Q2 cast metal body is brittle?

[anrando]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I was cleaning up my Q2 and noticed that a small piece of the body had sheared off.  The camera has never been dropped or hit against anything that I recall.  This must have happened when the camera came into contact with a table edge while wearing it strapped around my neck.  I can think of no other possibility.  The body metal didnt dent, scratch,  or compress it just broke off like untempered iron or pot metal. This has surprised me.  I had hoped the metal body might be a bit more "tough".  It frightens to think if it were actually dropped.  It might break in half!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited September 8, 2021 by anrando

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

amazing

[david strachan]

Bad luck.  I suspect it's body is die-cast metal an alloy of Mg and Al.  Dad used to call it shit metal...abit prone to oxidation and fractures as your picture.  However there are thousands of alloys out there so we'll call it "lovely metal except".

You could reform the fracture with metal forming paste...take time to do properly, and paint appropriately.  Noone would know.

Or have Leica fix and get another mortgage to pay. Or insurance??

Again just bad rotten luck.

...

[MarkP]

That's terrible.

😮

[darylgo]

I'd send it to Leica asking it be fixed under warranty.  Defective metal?  

[Ba Erv]

Definitely not good!

[AndreasG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This should not happen, I guess, some micro porosity stemming from the pressure die cast process caused the damage. If you bought the camera in Japan, return it to the the dealer for repair or replacement. Customers' satisfaction is most important there (I spent 30 years in Japan), there is a good chance you get the repair for free even after the warranty period.

[jaapv]

It looks like it was a nest of porosities. Undoubtedly a casting fault.

[anrando]

UPDATE:

Leica has responded that the damage to my camera is considered “unprecedented” and mine is the only such report made to them.  They were quick to add that such is NOT covered under the warranty.  They said that the magnesium alloy used does not dent or depress but can indeed chip, but mine is the only such incident that they are aware of. They indicated that the top cover would cost me $1400 to replace……even though they admit that such chipping should not have occurred with a minor edge contact.  So much for the vaulted customer satisfaction I suppose.

Be forewarned.  The metal parts of the Leica Q2 are very brittle, and apparently susceptible to chipping with very minor contact under some unknown set of circumstances, and this will NOT be repaired by Leica under their warranty.  
 

I suppose it IS possible that my camera is the ONLY one with such brittle metal, but I doubt it.  Baby your camera. Or pay the price!

regards,

William Unland

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by anrando

[Boojay]

9 minutes ago, anrando said:

UPDATE:

Leica has responded that the damage to my camera is considered “unprecedented” and mine is the only such report made to them.  They were quick to add that such is NOT covered under the warranty.  They said that the magnesium alloy used does not dent or depress but can indeed chip, but mine is the only such incident that they are aware of. They indicated that the top cover would cost me $1400 to replace……even though they admit that such chipping should not have occurred with a minor edge contact.  So much for the vaulted customer satisfaction I suppose.

Be forewarned.  The metal parts of the Leica Q2 are very brittle, and apparently susceptible to chipping with very minor contact under some unknown set of circumstances, and this will NOT be repaired by Leica under their warranty.  
 

I suppose it IS possible that my camera is the ONLY one with such brittle metal, but I doubt it.  Baby your camera. Or pay the price!

regards,

William Unland

 

Not sure this will make you feel any better, but I can't be the only one who has seen used Q/Q2/SL/SL2 bodies for sale with similar chips.   Unprecedented - don't think so. If I remember correctly @vikasmg had his SL in the classifieds with a similar chip, he was unsure how it had happened.  I would imagine it takes quite a knock to do it,  though could be wishful thinking on my part.  My SL2 looks quite battle scarred as a result of a long sharp finger nail, one day snatching up the camera to catch something quickly I scraped through the leather covering with my middle finger just in front of the grip.  But, it sort of makes it mine, definitely pick it out in a line-up😄.   No babying though, it's a tool and meant to be used.

 

 

[pfoto]

just overpriced crap it seems

[LocalHero1953]

You might want to read this thread. Another example of a rare fault that received an unacceptable initial response from Leica but, in that case, they sorted out on a second approach.

[Ba Erv]

I’d be on my way to Wetzlar with a 47MP suppository and a small container of Vaseline.

[anrando]

I have always treated my cameras as tools not fashion accessories. I plan on continuing to use it with a piece of gaffers tape over the “wound”.  I have found the Q and Q2 to be quite fun cameras to use.  That little nick isn’t going to change that much.  But I do find it troubling that the maker is clearly using a metal alloy unsuited for its intended purpose.  These are supposed to be tools in the real world, not jewelry, or at least I thought so.  I am also a bit disappointed by Leica`s response.  That top plate didn’t cost them $1000 to make.  At least I might expect a repair at cost on a camera still in warranty.  But it is what it is.

regards,

W. Unland

 

[earleygallery]

I'm not sure that Leica can just waive consumer laws at their own will. I'd be challenging them on this one!

What would Bond say if his 007 edition started to crumble away into nothing?

[Ba Erv]

1 hour ago, earleygallery said:

I'm not sure that Leica can just waive consumer laws at their own will. I'd be challenging them on this one!

What would Bond say if his 007 edition started to crumble away into nothing?

Maybe it’s a feature…like crumple zones on an Aston Martin.

[Herr Barnack]

8 hours ago, anrando said:

UPDATE:

Leica has responded that the damage to my camera is considered “unprecedented” and mine is the only such report made to them.  They were quick to add that such is NOT covered under the warranty.  They said that the magnesium alloy used does not dent or depress but can indeed chip, but mine is the only such incident that they are aware of. They indicated that the top cover would cost me $1400 to replace……even though they admit that such chipping should not have occurred with a minor edge contact.  So much for the vaulted customer satisfaction I suppose.

Be forewarned.  The metal parts of the Leica Q2 are very brittle, and apparently susceptible to chipping with very minor contact under some unknown set of circumstances, and this will NOT be repaired by Leica under their warranty.  
 

I suppose it IS possible that my camera is the ONLY one with such brittle metal, but I doubt it.  Baby your camera. Or pay the price!

regards,

William Unland

 

@anrando - In making the above statements, it sounds to me like they have painted themselves into a corner. 

These statements are tantamount to admitting that the top cover is indeed defective, and then they try to assert that this defect is not covered by warranty.  Why?  "Because that's what we decided, that's why - and to hell with the warranty and the laws governing it."  That attitude is clearly not acceptable - and while I am not well versed on consumer protection laws in Germany, I have my doubts that this position is in harmony with the laws that govern such matters. 

I am no metallurgist, but I am inclined to agree with @jaapv on his assessment:  "It looks like it was a nest of porosities. Undoubtedly a casting fault."  Solid cast magnesium alloy should not crumble like that if it was properly cast. 

Do as you think best, but I would urge you to not take no for an answer.  The warranty department's response to you is quite simply unreasonable and obnoxious; it's simply appalling to treat a customer this way. 

It's one thing to charge thousands for your cameras and lenses - but when a company does, their warranty coverage and their customer care had damn well better be the gold standard of the camera industry.

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[vikasmg]

11 hours ago, Boojay said:

Not sure this will make you feel any better, but I can't be the only one who has seen used Q/Q2/SL/SL2 bodies for sale with similar chips.   Unprecedented - don't think so. If I remember correctly @vikasmg had his SL in the classifieds with a similar chip, he was unsure how it had happened.  I would imagine it takes quite a knock to do it,  though could be wishful thinking on my part.  My SL2 looks quite battle scarred as a result of a long sharp finger nail, one day snatching up the camera to catch something quickly I scraped through the leather covering with my middle finger just in front of the grip.  But, it sort of makes it mine, definitely pick it out in a line-up😄.   No babying though, it's a tool and meant to be used.

 

 

I did indeed have an SL with a corner of the prism enclosure (I know there are no prisms in mirrorless cameras but I’m not sure what else to call it!) chipped off.  It didn’t seem to have penetrated to the interior of the camera and there was no impact on the working of the camera.  In fact I only noticed it when I Sha tried taking pictures of it to sell it.  Once I’d noticed it I felt I should point it to a potential buyers of course.  Still not sure what caused it as I don’t remember knocking it against anything.

But no such problems with my Q2 or my SL2 both of which have actually seen more use than the SL, just because I have more time now.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

On 9/11/2021 at 4:50 PM, Herr Barnack said:

@anrando - In making the above statements, it sounds to me like they have painted themselves into a corner. 

These statements are tantamount to admitting that the top cover is indeed defective, and then they try to assert that this defect is not covered by warranty.  Why?  "Because that's what we decided, that's why - and to hell with the warranty and the laws governing it."  That attitude is clearly not acceptable - and while I am not well versed on consumer protection laws in Germany, I have my doubts that this position is in harmony with the laws that govern such matters. 

I am no metallurgist, but I am inclined to agree with @jaapv on his assessment:  "It looks like it was a nest of porosities. Undoubtedly a casting fault."  Solid cast magnesium alloy should not crumble like that if it was properly cast. 

Do as you think best, but I would urge you to not take no for an answer.  The warranty department's response to you is quite simply unreasonable and obnoxious; it's simply appalling to treat a customer this way. 

It's one thing to charge thousands for your cameras and lenses - but when a company does, their warranty coverage and their customer care had damn well better be the gold standard of the camera industry.

 

 

 

The trick with Leica (as with many other companies) is to take it higher up into the organisation to draw the attention of top management. Write a letter and address it to Dr. A. Kaufmann.

[Herr Barnack]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The trick with Leica (as with many other companies) is to take it higher up into the organisation to draw the attention of top management. Write a letter and address it to Dr. A. Kaufmann.

That's very true. 

If @anrando is persistent and climbs up the Leica hierarchy with his issue, at some point he will likely get it resolved in a satisfactory manner.  It would be infinitely preferable if consumers were not required to play that game and even those at the lowest point of contact in the hierarchy were on the same page as the Pooh-Bahs.