"Class Action" against Leica for R8/R9 film scratching?

After reading about film scratching for serveral years now, and most

recently in Dr.Knapp's posting a few days ago

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005X6l),

there appear to be a great many R users experiencing this problem.

Leica has "acknowledged" the problem by their band-aid fix. (Nice

wording, Jay! ;-))

 

My guess is that most R users who will experience or have experienced

this outrageous flaw will do so out of warranty. Let alone, with or

without warranty, being without the camera for serveral weeks.

 

What can WE do to voice our complaint? Certainly a petition or

jointly signed letter would get some attention. However, I think

that it would only attract lip service. Doesn't a type of class

action suit make more sense? I imagine that the members of this

forum and Lug are a very vocal and informed group. How many members

could we scrounge up? 100? 200?

 

The action would request, (I imagine not being an attorney), a

standing order recall of all R8s and R9s for the replacement of the

offending piece with a NEWLY redesigned and manufactered piece. Is

this really so different that an auto recall? Jay has given his DIY

findings. I imagine that at least one Leica design engineer has a

solution too.

 

What should we do? Where? How?

 

My other instinct would be to raise our voices with a US based

attorney, as the US has very liberal class action cases. Germany and

Switzerland are also worth considering, as Germany has a great number

of users and Switzerland also has reasonable customer protection

laws. The issue is directed at Leica Camera AG (Deutschland) AND the

various country importers.

 

What do you think?

 

Best,

 

R Fred

From looking at the picture (in the thread) I cant see why they dont just put in a polished metal part there. Seems like an easy fix.

Reto: I think it is a great idea. A petition may be the first course

as the company is "small' and a class action-lawyer may not be

interested. However, the threat of a class action suit should

remain so as to compell Leica to comply. I also agree that Leica

should DESIGN a new scratchproof piece instead of just

replacing one defective piece with another eventually defective

piece. I am a physician, but we must have one or more lawyers

in the group who could provide advice on this matter. I am in

100%.

Another point we can make: we can also alert the magazines to

this defect.... Leica and anyother company hate NEGATIVE

publicity.

Wouldn't this make Leica go broke?

As pointed out by Carl...

 

Putting aside the unlikely possibility of finding a lawyer or firm willing to go after a

small manufacturer of luxury products for a small ultimate payoff (look at majority of

class action suits: company intentionally produces product that injures many owners,

public outraged, company sued, company and plaintiffs settle, lawyers get to buy

their new BMW 5 series four door), the result would be bankrupting Leica, making a

couple of lawyers on both sides richer because in a bankruptcy situation it is the

lawyers who get paid first, and all the other creditors have to get in line, and no

remedy for your complaint since you will wind up putting the company out of

business.

 

Leica would then be bought up by panasonic, or other japanese firm, production

quality would be scaled down where only P&S would be sold under Leica brand and

the M and R lines would be discontinued as unprofitable.

 

This is not GM, Ford, Goodyear, MS, etc., this is a small niche camera manufacturer.

 

Your only honest recourse is not to buy Leica products, anymore...and well, I guess,

complain to all, but finding a legal remedy...ha!

I think the European Common Market have laws governing the "CE" label. If a product is "CE" certified and does not meet that standard it will be dealt with by the union, but I don't know the process of how to escalate it.

Big problem, but a law suit? Few editorials would be a better avenue.

Just what the rest of us needs, another lawsuit that would drive up the cost of Leica products. Consumer always pays.

"Your only honest recourse is not to buy Leica products, anymore..."

 

The honest recourse is for the manufacturer to fix and solve a problem that was never disclosed, nor has ever been officially acknowledged! It is a bit insulting to have the implication that I am being dishonest...

 

This is simply NOT about money. Period. It is NOT about being compensated. It IS about getting a manufacterer to fix a very very small item on a very expensive product and retrofitting the part on cameras that are returned. Simple. Not greedy, not angry. Simply good and honest customer service. Unfortunately, with the push of an attorney or two. Otherwise, they do not seem to listen .....or care.

 

I believe that the first suggestion of a press release by the consumers will be all that is needed. With the introduction of a Digital R, and the expectation of new R sales (as multi-use), the last thing any manufacturer wants is this type of exposure. I imagine that it would be a quiet invitation to "upgrade" existing cameras.

 

I think that there are a bit too many "corporate raider" thinkers out there. This is not an expensive initiative on the consumers part. In house council (in Solms) should be able to see the writing on the wall and release a few thousand Euros...

 

I would hope that, I would assume, that Leica has known about this problem for several years. Certainly, if that is true, they have a warranty reserve or a sales return reserve on their books.

 

R Fred

"Few editorials would be a better avenue"

 

Try and find a widely distributed magazine or journal that will critize a full page or two advertiser!

 

PopPhoto doesn't even acknowledge the several slimey merchants that advertize every month. Shutterbug either. Photo - is that still around? Foto and ColorFoto - not a chance!

 

R Fred

No flame intended here. But researching Google the only referennces I have found is here on Photo Net and one on the Leica FAQ. It appears that a small number of users are having this issue. This is not say that your issues are real, but there doesn't seem to a ground swell of negative comments on this.

 

The question about the scratches I would have:

 

Are the scratches in the samee place each and everytime? If not it could be an issue with the processing.

 

Also I don't think a class action lawsuit would be viable, unless becuase of these posts there are more users that come forward. Keep in mind in most class action suits the only winners are the lawyers. Bettter to work with your local dealer, who should take your "case" to Leica and get things solved for you.

"It is a bit insulting to have the implication that I am being dishonest... "

 

Honest, adj:

 

1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer.

2. Not deceptive or fraudulent; genuine: honest weight.

3. Equitable; fair: honest wages for an honest day's work.

4.

a. Characterized by truth; not false: honest reporting.

b. Sincere; frank: an honest critique.

5.

a. Of good repute; respectable.

b. Without affectation; plain: honest folk.

6. Virtuous; chaste.

 

My use of the word "honest" is to imply sincerity, frankness; not to imply dis-honesty.

A consumer having a greivance with a manufacturer is not being dis-honest by

seeking a remedy, legal or otherwise. That's obvious. But, you have to acknowledge

the limitation of your desired action. Which has nothing to do with the integrity of

your cause, greivance.

 

"This is simply NOT about money. Period. It is NOT about being compensated. It IS

about getting a manufacterer to fix a very very small item on a very expensive

product and retrofitting the part on cameras that are returned. Simple. Not greedy,

not angry. Simply good and honest customer service. Unfortunately, with the push

of an attorney or two. Otherwise, they do not seem to listen .....or care."

 

Look, you must realize that honor, integrity, just cause, etc. has nothing to do with

the practice of law, especially wrt class-action suits. You miss the point I was trying

to make; no one cares whether for you its "simply NOT about money." What's in it for

them. Class-action lawyers want a payoff, they do not want to represent you out of

the

goodness of their heart. They could care less.

Hi Reto :-)

 

OK, so how many R8s/9s have this problem? Earlier threads I have read indicate three photo.net members owning early German R8's have. What about others with later models since the running change was installed in the Portuguese R8s and R9s? Anyone out there have a problem with these late models that can be identified?

 

Do you think Leica is going to go to the trouble of redesigning a problem piece and not fix it? These Leica guys are better than that! I think that any of us with a problem should email Leica and ask them to replace the old plastic piece (free) with the new one. You guys with the old R8s, why not email Leica and see if they will replace the plastic piece before jumping on a petition or lawsuit. Here is a contact for Leica USA for starters.

 

dave.elwell@leicacamerausa.com

Retro Fred.....Calm yourself. There are about 90 million lawsuits filed each year in the US. So get in line. And the good Doc, how about those malpractice insurance rates? No wonder we are all paying through the nose for everything.

 

It would be cheaper for a bunch of you R owners to get on a plane, fly to Germany and sit down and talk with Leica.

 

Ok, here it comes. I'm going to go hide somewhere.

Reto, it takes (by others' estimates) about 150 rolls of film before the scratches start to appear. That means 99% of R8/9 users won't experience the problem before they are too old to hold a camera, or before they are forced by film unavailability to buy the already-obsolete digital back whenever and if ever it materlializes, and then they'll be dealing with whatever glaring defects are designed into that contraption. The remaining 1% is divided among those whose eyesight precludes them from seeing the scratches, those who see them but don't give a sh*t, those who are in permanent denial that Leicas are anything but perfect, those who fix the problem themselves with tape or whatever, and those who recognize that the film scratching is but one of the many design flaws of the R8/9 and switch to another brand. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know for sure but I think you need more than 3 people to file a class action suit. I believe that the R system is not going to survive very much longer. Leica blew both shots at revitalizing it: the R9 is insignificantly changed from the R8 which remains available new in large quantities worldwide; and the announced specs for the 1.5-year-away digital back are already not cutting-edge and by then will be laughably outdated.

Reto,

 

In reflecting back on your comments it seems to look like Leica has no reason to satisfy the consumer. Again unless there are MANY more suers that are experiencing what you and others are, it appears to be an isolated instance.

 

Again the question is, are the scratches located in the same place on your camera, each and everytime? If so then has Leica attempted a fix? Has the fix worked? If not we go back to question #1. If repeated attempts have been made to correct the problem, what has been Leica's comments each time? (along with this question, how many times have you requested a fix?) If Leica has not been able to fix the problem under repeated attempts, have you asked Leica for a reasonable accommodation? If so what has been Leica's response? What have been your losses due to this problem? The reason for these questions is that these are the questions that a court would most likely ask in any suit over the matter at hand.

 

Again the issue seems to be an issue of a few users (by my count fewer than ten references from unique users on the web over this issue).

 

Based on my experience your best bet still lies with your local dealer that you bought your gear from. Unfortunately if you bought your gear used, your options are more limited.

Invest in polishing cloths! With my old Exakta; it was standard procedure to check the rails and pressure plate for grit; if one found scratchs on one's film. This is in the Exakta manual from the 1960's. Scratches of film is alot more common with reusable bulk load cassettes; and rare with new cassettes. <BR><BR>Checking for scratches with professional 16mm and 35mm movie cameras is done as a regular event; since the "cost per hour" is enormous. Once a movie camera is threaded; a "film scratch test" is made. Several feet are run off; and the film checked for scratches. The offending burrs are removed by orangewood (sticks) or crocus cloths; sometimes it is dirt or film chips.

Totally not what this is all about Kelly. The R8/9 are of course subject to the same scratching as every other camera--debris in the path of the film. But the R8/9 have a poorly-designed plasic part that the film is forced to rub against all the time, and this friction raises little sharp bristles on that part that scratch the film. I did polish it but once the "skin" is off it wears even faster and the scratches return quickly and with a vengeance.

Jay; true; a plastic piece sounds like a design goof. With plastic parts; the outer "skin" is slightly difference than the inner core; because of how the plastic reacts to cooling in the mold. Once the skin is worn; the wear might be worse or better; depending on what ribs against the plastic part. Usually the wear is worse. With glass filled plastic parts; the fibers are below the skin abit; and get exposed wehn the part is worn. Here the glass fibers can cause squeaking of moving parts; and rapid wear. I wound contact Leica in Germany; and let the engineers know of this problem; which they need to fix.

Glass fibers are added to some plastic parts; to increase their stiffness and strength.

Glass fibers are added also to help the dimensional stability, no doubt some concern in optical equipment. Plastics (just about all) have a nasty habit of being both heat and humidity unstable, with a high coefficient of expansion in both cases. The glass fiber will hold the deformation to a minimum.

The glass fibers add stability; but if the skin is broken on the plastic; the part will move abit with temperature. A symmetrical bricked shaped glass filled part; with one side sanded/machined; will wander about; during thermal tests. We bonded glass mirrors on parts; and measured the stability versus temperature. Plastic glass filled parts are more stable than no glass filed parts; BUT they will move alot more; if one side has the skin removed; and/or the part is non symmetrical. Once all the engineering testing and quality tests are passed; the mold vendor will tend to remove the parts sooner from the molds; to shoot more parts per hour. These "production" parts many times have higher built in stresses; and warp more; slowing ; with time; like a time bomb. The idiot production "tiger teams" then tend to machine the critical plastic parts surfaces; to keep the production line going. These machined parts pass all ISO 900x tests; but then have field problems due to squeaking; binding; wear; etc. Then the field problems get noticed by customers; and the data might get back to the engineers. The engineers get frustrated; because the problem didnt exist; when the molding was done in house; and could be monitored. The molding was transfered "out of house" to save money; and thus the process lost. I have seen this happen way too many times; where the been counters all have a short term horizion; and ignore the massive field rework costs; and loss of reputation due to shabby products in the field...

Reto and Jay; sorry about the rant about plastics!<BR><BR>Please post a photo of the plastic part; if possible

Going way OT here, but don't LTM cameras have a film gate without proper rails, so the film just drags across a metal plate as you wind on? Lucky they didn't have plastics in 1925!

For Kelly. From the <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005X6l">Slide scratches-Redux</A> thread. <P>

 

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=13653184">