M8 upgrades - marketing absurdity

<p>Here is a link to Dante Stella's assessment of the M8 upgrades:<br>

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/upgrade.html</p>

<p>Since they came out I wondered who at Solms was responsible for such a complete waste of resources.</p>

<p>And you can find lots of other old news on that site too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since they came out I wondered who at Solms was responsible for such a complete waste of resources.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you own an M8? No one is forcing anyone to buy upgrades. The upgrades address issues brought up by users - and for those people the upgrade is worth the price. What's your problem with that? </p>

<p>I guess that I'm with Fred. Why are you getting annoyed about this now and not, say, a year ago? The M8 upgrades were announced in Jan or Feb of 2008 and even the M8.2 was announced back in Sept of 2008.</p>

<p>Is it a corporate decision that some will find annoying? Sure. Will some like it? Sure. And you can find all sorts of arguments about it in the archives I am sure.</p>

<p>Something comes to mind after reading the article. It seems to me that a more reasonable material than synthetic sapphire would be tempered glass, like the protective filters Hoya's coming out with. Impact resistant, much more scratch resistant than plastic, and doubtless cheaper.</p>

<p>It's really up to the person if they want to avail of these upgrades. For some people, the upgrades present value to them which might prove worthless to another person. At the end of the day, it's their right to avail of it much as it's Dan Stella's right to rant about it.<br>

As was pointed out before, Leica listened to what existing M8 users wanted and offered it as an upgrade. If you ask me, not a lot of companies do this and they should be commended for actually listening to customer feedback irregardless of the price they put for the upgrade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Something comes to mind after reading the article. It seems to me that a more reasonable material than synthetic sapphire would be tempered glass, like the protective filters Hoya's coming out with. Impact resistant, much more scratch resistant than plastic, and doubtless cheaper.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Tempered glass has been heat treated to setup compressive stresses on the surface to equalize tensile stresses in the core of the glass. When broken it shatters into fragments instead of shards making it safer for some uses. Tempered glass is more susceptible to scratches as the surface is softer than standard glass unless an additional coating is applied to the glass (which itself is susceptible to scuffing or scratching).</p>

<p>As far as hardness (scratch resistance) only diamonds are harder than sapphire. On the Moh's scale, diamond is a 10 and sapphire is rated 9. This means that diamonds are 4x harder than sapphire. Glass, on the other hand, is rated as 5.5, meaning that sapphire is about 8.3 times harder than glass. </p>

<p>As for absolute strength - sapphire can be surfaced processed (polished) for strengthening. When sapphire has been treated it has the mechanical strength equivalent of steel. Meaning glass isn't even close in strength.</p>

<p>While tempered glass may seem to be a "reasonable" substitute, the only feature it has - when compared to sapphire - is cheaper. It is in no way a substitute or equivalent of sapphire. I'll pay the difference for sapphire over tempered glass. </p>

<p>If you want a glass cover for your LCD, I'd suggest the Giotto AEGIS. It's made from Schott glass and has a 12 layer coating anti-reflective coating. However, the instructions that come with it recommend using only the enclosed micro-fiber cloth for cleaning to prevent scratching...so, there you go...scratches are a problem even with glass.</p>

<p>Sapphire is, in fact, the ultimate solution for an LCD window - expensive yes - but, it won't scratch and is much, much stronger than glass. Why would you want anything less on your Leica?</p>

<p>>>> Sapphire is, in fact, the ultimate solution for an LCD window - expensive yes - but, it won't scratch and is much, much stronger than glass. Why would you want anything less on your Leica?</p>

<p>Damn straight on that.</p>

<p>That's why I'm holding out for synthetic diamond available in 8.3 - it's the Best. And will shrug off and say nah-nah-ni-nah-nah to attacks from sapphire, 24 hours a day, every day of the year...</p>

<p>"...who at Solms was responsible for such a complete waste of resources.[?]"<br>

<br /><br>

Where is the waste? If Leica is earning income by selling upgrades to those who want them, it's good for the bottom line. It's not as though Leica could devote more resources to sensor design if they quit offering the upgrades - they don't DO sensor design in-house (Kodak does it for them). It's not though Leica could devote more resources to lens design - the camera assembly/repair techs doing the upgrades are not lens designers.</p>

<p>Dante reminds me of Woody Allen's story about two old ladies complaining about dinner at a resort: "The food here is terrible - and such small portions!" If he doesn't find the upgrades useful - fine. But why complain about the price of something he doesn't want anyway?</p>

<p>The shutter and frameline upgrades are extremely popular - enough so that Leica has run out of parts for both at one point or another this year. The LCD plate less so. It's funny that when Contax leveraged KYOto CERAmic's materials technology expertise by using artificial sapphire for the viewfinders in the T-series compact cameras and high-grade ceramics for the pressure plate in the ST and RTS, that was just seen as advanced technology - but when Leica does the same thing it gets hammered as some kind of Hermes fashion trinket.</p>

 

<p>Funny how the LCD cover is so scratch resistant on lowly Digital Rebels, only costs $12 for a replacement when needed, and easily done by the user without having to send the camera to another continent. Obviously Canon has a lot to learn from Leica regarding material science and user-friendliness.</p>

<p>The problem, as I see it, is that it is an indulgence of the jewelry mentality of Leica owners. Perhaps Leica management ought to decide whether they want to build a camera that functions reliably, in an ergonomic way, or, whether they want to be perceived as pandering to those who want to 'upgrade' their camera so that they are nicer to play with.<br>

There seems to be a very real quality control problem as well as very real problems with the camera itself, that scream out for attention. Apart from the very real need for an upgraded sensor for better high ISO, the camera produces awful JPEGS, has ISO control buried in the menu, has a poor screen, that surely needs improving before you bother about protecting it, and no weather protection - all of which could be worked on, even if Full Frame is as yet impractical.<br>

For me it's about giving the impression they are hard at work improving what could be a superb product, rather than sitting in marketing meetings wondering how they can gouge their few remaining wealthy and gullible customers.</p>

<p>Leica has survived for over 50 years and has been pronounced "dead" or "about to die" a dozen times, maybe two dozen. Say what you will, but they are still around and people still buy their products. Lots of different camera companies with lots of different price ranges can't say the same. Anyone been able to buy a new yashica/contax/konica/kyocera/bender/polaroid/agfa/minolta/exakta/bronica/etc camera off the shelf lately? How's that warrenty service holding up for you? And that doesn't even get into the list of camera companies that exist in name only and are mass produced in various factories these days.</p>

<p>Leica must be doing something right.</p>

<p>Leica is still in existence because of its name, superb lenses, because it is (or in spite of it being) the only company still pushing an interchangeable lens, beautifully formed, small, quiet digital M camera, and finally, and most importantly because of a multi-millionaire with faith in the products.</p>

<p>None of this negates any of my comments.</p>

<p>Had nothing to do with you Robert. You'll notice that I didn't quote any part of your post in my reply.</p>

<p>It was a general reply to the posse of leica-haters who haunt threads like these.</p>

<p>If you think the camera does not fit your idea of a good product then don't buy it. What's the problem? It is rather ungentleman like to brand other people who have bought it and are enjoying it as indulgent label worshippers. We know those people buy Canon :)</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

Obviously this isn't appealing to YOU. However, as one of the obviously gullible Leicaphiles with an M8 (and a newer M8.2) I actually chose to upgrade my camera with the new framelines and Sapphire LCD cover. And you know what, I'm extremely happy with the fact that the camera that has served me well for the last two years now has matching framelines with my M8.2 and also has an LCD cover that won't scratch up. I went through the 3rd party LCD covers, including the Giottos glass, and they were either awful or in the case of the Giottos great right up to the point where it shattered.<br>

Anyway, regardless of what third parties and non-owner's and nay-sayers might say about the upgrades, I'm very happy with mine and also pleased with the extra year of warranty too. For me personally it was a worthwhile exercise and brought my cameras up to spec with each other operationally and for a lot less than the hassle of trading & upgrading a perfectly reliable camera.</p>

<p>"Leica has survived for over 50 years and has been pronounced "dead" or "about to die" a dozen times, maybe two dozen. Say what you will, but they are still around and people still buy their products."</p>

<p>Leica only survives because it has a wealthy benefactor. It no longer seems to be a viable entity. It's a shame, really. And I don't see that the path they're on will improve things.</p>