Winding down support for DMR at Solms?

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Xmas:

 

"Leitz Wetzlar made the very painful decision in 1976 to produce only single-lens-reflex cameras and to discontinue the Leica M rangefinder camera altogether. But lenses for Leica M cameras constituted a significant portion of the overall production of the Canadian Leitz plant, and (GM) Walter Kluck rightly feared a major setback in this sector.

 

"Because he wanted to to protect the endangered jobs in Midland, and also because he believed in a good future for the Leica M system. he vigorously campaigned for the transfer of Leica M camera production from Wetzlar to Midland.

 

"...Kluck's own cost analysis, combined with optimistic sales forecasts received from the most important international Leitz distributors for a Leica M4 camera made in Canada at an appropriate cost, finally convinced Leitz management."

 

-- p. 184, 50 years of Leica M, Gunter Osterloh, 2004.

 

"Leitz made the decision to abandon the M-cameras...because of the rising costs of production in Wetzlar and the company's need for capital. Demand persuaded Leitz to re-introduce M-cameras in 1978 with the M4-2 manufactured in Canada. About 95 M4-2s cameras were made in 1977..."

 

-- p. 90, Leica Collector's Guide, Dennis Laney, 1992.

________

 

Howard - W. Edwards Deming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming was a statistician and quality-control expert who served as consultant to Japanese companies during their revival following WW2. The simplistic summary would be that he taught the Japanese how to study their QC statistically to identify the core problems, move from inspect-and-adjust to correct-from-the-start parts making, understand that part and product variations were not due to variation in worker skills, but natural variability in processes, and so on. His work was the precursor to Total Quality Control (TQC), 6-Sigma and other QC methodologies.

[Xmas]

Xmas:

 

"Leitz Wetzlar made the very painful decision in 1976 to produce only single-lens-reflex cameras and to discontinue the Leica M rangefinder camera altogether. But lenses for Leica M cameras constituted a significant portion of the overall production of the Canadian Leitz plant, and (GM) Walter Kluck rightly feared a major setback in this sector.

 

"Because he wanted to to protect the endangered jobs in Midland, and also because he believed in a good future for the Leica M system. he vigorously campaigned for the transfer of Leica M camera production from Wetzlar to Midland.

 

"...Kluck's own cost analysis, combined with optimistic sales forecasts received from the most important international Leitz distributors for a Leica M4 camera made in Canada at an appropriate cost, finally convinced Leitz management."

 

-- p. 184, 50 years of Leica M, Gunter Osterloh, 2004.

 

"Leitz made the decision to abandon the M-cameras...because of the rising costs of production in Wetzlar and the company's need for capital. Demand persuaded Leitz to re-introduce M-cameras in 1978 with the M4-2 manufactured in Canada. About 95 M4-2s cameras were made in 1977..."

 

-- p. 90, Leica Collector's Guide, Dennis Laney, 1992.

 

The Leitz story of the time as parrotted by the press was unbelievable then as it is now. Dont worry if it still seems risible to me.

 

Noel

[adan]

First time I've heard books by historians called "the press" - but there it is.

[ilhan]

Yesterday I called Solms Customer Service to enquire about DMR repairs, and was informed by Gabrielle that Leica are no longer able to repair the electronics components of these due to the lack of availability of parts. For the time being, it would seems, mechanical issues and parts remain available.

 

Although I suppose this has been well-flagged and is no real surprise, it would be rather nice if one of the independent Leica specialists were able to find a way of assuming this work, possibly in agreement/coordination with Leica as has been the case with DMR batteries. I am pretty certain that this should provide a good revenue flow and market niche for the right technician to expand his business.

 

It would really be a pity to see all the DMRs slowly finding their way onto the scrapheap....

It is unfortunately true that Leica can not repair defects in the electronics of the DMR. When you get the "E 02" error code on the screen you have to know that it is the end of the line. Leica does not have the parts for the electronic circuits. Their supplier was I think the Danish compny Imacon which has been sold to Hasselblad and do not produce the parts anymore. So I was very sad to hear that the DMR was dead. It makes such good pics. BUT, Leica customer service were very friendly and have bought back the defect DMR from me for a very generous price. They can scrap it for mechanical parts and I can go buy more Leica stuff to ease the heart ace. Very customer friedly solution of a sad story.

[jaapv]

That is good to hear. Let's hope there will be a buy-back part exchange action when the long-awaited R solution finally appears.

[bocaburger]

Leica does not have the parts for the electronic circuits. Their supplier was I think the Danish compny Imacon which has been sold to Hasselblad and do not produce the parts anymore.

 

I find it impossible to believe that the DMR's electronic parts couldn't be duplicated by another company, such as the one Leica contracts for the electronics in the M9. Or perhaps some Chinese company, as they seem capable of "duplicating" just about everything What can believe is that it isn't economically feasible. Most likely those companies have minimum order requirements which exceed Leica's perceived needs. I think that fact has relevance for owners of the M8/M8.2 as well. Those sold in greater numbers than the DMR, but still minuscule in the world of electronics, and clearly Leica wouldn't order up a repair part in equal number to the total M8/8.2 units sold.

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it impossible to believe that the DMR's electronic parts couldn't be duplicated by another company, such as the one Leica contracts for the electronics in the M9. Or perhaps some Chinese company, as they seem capable of "duplicating" just about everything What can believe is that it isn't economically feasible. Most likely those companies have minimum order requirements which exceed Leica's perceived needs. I think that fact has relevance for owners of the M8/M8.2 as well. Those sold in greater numbers than the DMR, but still minuscule in the world of electronics, and clearly Leica wouldn't order up a repair part in equal number to the total M8/8.2 units sold.

 

But what is not clear is who did the electronic design, and who holds the rights to the design. My guess is that it's Imacon in both cases, and I can't see them letting anyone else use it, given all the history. The point about production scale is, IMHO, a telling one.