Does Leica need money fast (M8 horror story)

[peteradownunder]

I recently dropped my M8 down a flight of concrete steps and on to a concrete pavement ..all in all a slow

motion horror story. I had been meaning to get a decent strap for while - my fault as the strap that comes with

the camera is a shocker.<p> The camera had my favorite all time lens on it at the time a chrome 35 asp lux - with

a screw on Contax hood. The camera was dinged at base plate and top plate - adding to previous dings - and

rangefinder was ( as you would expect) put out in both vertical and horizontal positions. The 35 lux focusing

movement was completely stuck. Local dealer suggested that the best thing I could do was toss the lens away or

use it as a paperweight as the cost to fix the focusing helical was thousands.<p>. I sent the camera and lens to

Leica 5 weeks ago. I got the camera back last week. Body working perfectly and rangefinder fixed and lens CLA'd

and working as good as new for a total cost of $500. I think this is pretty good service - I expected much less

given horror internet stories.<p> I would never use a Leica M* against manufacturers instructions - ie when it

could get wet. If people wish to use cameras in a manner for which they were not designed - then they shoudlnt be

surprised when bad things happen. Doesnt really matter how much teh tool cost to buy =- it is about using it as

designed - pretty much liek anything else. If you wanted a waterpoof camera - buy one. <p> I laugh at constant

put downs of Leica in this forum.

[vivek iyer]

<i>I sent the camera and lens to Leica 5 weeks ago. I got the camera back last week. Body working perfectly and rangefinder fixed and lens CLA'd and working as good as new for a total cost of $500. I think this is pretty good service - I expected much less given horror internet stories.</i>

<p>

That is good to hear, Peter. Have you got a strap now? :)

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Peter, I'd like to read your message here if you got hit with a bill for 3340 euros. What's that, $4,600.00? God forbid if you happen to get a little condensation in your camera when the weather unexpectantly changes:

 

"But Mr. Scheissekoph, I still have the clear protectant film on the LCD screen."

 

"And the manual doesn't say anything about the dewpoint hitting 60."

 

"But Mr. Scheissekoph, I know the camera isn't waterproof. It wasn't even raining."

[jamie_robertson2]

For a camera so expensive Leica should be ashamed of themselves. My Canon 350D has been through hell and back and has been soaking wet on numerous occasions. It has never complained. Even cameras that aren't weather sealed should at least be capable of withstanding some amount of condensation entering the body.

 

Leica are finished and I predict they will soon be no more. The M8 just doesn't cut it alongside today's modern cameras and their new MF digital is destined for failure at that price.

[peteradownunder]

Vivek Iyer [subscriber] , Sep 28, 2008; 04:15 a.m.

 

<i>That is good to hear, Peter. Have you got a strap now? :)</i><p> Vivek I got a Luigi from teh local camera shop in his used junk bin for $50.<p>Jeffrey Prokopowicz [subscriber] , Sep 28, 2008; 04:26 a.m.<p><i>

Peter, I'd like to read your message here if you got hit with a bill for 3340 euros. What's that, $4,600.00? God forbid if you happen to get a little condensation in your camera when the weather unexpectantly changes </i><p> Jeffrey the only point I am making is that people should use a camera according to manufacturers recommendations - jsut like any other product. The fact that an M8 has lousy high ISO compared to camera XYZ should form part of teh buying decision BEFORE some one buys not after. I knew that I wasnt getting a Nikon D3 or canon 1D series set of functions when I bought the M8- I bought the M8 for what it is - not for what internet commentators say it should be. That is an entirely different conversation - based on hypotheticals which I can't buy<p> Note also that Leica have made a big point of stressing weather proofing in their new camera just announced - the S2.

[peteradownunder]

<i>"...Leica are finished and I predict they will soon be no more. The M8 just doesn't cut it alongside today's

modern cameras and their new MF digital is destined for failure at that price."</i> <p> Jamie - I would prepared

to make a wager with you - that you are wrong regarding Leica's demise.<p> However the wager would be

conditional:<p> 1. What is the duration of your prediction ie within how many years - if you say within 1, 2 or

even three years then I will bet.<p> 2. The bet has to be meaningful - how about units of $10,0000 ( you can

choose to wager as many as you would like) deposited in T notes with hedges in place for the US/AUD exposure (

can't trust banks anymore) and of course the winner gets interest on the capital deposited - ie winner takes all.

<p>We can get our lawyers to haggle over terms of bet - I have attorneys and legal firms in the US/UK and Cayman

Islands ( not to mention poor lil old Australia) , so let me know who you would like to represent you and where

<p> 3. Let me know when you are ready to back up your strong view with hard cash. <p> btw - why should Leica be

ashamed of making a product and putting it on the market? - no one is forcing anyone to buy the product you know

- there are enough internet experts condemning the company and its products to have given people plenty of

warning about just how inferior Leica is to the mighty Canon 350D.

[david k.]

This should be interesting........

[ray .]

<i>Yes. The likely culprit is Leica's slumping sales...</i><p> It's really getting thick..

[stephen_pitts]

I see that many old Leica hands (and fans) from this forum have pitched in here on the topic and I am naturally

sympathetic to Reinier's unhappiness based upon his stipulated state of affairs. I have a strong hunch -- and no

disrespect to Reinier -- that the real situation was more as has been described in many of the "counter responses"

(the water damage was indeed material). Anyhow, enough said but I would have preferred the suggested follow-up on

the customer service line since the sheer volume of the endless diatribes that this heading generated frankly takes

away from the simple joy of photography (with some getting up in righteous arms)...

 

Simply put, the M8 is not perfect. Its not full frame, its not weatherproof, filters are needed for the IR problem (which

I almost never use), etc. It also simply takes better pictures than any other small format digital camera I have seen.

By far. And as we all know, pictures are a subjective and sensitive affair. Its versatility remains unmatched except

when trying to take pictures of moving objects... Thus, better the M8 than no M8.

 

No doubt a big part of its success as such is due to the lenses. The recent Leica M lenses that go with it are also

simply unmatched -- I cannot say enough about the 50f1.4 Asph. As an example, I used it handheld super close up

to frame a South African cricket (gigantic and scary) next to a pound coin. The image quality was mind boggling --

you would have thought it was a special macro lens set-up. The 16-21 lens also just amazes me as does the 28f2.

From basic prinicples, the M8 does the job of the camera extremely well.

 

Could the M8 be better, well no doubt. Does Reinier have a legitimate gripe? I don't know. The tradeoffs between

the M8 and the 400D are many. Picture quality for me being the most important.

 

As for the S2, I'm going whole hog. Simply fantastic. I am estatic that Leica is investing so heavily in all of its

porducts (including a brand new line). For those who don't like the price, the R10 will be coming along and will no

doubt be a scaled down version of the S2.

 

Lets help that these products are all successful so that Leica can continue to make great imaging products.

Including in the future a near weatherproof, full frame M8.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[peteradownunder]

Leica <i> deserve</i> to have <i>slumping sales</i>. They have been <i>short</i> product for some time - ie

product that ticks the cost / value box well enough to deliver revenue / cost results that a rational investor

would back. The general background to this parlous state of affairs is <i>history</i> a history, well documented

and well understood and pilloried from pillar to post by <i> internet gurus</i>. <p> However, Leica are now

blessed with a much more <i>logical</i> ownership structure and fortunately a more sound capital structure.<p>

The fact of the matter is that the company has struggled to find a niche that will deliver a competitive position

from which to properly focus scarce resources.<p> A cropped M8 with less than optimal specs - especially regarding

certain eccentric and peculiar attributes - eg the need for an IR filter in front of lenses was only ever going

to be a short term band-aid solution at best. The demise of the excellent DMR through no fault of its own ( the

merger of Imacon and Hasselblad) did not help matters.<p> The company's inability to find meaningful growth via

innovative high end product - it can't compete in the commodity end of the market, saw the transformation of the

ownership and capital structure of the business. <p> The company is now betting the business on the success of

the S2 - a move which is aimed at positioning the company as a niche player much like the MFD arms of

Sinar/Jenoptic, Phase One , Hasselblad and Leaf. <p>This is an interesting and risky move on the part of the

company. <p> However it seems to be very clever from a strategic point of view, as I dont think that the world

needs another DSLR copy cat camera - the Japanese manufacturers are much better at his segment than anyone else -

by a long shot.<p> So we are now in a much more mature place regarding chip manufacture in larger than 35mm ff

size. <p> This allows Leica the luxury of trying to go high end - with a twist.<p> it seems that the economics of

truly higher end digital capture chips have changed significantly ( witness Hasselblad's announcement last week

of a 40% price reduction in its top of the line systems). This change in manufacturing economics - will change

the price points which traditional MFD manufacturers compete. <p> Leica has decided to mate its worthy reputation

for very excellent optics - to a platform which can charge a premium and compete against far weaker opponents

than the Japanese CaNikon et al giants. <p> It is a sensible strategy - but this will not guarantee success or

survival. Time will tell. In the meantime - everything is mere conjecture.

[Landrum Kelly]

If the problem was condensation, then the camera would have had to have been airtight, not merely watertight, to prevent this from happening if the temperature drop was great enough. If the camera was placed in a location where it got colder and colder, at some point (the dewpoint, in fact) the water in the air would have condensed inside it, on the increasingly cold surfaces. Since we do not know the temperature, dewpoint, or other conditions, no one can say whether the camera should have able to have withstood the conditions. This is true for all brands. I do not see this as a Leica issue. It is a general digital camera issue.

 

Keeping a camera out of rain or salt spray is only half the challenge when one is dealing with extremely cold conditions. I don't know that one can assume that Greenland is going to always have dry conditions, given the polar maritime air that can come into that region.

 

What we are probably hearing is a reminder that modern electronic cameras are likely to fail in conditions that simpler cameras would have survived.

 

--Lannie

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<Jeffrey the only point I am making is that people should use a camera according to manufacturers recommendations - jsut like any other product. The fact that an M8 has lousy high ISO compared to camera XYZ should form part of teh buying decision BEFORE some one buys not after. I knew that I wasnt getting a Nikon D3 or canon 1D series set of functions when I bought the M8- I bought the M8 for what it is - not for what internet commentators say it should be. That is an entirely different conversation - based on hypotheticals which I can't buy

 

Note also that Leica have made a big point of stressing weather proofing in their new camera just announced - the S2.>

 

But what does that have to do with the bargain basement customer service, and the outrageous bill for what probably amounts to 25 bucks in parts?

[harvey_edelstein1]

Reinier, I stand in solidarity with you, Jeffrey just said in his last sentence how I view this sad situation.

 

We all want to have a competitive and reliable digital RF or at least an M with an EVF to mount our manual M lenses on. If I were new to photography I would not be drawn to the M system again, the digital paradigm being almost completely electronic and magnesium being used by most of the better digital cameras eliminated Leica's mechanical expertise, and build quality because they too use Magnesium.

 

The nice old lenses we have are not necessarily designed well for digital sensor. If you are going to get a new body that has ultrasonic sensor cleaner why not in camera anti shake reduction. It seems to me if we don't get a economical RF system soon this is the end of the line for our lenses. The investment in optics we have will not span the to this digital era for most of us who cannot justify paying $6k for a less than stellar performing M8 when we can get a Nikon D700 or similar well sealed camera with up to date FF sensor

a great VF and better customer service.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Its interesting that Reinier got repaid for the loss of the camera by insurance and there is almost 2 months worth of complaining going on the web; about the cost to fix a camera ruined by water damage. IF he sues Leica whats it going to be for; a loss of photos; another vacation? Was the repayment equal to cost of a new body; or just a used one? Would the suit be for pain and suffering; loss of income? Maybe a hallmark case is in order that pays millions and just raises the pricers on all brands? Was the insurance paid too low; ie not enough to buy an equalvalent camera m8 with the same amount of wear?<BR><BR>The comment of the "with severe wear on the glass, over 500 euro's of cost" for the summicron is odd too. Is Leica, Canon, or Nikon responsible too for the wear and tear we place on lenses? Is it that since Leica makes good lenses they should fix and repair stuff for free?<BR><BR>If one owned a car that got basically totalled due to water damage; and one had insurance that paid for the car; why would one spend two months on a crusade to say the car was poorly designed; or the repairs chaps are overchargeing to fix the floaded mess?<BR><BR><i>Fortunaly I was insured and they paid for the camera. But they are so anoyed by Leica that anyone in the Netherlands now wanting to insure an M8 can not cover it for waterdamage as they are "fed up with the way Leica expects us to clean up their mess".</i> Here the insurance paid up but doesnt want to insure another. Is it news really news in the Netherlands that insurance companys dont want to reinsure items after a major loss? Here in the USA after a major loss insurance companys revaluate the users claims paid out; the risks and often bump up rates, raise deductables, or drop coverage. If one tends to drop cameras and total them each year; most all companies will bump up your rates; or drop your coverage. Still another chap might still be able to get insurance on a M8 in the Netherlands; and the person who had claims not if its the way insurance works in the USA; where folks with claims/payouts are analyized to the Nth degree. <BR><BR>Do folks on CAR.NET threads complain when a flooded car is paid for with insurance; ie the cost of repairs too much; the car should have be better sealed since it was a BMW? <BR><BR>Have other insurance companies been contacted in the Netherlands about camera insurance? <BR><BR>Here I lost enough camera gear in Katrina to buy a dozen M8's and the Good Neighbor didnt pay a dime; even with the inland floater policys. Reinier got paid. Here I got nothing. Reinier is lucky since he got paid for a loss; but seems upset that the insurance company doesnt want to play the game anymore. Maybe higher premiums are in order; like houses in Katrina areas?

[kelly_flanigan1]

What would make Reiner happy? <BR><BR>Having the insurance company reinsure another M8; with the cost of the Premium passed on to house and car insurance?<BR><BR>For Leica to absorb the cost of the repair; pay the squeaky wheel; and these costs paid for by all other users?<BR><BR>To have the claim paid out more that the camera was worth; to deal with all this unhappyness? <BR><BR>

[Brad_]

Well, from all of the above, I guess a contributor in another thread really had it right when he said the M8 is a <I>fine art</i> cam; rather

than a

robust tool to be used by photojournalists in adverse conditions...

[reinier_de_vlaam]

Well, I'm sorry I not going to respond to all your comments individually...

 

a few points that I notices in most commenst

 

1) I will take any bet that I can not come up with written statements on how I treated the camera and when it failed by tour members, if needed. Condensation was they one and only cause for failure.

 

2) I was pised of by it breaking down in greenland. But as a clever guy ;-) I took a back-up camera (M6) with me. I realize those things can happen. As I read about the ruggedness of the M8 on other posting on the web I think I can safely asume this should be an exception and something wrong with my camera and thus waranty

 

3) I was totally pissed of when the came with the statement it wasn't waranty and even more pissed of by the fact that the bill was outragous. As stated, this is almost the price for a new one, including profit for leica, the importer and the seller.

 

4) I loved my m8, I impressed a 5D owner with its image quality (he took it for a week to India). For those who love working with RF, it is a great camera. That the reason I'm really considering buying another, eventhough a D700 may proffesionally be a better choice. And even though I know this camera does not live up to expectations and promisses of ruggedness and quality.

 

5) Yes, I will post this where-ever I can. Not everybody reads many fora and I'm going to share this expirience with as much people as possible. This is a real-life Leica expirience and ,as a shopowner with who was in contact yesterday stated, this is not a case on its own.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

oh BTW..thinks for the kind words about my website ;-)

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<Here I lost enough camera gear in Katrina to buy a dozen M8's and the Good Neighbor didnt pay a dime; even with the inland floater policys. Reinier got paid. Here I got nothing. Reinier is lucky since he got paid for a loss; but seems upset that the insurance company doesnt want to play the game anymore. Maybe higher premiums are in order; like houses in Katrina areas?>

 

Every time you take to the keyboard Kelly, you've made yourself seem from harmlessly innocent, to naive, to "there's a sucker born every minute." Now your crusade is taking up for the insurance companies, one of the greediest, most corrupt industries on the face of the earth, and the final indignity (for you) is that whether insurance paid for Mr. de Vlaam's loss is totally irrelevant to the shenanigans perpetrated by Leica Camera. That's the issue of this thread, besides the fact that ridiculous insurance claims cause everyone's premiums to go up if not the insurance becoming unavailable, but besides the point even though it renders your insurance argument impotent.

[nathancraver]

Reiner - "That the reason I'm really considering buying another, eventhough a D700 may proffesionally be a better choice.

And even though I know this camera does not live up to expectations and promisses of ruggedness and quality."

No offense, and I am not trying to be a jerk, but you just said that you are willing to spend that kind of money on a camera

that does not live up to expectations of quality. Why the hell would you do that. You must love disappointment. If you have

a problem once or twice, that's one thing, but you're saying that you are willing to spend a lot of money to set yourself up

for likely problems in the future.

[bernard_korites]

I once had an Olympus Stylus Epic that cost about $80. One day while sea kayaking I found it sloshing around

in 3" of salt water in the bottom of my kayak. When I got home, I took the film out, flushed the camera with fresh

water, then dried it as best I could with a hair dryer. After a few days of air drying, I then used it without problem for

another few years.

 

If Olympus can make a waterproof camera for $80, why can't Leica make a waterproof M8 for $6,000, or whatever it

is they cost?

[nathancraver]

It just goes to show that price and quality are not always directly proportional.

[michael_dimarzio]

Sorry but anyone thinks tah condensation is a threat to electronics is a bit out of touch. They all have specs for operating and storage values of temperature and RH. It looks to me that this is an example of unsuitable materials, a vulcanic eruption (even a small one) of corrosion like this for a brief exposure to non operating condensing, high relative humidity is not acceptable.

 

I have no dog in this fight, but that board is a defect if I ever saw one in over 30 years of depot to field level maintenance, including sea side military air surveillance facilities, strategic systems to airborne tactical mapping and now ATM and EV-DO networks.

 

My "pro" policy from Inland Marine doesn't cover flooding. I don't know of a US policy that does, there is always a few Pelicans stuffed with cameras, lenses and desiccant, as long as the plastic holds, the cameras would survive floating for a week. I let an Ericsson TDMA base station get rained on for 18 hours, after drying out, it ran corrosion free for years (yea, bad move I know I know, I never got nabbed for it, man was I freaking out when I turned it back on for the first time).

 

When I scratch a digital itch it will be with a used K10D.

 

Hey, Jet Man is on TV, tchau.

[kelly_flanigan1]

This thread just just points out how most all folks dont have a clue how much time and labor it takes to repair a moisture damaged electronic item; the risks; the time bomb factor having the unit failure due to unchecked hidden corrosion. Maybe many folks here dont really work; or live in a bubble; or have any little real world experience with repairs; or are tenured goverment workers on a socialist Planet. If this was having to be explained to a little kids it would make more sense than grown adults. <BR><BR>Water damage is expensive to fix/repair on most all complex electronic devices; this is nothing new. Its even expensive for a pure mechanical camera too. <BR><BR> Repairs often do not hold; corrision comes back; the unit comes back for repair again. <BR><BR>Part of the repair cost is dealing with customers who want something for nothing; a handout; a welfare event. Saying it should be low in cost just points to folks lack of understanding of the problems involved; you are in a bubble, watch too much TV, you want something for nothing. <BR><BR>Water damaged items typically are super expensive to repair; the unit may "never be the same" no matter how much labor is spent.. Whining about its cost is not going to make a car or camera that got water damage any cheaper to repair; it makes it more expensive.<BR><BR> A water soaked item in the eyes of an owner thats naive should be low in cost since there is no experience with moisture related repairs; its risks; the return rate; the whining; the time sink hole; the labor. <BR><BR><BR><BR>In flooded/soaked/wet cameras that are repaired that are just <b>a pure mechancial cameras;</b> problems can arise after the repair. Thus the units come back an order of magnatude more than another repair types.. PART of the repair cost in the first round is to absorb the return; plus the factor that some customers will again get the unit wet; and claim it was the first event; not the second. Or the customer is careless.<BR><BR> With an modern complex electronic camera one has these ancient moisture problems of the mechanics/greases/optics coupled with the electronics that are less robust with a drop of water. <BR><BR>The higher repair tags for a wet/floaded camera is what they did at a camera repair outfit I worked for in the 1960's for awhile. One would get a repaired item back the viewfinder would be fogged by crap that out gassed; water and grease; the water trapped in a speck of grease one didnt fully get out in the first round. Or the mirrors would get some streaks; the flash shutter contacts would be flakey; the shutter curtains would come off the rollers. One gets this crud growing on the aluminum parts; white dust. With smokers one would get tar crap on the optics; the leather might smell off Lucky Strikes, Salem, or Larks. The leather would come off with moisture; folks would want new leather.<BR><BR>With a moisture damaged lens thats got an auto diaphrame; it would tend to stick; the iris varying in "stopped drown Fstop" went it was on a motor drive; but lessor for a still shot. Customers would rotate the diaphram ring on a lens that saw moisture and the IRIS pivots would shear off; then want a "repair" for a few bucks. One would have to take the whole lens apart; pray to God that one got all water soaked grease out; regrease it; find new iris bladess or pivots; replace them and then hear the Customers bitching why the repair cost alot; why the water ate some of the coating off. With an old all brass 1950's lens the darn things would often still focus if soaked in salt water; the brass being abit more robust than aluminum. The failure mode would often be the IRIS petals; the water (even fresh water) quickly corodes the high strength steel blades of the diaphram; the customer shears the pivots off the diaphram blades "glued" together.<BR><BR> It that 1960's era of mostly mechanical camera repairs many customers then wanted something for nothing too; but less than today. The concept of "repairing" a camera that saw moisture being expensive was hard to grasp THEN; since <b>"it just saw a little water". </b><BR><BR> Its worse today;cameras are packed with electronics; cameras go obsolete quicker; folks have a lessor sense of being responsible for their actions; whining is in. Repairing consumer items is done less today than in the past; folks sue more; health care costs are radically higher; repair folks get little respect at all. Even the National Camera Repair courses in the 1960's pointed out the hassles and risk of fixing a water damaged photo device; and the ill will customers will spue out over costs and returns.<BR><BR>Some folks on this thread have their brains hard wired that a water damaged/soaked camera, lens, car should cost only a few bucks; the repair should make it good as new; the time spent nanoseconds and a free loaner air-frieghted in for your trouble; maybe it does happen on another Planet; or in a make believe world. Thus the cost of a water damage repair has to be mocked; since it doesnt fit the make believe simpleton model where its easy; quick, holds forever and the repair makes a boatload of cash. The reality is dealing with customers over water damaged item repairs is often like talking to a brick wall; nothing seems to sink in. You waste alot of time.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

////////the hell would you do that. You must love disappointment. If you have a problem once or twice, that's one thing,

but you're saying that you are willing to spend a lot of money to set yourself up for likely problems in the future

/////////////

 

 

 

very simple, I love rangefinder, I love they way they give me control over DOF and make me think about exposure and

composition. And the fact that they are compact compared to DSLR. I owned a few digi compacts like GX-100, they

were never satisfying. Just the time it takes to control it in MF is horrid, together with the non-existing DOF due to

the small teeny-weeny sensor. And I love the image quality of the M8 compared to digi-compacts. And again, I

impressed a 5D owner with the M8's image quality in lower iso. There is no argue in that.

And won't spend extra money, just use the insurance money

 

If Nikon would have lived up the rumours and come with a RF with D3 sensor at the kina, there would have been no

doubt and I would have switched. At this moment there is no alternative for an M8, maybe that's why Leica can afford

to have this attitude...

 

I learned a bad lesson that it is not as rugged as the price and M history make you expect, and that Leica has a real

bad customer support. I'm however still considering

 

Oh, I did not use the phone number, that is correct, I used mail conversation instead.