Philinflash Posted September 10, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sadly, it looks like the deficiencies of the M8 base plate have been carried over to the M9. These have been discussed at length in this Forum but it seems to be an area where Leica was not listening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Hi Philinflash, Take a look here Base Plate: Opportunity Missed?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
cocker Posted September 10, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2009 Sadly, it looks like the deficiencies of the M8 base plate have been carried over to the M9. These have been discussed at length in this Forum but it seems to be an area where Leica was not listening. Perhaps they listened and thought the arguments were unconvincing - as I certainly did. The level of immaturity on this forum has grown enormously over the past few weeks. I wonder how long it will take to subside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted September 10, 2009 Perhaps they listened and thought the arguments were unconvincing - as I certainly did. The level of immaturity on this forum has grown enormously over the past few weeks. I wonder how long it will take to subside. So, if it doesn't convince you, it is immature? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted September 10, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2009 So, if it doesn't convince you, it is immature? Thanks. No - the expectation that if Leica didn't take up your idea they are were not listening is immature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 10, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 10, 2009 The level of immaturity on this forum has grown enormously over the past few weeks. It's just like when the M8 was introduced, and then the M8.2 - have you noticed, no one is talking about the S2 now.........anyway, why can't my Clux be upgraded to M9 spec, come on Leica this is silly! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 10, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 10, 2009 ...anyway, why can't my Clux be upgraded to M9 spec The upgrade is available and easy. You go to a dealer and ask how much he'll offer for the C-Lux in part-ex for an M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLV Posted September 10, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) What do you call the "deficencies of the M8 base plate" I think this is the best system vs all the little opening traps of plastic DSLRs. All the best, Jean-Luc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 10, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 10, 2009 There is the Luigi alternative, although I don't know if the slots are in the same position on the M9. Personally I always thought the base plate idea was great, a nod to the past but practical at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted September 10, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2009 I think it was a smart move, if you ask me. It follows Leica M tradition. It maintains compatibility with all Leica and third-party accessories. Okay, most of us consider it perhaps not so convenient. But consider also that space is at an absolute premium in the digital M cameras - so adding doors and other things not only looks less appealing, it also takes up more space than simply having a removable bottom plate. In practice, it's far less of a pain than film and in general, really not that bad. Change battery, change SD - move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael-IIIf Posted September 10, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 10, 2009 Sadly, it looks like the deficiencies of the M8 base plate .... Balderdash. It is a great piece of industrial design and one of the reasons I bought my M8. Neat, practical and pays homage to previous Leicas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #11 Posted September 10, 2009 What do you call the "deficencies of the M8 base plate"I think this is the best system vs all the little opening traps of plastic DSLRs. All the best, Jean-Luc On this Forum, there have been some reports of base plate failures. As I recall, they tended to be associated with the fact that the tripod socket is in the base plate rather than in the camera body itself. If you are really interested, a search on the Forum will find these. I am not advocating any particular design, especially not plastic ports/traps. If the consensus is that Leica did the right thing with regard to the base plate, that is fine with me. I've been in minorities before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philinflash Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share #12 Posted September 10, 2009 No - the expectation that if Leica didn't take up your idea they are were not listening is immature. At my age, it is nice to have some immaturities left... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted September 10, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 10, 2009 I must agree. Having to partially dismantle the camera to change the battery and memory card is an absolutely silly, counterproductive bit of retro design conceit that Leica should have avoided at least with the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 10, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 10, 2009 On this Forum, there have been some reports of base plate failures. Actually they weren't base plate failures but rather failures in the body casting (the body metal broke, not the base plate). I don't know if the exact reason was ever determined but it appears to have been a few isolated cases. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrikft Posted September 10, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 10, 2009 For people that do not need to change memory card or battery fast... this is of course great. You can put in a 16GB SD card and forget it I guess. But those that photograph demonstrations and stuff where the police often ask to see your memory card, being able to change it fast is a premium feature. Different priorities for different use. Somone having the camera as a mantle piece is maybe not so concerned with this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
henning Posted September 10, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 10, 2009 Actually they weren't base plate failures but rather failures in the body casting (the body metal broke, not the base plate). I don't know if the exact reason was ever determined but it appears to have been a few isolated cases. There were 'base plate failures' as well, but they seemed to me to be user errors; ie, not hooking the end on properly. That does, of course, speak to the base plate design. The old film style tab seemed better and stronger to me. I don't need to change card or battery all that quickly ususally, but it could be faster and simpler. That said, having other little doors does not make a design more robust. Those things get torn off DSLR's and P&S's regularly. In the end, it's not a big deal one way or the other to me and certainly nothing to get steamed about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted September 10, 2009 Share #17 Posted September 10, 2009 I guess they thought that people who has the time to focus manually and shift between lenses instead of zooming also had the time to open the baseplate I would have expected it to change but reading the posts here about history and design make me think it's a great idea keeping it as is. If not, there's always Luigi. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted September 10, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 10, 2009 Actually they weren't base plate failures but rather failures in the body casting (the body metal broke, not the base plate). I don't know if the exact reason was ever determined but it appears to have been a few isolated cases. Only the case we here at the forum heard about. That does not mean they were that isolated. Just to prove this, in one respect, I recently sold a M8 for what I think was top dollar. I really don't think many people would of bought used M8's, at or around what I got for mine, if they knew the M9 was coming. So there are a ton of Leica users and buyers that don't even know about this or other forums dealing with Leica cameras. So we will never know just how many M8's failed at that same point of the body. In my opinion one is to many. I've never heard of any Leica film M failing like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted September 11, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 11, 2009 I like the baseplate access - fewer breaks in the body, that then need weather-sealing. Now if we can just get rid of the USB plug.... The problem with the phrasing of the original post is that it assumes we all "know" the baseplate design is "deficient" - which is not true. In some people's humble opinion it is deficient - in others' it is just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted September 11, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 11, 2009 In my (not so humble opinion), it's just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.