How long will we use digital M bodies (ie how long will Leica repair them)

<p>I wanted to report you a discussion I had yesterday with a Leica Dealer in Paris.<br>

He told me the M8 was already not repairable any more, as some parts were not available any more (for example, don't break your screen, there are not made, nor available any more). The M9 will follow the same path in a few years according to him...<br>

Where are those days when you bought a Leica for the 30 years (or more) to come ?<br>

Ok I know, it's technology, programmed obsolescence, and so on.<br>

But what will differentiate Leica from other manufacturers if their products won't be repairable after 5 years ? I buy Leicas for the results, the Joy of using them, but also for their reliability and possibility to having them repaired.<br>

Even if Leica has become more of a luxury brand, I don't think it can last if its products are not long-lasting. Luxury is also about durability. Buy a fine watch, you'll have it for a Lifetime.</p>

<p>If Leica goes from photography to luxury, it must even more so be able to guarantee an outsanding and durable quality.</p>

<p>What do you think ?</p>

<p>Didier</p>

 

I guess you have to buy a new Leica today for different reasons than you did 20 or 50 years ago.

Things change.

I agree. But with so many parts sourced from other manufacturers, it is a lottery. My Nikon Coolpix 4500 is still in perfect

working order and ten years old now. I hope to get the same life out of my M9-P and Monochrom. More than that might be

a bonus. If three or four even five successive M series digital cameras all become unrepairable within five years of release then I think their reputation will be seriously damaged. I hope they would do a great deal to stop that happening. The ME is recent release and current, as is the Monochrom. Here's hoping.

<p>Why I'm not spending a lot of money on ANY digital stuff. I'm all 35 year old Leicas and Nikon's, except for one digital Nikon from 2008.</p>

<p>Funny, I still think in terms of film and film cost ... that is, how much do I need to shoot for a digital body to pay for itself in terms of film. On that basis my two RD-1's have paid for themselves many, many times over and I now consider them fully depreciated. I have also assumed that the RD-1's are virtually non-repairable, except for the mechanical aspects (rangefinder calibration and so on). I never had confidence in their warranty service and was lucky I didn't need it. On this comparison-to-film cost basis I should have gotten rid of my M8 a long time ago simply because I consider it a terribly limited, black and white only platform. Now you've got me thinking again. </p>

<p>Just thinking about it a bit more ... if one is a pro, serious amateur, or otherwise a very heavy shooter, I think even a very pricy digital M can be economical. However, for a person who wants to buy the "prestige" logo and takes out the machine a couple times a year (christmas and maybe the two-week vacation), he's risking a lot ... that guy is better off shooting with his phone. You've got to take the machine out and work it a lot to make it pay. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>with so many parts sourced from other manufacturers, it is a lottery</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing "premium" about digital M camera bodies is the price - certainly not the quality of the components being used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess you have to buy a new Leica today for different reasons than you did 20 or 50 years ago. Things change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>Things get abandoned for different reasons:<br>

-fashion changes (top hats are no longer that common, fashionistas want smartphones)<br>

-innovations replace them (the dilligence replaced by cars, buses,trains&planes)<br>

-they are damaged and costly to repair (shoes & fridges)<br>

-they are impossible to repair since parts do not exist (ancient integrated circuits, old lenses)<br>

-they are not designed to be repaired so as to sell more or to sell cheaper.<br>

In the imaging field manual lenses- such as those still made by Zeiss and Leica, will survive the alphabet soup variety crammed with micromotors and electronics. Since they also are fairly close to what can be achieved given the laws of physics, they will survive and be adapted to new devices until physical damage gets them in the end.<br>

Fashion, convenience, increasing (or decreasing) global wealth, plus science and technology will push the evolution of the boxes timing the exposure and recording the image. Given past experience with other mass produced things, decennial repairability seems unlikely.<br>

p</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, just think of that $4,000-$5,000 Leica as a disposable camera with with an assumed operating life of X years, after which it becomes a paperweight. Harsh, but kinda true ...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Progress is so fast in semiconductor production technology, that it just isn't long until a particular integrated circuit is no longer available. Especially large-scale chips like in digital cameras. <br>

Thus, they are all "disposable".<br>

Lenses with no electronics in them are long-term investments. Anything with electronics in it is an expense, not "capital".<br>

We've also got the tin-whisker problems dooming circuit boards, since the EU went "over the top" in the RoHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances) regulations, banning the use of lead in solder in consumer electronics. This was a crock, because solder without lead in it grows tin whisker crystals that short out the circuits within 10 years. So any autofocus lens with a motor in it is a time bomb. Same with any digital camera.<br>

RoHS was stupid to ban lead in solder, because the lead in the waste stream came from color CRTs (which are now obsolete), but the tin whiskers mean that there will be a <strong>lot</strong> more electronics in the waste stream.</p>

<p>14 months ago Leica declared they want to grant repairability for at least 10 years after end of production and patching customer satisfaction with discounts on upgrades. Learning from previous mistakes they also developed sensor image processor and card writing for the M (240) themselves to hold the IP on those units and replace manufacturers as needed.<br>

I hope they'll jump on the Sony OX 100 bandwagon soon and simply bungee a random smartphone to a next M's back.</p>

<p>" If three or four even five successive M series digital cameras all become unrepairable within five years of release then I think their reputation will be seriously damaged "<br>

I agree with you Richard. If Leica don't consider themselves as a photography brand, they should remember luxury is about durability.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> <br>

" 14 months ago Leica declared they want to grant repairability for at least 10 years after end of production and patching customer satisfaction with discounts on upgrades "<br>

Jochen, hope they'll stick to that ! (the M8 is older than this declaration)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>' " 14 months ago Leica declared they want to grant repairability for at least 10 years after end of production and patching customer satisfaction with discounts on upgrades "<br /> Jochen, hope they'll stick to that ! (the M8 is older than this declaration)'<br>

The M8 isn't much older than the declaration ... that the M8 doesn't appear to be covered already does not bode well.<br>

Even if Leica does live up to that shaky promise, the fact remains that when you go digital you give up the value for a lifetime paradigm. The aftermarket value of a mechanical Leica M body has been pretty reliable, despite inevitable cyclicality. The aftermarket value of a Digital M body is going to go in only one direction over time.</p>

 

<p>So all M series cameras are going to grow tin whiskers and fail after 10 years, and there is nothing that Leica can do about it, or want to do about it, and their key parts are going to fail and become unavailable and the worst is, THEY DON'T CARE. They are just in the game to rip off the punters.<br>

I bet the Chinese and Japanese camera makers can use all the lead they want in their solder, and thus guarantee a long lasting quality product. If only all Leica production was moved to China, we would get longer lasting, better made and cheaper Leicas.<br>

Give us a break. Leica digitals are digital cameras like all other digital cameras. Happy New Year</p>

 

I sure hope this isn't true since I have an M8. The physical construction of the M8 seems pretty close to the construction

of my M2 but of course the weakness tends to be the electronics. I have had cameras that were premium for their time be

labelled unrepairable (The Contax RTS I for instance). That hardly ever happens with mechanical cameras but even there

there has to be someone out there making the repairs and how long will there be someone working on Leica IIIs.

 

 

It does give me pause though. I'm still debating buying an M9 (at about $4000) vs. a Sony A7R (at about $2300) and I

can't help but think if I'm going to suffer obsolescence I might as well do it at 2 grand cheaper with a new camera with a

warranty.

 

 

I have to agree with the posters. What keeps Leica users loyal to Leica is at least partially the committment to keep them

running beyond the time a normal (sane) manufacturer would declare them obsolete. Leica has to address this -- possibly

with good discounts on newer (refurbished) cameras?

 

 

Oh, and one more issue, the M8 still takes great pictures. It's rare that the IR sensitivity causes me issues and when it

does, I can screw on a filter. Also the IR sensitivity allows me to do IR pictures at handholdable speeds which is a

capability that even my modern cameras lack.

<p>Economies here are difficult to calculate. Had I bought the X-Pro 1 in March of 2012, I would certainly have bought three lenses, and likely continued to buy more. And still I would have ended up with an M9 too. So I just bought the M9-P and have foregone the X-Pro 1 and all those lenses, a considerable saving. Someone on RFF thought the extra money for the M9-P was naive or stupid, but the LCD is sapphire glass and much less likely to be damaged. I have taken 11,000 photos in 18 months, but this includes a lot of shots I would not have taken on film, especially a lot of trial and error shots getting the composition perfect because it was possible, often leaving off an external finder as I knew I could check the result. Five years will certainly see me pay for the M9-P. I won't be buying any of the Sony's I don't think, good though they must be.</p>

<p>I'd like to see VC come out with a full frame upgrade to the RD-1s ... call it an RD-2 or whatever, with an M-mount, at under half the cost of a digital M. They're both disposable in the digital paradigm. </p>

<p>Not too long ago, there was a clamor for a digital M and Leica responded. But in the old Leica style, with the M8, corrective filters, lens coding, special editions, commemorative editions, and so on. Wait for the Monochrom XX Special Commemorative Limited Edition Titanium Box Set with Titanium 50mm f0.95 Noctilux and a verbal grant of repairability for 10 years at a cool price of maybe $50,000.</p>

<p>Did you see what the Limited Edition M9-P Hermes Titanium went for? Did those go into a sealed safe deposit box as a collector's item? Wonder what the market for that bad boy is going to look like in 10 years. Will you be bidding on the body or the lenses in 2024?</p>

<p>Leica's had a good time inflating the prices of its digital platforms. The M8, whatever its strong and weak points, has already become something of an orphan, and a number of Leica's newer digital platforms are likely to go the same way ... how many Monochroms is Leica likely to ship? Its business model has a key flaw ... the real long term value is in the glass, and it's lost the patent on the M-Mount. </p>

<p>I'd worry if Leica's able to change the M-Mount ... provide an adapter to guarantee forward compatibility of old lenses to the new mount, but prevent backwards compatibility to the old M's. If it can be done, I bet it would only be done as a response to something like an M-Mount RD-2 cannibalizing digital M sales.</p>

 

<p>Btw, way cool that Richard's pounded out 11,000 frames in 18 months, because that's the kind of use that makes a digital M platform economical. </p>

<p>M8 was introduced in September 2006 and the M8-2 was introduced in September 2008. As I understand Leica cannot replace the LCD screens on these cameras should they become damaged. For M8-2 owners thats not too great some people likely have cameras they bought less than 5 years ago that cannot be repaired it's very good for M8 either.</p>

The RD-2 isn't really needed. It already exists with modern mirrorless cameras. If I buy an A7R I get a great full frame

platform for my M lenses. It wouldn't be an M camera of course but neither is the RD-1. Leica's response to this is the

Leica M-E at $5400. The cheaper version of this is the Nex 6 (admittedly APS-C).

 

 

Leica isn't going to make a $2500 camera with an M form factor. The only alternative is to make the premium option work.

The cameras MUST be repairable for a period which would be ludicrous for Sony or Nikon or Canon. I think they have to

repair them for at least 15 years or provide alternatives like rebuilding your M8 as a M9 or an M or accepting the

unrepairable cameras for deep discounts on new models or refurbished former models. Otherwise the economics won't

work even for real Leica fans (that aren't wealthy). It's one thing to pay a premium for a camera that will last for decades

physically but what is the point when it will be unrepairable in 5 years?

 

 

If Leica sunsets repairs at 5 years, it might as well only make gold plated models because they can't be practical at that system.

<p>Meanwhile, my Rolleis, M3's and Nikon F's just keep on chuggin'.</p>

<p>"The only alternative is to make the premium option work."</p>

<p>Something about the premium option doesn't compute. Seriously, what's the rationalle for buying a $20,000 - $50,000 Limited Edition M9-P set? Apparently they sold. But while I can see a collector putting away a mechanical M that will last a lifetime, why pay up for something that's going to be non-repairable in 10 years and obsolete even sooner?</p>

<p>That's another question: is there a collector's market for digital M's?</p>

<p> </p>

It's the way it is. Leica is at the mercy of their electronic component suppliers. Some components such

as LCD screens, custom integrated circuits (even some commodity integrate circuits), sensors, etc will

have a finite lifetime. In the case of custom ICs it can be due to older processes becoming obsolete. When they're gone, they're gone. As an example, it would be much too costly for Leica

to take on redesigning even five year old custom ICs in newer processes just to handle spares.

Is this pessimists corner?

Leica still supports my old Digilux 2. It's part of what you are paying for when you buy a Leica. Yes electronics are different but repair

centers are about repair not just replacement.

Reminds me a little of the old Routemaster bus. After 30 years no new engines left, " Hey Alan, what sort of engines do we have left on

the shelf?" " Big ones? They'll do, bring one over we'll try It in this bus."

Have faith, Leica is not a throw away obsolence company.

Robert.

P.S. The new Routemaster is also not bad.

>>> Yes electronics are different but repair centers are about repair not just replacement.

 

But if an electronic component such as a custom IC fails, and has been discontinued by the manufacturer with no supply,

how is the repair going to be made?