Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hi Roger - of course I don't know what it's like talking to customer service in Solms from the USA, but I've had excellent experiences with them from the UK, with turnaround times of less than a week on several occasions.Two dimensions you might consider in evaluating Leica service on the M cameras.
1. Rangefinder/lens calibration occurs because the fast glass is at the limits of the RF system. The more you push it (Noctilux wide open) , legacy lenses (before 6 bit) and the more lenses you have ..the harder it is to maintain perfect calibration of an entire system. This should work perfect with a new body and a new lens but the claims that every lens in a kit is perfect just don t match my experience. Aside from the new glass I assume that this is more like maintenance.
2. In the USA if you have a warranty claim you have to send it to NJ . If it has to go to Solms you lose and entire month in cross shipping and customs..2 weeks each way. During this period its almost impossible to track the progress and return shipping frequently ends up on your door step . They often turn the repair around in 10 days which I consider reasonable but its normally 4-6 weeks for anything and thats warranty work. A repair like a CLA often takes another 2-3 months. Talking to customer service is worse than a waste of time . Nice people that listen but rarely do anything .
The key to a happy M experience is reasonable expectations and some level of redundancy. I am convinced that Leica will not change for the better anytime soon. They simply don t believe that any change is necessary. Their recent success in the market place virtually assures us of the status quo.
My experience is that once an M system has been completely calibrated and any new camera bugs have been worked through.....the system has been very reliable. It has not abandoned me like a car on a dark road ..rather most issues can be worked around until proper service is available.
When a repair is needed I try to get it in asap and most of the time its back with minimum of disruption.
No excuses for Leica ..I just had to adjust my expectations for the service requirements ...and I am a very happy M9 user .
I got mine at the beginning of October 2009. I'm Just waiting for that morning when I shoot the first shot with the special pair of lines across the picture ...Most if not all of the sensor cracks have occurred in M9's purchased in the third quarter of 2009 and the actual crack occurs much to very much later after quite a bit of use which for me puts a question mark on QC being able to spot the fault.
I agree with your "key", Roger, and I can see how a plan like you described above would allow the "key" to work. Unfortunately, many folks, and sadly these days, myself included, do not have the option of redundancy, or dipping into our own pockets for what should be covered under warranty. Simple economic reality; which makes my level of tolerance for the QC and service issues much lower, for sure. ONE M9 is a stretch for some of us. Much less having redundant systems!
My love affair with Leica goes back more than 40 years, and yes, there have been a few issues along the way in the film days, but no where near what I've endured since the digital Leicas came out. I went through three M8s, and endured lots of "that's just a firmware issue", etc., and did lots of complaining to dealers and reps before Leica finally acknowledged, "yes, we're aware of the issue...", etc. Long waits for service, to the point I finally just gave up even thinking about having them deal with focusing issues, and just adapted my practice to the lens in hand. (And in one case, just quit using that lens altogether. Fortunately, it worked on someone else's camera.)
Had an M9 on day one of it's release, and it had lines in the sensor (as had my very first M8). I was so disappointed, and, frankly, disgusted, that I opted not to risk the M9, and am still shooting my M8. I'm tempted to get one now, but then I see a thread like this, or the issues endured by Dan Lindberg, and described here, and I wonder if I really want to take the risk again?
No question, the M9 can produce some truly wonderful results. But between these sorts of issues, and the sky high prices of anything Leica these days :loco:, and I can't help but feel that my long love affair may be nearing an end. I guess I'll just keep shooting my M8 until it dies. At that point, I'll probably have no choice but to sell off my Leica glass, and sit and watch the sun set. I can't begin to tell you how sad that thought makes me.
HI RogerService repairs and customer service in my experience are a real downside. To anyone that ever worked in the electronics industry the solutions are obvious. Leica isn t interested for exactly the reasons you mention..how could anyone comment on building a camera. The best example to look at is Porsche. Worst to first in vehicle reliability after they hired the Nisson engineers to consult with them on flow manufacturing and quality control. Leica doesn t have to change and they won t .
That's what I've been thinking too, admittedly judging only from the S2 output that's been published here on the forum and my long experience with M Leicas. For me, the uniquely nice glass in MF remains Zeiss for Hasselblad V (I am a Rollei/Schneider user now but my best ever images were shot on film with the Planar 110 or Superachromat 250, on an old beaten-up 203FE which I sold as part of my transition to digital..). Ok, my rant is even more :OT:, apologiessorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
Thats an interesting observation Bob - what glass in MF do you think is as good ( hopefully better) as its Leica equivalents? I am intereted to know because (so far) I only have the 70mm. In close focussing, sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, wide open and bokeh tests - it outperforms all the 80mm equivalents from Hasselblad ( H and CF, Rollie and Mamiya) I have loved the Contax fast 80 - but it is soft in comparison wide open.sorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
Thats an interesting observation Bob - what glass in MF do you think is as good ( hopefully better) as its Leica equivalents? I am intereted to know because (so far) I only have the 70mm. In close focussing, sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, wide open and bokeh tests - it outperforms all the 80mm equivalents from Hasselblad ( H and CF, Rollie and Mamiya) I have loved the Contax fast 80 - but it is soft in comparison wide open.
I would love to be able to say ( for example) that the Zeiss lenses I have accumulated over time are as good as the leica S2 on an S2 - and look forward to making these tests when I get an adaptor - it would save me a small fortune!
Good as the Schneider 40mm is or the Zeiss CFE (floating glass) 40mm from Zeiss - some examples I have seen of the 35mm from Leica in close focussed use (which is my acid test) sees the Leica 35mm blow these away in sharpness corner to corner and out of camera distortion tests. The 35mm from Leica is actually better tested against wides from Schneider and Rodenstock to get real peer comparison quality - and then you have to say Leica eats these in terms of aperture range, autofocus and shutter speed range..
Of course all these observations are subjective and personal but interested in your opinion as to why you havent been impressed "that awful much" and which lenses in particular?
Pete
Bob (and Peter A)Well it is a tough comparison and it depends about what you care about of course. On the Leica side we have the S2 and on the Phase side a P65+, so right away there are a few other factors in play.
I tend to evaluate a lens not by absolute contrst and sharpness, indeed I think it possible that a lens can be too sharp.
The MF lenses that have impressed me from the perspective of great over-all look and sharper then the sensor can resolve to the corners have bee the Schneider 80LS and 110LS (the 55LS not so other than one sample) these have a beautiful look of a combination of crispness all-over one stop down and totally acceptable sharpness but a beautiful look wide open.
For pure clinical sharpness, however, on the Phamiya body, the Phase 150D just is almost too sharp for the ladies LOL. I think that if you like the Zeiss look you would like the 150D
The 47 digitar looks great at f/11 the 35 and wider non-retrofocals get weird on the edges and corners mainly due to the angle of incidence to the sensor. I am hoping to see how the IQ180 is in this regard since it is too soon to tell
I have high hopes for the new 40 and 60 but I am in reset-mode on tech cameras. I am really afraid I will like the Rodenstock retro-wides on a Rm3Di which may suck me in if I like them too much.
-bob
I get a big how :thumbdown: Leica comments lead to :OT: :deadhorse: :cussing: ... then insecurity andsorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob