M10-P announced

ptpdprinter said:
Leica owners did not wait until the last minute or procrastinate! It's not their fault that Leica abruptly terminated its guarantee and every owner had 120 days to submit their camera for evaluation/repair so they wouldn't be left holding the bag.
Click to expand...

PTP,

You are correct in that Leica could of made better of their "Good Will" and contributed and exacerbated the log-jam that resulted at the end of their Sensor Replacement Program.

I even take ownership that I waited at least a year or longer before sending my Monochrom in for Sensor Replacement.

The point I was trying to make is that there was an envelope that was a lot longer than a year prior to those 120 days final notice, and many people procrastinated-myself included, but I was lucky not have been impacted by the termination of this extension of "Good Will."

Some will argue that this program should of been more open ended or perhaps should have been indefinite, but is that good business or is that being naive? Did owners protect their own best interests, or are they expecting Leica to do that?

How much time would be correct? I stand firm people procrastinated, myself included. It is human nature.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
The point I was trying to make is that there was an envelope that was a lot longer than a year prior to those 120 days final notice, and many people procrastinated-myself included, but I was lucky not have been impacted by the termination of this extension of "Good Will."

Some will argue that this program should of been more open ended or perhaps should have been indefinite, but is that good business or is that being naive? Did owners protect their own best interests, or are they expcting Leica to do that?
Click to expand...
There were a lot of owners (majority?) who didn't know if they had sensor corrosion or not. Did you expect them to periodically send in their cameras for evaluation to see if they did? It wasn't until Leica terminated its guarantee that people decided they'd better send in their cameras so if their camera was affected they would lose out on what Leica had promised them.
 
ptpdprinter said:
There were a lot of owners (majority?) who didn't know if they had sensor corrosion or not. Did you expect them to periodically send in their cameras for evaluation to see if they did? It wasn't until Leica terminated its guarantee that people decided they'd better send in their cameras so if their camera was affected they would lose out on what Leica had promised them.
Click to expand...

PTP,

I know that determining if one has sensor corrosion is not obvious to many. I only suspected corrosion on my MM because of artifacts seen on my larger prints and only on some of them. My 27 inch EIZO did not make these artifacts evident.

I did not know I truely had sensor corrosion until Leica informed me. If I had none I assume that Leica would of simply returned my camera, but that was not the case.

I have a friend who had his MM sensor replaced. He freaked out because he thought he had sensor corrosion again on the replaced sensor. This was after the modded/upgraded/corrected sensor. It ended up being as I suspected. Oil and grease migration from the free rebuild/overhaul that was performed with the sensor replacement. He got a free sensor cleaning by Leica, problem solved.

The sensor corrosion problem is widely known, and I say any owner had to be aware of the possibility. This was not a surprise or any mystery to add drama. The tension, drama, and sense of mystery created being added is being naive and not sending in your camera to be inspected and taking appropriate action.

All this was compounded by procrastination and human nature as well as some bad handling and abrupt notice by Leica.

I for one sent my camera in to find out. You are asking me if it is appropriate for others who could not determine for sure like me to do the same. My friend I mentioned above did twice.

It was posted in a thread I started and mentioned by many, "just send in your camera for evaluation," when people could not determine if they had sensor corrosion for sure.

BTW I did not make a poll, but the responses in the thread I started suggests that in most cases corrosion was found and sensors were replaced. I don't recall many that were simply returned and if there were many more had the sensors replaced.

Again this is about an owner of an expensive camera taking responsibility. If you called like I did, a shipping label would be supplied and the only cost would have been the time without the camera.

Cal
 
Are you planning on returning your SL for evaluation anytime soon just to make sure it doesn't have any defects you don't know about? I don't understanding your attempt to blame the victims.
 
Not the thread topic, but sensor corrosion was a good bet on most MM cameras - always just a matter of time and actually, infrequent use!

In retrospect, Leica could have sent a recall notice to all owners who registered their cameras and to the websites/forums, such as this one, frequented by Leica MM users.

A recall of these cameras for sensor replacement would have been the best policy. For owners that wished to check their sensors, the process is not difficult - it just needed to be communicated earlier to the owners! If you can photograph a wall, you can check a sensor for corrosion. Eventually the instructions were available on-line, but it took a trade-in/upgrade program (for another Leica!) to make this happen.

It could have been handled better IMO.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Are you planning on returning your SL for evaluation anytime soon just to make sure it doesn't have any defects you don't know about? I don't understanding your attempt to blame the victims.
Click to expand...

PTP,

Are there problems with the SL I should know about? I have owned mine for about 3 years with no problems. Did a few firmware updates. Had to clean my sensor myself once. I think you are being mighty creative here and way off base.

Meanwhile I think few people were unaware of the sensor corrosion problem. Certainly I'm not blaming the victims here having been one who had and experience both sensor corrosion and having it repaired. I certainly know first hand.

I think Ellisson makes few good points: no doubt Leica could of handled things differently and in a better manner; also the sensor defect was widely known.

What I'm saying is in a similar manner some Leica camera owners did the same as Leica and could have done things in a better manner. My waiting 12 weeks for my camera to be repaired was comparable to the wait for Harry Fleenor to overhaul my Rollie 3.5F and was not unreasonable. Cost me nothing.

I will also state that it is human nature to process anger outwards to avoid being mad at oneself which can lead to depression. I'm not playing the blame game like you suggest. Some people acted irresponsibly and did little to protect their own self interests. Sorry,but this is not Leica's fault.

Cal
 
willie_901 said:
I don't think there is room for a vibration system. Every millimeter in the digital M design is critical.

If the body is too thick, people will complain about that as well.
Click to expand...

Willie,

My SL has built in sensor cleaning.

I still had to practice good camera hygene and had to perform a wet cleaning to remove a spec of pollen from a trip to Spain. Funny thing is that I never removed or changed the lens on that trip.

There are complaints that the SL is too big. The idea of a M is keep it small.

No sensor cleaning on my MM is no big deal. Not sure it is an asset in my case because I maintain and check for dust and oil anyways.

Cal
 
Agreed. If they could fit in a vibration system, they could also have in-body image stabilization (same mechanism).

willie_901 said:
I don't think there is room for a vibration system. Every millimeter in the digital M design is critical.

If the body is too thick, people will complain about that as well.
Click to expand...
 
Understood, but you can save a bunch of $$ by buying from a store in Europe, where the price is 6250 Euros. With typical shipping charges + customs processing fees (no duty on cameras) if those aren't included in your shipping that = approximately $7325 at current exchange rates. If you live in the U.S. & buy online, there is absolutely no reason to buy a Leica from a U.S. store.

KM-25 said:
From a purely philosophical standpoint I have always had a hard time paying more than $5,000 for a digital camera so I had to really think hard about dropping even $6,500 on my M10 which I can honestly say it has been worth it.

But $8K for a Leica M digital body? Are they out of their freaking minds?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
furcafe said:
Agreed. If they could fit in a vibration system, they could also have in-body image stabilization (same mechanism).
Click to expand...

FC,

The image stabilization system on the 24-90 zoom I borrowed from Leica was pretty amazing. From what I understand in-the-lens IS is the most optimized over in-the-body IS.

I was walking around at night in the Bowelry and doing all these "circus shots" of stuff just blasting away. No high ISO pushing at all at 400 ISO.

When I downloaded my jaw dropped. razor sharp images, some at 1/13th second shutter speed. Some zoomed out to 65mm so it was not about going wide for advantage.

This blew my mind.

Cal
 
This is interesting, from a pro photog on fredmiranda.com:

"I tested both of the cameras (M10 and M10P) with and without a lens attached and I noticed that the M10P was just about as loud when you removed the lenses. Then when you attached the lens it was MUCH quieter than the M10 w/lens attached. So it got me thinking that maybe the noise of the shutter isn't coming from the lens/lens mount hole (all that glass and steel/brass maybe dampens the sound). But around the body it's quite a thin layer of metal and at the bottom of the cam too so PERHAPS they just added some much needed insulation to muffle the noise??

I know they said it's a new shutter, but I'm hesitant to believe it's nothing more than better insulation to dampen the noise after testing both shutters with no lenses attached."

So yeah, no new shutter. Just insulation. Which may cause overheating issues in heavy use (why wasn't it there before?). Then again it doesn't have video as that was taken out, so unless it is used in LiveView mode a lot I don't think it would be an issue.
 
I handled an M10-P
its incredibly quiet, about half as noisy as a M10
plus the traditional Leica top plate engraving
a very nicely done camera
 
The recent release of the M10P has made me start to wonder if somewhere down the road Leica will release an ME/M262 version of the M10, basically thinking an M10 but with an aluminum rather than Brass top plate like the M262 vs the M240...Kind of digital M6.
 
CameraQuest said:
I don't think so. Leica has no reason to claim a new shutter if there is no new shutter.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, so people think there is a new silent shutter and so step up to buy.
Leica does not have a good track record of being honest - see change to their lifetime upgrade of defective sensor policy.
How else do u think the camera gained 20gms?
 
CameraQuest said:
I don't think so. Leica has no reason to claim a new shutter if there is no new shutter.
Click to expand...
Dear Stephen,

True. But some people (especially those who don't use Leicas) can never resist a baseless attack on Leica, and they have even more trouble in avoiding baseless attacks on Leica users. Besides, what does "new" mean in this context?

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom