Should I buy an M?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with this approach.  It would be great if Leica would standardise the body and the connections, and then offer the opportunity to upgrade the sensor and related electronics as the years go by.  It would require a trip to Wetzlar, and it wouldn't be cheap, but it would make me feel a lot more relaxed about having spent a fortune on beautiful cameras with electronics that are not to the same standard as the rest of the camera.

 

It would also potentially offer owners the option of more pixels, less pixels, monochrome sensors and perhaps IR.  This would not need to stifle further innovation in camera development (such as it is), provided the specification for the new electronics stayed within the same physical dimensions.

 

It also needs to be remembered that Leica has never really been a company which pushes the technological envelope.  Instead what they have done in the past is to take existing technologies and refine them.  The M3 was a breakthrough camera, but all the technology was already available.  Leica was an innovator with AF, but they didn't use it.

 

Producing cameras with faulty electronics or incomplete firmware is not really consistent with Leica's history of producing small, refined cameras in the best possible way, using existing technology (not outdated, but just not bleeding edge).

 

Cheers

John

[bencoyote]

Producing cameras with faulty electronics or incomplete firmware is not really consistent with Leica's history of producing small, refined cameras in the best possible way, using existing technology (not outdated, but just not bleeding edge).

 

I know this first hand -- embedded firmware is hard. This may be why I'm willing to cut Leica some slack. On top of that there is always this tension between new product engineering and continuing product support and upgrade. Prioritizing finite engineering resources is real challenge.

 

I would appreciate more consistent and frequent updates (more so for the T) and an open bug tracking database where customers could pile on, provide test cases and reproducers, and thus help project managers prioritize relative importance of features and bug fixes to customers.

 

In my dreams, Leica would open up their firmware and accept patches from those of us who do that kind of thing for a living. (yeah yeah yeah - I know more than I ever wanted to know about trade secrets, patents, copyright and all the potential intellectual property pitfalls that prevent this kind of thing from happening.) More realistically one business model that I've considered is similar to Red Hat's where after a certain amount of time beyond initial hardware purchase people pay to subscribe to software support and the revenue helps finance continuing product support and engineering.

[Mornnb]

Well, the Zone System was of course developed with just this point in mind and even then it only comprised of nine Ev stops. If we compare prints that Ansel Adams made over time of the same negative it is clear that he was picking sections of the total dynamic range of his films and not compressing.

 

Adams did actually spent a lot of time in the darkroom optimising exposure and compressing dynamic range. To quote him: “Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships.”

The digital version of dodging and burning, is tone curve tools and compressing dynamic range. Ansel Adams was a champion of the analogue means to achieve this, and had he been alive today he would be the type of photographer to spend hours or days in photoshop tweaking each shot to perfection. because that's how he handled analogue in the darkroom. He would have absolutely loved digital. For he was not a photographer who believed it possible to get the shot perfect in camera

 

The digital version of the zone system would be the expose to the right method. Ansel Adams said “Expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights.", but the opposite tends to hold true for digital because of it's different behaviour to film. Blown highlights can not be recovered and the tonal information in the highlights tends to be poor. Shadow recovery tends to work much better than highlight recovery, yet there is more noise in the shadows. When dealing with a scene which exceeds a cameras dynamic range the goal should be to keep the highlights just as high as possible before losing information to clipping.

[jaapv]

I don't quite agree that the digital equivalent of dodging and burning is curves and (I suppose you mean) levels, unless applied on a selection. Photoshop does offer  "real" dodging and burning albeit rather lame imo, especially in earlier versions.

[otto.f]

Maybe my final thought on this topic, my friend and I were discussing this and the challenge for a company like Leica. How do they keep up with the march of technology and the saturation of a niche market and do so within the design ethos of minimalism. Also on our minds is sustainability vs. churn and consumption. It seems like the M 240 is a good enough product that the world isn't clamoring for the next generation. Just maybe some bug fixes in the firmware.  So what is Leica to do, how do they make money?

 

1) They already provide CLAs. Make that an increasing part of their business model.

2) The form factor is basically static and well loved. Nothing has to change there.

3) The build quality is excellent and much of it is mechanical. Those mechanical bits probably could last most of a lifetime with periodic service. Instead of making a new model, design internal upgrades to the current model. i.e. replace the sensor and the logic board and maybe the display.

 

This would:

1) Protect the investment customers make in their current camera.

2) Be sustainable because less would need to be manufactured.

3) Give them a higher volume on the new bits for their next generation of cameras.

4) Potentially reconnect them with customers with whom they haven't had contact with in a while.

5) Allow them to continue to use much of the same tooling. (They probably get most of this benefit anyway.)

6) Keep their older cameras off of the market so that they don't need to compete with themselves in a niche market.

 

Bill McKibbon makes an argument very much like this in his book Eaarth. He essentially says that endless consumption is unsustainable and we need to reorient our economy such that rather than relying on consumption and churn our primary economic activity needs to shift to support and maintenance. For a manufacturer like Leica, I could see them positioning themselves on the vanguard of this almost as a PR move but also as a survival strategy for a small to medium sized company with a comparatively tiny R&D budget. It sort of reminds me of something that I read in a book on Leica (maybe the Leica Compendium) that part of the reason that they stuck with film so long was that they didn't really have the R&D budget to plunge into digital in a big way until they were recapitalized by Kaufman.

 

I sympathize with your proposal but I don't think it is realistic and it will certainly be much too narrow a strategy for Mr. Kauffmann. Look at what happened since he took over: D-lux 4 5 6 and Leica X1 X2 X-Vario, Leica T, etc. This is all aimed at big volumes and expansion of Leica's target groups, like the wives of M-owners for instance . Not at going back to a repair culture like in the sixties with the M3 and 4 and SL and SL2. 

[ebf]

After all of your great replies and reading a lot on the forum, I took the leap!

 

I'm a proud owner of a Silver Leica M-P 240. Awesome camera. Just got it from Ken Hansen and I'm in love with the quality. I'm keeping my A7 inside my camera bag for now (it's so light!) and will use both for now.

 

Thanks everyone!!

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nor am I. But then, I own an M240. So what do I know?.

 

Banding in my experience only occurs at ISO 4000 and upwards with certain SD cards.

Jaap

Which SD cards have you had trouble with of late? TIA 

[jaapv]

Sandisk Ultra and Extreme, older cards.

[aalkaabi]

M9 still one hot camera, so I don't think 240 will disappear for the next 5 years at least. I'm also a7 ii user and I love it, sometimes I wonder why I have both! Both more or less do the same thing. But the truth to be told, leica isn't just about photography it's a passion, ok enough confusing you, just go with your gut feeling.

[algrove]

Sandisk Ultra and Extreme, older cards.

I am debating to try my old Extreme 32GB 30mb/s cards on the M246 after SD formatting them. Any comment on that idea?

[lct]

32GB cards were slower than others when i tested them. I did not try your sample though.

http://tinyurl.com/kp8qe83

[algrove]

After printing this out, I now realize what a job that was to compile. Thanks so much for that hard work.

 

To me the small cards work well with the exception of the larger Sandisk 64GB 95/. I am told that the 32 is 2x16 flash inside, but the 95/ 64GB is one flash so that helps the speed it seems. I have many of the 64 95/ and that seems still like a winner until the new 64GB 280/ is tested. Just this weekend I see B&H is selling that fast 64GB 95 card at $40 when buying it in a 2-pack. Not a bad price.

 

For the M246, perhaps I will still start out with the old Extreme 32GB 30/ since I own plenty, or should I say too many!  If the start up is slow on the M246 for street that will not be the optimal card for that scenario. The 8GB performed well, but I am sure the larger 32 will not be like the 8GB. I have SD formatted all my old 32GB 30/ cards in anticipation of being able to somehow use them instead of letting them collect dust somewhere. Maybe I should just use them for 3rd backups while on the road since I now use the Sandisk 128GB 280 read/write sticks for 2nd backup while on the road.

[Loren]

Well, the 60 years is more for film cameras and lenses than for digital cameras. Even Leica cannot halt the fast pace of the electronic world, so service will get difficult ten years after production end, say fifteen years in real life. Having said that, even the modern M cameras are built to last and I am convinced that the percentage of Leica M8 cameras still in use is a magnitude higher that any other brand. 

I mean, even a camera like the Digilux2 has a dedicated group of users and an active forum and it is of similar vintage as a Canon 10D - I wonder if any of those are still around...

 

So maybe the M240 will not be handed to your grandchildren, but the images you will take with it certainly will be...

 

I'd like to think the digital cameras will be around as long as the film cameras, but the reality of that is very slim.

 

First, electronic components can go obsolete fairly easily and fast.

 

Second RoHS is a thorn in the butt for consumer electronics if you plan to keep them. Lead-free solder results in shorting whiskers eventually. It might be 20 years from now, but it will get you sooner or later. Just a fact of modern life now that we are in the age of disposable electronics.

[bocaburger]

Sitting here next to me on my desk is a 1.4mp Olympus D-600L which was my first digital camera.  It still works the same as it did when I bought it in 1999.  Idk if the battery will still hold a full charge (probably not but I have an AC adapter) or if Smart Media cards are still sold (but I have 4 of them, none corrupted, and I have a USB card reader with a slot for them).   Compared to it, the pair of 2004 Canon 5D1's I use regularly are mere babies.  

 

OTOH I sold my M8 and M9 because they were still worth decent money, and the M8 LCD is unobtainium and the M9 sensor I fear may also be in the not-distant future (but that's pure speculation of course). 

[moosehead]

Answer to OP yes go for the M240, I sold my ME some time ago, partly as my eyesight is failing and concerns about the sensor. I purchased a Sony A7ii it is a fine camera and no complaints about image quality but it's no Leica, it was a rash decision, and have regretted it ever since.

Last week I received a new M240 100 anniversary edition and what a beauty, go for it you won't regret buying it.

[Paulus]

Hey guys,

 

I know that this has been discussed previously, but the timing is interesting and I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

I'm an A7 user that has just acquired an amazing brand new Summilux 50mm f/1.4 ASPH. I made the mistake of playing around with an M 240 at a camera store and getting, well, in love with it. Because of that, I'm thinking about going all in and getting an M 240.

 

The only thing holding me right now is the timing - it's weird. Should I get one now or just wait for the inevitable new M that might appear soon-ish?

 

If I get one now and a new one comes along soon(ish), should I expect major depreciation on its value? 6.5k is kinda a very firm commitment

 

Cheers,

 

Eduardo.

Don't buy it now Eduardo. It's the best camera ever, but in about 5 months there will be a new one coming. Some of the early adapters will start buying and prices will go down about € 1000,- demo and € 1500,- used. Of course IMHO.   So If you have the patience for 5 Months you'll have a new one cheaper. On the other hand YOLO. 

[dkCambridgeshire]

Maybe my final thought on this topic, my friend and I were discussing this and the challenge for a company like Leica. How do they keep up with the march of technology and the saturation of a niche market and do so within the design ethos of minimalism. Also on our minds is sustainability vs. churn and consumption. It seems like the M 240 is a good enough product that the world isn't clamoring for the next generation. Just maybe some bug fixes in the firmware.  So what is Leica to do, how do they make money?

 

1) They already provide CLAs. Make that an increasing part of their business model.

2) The form factor is basically static and well loved. Nothing has to change there.

3) The build quality is excellent and much of it is mechanical. Those mechanical bits probably could last most of a lifetime with periodic service. Instead of making a new model, design internal upgrades to the current model. i.e. replace the sensor and the logic board and maybe the display.

 

 

Already discussed in a Digilux 2 'upgrade' thread … it is not possible to give existing cameras sensor upgrades … there's a lot more involved  

 

 

dunk

[jaapv]

Well, in theory it could be done by designing the camera in a fully modular way in the first place, separating the digital from the mechanical part. It might take up more space than available,though and make the camera prohibitively expensive. See the DMR.

[JonPB]

The idea of exchangeable electronics has been fascinating me. I can see lots of potential benefits for customers. What I've been trying to figure out is whether it would benefit Leica, too. The question comes down to money: how much does it cost, in parts and manufacturing, to build the mechanics of an M (rangefinder, switches, shutter, classic metering, etc.) compared to the electronics (sensor, power, ports, etc.)? If they're about even, I could see a decent business case that it would be good for Leica to move in this direction; a case that becomes stronger as electronics become relatively less expensive, which is likely in the long term, but weaker if I'm overestimating the cost of brass plates, finely assembled rangefinder, and the like.

 

Here's my argument: it is all about competing with the used market. A 3-year-old Leica M tends to cost a little more than half of what a new M goes for. That is, a used, last-model camera costs about the same as what I'm thinking a sensor/electronics swap would cost. This means that Leica would lose revenue from consumers who are going to upgrade regardless, although many of them will still be interested in things such as better electronic finders, different aesthetics, and other shell features. However, Leica doesn't see any profits from the secondary market. Those consumers are willing to spend $4000 for a Leica but not $7000. Many of these people are already Leica customers, just more price sensitive than those who buy new Leicas; but a fair number of them would be willing to spend the same amount of money for a brand-new Leica component, or less money but to spend some of it on Leica's installation and alignment service, giving the company its first shot at the used market. Secondly, I don't imagine this sensor/electronics package could be installed with close enough tolerances by the end-user, and therefore many if not all of these kits would be handled by Leica itself. The key is that it isn't user serviceable. The grey market and related logistical issues could largely be eliminated because dealers of 2nd gen packages, sans shell, aren't selling the product but the service of shipping it back to Leica. Once the third generation comes out, users who upgrade to the new sensor/electronics would be able to sell 2nd gen electronics to 1st gen customers, who would then pay Leica to upgrade their existing cameras. By making sensor packages that require tolerancing, Leica would be making the company a valuable part of most exchanges that occur in the used market. Additionally, since customers are already sending equipment in for servicing, they're likely to buy other services such as lens CLA's and rangefinder matching. Obviously, this is a plan that would require 15+ years before seeing stabilized cashflow streams, but it strikes me as sound for a company that is interested in long-term returns--especially one that appeals to customers who are looking for long-term equipment. "This camera was designed to allow you, your grandchildren, and their grandchildren to capture the history of humanity as it unfolds." Et cetera. Of course, none of that matters if buying and installing the custom sensors represents the majority of each camera's production costs. 

 

As an aside, I looked for the comments you mentioned, Dunk, but didn't see them. If I'm completely off base, a pointer to the thread you mentioned would be appreciated.

 

Such a modular system would also allow Leica to develop distinct editions at relatively lower costs. EVF-only, non-weather-sealed, entry-level M shell? A shell designed for R lenses with open-aperture metering? A shell designed for S lenses with a built-in tilt/shift mount? Those would only require mechanical design once the internal interface is set. M with video-oriented guts? A sensor with particularly thick color filters for better color discrimination but lower sensitivity? Monochrome or full spectrum? All that seems possible. Having all of those options would also mean more users swapping out one kit for another, and each time Leica gets a bit of revenue. Seems like a win to me.

 

The real problem with this plan is that each new offering exponentially complicates Leica's product line. So long as Leica wants to develop a broad market appeal with an Apple-esque lineup of "good, better, best," there's no hope for modular cameras. On the other hand, if Leica wants to target enthusiasts who know exactly what they want and are willing to pay for it--which strikes me as the photo equipment industry's cash cow--then modular cameras seem ideal. Make the base set or two available at retail, and let us order the exact combination that we want for delivery from the factory. Sure, it might cost $12,000 rather than $8,000, but it could be acquired in $4000 chunks over the years and would allow consumers exactly the camera that each one wants. Less like Apple, more like BMW.

 

(Is it obvious that I'm saving up for an M and pondering the possibilities while I wait?)

 

Cheers,

Jon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

Well, in theory it could be done by designing the camera in a fully modular way in the first place, separating the digital from the mechanical part. It might take up more space than available,though and make the camera prohibitively expensive. See the DMR.

 

I don't think for a minute that the camera needs to be modular.  All that is needed is for Leica (as the customer for the sensor manufacturers) to specify the physical dimensions and electronic contacts for the sensors to be standardised.  The M is already a large camera, and Leica has shown that it can achieve what it (and everyone else) thought was impossible - fitting a full frame sensor into a rangefinder body.  Sony has followed suit, but without the rangefinder - these guys are the only ones in town to achieve this, so far.

 

Sensor manufacturers are no different to any other component producers - they make their products to meet market demand.  Leica buys CCD sensors to their specification, and they buy Sony sensors off the shelf, but presumably adapted to their requirements.  Where CMOSIS is concerned, they developed and produce the M(240) & M(246) sensors to Leica's specification.  For CMOSIS, the issue is volume - if Leica orders enough sensors, they'll make them to whatever specification Leica requires, and they will continue to make them to that specification, no matter how obsolete the technology my be.

 

This is where Leica is falling into a trap, in my view - with their digital products, they have bought into the Megapixel race, and it is one they will never win. The perception that the Leica T is a failure is indicative of this fallacy.  It is my view that there are so many other issues with digital imaging that chasing the MP race is a waste of effort - I think that especially when the little red light comes on at the back of my Edition 60 and stays on (yes, the Edition 60 is prone to lock ups as well).  So what I'm suggesting is that the camera does not need to be "modular" (with all the complication that entails) for Leica to acknowledge that the electronics will never last as long as the beautiful bodies of their cameras.  The M8 (coffee stain LCD) and M9 (cracked and corroding sensors) are proof enough of that.

 

If Leica can generate enough orders, they could easily require CMOSIS, Truesense (or whoever replaced them) or even Sony to built and supply sensors of what ever spec - 24 MP, 36 MP or even 50 MP, with or without Bayer Filter Arrays or even for IR photography - of the same dimensions able to fit any standardised Leica M body.

 

What would happen to sales?  Well, if Leica's future is built on maintaining sales to existing customers, that future is pretty bleak.  Granted, they should not ignore existing customers, but the market is sufficiently large that it can expand.  Speaking for myself, the idea that I can keep replacing sensors in my M camera is not going to stop me buying lenses or upgrading sensors as they become available.  If I didn't already have 4 M cameras  , nor would it stop me from adding to my obsession.  Leica would lose on me replacing cameras, but I've actually only done that once, when my M9 died.

 

What it would do is give considerable justification to that first Leica M digital purchase - buy this camera, and you can keep upgrading sensors for as long as you want.  That buyer will still, in my view, buy a monochrome M camera to add to his colour M camera, and possibly a different one optimised for video (think Red with an M mount).

 

What's not to like?  I don't really see that making an already expensive camera even more expensive, but I do see it providing a clear pathway to M ownership and greater justification in the initial outlay - the first M body, then lots of lenses, and then another body, and so on.  Many of us have already trodden that path ...

 

Cheers

John