Leica M11: Totally locked up, can not start (or reset)

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Indeed you do not follow me. The higher price is not for higher reliability but for a more desirable product, which is of course a wholly personal preference. I don’t like car analogies, but I would never buy a Ferrari (I wouldn’t anyway 😜) for reliability and ease of service. A Toyota would be far preferable. So if one is not attracted to the M system, please don’t buy it as the drawbacks will prevail. In my experience Leica follows its legal obligations to the letter. They are, after all, a German company.

Oh, I follow you Jaap.  I just don’t agree with you! 😂

A few more people posting on this forum might have insisted on a replacement or refund, had they been aware of their rights (did you read the link?) or had Leica complied with them …

[jaapv]

Leica always complies with its legal obligations. In fact they often go over and beyond. (Example: a six-year old 55-135 TL fell apart in my hands. Leica is sending me a brand new one for a quarter of the price.)

The point is that if you buy a high-value hand-assembled product from a small company, you must be aware of the drawbacks.

The first is obviously the high price, but that is followed by the fact that bought-in mass-produced components are as prone to failure as they are with cheap mass-produced counterparts using the same components.
Then there is the impossibility of near-100% QC. With a mass-produced item you can pull one in every hundred or so from the assembly line and test it to destuctrion. Production errors are reproducible  and consistent. In a human-hand production errors are random and unpredictable. You cannot test each and every individual camera to destruction, you cannot prevent random human error by the inspectors, who necessarily test only superficially.
You cannot have a overstaffed and overstocked repair department to absorb things like unexpected demand or staff shortages beyond your control, and parts shortages for external reasons - it is simply unaffordable. So turnaround times are horrendous occasionally, especially when everything comes together at the same time  

Still, the product is so attractive that there are enough satisfied customers to keep the chimney smoking. 

[M11 for me]

Thank you. I think that this is very well explained. 

[DadDadDaddyo]

jaapv's post says it as well as I've ever seen it said, and way better than most. 

These are one-by-one hand built items. Man, I'm glad *I* don't work on one of those assembly stations: Leica would see a spike in whatever very specific assembly step I happened to have been performing whenever I had a bad day....

"Oh, Jah," they'd say,  "It's Dad...Dad...Daddyo again. Ve should move him back to floor sweeping...."

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Leica always complies with its legal obligations.

Excuse the selective quote - the rest wasn’t really responding to the point I was making.

I have had my fair share of failing and bricking cameras, and Leica has always come to the party, fixing cameras, replacing them and providing loaners.  However, that is not the point.  You and I may disagree on what comprises “legal obligations”, but your rather bald comment actually isn’t true.

I’m not going to trawl through pages of complaints where people have had defective or failed cameras, it takes very little research to find instances where Leica has insisted on repair rather than replacement.  More specifically, Leica sold its M9 based cameras with defective cover glass on the sensors - it first tried to ignore the issue hoping it would go away, then they said it was only a few cameras (repeated frequently by you, if you don’t mind me saying), it then repaired cameras by replacing the sensors with the same defective cover glass (Michali’s case in point) and then refused to replace those sensors without cost when they inevitably failed, once they had a proper replacement they then arbitrarily set a deadline following which it hoped its legal obligations could be avoided.  

Now, you will say, I’m sure, that it wasn’t Leica’s fault, Kodak/Truesense didn’t have endless replacements and there has to be a limit to the significant cost.  All true, however, Leica made and sold defective cameras, and that is what the consumer protection legislation covers - if repair or replacement isn’t possible, the legislation provides for refund or reduced price.  Instead, Leica offered a “deal” on a replacement camera (not the latest and best at the time, but a replacement).  The reality of that “deal” was that is was more cost effective to repair and sell the M9 camera and to then buy what you really wanted (even full retail).

That is one instance where Leica was lucky not to get sued, in my view.  Had it not had such a loyal following (of people with better things to do than pay lawyers in class actions), it would have been in trouble.  I’m still amazed Leica got away with that.

Taking the M11 as another example, the camera has problems.  How many have been sent back to Wetzlar for months repair, rather than immediate replacement or refund?  Read through the thread …

I have supported Leica as much as anyone, and wil continnue to do so (though not where the M digital seems to be heading), but I do think it is important not to guild the lilly.

[jaapv]

Well, if you read the German customer law for goods not bought on the Internet, a purchase constitutes a final contract with no option of returns. Some resellers may offer it as a voluntary option to compete with the Internet’s rules. The onus is always on the dealer, not the factory. Leica is generous to offer the option to deal directly with the factory.
For the exact rules I attach a synopsis by the Chamber of Commerce , but it is clear that Leica's response in the M9 case was far more than required. In fact, it is only regarded as a production fault if it occurs within twelve, sometimes 24 months of purchase - with some complicated extra rules that can extend this to 27 months at the very most since this year. Leica's support was far longer.

Germany is a highly litigious country with a lawyer at every street corner, but not one case was brought against Leica as it would have been without legal merit. 

I fear you will need a bit of Google Translate, but it is interesting reading.

https://www.ihk.de/osnabrueck/recht-und-fair-play/handel-und-gewerbe/handelsrecht/umtauschruecktritt-1086222

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, if you read the German customer law for goods not bought on the Internet, a purchase constitutes a final contract with no option of returns. Some resellers may offer it as a voluntary option to compete with the Internet’s rules. The onus is always on the dealer, not the factory. Leica is generous to offer the option to deal directly with the factory.
For the exact rules I attach a synopsis by the Chamber of Commerce , but it is clear that Leica's response in the M9 case was far more than required. In fact, it is only regarded as a production fault if it occurs within twelve months of purchase - with some complicated extra rules that can extend this to 27 months at the very most since this year. Leica's support was far longer.

Germany is a highly litigious country with a lawyer at every street corner, but not one case was brought against Leica as it would have been without legal merit. 

I fear you will need a bit of Google Translate, but it is interesting reading.

https://www.ihk.de/osnabrueck/recht-und-fair-play/handel-und-gewerbe/handelsrecht/umtauschruecktritt-1086222

Shall I start giving dental advice?

It's a complex area, starting with the applicable law (this is called "conflict of laws").  The contract is between the seller and the buyer, generally governed by where the contract was concluded.  So, in person, in Germany, German law applies.  Over the internet, the law applicable to the purchaser applies - so, a UK buyer over the internet, UK law applies, regardless of where the seller is located.

The contract terms then apply, subject to consumer protection legislation.

Leica, as manufacturer, remains liable - you do understand that?

Now Jaap, I accept that you and I will never agree on this, but having watched the whole M9 sensor debacle roll out and having two cameras affected, I'm amazed that Leica didn't get sued.  That was only one example of Leica supplying defective goods (not fit for purpose - if a new camera bricks, I think we can accept that it is not fit for purpose).  Perhaps the lack of lawsuits is more indicative of people who buy expensive, handmade cameras, and put up with increasingly problematic quality control and slow customer service, and the cost of lawyers.

Speaking for myself, like many others, I have accepted this (M9, Monochrom, M Edition 60, SL and M10-D all defective at some point, and returned to the mother ship for repair).  That does not change the fact that your statement that "Leica always complies with its legal obligations" is factually and legally incorrect.  But, we tolerate it.

Best
John

[IkarusJohn]

Let’s look at the reality of such cases.

First rule - the fact that someone sues you, doesn’t mean they have a case.  There was a time when lawyers would head off baseless claims in their offices.  Those times seem to have gone, or the quality of legal practise has changed.

Second rule - a flip side of the first, just because you haven’t been sued, doesn’t mean you have complied with your legal oblligations.

Generally, lawyers rely on accepted decisions of higher courts as authority (stare decisis).  Juries generally give a bad picture of the law, but then in common law countries (outside the US), juries are generally used only for findings of fact in criminal cases (and sometimes in defamation).

Overriding rule - it’s not worth pursuing legal action, unless the amount of the claim is sufficient to cover your time and involvement, legal fees and delays, and there’s a good chance the other side will pay up if you win.  So, an $8,000 camera isn’t worth it.  The cost of the camera, and an APO 35 Summicron, wouldn’t even get you half way to court.  

We do have class actions to cover this - one team of lawyers, usually funded by an insurance company, representing everyone with a claim.  In this case, it would be the owners of all M9 based cameras.  Those litigants would agree to a funding arrangement, where the lawyers are paid by the funders and the funders take a cut of any win (claims can get as little as 30% in a successful claim).  Now, here’s the trick - no lawyer will go around and try to find every such camera owner.  They won’t know who they are, nor would they be able to find them.  But, if they can gather enough such owners, they can establish a class.  Once that class is established, then the case can proceed on behalf of all M9 owners.

Class actions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  US has class actions (but not in arbitration), as does the UK (in limited situations) and New Zealand (new here).  The issue with class actions is how those not directly involved in the action are treated.  A passive M9 owning observer could sit back, watch the class action, then benefit from the result without cost or involvement of the litigation funder.  So, the courts in the US, UK and NZ (not sure about Australia) have accepted that, once a class is established, everyone who might benefit from such a class is deemed to have “opted-in” to the class action, and they are bound by the result.  The downside of that is that the litigation funder can recover its share of the award from all those in the class.

If a person “opts-out” of the class, then they’re on their own.  If there’s a judgment for the class, then they get the benefit of that judgment as a matter of precedent for the negotiatin of their claim; if the class action settles, then there’s no precedent and those who opted out have nothing to work on.

Germany doesn’t have “class actions”.  It does have representative actions, where a number of law suits are filed and one representative suit is heard to deal with others.  They do also have “non-genuine class actions” where claims are pooled or assigned to one litigant.  

So, we see why a court action against Leica is highly unlikely.  There is, of course, regulatory action (by whatever consumer protection agency is in Germany), but that is another thing.  My guess, while there may be some very angry Leica owners, the average Leica demographic has bought a Leica camera for a particular reason and they are unlikely to want to sue.

None of that means that Leica always complies with the law.  They may feel they are doing the right thing (in the context of doing the best forLeica), but there can be a gulf between that and what a court would say, if ever it got to court …

Cheers
(non-litigating) John

[sometimesmaybe]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

It's a complex area, starting with the applicable law (this is called "conflict of laws")

@jaapv and @IkarusJohn after 1 year on the LUF my love of leica has finally crossed over with my love of 'choice of law' 🤓

i just wished i had a good venn diagram... but alas

i have nothing to add, other than to say renvoi will also be an issue at least in common law countries

[lm_user]

My take away from this on - going argument is to avoid the M9 and M11 products 

The volume of chatter on this site with the M11 was enough to scare me away on a recent camera purchase    I purchased an M10-R to replace M8 I purchased in 2012

 So far so good.   I thought about the M11.  But too many bad reviews….    Time will tell if I made a good choice or bought a lemon who’s gremlins are undiscovered 

[elmars]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb IkarusJohn:

That does not change the fact that your statement that "Leica always complies with its legal obligations" is factually and legally incorrect.  But, we tolerate it.

I think this is a frivolous claim!

Certainly, the corrosion problem is not a glorious one for Leica and they are not proud of it. It also took Leica longer to deal with it well. This is because replacing the sensor or the camera for free would have endangered the existence of the company. 

Legally, however, it is quite clear, at least for the entire European Union, where a uniform sales law applies. A customer does not automatically have a right to a replacement product; if necessary, he must first be satisfied with a repair or demand one. The seller can refuse a replacement product if this would mean a disproportionate effort.

However, even if such a claim is affirmed in principle, the claim exists only (!!!!) against the seller, not against the manufacturer. Leica is therefore only liable if it sold the cameras itself. This is an important limitation. 

The second important limitation is the statute of limitations. Liability ends two years after purchase. For the vast majority of M9s, this period had long expired when the corrosion occurred.

You should therefore be careful when accusing Leica of breaking the law. Legally, Leica did not have to accommodate most customers at all; it was a business decision to do so in the interest of customer trust and satisfaction.

[IkarusJohn]

10 minutes ago, elmars said:

I think this is a frivolous claim!

Certainly, the corrosion problem is not a glorious one for Leica and they are not proud of it. It also took Leica longer to deal with it well. This is because replacing the sensor or the camera for free would have endangered the existence of the company. 

Legally, however, it is quite clear, at least for the entire European Union, where a uniform sales law applies. A customer does not automatically have a right to a replacement product; if necessary, he must first be satisfied with a repair or demand one. The seller can refuse a replacement product if this would mean a disproportionate effort.

However, even if such a claim is affirmed in principle, the claim exists only (!!!!) against the seller, not against the manufacturer. Leica is therefore only liable if it sold the cameras itself. This is an important limitation. 

The second important limitation is the statute of limitations. Liability ends two years after purchase. For the vast majority of M9s, this period had long expired when the corrosion occurred.

You should therefore be careful when accusing Leica of breaking the law. Legally, Leica did not have to accommodate most customers at all; it was a business decision to do so in the interest of customer trust and satisfaction.

Ahh, subtlety, subtlety ... sadly, my response was to Jaap saying "Leica always complies with its legal obligations", rather than saying "Leica broke the law".  All too messy with distinctions.  This is rarely a zero-sum game.

If you take Michali's case, he had an M9 with corrosion; he sent it in for repair under warranty; Leica replaced the sensor with the same defective sensor; when that corroded, they refused to replace ist under warranty.  Now, in your view, did they meet their legal requirements for a fit for purpose product?  I'd be more interested in a judge's decision, but based on what I do know, in my jurisdiction, I think not.

The link I made above sets out a customer's rights, about repair, replacement, refund or price reduction, but only in the EU.  That doesn't apply to other jurisdictions.

Now, there is always a claim.  Its success is another matter.  The contract, of course, is with the dealer (authorised dealer, Leica owned boutique or something else?), but the product warranty is with Leica.  Any action in contract or under the consumer law would be with the seller, backed by a further action, either jointly or third party claim, against Leica.  In reality, if Leica left the claim with the dealer for its faulty products, it wouldn't last long.  Any claimant would join Leica, and the dealer would fall away.

Many years ago, we had a small(ish) paragliding manufacturer from Korea who sold a glider into the US (California, I think).  The purchaser of the glider did something really stupid, crashed and died.  His family (note) sued the glider manufacturer in California.  The glider company didn't participate - it wasn't worth it for them.  So a non-contested judgment was entered against them.  Court decisions generally aren't enforceable across jurisdictions, so, provided the company didn't re-enter the Californian market, it didn't matter to them.  However, they did give up a large market.

As to limitations of liability, that all depends.  While the protection of the statutory warranties may run out after two years, liability in contract in most of the common law world is 6 years from the date of sale.  Now, that may get you around a time limitation, but is a digital product still fit for purposes after 6 years?  Perhaps not.

So, what would the case look like?

Leica, was the camera defective?  Umm, with cover glass corrosion, perhaps not.

When did you find out the cover glass was subject to corrosion?  Umm, well we had some cameras returned in ... 2011?  Who knows?

What did you doing then? Umm ... we replaced the sensors ... first with the same defective sensor cover glass ... eventually we solved the cover glass problem ... after a great deal of pressure from LUF, among others ...

Frivolous claim?  Perhaps.  My sensor was replaced in my Monochrom with the latter version, so "I'm alright, Jack".  That doesn't really have anything to do with a theoretical legal position ...  Endangering the future of the company isn't really a legal concept (which is what we're talking about, right?)

Now, about the M11.

[elmars]

There are too many facts, claims and legal systems being thrown around. In addition, the information on Michali's case is too scanty. Leica is not a company where only saints work. Therefore, there will of course be individual legal violations. My point was to clarify that one cannot conclude systematic or mass legal violations from the M9 corrosion problem. 

Better to go back to the M11. 

[IkarusJohn]

22 minutes ago, elmars said:

… My point was to clarify that one cannot conclude systematic or mass legal violations from the M9 corrosion problem …

The only one concluding is Jaap. 

I have a view that Leica ducks and dodges its obligations. No conclusion. Just an opinion. 
 

[M11 for me]

I am lucky and maybe even very lucky:

During the past 15 years I had:

- Canon 5D Mk ii, Mk iii, Mk iv

- Some Fuji before turning to Leica

- Leica M10 an Q2

Today I have:

- Canon R5

- Leica M11 and Q3

With none of all these cameras I ever had any problem nor were they ever serviced. But as I put it in the beginning: I might be lucky.

Therefore I would like to see a survey here with the following questions to the M11 owners:

1) I have no issue with my M11

2) I have some rare lock ups but nothing serious so that it does not affect me.

3) I have permanent lock ups so that it makes it difficult to work with the M11 (lock ups in every shooting)

I think that we still do not know the extent of the problem: Which percentage of the cameras out there is in group 3) above?

[idusidusi]

On 8/30/2023 at 10:23 PM, Patrickfoley@mac.com said:

So I’ve now heard from Leica Mayfair that i might get my M11 back around the end of September. That implies a five month turnaround. This has me so fed up I'm seriously considering selling all my Leica gear (M11, M11M, Q3, plus M lenses). The end of a long relationship. 

That is what poor QC leads to. I must have been lucky and never had to send anything back to the mothership. Let QC slip long term and reputations are lost, I hope that Leica take that on board seriously.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Let’s look at the reality of such cases.

First rule - the fact that someone sues you, doesn’t mean they have a case.  There was a time when lawyers would head off baseless claims in their offices.  Those times seem to have gone, or the quality of legal practise has changed.

Second rule - a flip side of the first, just because you haven’t been sued, doesn’t mean you have complied with your legal oblligations.

Generally, lawyers rely on accepted decisions of higher courts as authority (stare decisis).  Juries generally give a bad picture of the law, but then in common law countries (outside the US), juries are generally used only for findings of fact in criminal cases (and sometimes in defamation).

Overriding rule - it’s not worth pursuing legal action, unless the amount of the claim is sufficient to cover your time and involvement, legal fees and delays, and there’s a good chance the other side will pay up if you win.  So, an $8,000 camera isn’t worth it.  The cost of the camera, and an APO 35 Summicron, wouldn’t even get you half way to court.  

We do have class actions to cover this - one team of lawyers, usually funded by an insurance company, representing everyone with a claim.  In this case, it would be the owners of all M9 based cameras.  Those litigants would agree to a funding arrangement, where the lawyers are paid by the funders and the funders take a cut of any win (claims can get as little as 30% in a successful claim).  Now, here’s the trick - no lawyer will go around and try to find every such camera owner.  They won’t know who they are, nor would they be able to find them.  But, if they can gather enough such owners, they can establish a class.  Once that class is established, then the case can proceed on behalf of all M9 owners.

Class actions vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  US has class actions (but not in arbitration), as does the UK (in limited situations) and New Zealand (new here).  The issue with class actions is how those not directly involved in the action are treated.  A passive M9 owning observer could sit back, watch the class action, then benefit from the result without cost or involvement of the litigation funder.  So, the courts in the US, UK and NZ (not sure about Australia) have accepted that, once a class is established, everyone who might benefit from such a class is deemed to have “opted-in” to the class action, and they are bound by the result.  The downside of that is that the litigation funder can recover its share of the award from all those in the class.

If a person “opts-out” of the class, then they’re on their own.  If there’s a judgment for the class, then they get the benefit of that judgment as a matter of precedent for the negotiatin of their claim; if the class action settles, then there’s no precedent and those who opted out have nothing to work on.

Germany doesn’t have “class actions”.  It does have representative actions, where a number of law suits are filed and one representative suit is heard to deal with others.  They do also have “non-genuine class actions” where claims are pooled or assigned to one litigant.  

So, we see why a court action against Leica is highly unlikely.  There is, of course, regulatory action (by whatever consumer protection agency is in Germany), but that is another thing.  My guess, while there may be some very angry Leica owners, the average Leica demographic has bought a Leica camera for a particular reason and they are unlikely to want to sue.

None of that means that Leica always complies with the law.  They may feel they are doing the right thing (in the context of doing the best forLeica), but there can be a gulf between that and what a court would say, if ever it got to court …

Cheers
(non-litigating) John

Having sued German companies a couple of times  I would love to see a German lawyer rebut this 😉

[keeping_a_balance]

On 8/22/2023 at 11:20 AM, patashnik said:

I recently got a good offer on a silver M11 (which always was my prepared choice), so I decided to go for it and sell my black M11. Yesterday, as I was running through the checks, it suddenly locked up and turned off. Now I am not able to restart it - and reset doesn't work. I have talked to the dealer, and they've told me to send it in. 

Before I do, I just wanted to check if anyone knows a magic hack, or has experienced something like this. I'm aware of the the freeze issue, but this seems a bit more substantial than that. 

I have changed battery and memory card, but no luck.

Did you try taking out the SD card, putting the battery back in and trying that... happened to me once... SD card was fried but camera was fine...

 

 

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, idusidusi said:

That is what poor QC leads to. I must have been lucky and never had to send anything back to the mothership. Let QC slip long term and reputations are lost, I hope that Leica take that on board seriously.

I would suggest that it has nothing to do with QC but with staffing and supply chain problems with the repair department.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[idusidusi]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

I would suggest that it has nothing to do with QC but with staffing and supply chain problems with the repair department.

Yes maybe you have a good point there.