Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/05/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Daniel, Overall i would agree, but the single piece body is much costlier to produce and probably repair. Since everyone seems to beat on Leica about the cost of initial purchase and repair costs, and the need to reduce these in future products, this is probably why they went this route. Then again just about every other camera company uses this method with little or no problem. Another reason they probably did it this time. I am leaning on waiting to see what the analysis of the failures shows at this time. I am using mine on a hand grip mounted to the m8 so i can shoot one handed, and so far it has worked just fine with no indications of loose fit it stress. I have another 7 weeks to go before i have use of both hands again. The down side is it is very clumsy to work this way with the camera, and one handed is not good for shakeiness. ;-) Gene -------------- Original message from Daniel Ridings <dlr@dlridings.se>: -------------- > Gene, > > Remember when we saw a series of pictures about disassembling an M8? At > the time I remarked that it was curious that Leica went back to the > split body. I noted that the strengths of the IIIc and the IIIf over > previous bodies was played up and Leica made an issue of having a solid > piece for their camera bodies. > > It was pointed out that it was probably easier to assemble everything if > the body could be split. > > It looks out that Leica got it right the first time (IIIc) and shouldn't > have rocked the boat. > > Daniel > > > > grduprey@mchsi.com wrote: > > Rei, > > > > I'm not sure that one or even two failures constitutes a design flaw. I > > would > lean toward a bad casting at this point. > > > > Gene > > > > -------------- Original message from Rei Shinozuka : > -------------- > > > > > >> that's kind of horrifying to see the metal housing of the m8 > >> fail so catastrophically. i guess the design is faulty; > >> the front-back split effectively means that the baseplate > >> sort of hooks into a lower corner of the front piece. a > >> one-peice design would not fail in this manner. > >> > >> it's hard to imagine there was much stress on a tripod--the > >> lens it was mounting was only a 50 lux, rather than > >> a heavy noctilux or 75 lux. > >> > >> at least the lens didn't look like it was damaged in the fall > >> > >> -rei > >> > >> On May23 19:00, Robert D. Baron wrote: > >>> This report on the LUF regarding failure of the base of an M8 is > >>> perhaps > >>> of some concern: > >>> > >>> > >> > http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failur > > >> e.html > >>> or > >>> > >>> http://tinyurl.com/2m9kdx > >>> > >>> I am not a metallurgist nor do I play one on tv. I have no idea if > >>> this > >>> is a rare event or something to fret over. > >>> > >>> I looked at my own base and it looks fine (solid, it appears) but what > >>> do I know? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --Bob > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> -- > >> Rei Shinozuka shino@panix.com > >> Ridgewood, New Jersey > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information