M8 Warning, camera shell failure

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by mohir_ali, Aug 12, 2008.

  1. The following started about a year and a half old, but still being posted to. If it has been reported here before, sorry, I
    haven't seen it. It is an amazing failure and more amazing was Leica's response, copied below.

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failure.html

    'I was using my Leica M8 on a tripod shooting vertically and it fell off. When I looked at it I found the same thing as
    billh. The body had broken away and the base plate could no longer be attached.

    I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera and
    they would charge me $700+ to fix it.

    It's obvioulsy a design flaw when it has happened to so many others. Don't shoot vertically on a tripod or you too will
    get to pay $700 to get it fixed--warranty period or not.'

    godfrey:
     
  2. That's pretty bad. All castings. like that body can have flaws but that is where good inspection comes into play. As thin as the metal is I would bet that a flaw in the cast would have been seen before any paint or covering was applied.

    Looking at the photo a second time it is also a horrible design flaw if that is the only locking point on the base plate. The weight of the lens and camera is on that one point which looks pretty thin to me.
     
  3. Hey. M8 users love these problems. Add "character" to the best camera in the world.
     
  4. It's obvioulsy a design flaw when it has happened to so many others.
    Reading through the thread, there were total of three people who directly experienced the problem (including the person who made that quote), and a report by one other person who had heard of one other failure. That's a total of four. "So many others" actually refers to "two or three others."
     
  5. It may be three of four who are reporting about the problem in a forum like this. But it is still a serious design fault. Obviously it only affects people who use a tripod a lot, and in vertical orientation. Coming from a company whose main selling point is quality and realiability, and with such a high price tag, this is really disappointing.
     
  6. But how many of the 20,000 owners (I realize multiple camera ownership) read and post to forums? Of those, who would put an M on a tripod (lol)?
     
  7. I'm not arguing that it's an excellent design. I'm simply pointing out that "so many others" is actually "two or
    three others" so this thread won't propagate that bit of hyperbole from the selected quote. I realize that's not
    as exciting for those who like to get worked up into a frenzy over camera faults (of any brand), but I'd prefer
    that this forum not add fuel to the fire with quotes that intentionally distort the extent of the problem.
     
  8. "... and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera... "

    A fine excuse. I'll be damned!
    :-(
    As long as I use M-Leicas for film I "misuse" my bodies that way.
     
  9. Missuse is a real stretch.

    This is something they can`t fix right away because it is will break again and again. If they admit it is a warrantee problem, they will open themselves up to bankruptcy. Therefore it must be missuse.

    Rest assured the M9 will be better made if possible. Or maybe they will remove the tripod hole stating it is a supposed to be hand camera. Then they will offer a tripod adapter accessory for the few who need it.

    This whole M8 thing just keeps getting worse and worse the more we learn. I am getting turned off from the R10 and it is not even out yet just because the the engineering can not be trusted.

    I am willing to bet there are way more than 4 failures out there. One can hardly get a true analysis by reported internet failures.
     
  10. Whatever the alloy used ("mag" or "alu", or whatever), a casting may not be be the best route to take (a hot stamping may
    have been a better choice). However, this is probably a rare case and due to a an undetectable contamination of the metal
    in the molten metal bath that led ultimately to this brittle fracture. It happens. I had a Mustang in 1970 with a zinc alloy cast
    door window levers (pre-electric) that one day simply snapped off with the lightest of force.

    Warranty or not, Leica should replace this.
     
  11. looks to me like Leica should replace this. Now.. if said poster was standing on his "vertically mounted M8 attached to his tripod".. then...
    I'd consider it a "misuse" of the camera.. but if he mounted it as normal 'vertically' on a tripod then the M8 should easily have withstood the
    stress.. One would think.
     
  12. This is like the Monty Python skit in which a man attempts to make an insurance claim, only to be told, 'Sorry, you've got the "no-claim" policy.' When a once-great company like Leica descends to the Pythonesque, it's a safe bet that they're approaching the end of their era.
     
  13. Presumably one of the reasons Leica justifies $5500 for an M8 is a superior mechanical body. Surely even if it only
    happens to 1 person, this is the sort of problem they should fix immediately and at no cost to the customer (and
    they should probably provide a loaner too). But then I guess if you're market is a small group of well-funded,
    dedicated fans perhaps abuse is part of the charm.

    Reminds me of Dick Van Dyke's old skit. A man goes to a fine tailor for a suit. It seems to fit ok except that one of
    the sleeves is a little too long. No problem the tailor says, just tuck the sleeve in a little and hold it and it will be fine.
    So he's walking down the street, one sleeve tucked in and a man stops him to say that the left side of the collar is
    sagging. He just bends his head over to hold the collar up. He walks past two guys like that and one of them says to
    the other "I don't know what's wrong with that guy, but don't the suit fit nice?."

    One problem doesn't make a problem camera. But it seems to me that the higher the price, the less room there is
    for ... umm... ideosyncrasies -- and the more need there is for good customer service.
     
  14. Why is Leica held as the poster child of absurdity? Let's not forget that in the 1960's Detroit auto companies didn't
    put seat belts in their cars because their actuaries and accountants determined that paying out big money to dead
    victims' families was cheaper than installing seat belts in all their cars. It seems that GM veterans are running Leica.

    It's actually comical. I have to try this with my film Ms.
     
  15. An official factory solution is coming. A series of adapters are being developed that screw-on the front of your lens and rotate the
    image 90 degrees; letting your M8 stay horizontal when tripod-mounted.

    Until those adapters are released, when tripod use is necessary, it is recommended M8 owners shoot horizontal and rotate
    the image in photoshop to get a vertical perspective.
     
  16. First question is how did it fall off? All by itself? Perhaps it decided to commit camera suicide. Before all the M8 criticizers on this forum jump on
    Leica for not fixing this perhaps you should question operator error as the cause. Impact damage and water damage are two things that void
    warranties and that is true of any manufacturer. I had a Canon 20D on a Bogen tripod and as I turned to get something my sleeve caught the
    locking mechanism on the quick release and the camera fell about 4' to a thick carpeted floor. The screen went out and Canon voided my
    warranty and charged me $400 to fix it. Under the conditions of the warranty they were right in doing so and I accepted responsibility for my
    action and paid it. My M8 went over on a tripod from about the same distance and came up with not even a scratch and is still operating
    perfectly several months later. This forum is too full of rush- to -judgement M8 haters who don't stop to question the actions of the people who
    make the claims they make and don't ever require that they accept some responsibility for their part in it. A camera manufacturer, any
    manufacturer, cannot and should not be responsible for the negligence of users.
     
  17. Yet another example of why digital sucks. Shoot film and forget about it.
     
  18. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Yes, a mechanical problem is digital's fault. I knew there was a rational explanation behind "digital sucks."
     
  19. Ron, on photo.net it's always Leica's fault.
     
  20. "First question is how did it fall off? All by itself? Perhaps it decided to commit camera suicide."

    Well, if you believe the victims -- and since all the failures are identical, there seems no reason not to believe them -- yes,
    the camera just fell off. That is, the camera's on a tripod, the casting breaks and the camera falls off, leaving the bottom
    plate on the tripod. If you actually own a Leica M8, take a look at it, and you'll see that when the camera is on a tripod, its
    entire weight is supported by a thin, quarter-inch high rim of magnesium casting, about an inch long. You'll be astonished
    that yours isn't broken, when you actually think about it.

    It appears that all the failures occurred with people who regularly use a tripod. Of course, that's quite a few people, and
    that's why Leica put a tripod hole in the bottom of the camera. The worrisome thing is it's the kind of failure that apparently
    occurs after some unknown amount of cumulative stress, as when you bend a wire back and forth to break it. You can't see
    the weakness, but it's there. Your camera can seem fine at one minute, and the next minute, it's on the floor.

    Operator error is when you drop a camera, or a lens, or fall in a lake. This does not look in any way like operator error; if
    Leica didn't think the camera shouldn't be used on a tripod, why did they put a tripod hole in the bottom? And the heavier the
    lens, the more torque is applied - which means you may be more likely to break it if you're using a Nocti or a WATE, or some other $6,000
    optic. I'm not
    too worried yet because I don't use a tripod; I do use a Leica accessory grip, though, which might put a similar strain on the
    flange. We'll see...

    JC
     
  21. Not withstanding the fact that I agree with Doug, I’m reminded of two simple solutions that Leica should have considered:

    1. They could have gone the route of the hard to get Nikon D3P and go "socket-less" labeling/excusing it to be a press type camera.

    2. They could have gone the route of the old Nikon F and have the removable bottom cover accommodate (via the clean hole) the hefty casting secured tripod socket. Either one is easy to do with no clearance or light leak issues of a film camera!

    Additionally; my guess is that in order to tear/rip in such a way to the M8 casting, there must have been some type of stress/force applied.
     
  22. I've mounted my M2 on a tripod for decades and never had a problem. It seems the height of gall for Leica to assume that the user would never mount the camera on a tripod vertically. This would seem to fail the "reasonable" person test. Maybe prospective M8 owners need to wait for the $12000 M9, engineered to mount vertically on tripods. Maybe by then the lenses won't need external IR filters either.
     
  23. Leica on a tripod???? Strange but OK if there is a tripod attachement then it should work verical or not, Leica must fix that for free! M6 are OK on tripods so why not M8!
     
  24. I have to assume the man was not leaning on the camera to make it break or that he did not thread the hole and twist the camera as if it were a wrench to make sure it was tight. Maybe not, who knows. But if he broke it with the above missuse, do you think he would write it up as complaint?

    But I have to admit some people overdo everything and abuse mechanical items. My wife is one. She thinks everthing is made of high carbon steel and is indestructable.
     
  25. Maybe leica is actually pompus enough to state that using a leica on a tripod is misuse in itself. Wouldn't surprise me :)
     
  26. "2. They could have gone the route of the old Nikon F and have the removable bottom cover accommodate (via the clean hole) the hefty casting secured tripod socket."
    As I see it the disadvantage of this approach is that the camera would have to be removed from the tripod (or the QR plate would have to be removed) each time the battery or memory card had to be changed. I was not pleased that I had to do this when changing film in my Nikon F. I'm not arguing (pro or con) the merits of the removable bottom cover, only a disadvantage of the Nikon F approach given the removable cover.
     
  27. Isn't the warning about not shooting vertically (portrait orientation) while mounted on a tripod in the camera's
    owner's manual? I think it's just after the part about using a screw-on color-correction filter to overcome color
    casts from the IR-pass, er, bandpass filter.
     
  28. I looked that the thread that was linked to and I am frankly dumbfounded. It's hard to believe that any camera maufacturer
    would rely on such a thin section to secure the baseplate to the camera. It really won't take much of a bump to cause a
    crack in that extension. If one assumes that the baseplate is .8mm thick, that casting extension is probably in the range of 1
    to 1.2mm in thickness. Which is just too thin, especially when you consider that cast magnesium can be somewhat brittle.
    What is really stunning is that this thin section is an area where a much heavier section could have been employed, Had
    Leica made that extension 4mm thick and re-designed the baseplate locking mechanism to accomidate that, this would be a
    non issue. As it is now, only a complete idiot would purchase an M8. Because I can make a prediction that this is going to
    be an issue for every single M8 that has been made, one small bump in the wrong direction and that casting WILL fail.
    Leica is just fortunate that their current users tend to treat these cameras like jewelry, had they made a mistake like this
    back when the M3 was in production Leica would be a footnote in some history of failed camera manufactureres. To be
    blunt, that is just about the worst design that I have ever seen and it's just shocking that it came from a maker who once
    made a Hockey Puck of a camera called the M3.
     
  29. Two choices:

    1.- Admit design error (which may or may not be the case) and issue aproduct recall....very expensive.
    2.- Claim user misuse (ditto above) and charge for the repair...not so expensive.

    For a company that by all measures is in serious financial trouble the choice seems obvious to me.
     
  30. I think the right choice would have been:

    3-to repair quietly those bodies that get sent back with this problem and meanwhile try to find an easy solution to prevent it from newly manufactured bodies. Apologies to the owner and comments about manufacturing defect in this one particular body.

    Full recall is hardly necessary since many people do not use a tripod, at least not so often in vertical position that it would really become an issue. If you offer a recall, then everybody of course wants it. But to claim user error for using tripod, that is so low and reflects very badly on future buyers. Leica needs repeat customers more than any other camera company. There is a small bunch of rich people who buy Leica just because it is expensive and they can afford it. The rest of their customers are existing Leica users. I cannot imagine Leica being in a level competition against Canon, Nikon etc. for a normal photographer when he chooses what brand of system to get into.
     
  31. The M8 should never have been designed with a removable base plate to begin with. What were the designers thinking? All that was required was a lockable hatch on the baseplate for the memory card.
     
  32. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Leica doesn't have the resources of Canon, but they don't have the user base either. They should look at what Canon eventually did, which was to fix any 1DMk3 made before a manufacturing change, for free and a re-start of the warranty. The repair was done in a day and overnight shipping was paid in both directions. It was five business days start to finish and a new warranty. Even though mine had not exhibited any focusing issues, it was done for me. It's the kind of positive experience that makes one want to keep doing business with a company, although they should have acknowledged the problem earlier. Leica could learn from Canon and fix things before it becomes an issue, the risk is that people will get angry and buy something else. With the internet, this stuff spreads rapidly.
     
  33. The removable baseplate is ok with me. If you look at DSLRs or P&S cameras, to access the CF card AND the battery is
    more complicated, requiring the opening of two separate compartments. With the Leica M, it is a straight forward process,
    involving a single operation. What's the fuss?
     
  34. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    If you look at DSLRs or P&S cameras, to access the CF card AND the battery is more complicated, requiring the opening of two separate compartments.
    This is completely untrue. I have used four P&S cameras that have a single compartment for both card and battery. I don't particularly care for one compartment, the battery never runs out at the same time as the card fills up, so why would anyone care about this?
    BTW, the M8 doesn't have a compartment for a CF card.
     
  35. "The M8 should never have been designed with a removable base plate to begin with. What were the designers thinking? All that was required was a lockable hatch on the baseplate for the memory card."
    The most sensible comment made so far.
     
  36. 'Three faulty cameras' becomes the most popular thread on PN. Is this yet another example of anti-Leicaism . No,
    because with so few Leica's being sold, 3 faulty machines represent a much larger portion
    than 300 Canons with a defect, but Canon would just fix the problem for free. Because when one pays over $5,000
    for a camera, perfection is expected. Because Leica has a heritage of building durable cameras, and any design or
    manufacturing failure tarnishes that standard that we all want held up high.

    If shooting vertically on a tripod is misused, then I've abused every camera i've ever owned or borrowed.
     
  37. I read all the speculation to date and saw no other, too me rather obvious, metallurgical interpretation.


    The early Comet jetliner blew apart because of a design fault. Like the two times the Quebec bridge (largest cantilever
    design) fell down, c1900-1910, before the engineers finally got it right (some 100 widows would have preferred an earlier
    solution).


    The abundant fail safe mechanisms and alarms on the Lockheed 1011 meant it was a perfect aircraft but spent most of
    its time on the ground while the alarms were being checked.

    The tail that broke off the airliner that crashed in New York a few years ago was likely another case of unexpected
    material failure, but a complex one (as the tail was constructed in part of a composite material).


    I am sure the same goes for examples in other industries. Nothing is ever perfect, even though good engineers strive for
    that.


    On the basis of the facts presented by Ali, this seems almost certainly tio be a rare but not unusual case of metal failure
    due to impurities (contamination in the melt) or some other metallurgical problem occasioned in the particular batch (or
    part thereof) from the ladle.


    Possibly not many metallurgists become photographers? Perhaps basic notions of materials and metallurgy should be
    made part of the liberal arts education?


    The Leica baseplate type autodestruct can happen to the most perfect designs or quality control set-ups. From what I
    can see, it is a one-off affair, a metallurgical failure.
     
  38. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    If it's metallurgical, how does one explain this?
    I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera
    Seems to me that it has nothing to do with metallurgy, it's a known problem and the solution is not to put it on a tripod vertically. One can invent all the explanations, but when a manufacturer tells you that you can't use a camera in a way they have been used for years, there's a completely different problem.
     
  39. If you look closely at the M8 baseplate it's apparent that it went through a significant redesign. The "hook" and "latch" on
    both sides rely on thin material to hold. Both hook and latch on an M4 for example are much sturdier. And of course they
    moved the tripod mount to the center of the plate. That might change the way stress is distributed. Then if you look closer
    there's a vertical seam on both ends where camera front and back come together, which might further weaken the latch
    side. Overall it seems pretty weak. Much room for improvement if not complete rework.
     
  40. The fact that the camera is recommended not to be used on a tripod in the vertical position and breaks when doing so is a joke. The fact that it has a baseplate in the first place is a joke. This is what you get from a company that places form ahead of functionality. This was obvious when they started making presentation-boxed Leicas.

    The fact is they should not be considered a camera company any more, rather a trademark and manufacturer of curios.
     
  41. Then if you look closer there's a vertical seam on both ends where camera front and back come together, which might further weaken the latch side.
    Poor design, but then again nobody else seems to have looked at it closely enough to predict this kind of event before it happened. I think among other things Leica has just had some bad luck with this camera. I wish them well getting it straightened out.
     
  42. >nobody else seems to have looked at it closely enough to predict this kind of event before it happened. I think
    among other things Leica has just had some bad luck with this camera.

    It's negligence pure and simple. Nothing to do with bad luck at all.

    >I wish them well getting it straightened out.

    After the cynical "misuse" accusation, it becomes "them getting it straightened out? You wish!"
     
  43. Until those adapters are released, when tripod use is necessary, it is recommended M8 owners shoot horizontal and rotate the image in photoshop to get a vertical perspective.
    I hate to admit it Brad, but that's funny!
    Mine's not broken yet....
    [​IMG]
     
  44. I think it warms the cockles of some people's hearts to see Leica fail. For whatever reason they find great joy in beating a dead
    horse. They are like varmints running to and fro, ready to pounce at the first opportunity. Vultures. Vultures... relentless.. on the Leica
    forum. Yes, right here
    buddy, right here among us. They're probably the same
    people who would put a noose around a rabbit's neck and laugh while it choked to death. These same people cut in front of old ladies at
    the grocery store, never tip their waitress, and would step on it fast for the chance to run over a three legged stray dog on the road.

    ;)
     
  45. I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera and they would charge me $700+ to fix it.
    LOL. Next thing you know, using a Leica to take pictures will be "misuse of the camera" and they'll charge you $8,500 to put a working shutter in it.
     
  46. I dropped an F4 on the street once, and one of the camera strap eyelets broke from the body, exposing a fracture in the brittle alloy - much like the one on the OP's M8.

    Now, this is acceptable and no one will question that a drop on concrete qualifies as abuse. Pro body or not. But Leica asking their users to not tripod mount an M8 vertically is just ridiculous. It is like a car manufacturer asking people not to use the right front door when it is raining. It is abuse but on Leica's part.

    As several posters have pointed out, the total cost incurred by a failing base plate could be rather steep, considering the price tag on an average M8 system. It imposes an unacceptable risk on the user, and I am surprised that a company - rightfully - claiming high engineering standards does not have practices in place to identify and correct a weak technical design like this at an early stage. Of course errors and misjudgements happen but this seems like basic mechanical engineering.

    The F4 btw got the gaffa treatment and continues to function perfectly when I shoot a roll of film now and then. It is a bit like the M8, though,... handheld only :)
     
  47. If this happened in the UK, you could easily take Leica to the UK small claims court and win. UK consumer law states that any item must be 'fit for purpose'. I would think a camera not capable of being used on a tripod is certainly unfit for purpose...especially if it has a tripod thread...and are there specific warnings in the M8 manual to avoid vertical tripod shooting?...IF NO. as I suspect, then Leica are on a hiding to nothing.

    Even if the item was out of its warranty period, you could easily win here. Also in the UK, you have an automatic expectation that an item will keep performing properly for a given period of time and the more expensive, the item, the longer the period of time.

    About three years ago, a UK customer bought a fridge/freezer for about 300 GBP from our electrical chain called Currys. The item failed after about 18 months...Currys said basically 'tough' as it was outside the 12 month UK standard manufacturer warranty period. The couple took Currys to court, as they said a 300 GBP item should last longer. The court agreed and they won....

    I am very shocked at the attitude of Leica...it stinks and is unsustainable IMO...certainly in UK law.

    cheers Steve.M.
     
  48. What whiners. Whoever would put a Leica on a tripod anyway? Tripods are for geeks using large format cameras. Do
    people buy Jaguars and expect to go off-roading with them?
     
  49. I would also point out, that in the UK, when you buy an item, your contract is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. I am always amazed when buyers fiirst response is to take up the matter with the manufacturer rather than the person they bought it from.

    If you bought an M8 here in the UK and it failed, even outside the Leica Warranty period, you could expect a refund, or replacement from the retailer...and if they refused, you would take the retailer to court...they would have to sort out their own differences with Leica..

    cheers
     
  50. "What whiners. Whoever would put a Leica on a tripod anyway? Tripods are for geeks using large format cameras. Do people buy Jaguars and expect to go off-roading with them?"

    ....then exactly WHY do Leica fit a tripod thread to the M8?
     
  51. "WHY do Leica fit a tripod thread to the M8?"

    So that you can attach a leather case to it, to prevent scratches to that beauuutiful body?
     
  52. 'Whoever would put a Leica on a tripod anyway?'

    People who want to make their $4000 lenses perform at their best usally.
     
  53. Ray,

    Nothing warms the cockles of a Leica haters heart more than seeing someone who has spend $5K on a camera that is clearly, and in multiple ways defective and then tries to rationalize it. Sorry it seems that way, but really, can you justify this failure on a camera that was built by a company who made their name building cameras that were bricks? I haven't shot a Leica in quite a while, and never will again, if this is what they build. I was going to buy an M8, but after the IR flap and other reports of physical failures, it became clear that this model is a turkey.
     
  54. Come on guys. It's one thing to have a design defect which results in a structural failure. To have it happen to Leica
    who has cut it's teeth on reliability is particularly embarrasing. But the important thing is how a company handles
    such a problem when it arises. If they really accused the user of abuse and refused to fix it free, that shows either a
    company in financial trouble or a company that doesn't care about it's responsibilities.

    It's one thing to excuse design blunders like the IR thing. To call a user a whiner because Leica presented them with
    a big repair bill, or even to call someone a whiner because he thinks this is unethical behavior on Leica's part is a bit
    much. Will Leica owners really submit to any abuse in the name of loyalty and not hold the company accountable in
    a reasonable fashion? If it turned out that the lenses had a tendency to fall off the camera unexpectedly, would that
    be ok if there was a warning about it in the manual? No. For heaven sake, the M8 should at least be as well made
    as the legions of DSLRs who have no trouble locking to a tripod in either horizontal or vertical position.

    People may be more willing to tear the M8 down because of it's price than they would the Canon Rebel XSi. Get
    used to it. With higher price comes higher standards. The same problems at $500 are interesting and quirky. At
    $5500 they're not so amusing. If you pay $12000 for a Corolla you won't expect as much from it as if you pay $50000
    for a new Lexus. At that price it better be perfect, or at least it better be serviced politely and quickly if something
    DOES go wrong, and if it's a design defect, it better be free.
     
  55. It seems to me that, in the linked thread, there is essentially no solid evidence that Leica stated "that shooting vertically on
    a tripod was misuse of the camera".

    This is a single, uncorroborated statement by an anonymous poster; the OP reported no such response, and a forum admin
    has requested, but is yet to post, an official statement from Leica.

    All of that said, I agree with Jerry Sousa. The M8's removable baseplate strikes me as a nostalgic relic, unnecessary on
    this particular camera.
     
  56. Robert, thank you for introducing a very pertinent fact, and some levelheadedness to the discussion. The rare
    metallurgical casting failure still seems to me to be a more likely cause than design weakness. Any other broken
    baseplates?


    Yes, the M8 baseplate, as you, Jerry and Josh have suggested (possibly others), is an anachronism (and a
    psychological marketing point for hard to switch over film Leaicaistes). Not at all needed. A battery compartment and
    an SD card compartment could have been introduced to a fixed bottom structure, but hopefully not with the rubber door
    cheapness of the present USB cable entry at the camera side.


    I wish to state once more that nothing is perfect (even commercial aircraft seem to have more design and material
    problems than cameras) and very few complain of the downsides of other camera company products. Leica is a hated
    target of many. Taken as a whole, the M8 is an extremely capable picture making device. And it has in fact the added
    advantage of LESS image-degrading IR blocking filtration (thinner filter) and the possibility of coming fairly close to the
    much regretted and currently virtually unaccessible film IR B&W photography.
     
  57. I love the M8, Arthur, and it gives me great results - I agree with you that it's an extremely capable picture making device. I've had some but not all of the widely publicized problems with the model, just as I've had other problems with other cameras. The M8 certainly has issues, but it's by no means a "turkey". I'd have to say, though, that I vote this issue a "design weakness" rather than a "rare casting failure".

    It's not really true that film IR photography in B&W is "unaccessible"; you can easily order Ilford SFX or Rollei IR.
     
  58. Robert Shults wrote:
    in the linked thread, there is essentially no solid evidence that Leica stated "that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera".
    This is a single, uncorroborated statement by an anonymous poster; the OP reported no such response, and a forum admin has requested, but is yet to post, an official statement from Leica.
    ...>>
    Serious risk here: Please, Robert, don't confuse us with the facts. :)
     
  59. "... The M8's removable baseplate strikes me as a nostalgic relic, unnecessary on this particular camera. ..."
    It might be nostalgic, but consider that aside from the removable top plate, the bottom of the body is the only easy access point for servicing the innards of the camera. The various DSLRs have many access points, while the P&S cameras are designed to be tossed into the evergrowing landfill of yesterday's electronics if even the slightest thing goes awry. The rest of the M8 is a metal fortress, designed to withstand a beating. So a bit of nostalgia is fine, as it also serves the larger good of service access.
     
  60. I am quite surprised how this is being handled by Leica. I would advise you to get their marketing people to look at this blog. You might be surprised by their reaction.
     
  61. A single door for the battery and the card is not more convenient unless you intend to change both at the same time (not
    likely.) Mounting on a tripod for a vertical shot is an essential feature to a professional photographer. It is absurd to be
    told otherwise. It makes no difference if the flaw is a metallurgical or design flaw to a photographer who just wants the
    thing to work. Either way it is a quality control issue that Leica is responsible for. As a professional who works all week
    with cameras that are far less expensive than Leicas, my expectations would be much higher. If I were faced with a
    reliability issue of this type I would be forced to find an alternative model of body to replace it just so I could be sure not
    to have another on the job equipment failure. Unfortunately, within the Leica brand, there are few alternatives. That is
    the real danger here. If you only have one marketable camera body and its a dog you are in big trouble. One big flaw
    could be fatal.

    I don't think people relish the thought of Leica biting the dust. I think serious photographers take reliability and function
    seriously because their reputations are on the line. They are quite legitimately terrified that something like this could
    cause them problems on an important shoot. While the rest of the camera may work great, that is no consolation. I'm
    glad the original poster brought this issue to our attention. Its true that no product is perfect but this is a perfectly
    reasonable excuse to shop another brand.
     
  62. I thought the Leica warranty covered any type of damage, even fire...
     
  63. Hi Bob and Sanford (Gerald). SFX is a good film, giving IR type effects although not true IR (it is red sensitive, not IR
    sensitive) and I haven't tried Rollei IR. I am still coping with the demise of Konica IR (and before it Sakura IR) and
    Kodak IR.

    The present Leica guarantee on the M8 is like other digitals, much more limited than the no-fault Leica 3 year US
    passport warranty on their film cameras and all their lenses.

    Not sure the Leicatime half case with tripod socket would prevent the vertical tripod mount problem. It simply extends
    the tripod socket and the case straps may not be rigid enough to prevent disaster. I've been using both (Luigi case or no
    case) with light lens vertical shots on tripod with no problem to date. I wonder if Mohir Ali's vertical shot use was
    withinwhat could be called gentle application insofar as the stressing of the camera was concerned. No offense intended
    by this question but sometimes we can abuse the instrument, if only accidentally....
     
  64. One more thing to lose sleep over.

    The idea that using the M8 in the vertical position is misuse is nonsense. Leica should have fixed the man's M8 under
    warranty, I have found nothing in the downloaded owner's manual about using the camera on the tripod and there is only a
    passing reference to the tripod socket.

    All this is go to know. I've used my M8 on a tripod and on a monopod (to shoot Hamlet) in vertical. But from now on it is
    staying off the both.
     
  65. Don't forget, you're supposed to be properly attired when handling Solms gear:

    http://www.thesartorialist.blogspot.com/
     
  66. "...the bottom of the body is the only easy access point for servicing the innards of the camera."

    Perhaps I should have said: The M8's USER-removable baseplate strikes me as a nostalgic relic, unnecessary on this
    particular camera.

    Service access is, indeed, an important concern, but such accessibility could certainly be accomplished in some manner
    other than the latch system in use now
     
  67. "A single door for the battery and the card is not more convenient unless you intend to change both at the same time..."

    Presently, the M8's card and battery are covered by a single plate that must be removed whether or not the user is
    changing both at the same time.
     
  68. I have not had the need to use the M8 on the tripod often, let alone shooting vertically. After all, it is a Leica-M --- what is its intended usage 99% of the time, on tripod?
     
  69. I found this note on LUF, dated May 24 2007. It was from Sean Reid and in conversation on this same subject:
    It is obviously not current, but it sheds some useful light on this.
    See also (my) capitalised warning of Sean.


    "I called Leica about this yesterday and spoke with them for awhile. My contact at Leica USA called me today to let me
    know two things:

    1) This is the only case of an M8 breaking in this way that has been reported to them.

    2) They have tried to replicate the failure in Germany (yesterday, I presume) and cannot.

    I can say, again, that I've used multiple M8 bodies and, because of my testing, am *constantly* taking the base plate on
    and off, constantly using tripods, etc. and I haven't experienced the problem.

    My one caution would be that (as someone mentioned earlier in this thread) we should be careful about tightening the
    bottom plate lock IF THE PLATE IS NOT FULLY SEATED (ie: the tab is not in the slot). That may have nothing to do
    with Bill's camera failure but I think its a good practice in any case.

    I myself, however, am not at all concerned about using the camera on a tripod.

    I imagine Leica will take care of Bill.

    Cheers,

    Sean"
    __________________
    Sean Reid
    http://www.reidreviews.com
     
  70. What whiners. Whoever would put a Leica on a tripod anyway

    I don’t know Rayshine .If you had to pick up a bill for 700 US just for using your (truly an ugly cam…sorry, I could
    not resist) Canon on a tripod, the screams would have been heard from here to eternality. Jeeez, you might have
    even made first contact…there’s a thought for NASA.

    Reality is Leica produced a camera, in a rush, for the designer label brigade.

    Truth be, it is not an M…it is something else, which has little to do with Leica quality or tradition.

    In defence of Leica in the PS world…the Panlicker is the word……

    Hmm,is not that the place they started...
     
  71. "the bottom of the body is the only easy access point for servicing the innards of the camera."

    I suppose servicing in this case means changing the battery and memory card, not repairs carried out by the factory.

    In just about all digital cameras I have or have seen, there is at least one door at the bottom for either battery or memory card or both. This is not a problem at all. All have also a tripod socket. Leica is the only one that has a removable tripod socket, and therein seems to lie the problem. Tripod socket needs to be solidly attached to the camera body. That should be common sense. I have a Leica M6 and the tripod socket is in the removable baseplate. But it does feel solid and attaches quite tightly to the body, possibly because it needs to be light tight.
     
  72. An extract from the official Leica website:

    "Few things last a lifetime. A Leica M lasts longer.
    Heat or cold, rain or dust - which photographer is put off by adverse conditions when in search of the perfect picture? The M needs to be hard-wearing, reliable and robust enough to survive the toughest situations. The designers of an M camera always give durability top priority. That's why only the best materials are used for the camera housing: brass for the cap and base and a highly stable metal alloy for the body. The digital components are carefully selected, too, to make sure they stand the test of practical wear and tear. Meticulous manufacture and careful assembly guarantee decades of reliable functioning to give the photographer as many years of enjoyment with his Leica M as possible. And that means a lifetime. And often longer."
     
  73. Don't worry. I hear they are going to sell an add-on filter with grid lines that allows you to align a vertical into a horizontal frame.

    (sorry, couldn't resist)
     
  74. "Few things last a lifetime. A Leica M lasts longer. Heat or cold, rain or dust - which photographer is put off by
    adverse conditions when in search of the perfect picture? The M needs to be hard-wearing, reliable and robust
    enough to survive the toughest situations. The designers of an M camera always give durability top priority. That's
    why only the best materials are used for the camera housing: brass for the cap and base and a highly stable metal
    alloy for the body. The digital components are carefully selected, too, to make sure they stand the test of practical
    wear and tear. Meticulous manufacture and careful assembly guarantee decades of reliable functioning to give the
    photographer as many years of enjoyment with his Leica M as possible. And that means a lifetime. And often longer."

    If only they stood behind this marketing drivel.
     
  75. It's ludicrous to assume everyone uses a Leica (or any other camera) the same way. I use mine on a tripod often. I also park my car away from areas where it will get door dings. Yes, I park my car in a way that most people don't. You can never assume a product will ever be used the same way by all the people using it.

    I'm so glad I didn't buy an M8 when my "gut" was telling me the IR filter "feature" wasn't going to be the last "oops". I hope they figure it out on an M9. I really do want to believe.
     
  76. I wonder what occurs on the Nikon, Canon and Olympus chat groups? I would be surprised that they are as critical as
    Leica users.

    No doubt all manufacturers have problems with quality and I don't hear many complaints about decentered (less than
    perfect) Nikkors or Canon lenses, of which one may be surprised how often it can happen. Is it because those users
    cannot discern when that is the case?

    Hardly an apologist for Leica problems, I think a lot of comments here are way over the top. The cameras aren't perfect,
    but none are. Here where I live we can pay $15 for a good but variable local wine and the same amount for a somewhat
    better large scale imported wine. Like the small winery, Leica is a small company compared to Nippon Kogaku and
    others, but it has its charms as well.

    I had problems with my first M8 (shutter becoming inoperative, apparently due to some difficult to diagnose electronic
    glitch). Leica simply replaced the camera after a first try could not correct the situation (whereas they might have kept it
    running in and out of repair until solved). Needless to say, the problem was a rare thing and I have had no problems with
    the new one.

    I wonder how many comments are from pernickety equipment junkies or decided non-Leica-users? True, some grief to
    keen photographers can occur with the Leica problems or design limitations. However, I don't think we should lose
    perspective of the significant overall qualities of the M8. And I for one would prefer to use the M8 now than wait a few
    more years (and already two have passed since I acquired mine) for an M9 which may only be a gleam in someone's
    eye. Even if all I had was a Holga or Diana, that wouldn't stop me from enjoying the pleasure in capturing light and
    events.
     
  77. Hi,

    Arthur, I cannot believe you actually posted this:

    "wonder what occurs on the Nikon, Canon and Olympus chat groups? I would be surprised that they are as critical as Leica users"

    ...do you seriously believe this? I watch all the main forums and would say this:

    1. There are many more pro users on both the Canon & Nikon forums, simply beause so few pro's use Leica these days compared to those two brands..do you think they are less critical?

    2. I have seen FAR more posts on both those forums about de-centered lenses and other issues and believe me, those guys over there are just as critical of their gear as the Leica users.

    3. "Is it because those users cannot discern when that is the case?"...this is arrogant. no other word for it...do you believe all the pro N&C users cannot see issues?..utter rot.

    What you get far less of on those forums is 'users' who put their heads in the sand when obvious issues arise with 'their' kit.

    If you want to pay 5000 USD / 3000 GBP or whatever the current rate is for a camera which has had serious issues from the start, then that is fine, but please do not assume other people are, or that they do not have the ability to also see problems with kit...and it seems you are making some huge assumptions about who may or may not be users of the M8 in relation to reported problems.

    The thread in the other place that kicked off all this had FOUR users (not non-users as you suggest) who all had issues with the baseplate of their M8's breaking.

    By all means contribute, but another hugely skewed post, ignoring the balanced view needed hardly helps the cause of Leica...it just gives opportunity for more laughs at Leica 'users' expense..

    cheers Steve. (Leica USER)

    ...Oh, and re this:

    "and I don't hear many complaints about decentered (less than perfect) Nikkors or Canon lenses"....

    .......had it actually occured to that, just maybe N&C do not make many de-centered lenses?
     
  78. Steve,

    I must acquiess.

    I did not do all my homework on these questions. I presume the other 3 Leica owners with broken baseplates had that
    happen since the Sean Reid information I mentioned of April 2007.

    Ctein reviewed enlarger lenses made by many large optical firms and concluded that most of the lenses he tested (I
    think it was three from each model), including Nikkors, had light and resolution fall-off in one or more corners, seeming to
    indicate poor decentering. This was a decade or more ago, so maybe not indicative of today's manufactured products.

    I appreciate your response. Thanks.
     
  79. If I may contribute, as my background is as a mechanical engineer and my expertise is in industrial safety. Without proceeding to a long and technical explanation, in the illustrated failure the fracture has a component toward the front of the camera and was thus most likely caused from torque with the camera mounted in an horizontal plane, not a vertical. In short form, although there is more leverage in vertical, the stress is redistributed away from the place of fracture. This regardless of which end of the camera faces up/down in vertical. Whomever wrote the excuse on Leica's behalf (if it was in fact so written) did not have a proper understanding of the mechanics.

    A second point I would raise: the handgrip which Leica sells for the M8 also places leveraged stress precisely upon this point of failure, particularly as the camera is lifted from the bag by holding the grip, equal to the weight of the camera and lens. If there was an universal design fault I believe there would be a much larger body of reported failures. What is most likely, these few failures occurred in samples where there were stress cracks already present in the casting from manufacture. If a Leica employee did in fact make the ignorant and preposterous statement as attested, it is evidence of a problem with Leica's management and customer service, not the design of the M8.
     
  80. L DaS, your analysis and conclusion seem a good fit, notwithstanding the little information available. As castings are
    normally not over stressed in manufacture (unless thermal gradients throughout the cooling mold are too high, or
    subsequent annealing of the product is not properly done), is it too much for you to speculate whether the problem might
    have been caused simply by machining stresses or stress-riser notch creation, rather than by impurity inclusions in the
    melt for the casting or from an unclean mold?

    You are no doubt right on in assuming it is not a design fault, as seems to be the common belief.

    If it is a quality control issue, it is unusual that a company so devoted to perfection in lens assembly should have this
    materials problem. Perhaps they also contract out their castings, but that is no reason for less than ideal QC.
     
  81. Why discuss the physics of the problem to justify the failure? It's a simple case of replacing a camera that is under warranty, regardless of how the damage happened, That's what "Passport Warranty" means, or did mean when it meant something.
     
  82. Vic,

    "Camera shell failure" is a mechanical or materials problem. Nice to know if it relates to the design, or to the
    manufacturing as such.

    Perhaps Leica has replaced these broken cameras, whether within or out of warranty, nobody seems to have yet
    mentioned that. 3 year USA passport warranty is provided only with the film Leicas. Do you know of anyone else
    offering such a generous warranty on digital cameras?
     
  83. I think there may be some confusion: the camera body is a casting; the bottom cover is a brass deep-draw stamping.

    If the body is in fact magnesium, then the area may prove to be more susceptible to damage than the previous casting material which was a zinc alloy (magnesium is less ductile).


    BTW, due to the mechanics/physics of the forming operation, the base plate is also a likely candidate for failure (it can be difficult to maintain uniform wall thickness around a bend).

    I can verify from first-hand experience that it can fail without ever mounting a camera to a tripod.

    http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00MVIN

    And for the record, my M6 base plate was replaced free of charge by Leica.
     
  84. As Alice said (from my poor memory), "....things are getting curiouser and curiouser..."

    I think, Sp, that the nature of the brittle fracture surface of the camera body (not in fact the baseplate, if you look at the
    pix) would suggest that it is a casting, and that it is typical of a casting failure.

    Not sure what the body alloy is. It could be based on magnesium, zinc, aluminium, aluminium-magnesium or whatever.
    Alloys contain several metal elements. For strength considerations, it is not the metal base of the alloy that is
    important, but the combination of the other elements with it (a simple example would be soft aluminium versus the 4.5%
    copper - 90%(+) aluminium alloy, which has considerably greater strength than aluminium metal itself). Without knowing
    what the specific alloy is, one cannot generally compare magnesium alloy versus zinc alloy, etc.

    Despite the more expensive body, hopefully Leica has already replaced these broken cameras. Anybody know?
     
  85. In spite of all the comments, and I followed the thread almost from the start on the Leica Forum, this whole scenario doesn't add up IMHO. The section appears to me to be alight trap and not a load bearing part of the chassis. Of course a sudden severe knock after dropping the camera could damage this but we don't have enough info. about exactly how it fell.
     
  86. It's certainly not a light trap; there's no light path to the sensor box from the bottom of the camera. You can confirm this (I have) by taking the bottom plate off and using a toothpick to hold down the little switch which tells the camera that the bottom plate is on; then shoot a picture. You'll see that no signs of a light leak appear in the resulting shot.

    The section which failed in the LUF OP's photo is simply the bottom of the body shell, which on an M8 is cast in two parts rather than being a single piece of metal as in the M3-MP. It's "load bearing" in the sense that it's the same piece as the front shell of the camera, which holds the top plate, the front rangefinder and viewfinder windows, and the lensmount. It's also "load-bearing" in the sense that it's what keeps the bottom plate (which serves no purpose other than as a cover for the battery and memory card) on the camera.
     
  87. IF
    Leica actually said that using an M8 in vertical position on tripod is a misuse of the camera - it would have to rank as one of the dumbest announcements ever.
    Still I am a bit frazzled by Leica QC at the moment - my chrome MP is chewing batteries overnight ( and yes it is switched off when not in use) ...I dont know what to do as I need to shoot some slide and because my black paint MP is designed to only use B&W film and I woudlnt want to void warranty on that one by shooting slide. Any suggestions?
     
  88. Someone should compile all the responses [above] and email them to Leica' Attn: Department of M8/Vertical Disasters
     
  89. Any suggestions? Send them to that Shinto bloke in Japan who will paint them with zebra stripes... You might have to wait a few centuries but hey it's all about the Zen.
    00QXUb-64955684.jpg
     
  90. awahlster

    awahlster Moderator

    The wife and I were out shooting windsurfers one day when I left my Canon F-1N (with Winder FN mounted) with a 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. mounted up on my Berlebach wood tripod.

    Well as soon as I touched the wifes rig to help her setup a gust of wind hit my setup from a bad angle and the whole mess went over on the cameras back.

    The New F-1 with FN winder weighs 2lbs 13 oz.

    A Canon 500mm f4.5L weighs 6lbs 8oz.

    The Berlebach Tripod weighs in at 7lbs 9oz. Add another 1lb 8oz for the large Canon Ball head and Quick release clamp

    So basically figuring only half the weight of the tripod was carried by the camera then a total of approx. 15lbs 8oz. hit the ground being pushed by about a 40 mile an hour wind from a height of approx 4.5 feet.

    The back of the camera hit a ROCK about the size of two basket balls The back took the full impact the battery door being damaged by a secondary hit on a lower rock.

    The results was the mount on the lens broke (later to be fixed very well by a local camera repair person using no new parts only repairing the damaged ones) Cost $75.00 Mount on the camera was fine.

    The battery door on the FN winder shattered. And the Back received a good dent about the size of a quarter and almost 1/8" deep (but did not open nor did it allow light to damage the film which was about 1/2 exposed.

    It cost me about $20.00 to source the replacement battery door off eBay. The back came from a parts camera a friend had for another $20.00. Granted this is a used camera with lots of used parts available at very reasonable prices.

    BUT here is the real point. I removed the lens packing it in a plastic bag so no little parts might go missing I removed the FN winder and Continued to shoot with the camera for the rest of the weekend (granted in a slightly depressed mood!)

    NOW if a 25 year old Canon F-1N can survive being slammed into a rock as if swung on the end of a baseball bat and still produce photo's. The for a Leica anything to just fall apart under it's own weight while being mounted on a tripod is a total JOKE.

    By the Way this particular Canon F-1N has US. NAVY engraved on it and was an active duty camera on board a US Navy aircraft carrier prior to being surplussed off. So it has been worked hard now for approx 26 years. I bought it from a Navy Commander who got it at auction in Norfolk VA
     
  91. Someone on the Leica Forum just got a bill for more than $1500 for 'impact damage' is what Leica is calling it.
     
  92. So the conclusion is all M8's will fall off the tripod mount and all F1's will survive the above beating.

    The true JOKE around here lately is to see people take the best and worst incidents and draw sweeping conclusions.

    It's hilarious.
     
  93. I've had my M7 for almost six years, and it's never been on a tripod.
     
  94. >>> I've had my M7 for almost six years, and it's never been on a tripod.

    For some, it's never been out of the box!
     
  95. jtk

    jtk

    Mark Wahlster's right about F1: Leica has long been advertised as a paragon of ruggedness (despite what we know about M, compared to Canon's professional cameras).

    It's shocking to think ANY fine camera would fail at the tripod socket...especially at M8 price...

    ...and *especially since M8's ancestors enjoyed the ultimate in bronze casting.*
     
  96. "... It's shocking to think ANY fine camera would fail at the tripod socket...especially at M8 price... ..."
    Statistically speaking, it could be a random event.
    When Nikon had the famous BGLOD problem (Blinking Green Light of Death), they first denied that such a problem existed. More cameras experienced this problem than all of Leica problems put together.
    It might take some time, but Leica does eventually fix things. The image quality out of the M8 camera is of very high quality. Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to buy Leica products.
    If efficiency and practical value were the only things of importance, we'd all be wearing Walmart clothes and driving Toyota Echos. Disclaimer: OK, I do wear a $7 Walmart watch.
     
  97. “When Nikon had the famous BGLOD problem (Blinking Green Light of Death), they first denied that such a problem
    existed”.

    So, that makes it all alright ?

    “It might take some time, but Leica does eventually fix things”

    Like having to put filters on the lenses...when I first read that I thought someone was having a joke. Or, making
    statements that using the cam on a tripod invalidates their passport warranty? send us a large cheque.

    “If efficiency and practical value were the only things of importance”

    Hmm,if you buy a prestige product one of the main reasons, for most, is that it is going to be well built, reliable, and
    last for years. Otherwise why not just buy the badge and wear it on your lapel.

    “...and *especially since M8's ancestors enjoyed the ultimate in bronze casting.*”


    Now tell me why that would have that been so difficult to do on an expensive prestige product. How about some
    serious weather proofing….seems it can be easily done on a very cheap PS.

    Designed for the photographer? Or, a cam for the designer label crowd? Or, perhaps they just had a bit of bad luck
    as has been suggested. Can’t help thinking those who parted with their cash were the ones having the bit of bad
    luck…or, perhaps not, the designer label is what it’s all about..
     
  98. Allen Herbert: "... So, that makes it all alright ? ..."
    OK, I'll play. No, it doesn't make it right. I was trying to point out to those who keep stating that Leica is the only company that does not acknowledge any issues with their cameras.
    "... Like having to put filters on the lenses...when I first read that I thought someone was having a joke. ..."
    After a while people realized that it was not a big deal, more to do with the science of optics. The resultant quality of the images surpasses those from other high end DSLRs (both Canon and Nikon), according to pros who use them all, rather than those who endlessly quote third hand information.
    "... Or, making statements that using the cam on a tripod invalidates their passport warranty? send us a large cheque. ..."
    OK, this is asinine, probably somebody low on the totem pole who didn't want to deal with the problem. It happens elsewhere, and is more to do with personal responsibility than with Leica.
    "... Hmm,if you buy a prestige product one of the main reasons, for most, is that it is going to be well built, reliable, and last for years. Otherwise why not just buy the badge and wear it on your lapel. .."
    This is a gross generalization. There are those who buy Leica products for their high quality optics. Sure, there are others who buy them so they can fondle the products, i.e., they are buying potential, and somehow, owning a potentially capable instrument strokes their egos. Some people buy fast cars because they like driving them FAST, wheil others buy them to show off or to feel as if they are in the same company (there's a whole industry that sells overpriced sports gear that "winners" wear; there's more money spent on that than on Leica products). There are all sorts of people, and to lump them all together as big-pocketed dilettantes is amusing.
    "... Designed for the photographer? Or, a cam for the designer label crowd? Or, perhaps they just had a bit of bad luck as has been suggested. Can’t help thinking those who parted with their cash were the ones having the bit of bad luck… or, perhaps not, the designer label is what it’s all about.. ..."
    There are many people making great photographs with their M8 cameras. The only difference between them and us is that they are busy taking pictures, and we're having silly arguments. :)
     
  99. "The resultant quality of the images surpasses those from other high end DSLRs (both Canon and Nikon), according to pros who use them all, rather than those who endlessly quote third hand information. "

    Instead of people quoting second or third-hand information why not look at various published objective tests. There seems to be a reluctance to doing this.
     
  100. "The resultant quality of the images surpasses those from other high end DSLRs (both Canon and Nikon), according
    to pros who use them all, rather than those who endlessly quote third hand information."

    Maybe these Canikon beating Leica images are out there but if so I am yet to see them. Where are the suppposed
    Leica images that beat a Canon 5D with 35 f1.4 L, 85 f1.2L or 135 f2 L?
     
  101. People are happy shooting whatever they shoot with, no need to justify one's choices. I always fly coach (economy), a good friend always flies first class, we're both happy and good friends and get to the same place.
     
  102. 'I was using my Leica M8 on a tripod shooting vertically and it fell off. When I looked at it I found the same thing as billh. The body had broken away and the base plate could no longer be attached.

    That was the post, Vic. Not really to do with being happy with the camera you shoot. It invited a response, comments; not a general whitewash of the issues raised...really, you are not doing Leica any favours by being a happy badge person.
     
  103. There are many people making great photographs with their M8 cameras. The only difference between them and us is that they are busy taking pictures, and we're having silly arguments. :)

    Speak for yourself,Victor.

    A few minutes posting on the internet has no effect on the number of photes i take.

    Perhaps it does for you..
     
  104. Really, this entire discussion reminds me of when I owned 2 Mercedes. These were great cars but needed constant attention. Why can't German companies make wonderful products that don't break?
     

Share This Page