andit Posted October 24, 2007 Share #1 Posted October 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi everyone, Just read the latest post about the damaged shutter blades. This has been mentioned quite a few times on the forum. I've been watching my M8 like a hawk to see if any of this has been developing. So far so good... Reading the various posts regarding this problem, there seems to be one common factor - the use of cv lenses. I use cv lenses myself and do not want to make any assumptions or level any accusations, but is it possible, just by some chance, that there is something happening here that we don't know about yet? I'm just thinking here at the moment of the mounting trick for the 135mm lenses to bring up the 90mm frame lines where you turn the lens just a bit past its locking position - what would happen if you accidentally did this with another lens - could this be the answer? I'm just real worried that this may somehow lead to the problem and do not want to risk a huge repair bill and be without a camera for a long period of time. It would be great if the members who have had this problem could post what lenses they use here in summary. Just possibly there is some or other common denominator. Maybe the guru's here on the forum could comment if this could be the problem. Andreas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2007 Posted October 24, 2007 Hi andit, Take a look here Damaged Shutter Blades. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
doubice Posted October 24, 2007 Share #2 Posted October 24, 2007 Andreas, I think the only way this could happen is if the lens' rear element was already touching the shutter blades - whether locked in or, turned past the click. If this were the case, we would have heard much more on this issue. I also don't think that any of the Voigtlander lenses have such deeply protruding rear elements, even the original Leitz 3.4/21mm Super Angulon can be used on the M8 and its rear element is as deep as they come. Unless of course, the clever Leica designers installed a "cookie" into the M8 to self destruct after a certain time if non-Leica lenses are used. ..... Best, Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eikonphoto Posted October 24, 2007 Share #3 Posted October 24, 2007 Andrea I started the recent thread re this issue, and I don't own anything larger than a 75mm. I don't think CV is the issue, otherwise I am sure Leica would be aware of it by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted October 24, 2007 Share #4 Posted October 24, 2007 My shutter failure occurred shortly after I bought my first two CV's but had not used them very much. I made it a point back then to minimize lens changes as much as possible to keep out dust, and almost always had the Leica 35 cron on. Since the shutter has been repaired, I bought a CV 75 and now change lenses like a madman (stopped worrying about sensor dust, a problem that went away over time). In other words, CV usage greatly increased post repair with no further problems, so I don't think that was the cause. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 24, 2007 Share #5 Posted October 24, 2007 Andreas-- Interesting thought, but consider the following: 1) re: turning lens past locking detent-- Any damage you might cause would be to the frame preview lever and sensors, wouldn't it? After all, the only thing you're doing is letting a lug of the bayonet turn further than it might otherwise, and move a lever exactly as a 28mm or 90mm would. 2) re: CV lenses as common denominator-- Statistical fluke, don't you think? My guess is that most posters to the forum own CV lenses, so if someone posts here about shutter problems, he's likely to have at least one of them in his arsenal. 3) You're right that the forum reports of shutter problems are troubling. But I think we had many more reports of SDS (initially) than we've had so far of shutter problems. I think it's too soon to say this will become a weak point of the M8. Of course, for those who've had the problems, it is definitely a major failure, and I'm sure Leica is trying to determine the cause. 4) Does anyone know what cameras besides the M8 use this shutter? Mark's disassembly showed the shutter's manufacturer. Some have speculated that this is similar to the shutter in the R8/R9, or in the D200, etc. Anyone know for sure? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 24, 2007 Share #6 Posted October 24, 2007 I wonder if a small piece breaking off a less scrupulously manufactured lens bayonet could work its way into the shutter, causing the damage? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted October 25, 2007 Share #7 Posted October 25, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) HC, the shutter is made by Copal and I trawled their web-site, looking for information. Not much there, it looks like each type of shutter is custom designed for the application, presumably based on standard parts. What surprises me is that the M8 uses a FF shutter whereas a Nikon D2x (they also use Copal) uses about an APS sized shutter. May be down to economics. Not sure whether it's the same as a D200 or an R9 - what does the pattern of blades look like? Carsten, good point about the lens bayonet - potential also for a body cap to lose a flange and wreak havoc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 25, 2007 Share #8 Posted October 25, 2007 Don't overlook some of the rear lens caps that leave plastic behind on the mount. Usually the leica ones are very good but some from other companies can shred apart. i have one just like that here in my office . Just spins around and who knows where that plastic shred went too. Remember big hole theory, if anything can get in there it will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted October 25, 2007 Share #9 Posted October 25, 2007 I checked all my caps and body cover with a magnifying glass after my shutter failed and couldn't spot any missing pieces. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted October 25, 2007 Share #10 Posted October 25, 2007 If a small burr worked its way off a bayonet, I could imagine it killing the shutter. It wouldn't have to be large, and I do sometimes see tiny metal filings in my camera. Here is a question for those who have had their shutter die: in what orientation do you carry your camera? I can imagine that carrying it on its back could increase any risk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 25, 2007 Share #11 Posted October 25, 2007 What surprises me is that the M8 uses a FF shutter whereas a Nikon D2x (they also use Copal) uses about an APS sized shutter. May be down to economics. Not sure whether it's the same as a D200 or an R9 - what does the pattern of blades look like? D200 shutter also seems APS size, and the blade pattern doesn't look quite the same as that of the M8. (Thanks, Mark, for reminding me that I might look before wildly speculating. ) I don't have an R8/9 to check, so I guess that's the only remaining possibility. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 25, 2007 Share #12 Posted October 25, 2007 I thought the M8 shutter was from the R9 which i think was from a Nikon F5 orginally. Not sure on this though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papimuzo Posted October 25, 2007 Share #13 Posted October 25, 2007 When receiving my M8, for my first test with it and having read the forum I shooted a clear blue sky at f16 (Elmarit 28) to view the dust/grease genuine state of the sensor. To my stupefaction the pictures showed not very spots BUT a quasi straight scratch very thin that I anticipated as a real one on the sensor! Heart beating I inspected the inside of the camera and could see what was apparently a very thin hair staying on the sensor! This was shining at the light as a piece of metal like copper or brass, very thin hair one, about 1 cm. long, a bit curved. To my relief this beast disappeared after a blow, which was verified on following picts. Some remarks above (Carstenw) make me wondering if a "seam" could be make when mounting first time some lenses as it can be produced when metallic parts are used first time?? And this could stay somewhere inside the M8 and moving later on, could interact with the blades (which are also very thin themselves!!). For my part I wonder if the "object" I saw is still inside or was eliminated.... For now (around 600 shots) the shutter blades are intact... A remark: the Leitz Elmarit was an old timer and I doubt that the seam could come from it:rolleyes: HTH. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted October 25, 2007 Share #14 Posted October 25, 2007 I thought the M8 shutter was from the R9 which i think was from a Nikon F5 orginally. Not sure on this though The Nikon F5 has a self-calibrating version of the unique epoxy-hybrid-bladed shutter first used on the F4. The R9 (and R8) have shutters similar to those used on mid-level Nikons of a decade ago, such as the F90 and later F100. If M8 shutters are failing in any significant number, the two most-likely causes are a batch of faulty shutters from the outsource manufacturer, or improper installation during final assembly. Suspecting CV lenses or the way the camera is carried is preposterous. It will be curious once again to note the serial numbers of affected cameras. Although the propagandist myth that serial numbers are completely random persists in some peoples' minds, clearly there are serial number batches that are chronological. A possibility that could stand exploration is that oil spotting on the sensor might somehow be associated with shutter failure at some point. We know that excess lubrication on lens aperture blades can lead to gumming-up and bending. Whilst shutter blades are somewhat stronger, the forces on them are also stronger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 25, 2007 Share #15 Posted October 25, 2007 Although the propagandist myth that serial numbers are completely random persists in some peoples' minds, clearly there are serial number batches that are chronological. Yes I think there are except IF the NEW batch of serial numbered hot shoes are loaded into the same box/bin the older batch is already in then the assembler could grab one of the shoes with the highest number of the new batch. Throwing off all correlation between numbers and date/time of manufacture. No one knows except the people at Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gesper Posted October 25, 2007 Share #16 Posted October 25, 2007 A possibility that could stand exploration is that oil spotting on the sensor might somehow be associated with shutter failure at some point. Oil spotting on the sensor was much worse after the shutter replacement than before. A good liquid cleaning after a few hundred shots and the sensor is staying clean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradreiman Posted October 25, 2007 Share #17 Posted October 25, 2007 If M8 shutters are failing in any significant number, the two most-likely causes are a batch of faulty shutters from the outsource manufacturer, or improper installation during final assembly. Suspecting CV lenses or the way the camera is carried is preposterous. It will be curious once again to note the serial numbers of affected cameras. Although the propagandist myth that serial numbers are completely random persists in some peoples' minds, clearly there are serial number batches that are chronological. A possibility that could stand exploration is that oil spotting on the sensor might somehow be associated with shutter failure at some point. We know that excess lubrication on lens aperture blades can lead to gumming-up and bending. Whilst shutter blades are somewhat stronger, the forces on them are also stronger. what a p%$^*. when i read your posts they make me need to see a "tummydoc". its a shame you don't know as much as you think-then i could actually learn something from you-which is why i come here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted October 25, 2007 Share #18 Posted October 25, 2007 It could only be a lack of knowledge that, ironically, would mislead you into asserting that my knowledge is lacking. The proof of that lies clearly in the fact that you choose to undermine the civility of this forum and insult all of its members by venting your rage in an unsoliticed, un-called-for and prohibited manner, unwilling and/or unable to offer a single shred of knowledge-based contradiction to anything I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted October 25, 2007 Share #19 Posted October 25, 2007 No one knows except the people at Leica. And they have been candid about the fact that serial numbers are assigned in batches. As a manufacturing concern, Leica would be insane not to have some way to track the chronology of the items they produce. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tummydoc Posted October 25, 2007 Share #20 Posted October 25, 2007 Oil spotting on the sensor was much worse after the shutter replacement than before. A good liquid cleaning after a few hundred shots and the sensor is staying clean. The curious thing here is that of all the issues having been reported with FP-shutter digital cameras in the past, oil splatter from shutter lubrication seems isolated to the M8. So either the shutter assemblies which Leica ordered for the M8 were delivered with too much oil, or else the excess oil was applied at Solms. In either case, it would not be inconsistent to find that a newly-replaced shutter is over-oiled. Even if eventually the shutters cease to splatter and the issue of oil-spots on the sensor is self-limiting, the possibility exists that enough excess oil, perhaps becoming thickened by mixture with airborne particles, remains on the shutter to cause premature failure. Another possibility, however far-fetched it may seem, is that the shutters delivered to Leica were under-lubricated, or perhaps the blades a bit too tight, prompting a manufacturing decision to lubricate them in Solms. Then, once the excess lubrication is spent, the blades revert to binding and eventually fail. But of course it should be Leica who is investigating this issue, similarly to the way they investigated the SDS which was traced to a batch of defective transistors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.