Does Leica need money fast (M8 horror story)

Oh, and Ray, lest I forget: the company that makes my sports car <a href="http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2007/report2007.pdf" target="_blank">reported a net sales of USD $39,310,053,000 with a net income of USD $4,283,614,000 in the 2007 fiscal year</a>, representing a gain of more than 7 percentage points over the previous year's earnings. The company that makes your sports car, however, is expecting a loss of $10 million Euros for the fiscal year ending March 2009.

To: Peter A.

 

In reply to your dogmatic response yesterday:

 

I happened to mention that I predict that Leica will soon be no more and you start waffling on about making daft bets. Can a user not give his opinion without having to open his wallet? Why not just give your own opinion and leave it at that? To be honest, this is typical of forum chat. Everyone gets heated very quickly because nobody is sitting in the same room face to face. People like to get clever and demonstrate how superior their knowledge is compared to other users.

 

I don't pretend to be an expert and I don't target other users if I disagree with their views.

 

Now... for those readers that do value reading someone's opinion, here's an expansion of my views: The M8 was a bit of a disaster. I admire Leica for calling it the M8, rather than the M digital or some other catchy name. It was good marketing and the camera looked every bit the M7 replacement rather than an alternative. That was the only thing they did right. The camera looked great and was marketed superbly but the end result was below par. Leica shunned a full frame sensor because they wanted to keep the look of the M series unchanged. Leica couldn't fit a 35mm style full frame sensor into an M series shell so rather than alter the design of the camera, they shrunk the sensor... BAD move! That was effectively an admission that they put looks before performance, always a bad thing. Leica has always been about the utmost quality.. using a shrunken sensor was the first wrong move. Next thing we hear is that Leica recommends M8 owners to use a special filter to reduce noise. All that nonsense should have been sorted out during R&D, not when they've sold a heap of M8s.

 

Next thing we hear is that an M8 can be ruined by a few drops of condensation. Remember, the guy wasn't out in a downpour.. when rain appeared he put it in his bag with care. Next thing he knows, the M8 is dead. $5000 gone just like that. No excuse Leica... cameras are designed to be used outdoors.... not in a climate controlled room. Unforgiveable. Then to treat the customer to a 3340 euro bill for repair was the final straw.

 

Here's a few excerpts from a press conference with the head of Leica at Photokina 2008:

 

Leica's CEO Andreas Kaufmann insists that the firm is firmly committed to avoiding the 'strategic mistakes' of the past. He praised Leica's workforce for their 'high motivation' during times of 'crisis'. He warned that there is still a 'long hard haul' ahead for Leica. 'Leica will continue towards a digital future but we will not compromise basic brand value,' he explained, telling invited guests that early digital technology did not satisfy the company's requirements.

 

We all know that the M8 was a disaster even if certain folks can't admit it. Even Leica's CEO speaks of strategic mistakes of the past (surely the M8).

 

No doubt they plan on making Leica successful again but that isn't going to happen with the S2 (my prediction... no bets or wagers invitied). If they do actually get the M9 right this time then they have a chance. If they don't they are on the road to ruin.

 

Now... back to Mr. Peter A:

 

'btw - why should Leica be ashamed of making a product and putting it on the market? - no one is forcing anyone to buy the product you know - there are enough internet experts condemning the company and its products to have given people plenty of warning about just how inferior Leica is to the mighty Canon 350D.'

 

Correct. No-one is forcing anyone to buy Leica. But I can understand people buying the M8 thinking it will live up to Leica's previous reputation for unrivalled image quality and build quality. However, these people weren't to know that they would soon need a bolt on filter to buff up the dodgy image quality and that they could no longer take the camera outside in anything other than glorious sunshine for fear of receiving a 3340 euro bill. Of course, anyone buying the M8 now is a fool if they are aware of its shortcomings.

 

Mighty 350D? Yep, you just about got that one right. My £300 GBP camera (about 1 tenth the cost of the M8) can suffer a good downpour without a worry. Hey, if it gets trashed the maximum bill I will get is £300 GBP for a new one. I would also speculate that the image quality of my little friend is superior to the M8 although that may be tempting a few more silly wagers from the Leica brigade.

 

As I am now awaiting my new Canon 5D2, I wonder how many M8 owner's out there still really actually seriously believe they are the owners of a world class top quality camera they can take anywhere. As the 5D2 costs much less than an M8 I really find myself questioning the sanity of some Leica digital fans (Leica film users excepted).

I haven't read the whole of this thread, just the first quarter or so. I sympathise with the OP over his loss. On the other hand, I'm with Kelly about the likely nature of the repair. With all respect to Reinier, those photos of the damage look far worse than I would expect after a few drops of rain, carefully dried out again. There have been threads on this forum before about successfully drying out electronic circuits, and the basic message was: take the batteries out and dry the thing, don't wait for oxidation to occur.

 

Someone above mentioned that the M8 doesn't have any weather-proofing. Surely there are pros and cons to seals? If the camera was perfectly sealed, it would not be possible to get rid of consensation without placing a dessicant inside.

Fango - why do you think ISO of 1600 is so important? Oh what the heck on a Canon it would make no difference what ISO you shoot - the in camera processing is so foggy and plastic - the output all looks the same doesn't matter what 'ISO' you are shooting hahahhahahahahah<p> Wasnt goign to say - if that rust was a result of some minor condensation - my name is Elle McPherson. hahahhahhahah - oops did I just say that?<p> Hmm Mr J. Robertson - how am I dogmatic - you are teh one making statements - I merely disagreed and suggested you put your money where yoru ovely loud voice is. I can still hear your feet running down the corridor in hasty retreat! hahahhaha nver mind - POMS are typically gutless wonders - well known fact.<p> Gloves off to you anti-Leica nuts - we Leica nutz are farting back.

Rainier,

 

Thanks for actually showing the damage. I kinda agree with Leica on this one. Whether it should it be more

waterproof for the price, I think we hashed this out for some length above. Needless to say, it would be better if it

was, but it isn't and we really can't judge the entire circumstances by which the damage occured. Frankly, I'm sorry

that it did -- I've had worst disasters in the field although not with the M8. The M8 has been a fantastic travel camera

for me (India, South Africa, Iceland) with absolutely no compliants. Anyhow, don't blame me when you buy another

camera that is waterproof, you'll probably be much more disappointed by the pictures than anything else...

 

Which leads me now to respond to Jamie above:

 

I'm glad that you have now conclusively determined that the "M8 can be ruined by a few drops of condensation." Oh

well. Let me assure you that my M8 had more than a few drops of condensation (at least on the outside) from

Iceland this summer and it was just fine. Anyhow, I wouldn't necessarily conclude the opposite that the M8 cannot

be felled by condensation (although I've never heard of it until this post). Its probably fairly unlikely though.

 

Moreover, to take the point out of the Leica context, I have much more expensive equipment which I would dare say I

would avoid going near water (particularly salt water). A Hasselblad 205FCC (my favorite camera ever due to its

incorporation of the zone system) and a 300f2.8 Suprachromat easily come to mind. But most of all by far would be

the 16MP digital V-back that I sometimes use with it. Phenomenally impressive equipment -- for photography that

is. And I'll bet you that none of this equipment would probably not be the best in any "condensation" trials.

 

But here's the real scoop: why bother with the M8 when you've got all of the whiz bang Canons and Nikons to

choose from? Its kinda of a big secret, but here it goes: the quality of the images. Nevermind I also like the way a

rangefinder works. Thats not to say some of Canon's longer lenses are not superlative, but in the realm of the M8

(wide angle to short telephoto), they just don't come close. Sorry if that disappoints you. (And just so there's no

accusation of prejudice here, the Minolta TC-1 was also a great little film camera). But again, these things are

highly subjective. You "wonder how many M8 owner's out there still really actually seriously [and truly?] believe the

they are the owners of a world class top quality camera they can take anywhere," but we don't wonder: we just like

using the M8 to take pictures with. Thats all. We see the results and could not be happier. Sure, the M8 could

be better (it can always be better). But I'll take the M8 over any other digital camera on the market. Right now and

even after the NEW 5D2 comes out. The M8 with the modern M lenses produces vastly superior images.

 

You even wonder about the sanity of some Leica digital fans (thats a lot of well known reviewers by the way). Thats

strange because I have a similar worry but its more about the people who go the Leica forum and spend all of their

time trying to convince Leica fans how good their Canon or Nikons are (which are all digital now), how antiquated and

expensive Leica really is (wish more read Ansel Adam's " The Camera," by the way), etc., etc (and I'm not

insinuating this about Rainier's compliant by the way). I wonder why are there no Leica fans trying to convince the

members of the other such forums how good their Leica really is? Now whose sanity should we be concerned

about? Worrisome indeed.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

David,

 

By the way, I have taken my M8 on many ski trips to Saas Fee, Switzerland, starting at 4000m altitude (altough not quite as cold as -30 degrees Celsuis) and have had no problems either. Its actually a perfect camera for such a purpose.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

You can not be serious calling this severe water damage. These are single drops that apperantly occured on the wrong place. There was discussion on another forum on why this happens specifically on one place while other places are super-clean and the agreement was that these parts must have been under power to form this kind of corrosion. I ofcourse dried the camera as good as I could, but on several occasions used the battery to check if there was life again. And ofcourse it took us 3 weeks to get home and into civilisation again after this occurence, time enough for corrosion to grow even after removing the battery.

Looking at the situation and treatment this should not accor to any camera, if it was nikon/canon/or others. The insurance company has the same opinion, that is much saying, more than Leica haters that are present, more than Leicophilias, which are also present.

 

This means that if you take this camera into similar circumstances you are playing russian roulette. As long as the drops form on places where there is no power, you are lucky. And that I call bad design.

 

If I buy another M8 is still doubtfull, I had some offers for demo's/2nd hands but I'm very reluctant to buy one again knowing I can not rely on it (and not insure). And I'm reluctant to give up on RF.

 

I now know the qualities but also the troubles.

<i>Nobody asked for these "amazing new M lenses." By and large, Leica photographers wanted a full frame dRF that

can match a $600 digital Rebel's performance at ISO 800-160[0]</i>

<p>

The new 21mm f/1.4 wide angle prime would seem to be just the kind of lens that are needed by M8 users to do what

M cameras have been traditionally used to do. There is no point in talking about a full frame 24x36 digital RF

since it would not work with existing lenses.

Reinier, I think the important point is not how much water got in, but the fact that 3 weeks elapsed before you were able in a position to dry the camera properly (and even then, did you?). Plenty of time for corrosion to occur, with or without power. Even the metal chassis is substantially corroded (RHS of your second photo). I'd like to know how many Greenland-experienced pros would nowadays EXPECT a trouble-free trip with so technically complex a camera? Only 2 decades ago, arctic veterans favoured mechanical cameras over the electronic ones of the day, and even had the oil removed from their shutters. Maybe the guy with the 400D was also pushing the boat out, but he just lucked through. Sample size, one of each - so it doesn't make a valid comparison. As a stand-alone incident, you knew that Greenland was not 'civilisation', as you put it: your risk, your accident.

 

And to think that anyone would complain at 'having' to use an M6!

Stephen Pitts:

 

You make a very valid point about the likes of the 16MP digital backs etc. I too wouldn't take a chance in the rain with them. That is a very good argument and one I hadn't really considered. I just get the sense that the Leica M series has always had the image of a throw in your bag, take anywhere sort of camera (unlike a 16MP digi back or a Hassy 501 for example). It appears from this post that the M8 doesn't quite live up to that idea. Perhaps this was indeed a bit of a freak disaster and I don't doubt there are countless users who have had no trouble at all with them. I just think that for the hefty price tag it should be built to last for generations, not for the short term.

 

Regarding your reasons for using an M8: 'the quality of the images'. Sure, they're good... but there is no way on God's earth they are equal to those from most decent DSLRs. To even suggest that an M8 used with modern M lenses can produce images with quality that surpasses those of full frame DSLRs (especially the upcoming 5D2) is absolute utter nonsense. The old 5D trounces it and, yes, I have seen many results from both cameras. Anyone with any shred of photographic knowledge will agree with me on that. Heck, I may be tempted with one of Peter A's famous wagers on that one! Even Leica themselves are admitting to mistakes as of late. I actually agree with you that the M series cameras are a joy to use. I have no doubt the M8 is an absolute pleasure to work with and I also love the rangefinder format myself. Rangefinders have many advantages over a 'whizz bang Canon or Nikon' such as compactness, bright viewfinder, quietness etc etc. I do not dispute any of that whatsoever. All I am saying is that a very expensive M8 with very expensive lenses should have the ULTIMATE image quality to match and the longevity of a lump of granite (ultimate image quality defined as equivalent to a FF DSLR).

 

 

Peter A:

 

Poms gutless? I didn't hear you lot shouting that when we thrashed you in the Olympics and Paralympics! :-)

(Now that was a bit of friendly forum banter for you!)

I have a Sony 717. A few years after I bought it, well after the warranty had expired, the sensor died. Apparently

dampness had affected the adhesive holding the sensor wires in place. I contacted Sony by phone. They emailed me

a prepaid UPS pickup label. I sent the camera to them. I got it back a few weeks later, fixed, shipping paid, no

charge, even though the warranty had expired. Now that's a company I'll do business with again.

 

I'm sure many Leicaphiles will say my Sony 717 doesn't take the same quality images as a M8 . I'm sure it doesn't

but I'm also not sure which is better! My 717, for which I paid about $600, wears a very nice looking Carl Zeiss Vario-

Sonar lens. It takes very nice pictures and it doesn't require a special filter to correct for infrared.

 

Personally, I think Leica is ripping people off. Leicas were once sold in Hermes boutiques and I believe Hermes was

once a part owner of Leica. If you visit the Hermes web site you will find $975 beach towels!!! Also, this myth of the

invincibility of German engineering is just that - a myth - that probably had its genesis in the Second World War -

Tiger tanks, V2's, etc. But that's over now.

 

Save yourselves, learn to love all things Japanese (:>.

Well Jamie,

 

To take an expression from a more vulgar context regarding wives, then we won't have to worry about stealing each

other's cameras! Anyhow, having a perhaps a "shred" of photographic knowledge, I've looked at photos of the 5D's

big brother (the 1Ds), the M8 and the Hasselblad 16 MP V-back. The latter wins hands down (apparently the 9

micorn pixels are well matched to the lenses), the M8 came in a strong second and then the 1Ds. This comparison

was done about 1 1/2 years ago at a store in London which only rents out professional equipment (including Canon

and Hasselblad but not Leica so there was no inherent bias). The comparison was also done at a level of

magnification that was well below where you stressed out the pixels. Moreover, I don't remember what lenses were

used so the comparison was not entirely scientific. Nonetheless, your 5D "trounces" the M8 might a bit on the

strong side (to say the least!). As long as you able to get the shot you want, I personally think it has more to do

with the lenses and the pixel size, the nature of the pixel technology, etc. than the number of pixels (as long as you

have enough which I would argue the M8 just barely does for most common situations). While Canon uses CMOS

technology (which they are admittantly very proud of) for a variety of reasons (speed of clearing the frame, etc.); all

high-end medium format digital backs (Hasselblad, Phase One, Sinar, etc.) use a CCD technology which apparently

gives a better image (so I am told by enigneers at these places). The M8 no doubt enjoys this same advantage.

Again, this is all assuming you get the shot in the first place; Canon has a lot of technology just dedicated to getting

the shot (weatherproofing for example!). Anyhow, if I was a bird photographer now there is no doubt that the Canon

lenses and technology are completely dominant in this regard. For street and travel photography, I'll take the M8.

 

Perhaps someday one will have the ULTIMATE image quality (i.e.as you define it, a full frame M8), but for me overall,

nothing currenlty beats the M8. A full frame M8 will no doubt require some extensive microlens work, etc., which we

can only hope becomes feasible. Maybe two years or more... But I'll have shot my M8 for a long time by then...

 

In the meantime, I am very excited about the S2 program as it really seems to hit a sweet spot in the professional

digital market. Its definately more of a competitor to Hasselblad than to Canon or Nikon unless each of them also

wants to make such a leap. There are rumours on Nikon, but I doubt it (they have enough on their hands right now).

For me, it has enough pixels to never worry about enlargements, many of the features which users of Canon, for

example, have enjoyed (to help you get that quick in-motion shot), etc. And again, those lenses! I'm betting that

the new S2 lenses will set new standards (except for Zeiss Suprachromats, the Zeiss Biogon and 40IF and, of

course, Canon's telephoto lenses).

 

Cheers,

 

Steve