M8 Warning, camera shell failure

[doug herr]

"<I>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.</I>"

<P>

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.

[dbcooper]

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.

[scott_warn]

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.

[manitas]

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.

[ilkka]

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.

[jerry_sousa]

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.

[Spearhead]

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.

[vic_.]

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?

[Spearhead]

<i>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. </i><p>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?<p>BTW, the M8 doesn't have a compartment for a CF card.

[joshroot]

<i>"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."</i>

<p>

The most sensible comment made so far.

[hal_a]

'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.

[aplumpton]

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.

[Spearhead]

If it's metallurgical, how does one explain this?<p><i>

 

I sent it to Leica for warranty repair and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera</i><p>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.

[kens]

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.

[dogbert]

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.

[ray .]

<i>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.</i><p>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.

[fred_c1]

>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!"

[blakley]

<i>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>

<p>

I hate to admit it Brad, but that's funny!

<p>

Mine's not broken yet....

<p>

<center>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/2669157632/" title="L1001335 by blakley, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3280/2669157632_1dcbc2434c.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="L1001335" /></a>

</center>

[ray .]

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.

 

;)

[el_fang]

<i>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.</i>

<p>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.</p>

[morten_nielsen]

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 :)

[steven_moseley1]

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.

[ray .]

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?

[steven_moseley1]

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

[steven_moseley1]

"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?