New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The point of all this? That, if you go back to my original post, electronic gear is not more prone to break down than mechanical. In fact, as electronic failures are often early ones as opposed to mechanical failures, it may prove more reliable in the long run.

Well, Jaap, I think you're alone on that one.

 

My own experience is that out of 7 M cameras, 5 have been digital and they have all failed. I have not had a single mechanical failure. Of those digital failures, three have been sensor failures, two firmware and one, who knows as the camera was simply replaced.

 

Can you name a single M camera which has had a total failure of a mechanical component which has resulted in Leica saying they cannot repair it in a camera under 10 years old?

 

I think you've been drinking too much kool aid again, Jaap.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Not economically repairable is a common phrase on CS estimates.  Except for the M8 LCD they can repair each and everyone of them, though. You are conflating reliability with repairability here. For reliability my experience is different from yours.

You are restarting the same argument. I won't be boring the forum by rehashing my posts.

[IkarusJohn]

Interesting distinction - reliability and repairability. One on which we probably agree. Repairability is the issue (on which Leica spectacularly failed with the M8). But reliability is an indication of quality, showing graphically that the electronics are not as reliable as you say.

 

I am not alone in this, Jaap. It is more than anecdotal.

[pgk]

Interesting distinction - reliability and repairability.

 

The problem with digital rangefinders is that their mechanics (RF) can be repaired (if out of adjustment or even worse, because a skilled repairer can understand and deal with many problems ssociated with mechanical devices) and will be repairable for a long time - as long as previous mechanical film cameras potentially. Their electronics are only repairable whilst stocks of the original parts are available - they require replacement parts rather than the existing parts actually being able to be worked on and repaired, or modified parts being fitted. This is a real distinction. And its why electronics are not perceived to be as 'reliable' as mechanics - a failure is terminal unless the failed item is replaceable. That said, I see jaapv's point in that electronics can last a long time and be reliable, IMO the problem is the terminal nature of an electronic failure of old electronics.

[lct]

Rangefinders will be repairable for as long as they stay mechanical but this won't last forever.

[adli]

Manufacturing electronics or sensors to fit in a camera body designed for previous generation technology would add cost and complexity to the compnonents. Makes more sense from a manufacturing point of view to redesign the whole product. I would guess adapting to the form factor of the M is cucumbersome enought, without taking into account choices made in the previous version.

 

 

Upgrading electronics is not magic, I did it for years on PC's and the systems were way more complex than existing cameras. But Leica is not going to have a modular body because they make more money selling new ones.

 

- Leica could release paid upgrades to existing M 240 bodies. Doubt if the SL sensor plus support needs more power or space than what the M can provide with slight modifications. 

- Leica could work with sensor manufacturers to create new sensors with better parameters that fit existing M240 cameras. The upgrade would probably be cheaper than a new body, but the profit margin would be meager.

- Finally, Leica could offer a transparent upgrade program for existing owners, like software upgrades, where you purchase new models at a discount.

 

But it will not. Leica is in large part owned by Blackstone - an equity group run by ex Lehman Bros whose job is to secure an annual revenue stream of about 7-8 billion. As long as customers are rich enough to flock to the latest SL,Q, M, T, S or whatnot that is so eloquently branded to targeted groups of users (also on this forum) then we will not see any modular solutions, or long lasting value.

 

Built in obsolescence is the norm, but it is not fully justified by technology, but primarily by profit.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some perspective is in order: 

 

--The M8 (and still to a large degree, the M9) was cobbled together in the very first few years of commercially available mass-market digital sensors. Leica, by that time, had over 8 decades working out the kinks of producing superbly engineered mechanical cameras, whose lifespan like a fine watch, often exceeded the original buyer.

 

So based on prior experience in the mechanical realm and without full understanding of the limitations of this 'brave new world', they could naïvely, albeit hubristically, tout that they'd support the M8 "for decades to come". No one could anticipate the reliability of the new tech.

 

Can the market forever support $5-8k complex pro-camera bodies worth $100 after 5-10 years? Did they ever reckon on camera phones exceeding camera capabilities? The drive for profits were no less pressing in the past so there is no technical reason that interchangeable digital backs and modular electronics cannot become the rule of the day. Robotics will undoubtedly be utilized in these upgrading processes & thus adhering to minute tolerances, not so daunting after all.

 

Look at laser printers; pretty pricey when they became available, their makers eventually learned that the money was to be made in the ink and not the machine; the latter are now sold at a loss--in fact, for nearly nothing-- knowing the hefty profits will be generated from the former over time. In the same way, perhaps manufacturers will understand that by supporting an affordable base camera body through 4 or 5 upgrade iterations over 5, 6 or 7 years, may be a more profitable and sustainable scheme than trying to sell a new body for $5-8k every 2 years to a skeptical market, and discounting it by 75% or more after 3 years.

 

Just as few could prophesy the ubiquity of digital sensors and sudden death of film (see: Kodak), none of us here can say with any confidence what is/isn't possible and what will materialize in the near-term

[adli]

Again, the other way round. If Leica is going to survive, they have to aim for the high value luxury market. If they tried to compete head on with Nikon and Canon on price in the mass market they would pretty soon be outcompeted. In a market where sales are plummeting, it is impossible for a small brand with limited financial resources to compete on price. So, Leica has to define their own niche, where they can find customers willing to pay a premium for their products.

[AlanJW]

Rangefinders will be repairable for as long as they stay mechanical but this won't last forever.

It surely won't be forever as nothing is forever.  In addition to parts availability there is the issue of the skill required to execute a repair.  The parts issue might be solved partially via 3D printing techniques, but where are the repair people going to come from?  Craftspeople like shoemakers are getting very scarce, and shoes is a much larger market than rangefinders.   Will people who use them have to learn to do repairs on their own?

[Exodies]

Our robotic overlords will do the repairs.

[james.liam]

 If they tried to compete head on with Nikon and Canon on price in the mass market they would pretty soon be outcompeted. In a market where sales are plummeting, it is impossible for a small brand with limited financial resources to compete on price. So, Leica has to define their own niche, where they can find customers willing to pay a premium for their products.

 

In a sense, Leica is competing with CaNikon but for relevance and not market share. Mirrorless will continue to erode CaNikon's market share and Leica at least showed signs of life in the bold foray with the SL. They partially succeed with an EVF that's industry cutting-edge while the sensor is not. And the pressure to retain relevance at the high price-point of the M will necessitate additional such moves. Preserving the initial investment value by allowing modular upgrades will go far in preserving Leica's status as a luxury item worth the capital outlay. 

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not sure the digital M was "cobbled together". I think it was a smart move by Leica. They understood the rangefinder better than anyone else, and what was the alternative?  Another ho-hum compact?

 

Obviously, the R10 was the only alternative; and there they we up against fierce competition from Canon & Nikon, where for the M there was none. The R10 would have sunk Leica, where the M9 probably saved it. 

 

I have no history with Leica. I shot Nikon for over 30 years. I'd seen Leica R cameras in shops in London - I thought them big, weird and expensive. When I switched to digital, it was because of the rangefinder I bought into Leica. If the choice was an R10, I'd have bought the 5d2. 

[lct]

And now you have bought an SL with another big and expensive lens but, of course, no rangefinder and you hope it won't sink Leica. Life is funny isn't it?

[james.liam]

I'm not sure the digital M was "cobbled together". I think it was a smart move by Leica. They understood the rangefinder better than anyone else, and what was the alternative?  Another ho-hum compact?

 

Obviously, the R10 was the only alternative; and there they we up against fierce competition from Canon & Nikon, where for the M there was none. The R10 would have sunk Leica, where the M9 probably saved it. 

 

I have no history with Leica. I shot Nikon for over 30 years. I'd seen Leica R cameras in shops in London - I thought them big, weird and expensive. When I switched to digital, it was because of the rangefinder I bought into Leica. If the choice was an R10, I'd have bought the 5d2. 

 

When you consider the rear LCD on the M9 and MM v.1, small buffer and painfully slow operations compared to contemporary cameras, it does seem cobbled. But I agree with you in that the M9 did save Leica. The M240 was a great advance in functionality but at the rate of change in digital imaging, perhaps too modest one. Addition of video?  Should have been  a la carte add on and not standard. EVF upgrade impossible? Not smart. look at the MM v.1; for the price, upgrades to the electronics, buffer and battery were no great technological stretches. But they rode the old model instead

[Jeff S]

 I'd seen Leica R cameras in shops in London - I thought them big, weird and expensive. 

 

Kind of like the current S....funny how times change.  

 

I preferred the R6.2 to Canon at the time.  

 

Jeff

[Adam]

Manufacturing electronics or sensors to fit in a camera body designed for previous generation technology would add cost and complexity to the compnonents. Makes more sense from a manufacturing point of view to redesign the whole product. I would guess adapting to the form factor of the M is cucumbersome enought, without taking into account choices made in the previous version.

 

Again the analogy to PC's might help. The M body is as big and as heavy as a rangefinder could be (if more space is needed, the bottom plate can be made deeper). We agree components are not specific to Leica, these are mass produced relatively cheap electronics that have standard dimensions, that do not vary much from one iteration to another since that would increase production cost with every new generation of products. Also, more powerful chips are actually smaller than previous versions. Even batteries are becoming smaller.

What Leica would have to do is to design the inside of the camera in such a way that components communicate in modular way and become interchangeable. Like a PC. Technologically this is easy.  But there is no financial motivation.

 

Maybe some customers have a difficult time seeing that a modular body is technologically very feasible, since it would mean accepting the idea that Leica will not come out with one only because this would eat in to Leica's extremely high profit margins. No one likes to overpay.  But Leica has a monopoly on bodies working well with their glass, so they exploit it.

[CheshireCat]

And now you have bought an SL with another big and expensive lens but, of course, no rangefinder and you hope it won't sink Leica. Life is funny isn't it?

 

The R-problem was no AF. Failure.

 

The M-feature is the best quality/size ratio on the market. Success.

 

The SL-... ? ... uh... at least it now has AF. But it's no R10 and no M11 (although Leica wants us to believe it's both). A camera in search of its identity (and AF lenses).

[lct]

And also a bulkier camera than both my R4s and AE1. Who said that Canon are huge?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

And now you have bought an SL with another big and expensive lens but, of course, no rangefinder and you hope it won't sink Leica. Life is funny isn't it?

 

Yes, that's v true. In between times, I even bought another Nikon, but then sold it. 

[jaapv]

Again the analogy to PC's might help. The M body is as big and as heavy as a rangefinder could be (if more space is needed, the bottom plate can be made deeper). We agree components are not specific to Leica, these are mass produced relatively cheap electronics that have standard dimensions, that do not vary much from one iteration to another since that would increase production cost with every new generation of products. Also, more powerful chips are actually smaller than previous versions. Even batteries are becoming smaller.

What Leica would have to do is to design the inside of the camera in such a way that components communicate in modular way and become interchangeable. Like a PC. Technologically this is easy.  But there is no financial motivation.

 

Maybe some customers have a difficult time seeing that a modular body is technologically very feasible, since it would mean accepting the idea that Leica will not come out with one only because this would eat in to Leica's extremely high profit margins. No one likes to overpay.  But Leica has a monopoly on bodies working well with their glass, so they exploit it.

I see that you have access to Leica's balance sheet.   Despite high prices they were technically bankrupt less than 15 years ago. They have managed to escape thanks to the capital injection by Dr Kaufmann and later Blackstone and by -as a consequence- introducing new successful products. Now that they are finally writing black figures and consolidating the company they are accused of profiteering. Nice.