failure.

 

My Monochrom v1 was giving me no problems. I knew that Leica had placed a 'statute of limitation' on free sensor replacement so I sent the camera in for it to be checked. 'Subclinical' corrosion was identified and a new sensor fitted under warranty.  If I'd waited until it was obvious on my files then I would have had to pay for myself.  

 

Leica should have emailed all registered owners, advised them of the problem, and offered owners to have the sensor inspected by a registered service department. 

Edited June 9, 2018 by MarkP

[ianman]

The general European system is much better. Two years, period!

That is just what this throw away society has come to expect. No manufacturer must make a product that lasts for 731 days! 

[jaapv]

That is like a kid saying "I didn't pass my exam, but neither did a lot of other kids"... or "we were just following orders"

We we’re discussing the legal options of the OP not the way I think it should have been handled.

[ianman]

We we’re discussing the legal options of the OP not the way I think it should have been handled.

So don't bring it up then !    

[jaapv]

I did not bring it up...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Gobert]

That is just what this throw away society has come to expect. No manufacturer must make a product that lasts for 731 days!

 

That not what I mean. All parties are looking for surety. You can reach that by a fixed period. Make it 2,4,6 years, I don’t care. But then everybody knows its rights and obligations.