Leica build quality versus the rest

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having handled a few new models from other manufacturers I can't help but notice how plasticky they are compared with Leica! I looked at a DSLR and a superzoom. Lots of buttons -- which are easy to press by mistake -- fiddly controls, and an overall impression of a product that isn't built to last. And tiny DSLR viewfinders! Performance may be something else. Some people have criticized the X1 for being not quite up to snuff. Well, the battery door is flimsy, but the rest of it seems very well put together. I don't think light weight should be confused with quality. However, for overall quality, it's hard to beat an M6 or models back to the M3. Or even earlier. I even had a play with an original Leicaflex once and it seemed to exude quality! Not just weight. One area where Leica may have fallen behind in digital models is with the addition of the digital interface. Those little rounded buttons don't feel very "tactile". The standard four-way controller is OK but nothing special. Leica used to agonize over details like rewind buttons and self-timers. I guess what I'm saying is that Leica quality is still at a very high level compared with others, but I wonder is it up to previous levels? What other cameras come close?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[lars_bergquist]

Leica build quality is generally very high. They build lenses the way lenses -- even run-of-the-mill lenses -- were built when I was a kid. Even so, slips happen. There are lenses, such as the (discontinued) MATE and the 28mm Summicron, which exhibit a tendency to self-disassembly.

 

Zeiss and Cosina lenses too have a much higher design quality than common DSLR lenses. They are actually built out of metal. The problem is quality control. This must be applied during the assembly itself, and if done the Leica way, it costs money -- generally more money than the lens itself! Zeiss lenses are built by Cosina in most cases. Zeiss have worked hard to introduce German level quality control into the process, and have improved it markedly. It seems however that little of this has trickled over to the 'Voigtländer' side of the operation. Much of the price differential between Cosina Zeiss and Cosina Voigtländer is a difference of QC. Lots of C/V lenses I have met have exhibited bad decentering. Finding a good specimen is a gamble. A dealer of a saintly disposition also helps ("ok, we'll find you another one"). A saintly disposition however is a quick road to bankruptcy.

 

The old man from the Brass Age

[250swb]

Lots of buttons -- which are easy to press by mistake -- fiddly controls, and an overall impression of a product that isn't built to last.

 

Quite so, but how long is a superbly made Leica M9 going to last, compared to an M3 for instance? Film is film, its changed during the life of ther M3 but it still fits in the same hole in the body. Twenty years down the road are Leica still going to be making replacement sensors for the M9 when they get a fault?

 

In the meantime the alternative camera, the one that feels plasticky, has worn out, but because it cost so much less you're onto the fourth generation of it before you spent as much as on your M9 doorstop.

 

But would I mind if the M9 was ergonomically different, yes, would I mind if it had a polycarbonate top plate, no.

 

Steve

[symmetron]

For some reason, my Nikon DLSRs and lenses seem to develop more cosmetic blemishes than my Leicas while my Leicas have been used 10X longer and under harsher conditions. My Leicas look pretty much brand new while my Nikons are getting dinged up. Don't know why? The Nikons still work fine, but they're looking pretty used.

 

At first I thought it was due to the heavier weight of the Nikons, but I noticed this also back in the days of film as well. I suspect this is the case with most similar brands like Canon, Sony, etc.

 

FWIW, my Leicas have held up for over 20 years while taking their licks, they still look surprisingly intact. From an investment or time-average dollar value, the Leicas seem like a good deal. Unfortunately, the entry costs for leica is steep.

[wilfredo]

I don't know about Nikons, but all my Canon DSLR's have held out pretty well cosmetically and otherwisw. I'm not so sure about German standards in quality control, too many very expensive Leica products seem to go back for repair after purchase. My Canon's have been more reliable than 3 of my Leica M's (MP, M7, M8). All three needed repair thankfully while still under warranty. My M2 seems to be the only M camera that lives up to the German reputation for QC. The new stuff, sadly is lagging behind, even the X1 seems to be losing its skin.

[bill]

Up until the digital era (Anno Digital, or AD) the quality of Leica construction carried considerable weight. Product life-cycles were longer, and the capture medium - film - did the developing (in both senses) meaning that a Leica I could - and still can - deliver results as fine as an M7 in the right hands. A Leica might be superceded but it did not become obsolete. The fact that they were built to last was a virtue.

 

Now, in the rush-rush, hurry-hurry world of digital, technology moves on much faster. Leica build quality still comes at a price, but is less of a USP when the non-changeable innards become obsolete in a matter of months, taking the rest of the camera with them.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As said, film Leica's were built to last because as long as you can put a film in them they'll continue to work as well as the day they were made (assuming full working order etc).

 

IMHO the M8 and M9 are probably built to a much higher standard than is actually required, given that they will no doubt be 'retired' after 5-10 yrs use, or when it is no longer economical to replace a faulty sensor. But then if they weren't built to a high standard people would cry that they aren't Leica's!

 

Clearly the X1 has been built to a price limit and again in all likelihood most people won't be using them in 10yrs time.

[pico]

I've been using M models since 1965, (m2, m4, m7), and when I was a daily news photographer each required shutter adjustments at least annually, but none ever failed. It should be noted that I almost always had a Rapidwinder, Leicavit or motor wind on them. By comparison, I destroyed a couple Nikon F bodies every year. It was usually the film transport and prisms that broke - the later from colliding with a Leica. (Urban news photographers did a lot of running with the gear in the Sixties and Seventies.)

 

The worst experience with a Leica M was at -40F where the film would drag. That is still excellent considering the body was never reworked for cold weather.

[adan]

First - define "build quality".

 

Which is a better-built shutter? One that is very quiet, and loving hand-assembled from rubberized cloth and polished gears, that will last for decades overall but needs the clockwork serviced every 3-4 years to keep the top speed at 1/1000th instead of 1/700th and can burn through with a couple of minutes exposure to a lens's image of the sun? But is relatively economical to disassemble for replacement of parts?

 

Or an off-the-shelf unitary shutter that is noisier but is "fire-proof" and can maintain 1/4000th or 1/8000th perfectly for 100,000+ exposures, and then explodes (more or less) - but can be replaced as a unit for less than the cost of disassembly and repair/replacement of any one part?

 

I don't argue one way or the other, but the question shows that "build quality" can be subjective.

 

I like the "dense" build of Leica M lenses - solid, interlocked layers of aluminum, brass, and glass with very little dead-air space inside (except as needed between the elements ). As compared to the "space-frame" construction of most AF lenses - a skeleton holding the internal parts and supporting a skin of plastic or metal.

 

OTOH, the Zeiss lenses for classic Hassies used the space-frame approach - look closely at the bottom of a "C" lens and you can see the seams and screws where the thin skin is wrapped around the underlying frame and functional bits (not to mention all the "buttons" that stick out for DoF, sync settings, EV lock, etc.). I never heard anyone complain about their build quality, though.

 

Digital cameras have to strike a balance between their roles as computers and their roles as cameras. Since I am typing at the moment, I will say that my iMac would not stand up to a collision with the 1946 Underwood Champion typewriter my dad loaned me to use in college.

 

Or, to quote from the movie "Back to the Future II:"

 

Marty McFly: There he is, Doc! Let's land on him, we'll cripple his car.

Doc: Marty, he's in a '46 Ford, we're in a DeLorean. He'd rip through us like we were tin foil.

 

Anyone want to try smashing their M3 into an M9 - or an M9 into a D3x?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jeff S]

Anyone want to try smashing their M3 into an M9 - or an M9 into a D3x?

 

Hmmm...crash test ratings for cameras?

 

More seriously, one also needs to account for the different innards besides the shutter. In such a crash, for instance, rangefinder alignment versus a dslr system, etc.

 

As you suggest, Andy, maintenance issues versus type of material issues versus design issues versus....

 

Jeff

[NZDavid]

Camera crash tests indeed! Yes, they do need to be tough for pros, especially newspaper photogs!

 

I don't think build quality is that hard to define. It used to be however many thousands of cycles a camera would go before needing service; always a lot more for pro models. Not sure if there is any similar measure for the digi age.

 

I've always wondered why it hasn't been possible to manufacture an upgradeable, interchangeable sensor? Like the digital film concept. Old Leicas used to be regularly upgraded.

[adan]

I've always wondered why it hasn't been possible to manufacture an upgradeable, interchangeable sensor?

 

I hope this thread won't get too sidetracked, because we've done this one to death over the years (M8 "perpetual upgrade" and so on)...but:

 

The sensor is a part of a suite of electronics (A/D converter, CPU(s), buffer memory), all specced to run with one another - and all constantly being improved, or at least changed, themselves. CPU's are nominally upgradable, but I can't just pop an Intel quad-core into a 2001 Apple G5 - it doesn't speak the same language as the other chips any more (or even have the right number of connectors, for all I know).

 

To allow for an upgradeable sensor, you'd either have to be able to predict the future accurately (can we say "R10"?) and plan for forward compatability with chips, firmware and algorithms not even invented yet. Or commit to locking in the design with today's technology - which may not be supported 5 years from now. Or essentially gut the whole camera and start over.

 

I can't see Nikon or Canon (or Leica for that matter) saying "The circuitry and chips we use today will remain state-of-the-art for such a long time that we can make the sensors interchangeable." It would be equivalent to the apocryphal Bill Gates quote that 640K of memory should be "enough" for anyone. You just don't know what new technology Kodak or Sony or Canon is going to spring on the market a month from now.

 

It's one thing to add slow shutter speeds to a IIc and make it a IIIc (when Leica was building IIIc's all along in parallel with the same parts) - it is something else entirely to add an M3 finder or an M6 meter.

[giordano]

I've always wondered why it hasn't been possible to manufacture an upgradeable, interchangeable sensor?

 

As Andy says it's not just the sensor but a mass of other electronics. In principle though it could be done: design the camera with standardised mountings for sensor and electronics modules so that better ones can be slotted in as they become available. This has been done many times in the history of electronics, and it does extend the "competitive" life of the base unit.

 

But there's always been a cost in terms of volume and weight. It's significant that this sort of modular system has never found a place in products where there is extreme selective pressure for small size and light weight in relation to performance. For example, attempts to agree standard form factors for laptop batteries foundered because they would remove a degree of freedom from the designers' ability to get to the most volume-efficient internal layout.

[jaapv]

 

I've always wondered why it hasn't been possible to manufacture an upgradeable, interchangeable sensor? Like the digital film concept. Old Leicas used to be regularly upgraded.

You mean like the Ricoh GXR?

[tobey bilek]

Pro body Nikons are well built. Don`t compare a D90 with a Leica. Compare with a D3, D3S or D3X.

[tobey bilek]

Pro body Nikons are well built. Don`t compare a D90 with a Leica. Compare with a D3, D3S or D3X.

 

Nothing is built like old Leicas, not even new ones

[NZDavid]

Well, Ricoh's GXR module is a novel approach. The body is a little more than a shell, and new lens and sensor modules are slotted in. With other cameras, it seems a shame you have to buy a new body, viewfinder, and shutter every time you want a new sensor. Not very environmental, either. But possibly it's easier for the manufacturers -- and, of course, more profitable.

 

Yes, I've seen the pro Nikons and Canons -- they certainly weight a ton. However, even older "amateur" film cameras seemed to be well put together.

[Wolfgang Esslinger]

Lots of plastic and lots of buttons - that was the reason why several years ago I did not move from analog Minolta to digital Minolta. Although their idea wasn't too bad: The 7D was very similar in handling to the Dynax 7. But then I didn't enjoy the Dynax 7.

 

Instead I made the move to Leica, admittingly expecting some digital future for the R system. Now, the biggest disappointment for me is not the lack of a digital solution, but the lack of reliability with almost all Leica equipment I have bought so far. Luckily CS people make an effort to help.

 

When you look at Leicaflex cameras I take a look at my Minolta SR-T from 1977 with a standard 1.7/50mm lens, very basic equipment at that time at very consumer friendly prices: Both still work perfectly and smoothly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wilfredo]

Pro body Nikons are well built. Don`t compare a D90 with a Leica. Compare with a D3, D3S or D3X.

 

Nothing is built like old Leicas, not even new ones

 

That is also my conclusion. This is one of those things we have to reluctantly live with in the age of digital speed.