New Leica M in September 2016? The speculations.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excuse the snip; I agree with your post, but I find this dichotomy a little singular. 

 

There are other reasons.  

 

First, what is this "modularity" and what does it entail?  The assumption here has often that means full modularity, where a more modest ability to upgrade key, vulnerable components is more realistic.

 

Second, to do this would require a reorganisation of Leica to ensure design and manufacturing met the requirements of such a capability, and Customer Service would need significant investment to handle the potential demand. 

 

Third, is it what Leica buyers really want?  Or does it just sound good on paper?

 

Fourth, the cost would be high - new electronics, stock and labour and capacity to do the upgrades - making and selling a new camera would be easier, what Leica already does and probably more profitable. 

 

I can well see why Leica ditched the idea after the M8. But that is a very business as usual approach, and does not reflect the considerable warranty and reputation cost of the M8 LCD, M9 cracked sensors and corrosion. I have no doubt Leica would rather just sell a new camera than fix the old ones, even at a discount. But, to their credit, they have developed a new sensor for the M9 - something I didn't think they would do for a moment. I imagine the supplier wore a fair chunk of that cost. 

 

So, while the previous ceo's perpetual upgrade programme may have been another factor which cost him his job, it may not be such a silly idea. Leica is a niche camera maker, selling to people who can afford to buy into their way of seeing the world (where a pure examination of numbers would say the Sony is always the better buy). To accept that while a full capacity production churning out new cameras every 3 years might be profitable, it is not environmentally sustainable and is sooo 20th century. 

 

I was intrigued, and impressed, with Apple's disassembly robot announced yesterday. German cars have had to be recyclable for over 30 years (can't recall what recyclable means in that context, but I remember that my Series 2, 16v GTI was made out of a restricted number of plastics, all of which had to be recyclable). As a German company, surely Leica must pause for thought at all those M9 cameras ditched for want of an affordable replacement sensor (yes, I'm guessing, but I doubt Leica took the time to disassemble and recycle my M9 - I expect it joined Jaap's LTM parts in a skip). 

 

If Leica embraced this approach, my view is it would appeal to its customer base, and more. Doubt they'll do it, though. Hats off to Apple. 

In Europe it is illegal to throw electronic gear  into the skip. It must be recycled separately.

[jaapv]

 I see that it is you who has access to past and present Leica balance sheets and financials. No wonder you were trying to be sarcastic about my musings on the topic

 

I am not a Leica insider, but common sense tells me that when you manufacture low amounts, your profit margin needs to be high since you selling little. Compared to other 35mm camera bodies, the M is a luxury product - these have high profit margins because of artificial scarcity, limited editions, etc. It could be that Leica is barely braking even, in which case they are doing it wrong, and this is bad for us since it might go under. 

To past ones - yes. Everybody has. It used to be a public company.

[Adam]

To past ones - yes. Everybody has. It used to be a public company.

So what is the profit margin on a single M body? Since this is what we are talking about.

[IkarusJohn]

In Europe it is illegal to throw electronic gear  into the skip. It must be recycled separately.

Right.

 

I struggle to understand why you bothered to post that, Jaap. What on earth does that have to do with anything at all?

[Exodies]

Don't forget the firmware. With a growth in the number of different combinations of hardware components the delay in fixing firmware bugs will soar.

 

Where I worked desktop computers were not routinely upgraded (eg extra memory) because the cost was too high. Not the cost of sending a technician round for a ten minute job but the cost of the cases where something went wrong.

 

What I would like to see in the new M (apart from a circular sensor of course) is a spectrometer and incident light meter.

[Exodies]

Right.

 

I struggle to understand why you bothered to post that, Jaap. What on earth does that have to do with anything at all?

 

I think I can answer that - it's a way of tagging posts - a "this post is wrong" sticker

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The reality is Leica has built in upgradability for years.   Nearly all their lenses can be upgraded with a new body.  Really, what other company has provided a path fo lens owners that has lasted this long?  And they market it it too,.  Look at the advertising for the SL;  it is touted as compatible with dozens of Leica lenses.  Nikon has the F mount but Leica goes back way further than that.  And, realistically, this is all the compatibility/upgradeability we are likely to see.  You can plead all you want for interchangeable sensors, etc. but these cameras are integrated systems, where the components (hopefully) work with each other.  They are computers with a hole in the front for glass.  Think about the desire for the M to use a new EVF.  It wasn't that the newer EVFs couldn't fit.  It is there wasn't enough computing power in the camera to drive it. You old Mac will not run the newest OS X and your 10 year old computer won't run Windows 10 either.   We will never see "upgradable" camera bodies.   Enjoy those lenses. 

 

Well Leica just jumped in the Sony wagon to be honest and the SL is inferior to all A7 bodies re compatibility but i fully agree otherwise. Leica and Sony digital bodies are just digital backs for the best lenses available. The module to upgrade is the back, not spare parts into the latter. Now how fortunate we are to be able to use those superb lenses on both RF and TTL bodies. I wonder if it's not the first time in photo history.

[Jennifer]

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?

 

The issue of skilled craftspeople going into the future is a serious problem. Some years ago I was invited to tour the Patek Philippe factory in Geneva. I discovered that the movements to the most complex of their "Grandes Complications" (Tourbillons, Minute Repeaters etc.) were only and could only be made by a tiny handful of their most skilled watch-smiths. Apparently, this degree of skill and dedication (2-3 years to make a single movement) is a craft in rapid decline with now very few of the apprenticeships on offer being taken up.

[IkarusJohn]

I think I can answer that - it's a way of tagging posts - a "this post is wrong" sticker

Ya think?

[jaapv]

Right.

 

I struggle to understand why you bothered to post that, Jaap. What on earth does that have to do with anything at all?

It was you who brought it up... Maybe you should struggle to understand why you posted that in the first place.

[IkarusJohn]

It was you who brought it up... Maybe you should struggle to understand why you posted that in the first place.

Yeah, nah.

 

We weren't really discussing the rules on using skips. As usual, right stick, wrong end.

[pgk]

I struggle to understand why you bothered to post that, Jaap. What on earth does that have to do with anything at all?

 

Well can't speak for jaapv, but I don't like waste and, from wiki: "The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive), as it is often referred to, has now been transposed in national laws in all member countries of the European Union. It was designed to make equipment manufacturers financially or physically responsible for their equipment at the end of its life, under a policy known as Extended producer responsibility (EPR). "Users of electrical and electronic equipment from private households should have the possibility of returning WEEE at least free of charge",^[8] and manufacturers must dispose of it in an environmentally friendly manner". A far from well implemented directive as yet, but this is an issue which will not go away and it will become more and more pertinent as time goes by. Minimising waste is obviously helpful. At the moment we are incredibly wasteful of consumed items which I for one find abhorrent. 

[IkarusJohn]

All the more reason not to waste a good body for a failure of crappy electronics.

 

Meanwhile, Jaap will take us back to the flat earth society, where the EVF issued with the M(240) was state of the art and Leica's electronics are better than their mechanical parts.

[AlanJW]

Yes John. You are right. You must be right because you are always right. And all the other camera companies made the same decision(s) about the feasibility, technically and commercially to offer component upgrades. So I suppose there was a conspiracy to deny customers this service because otherwise someone would have done it to outfox the others. Is it just possible that they were all behaving rationally and independently?

[AlanJW]

Apart from the sarcasm if Leica could make more money with component upgrades than selling new cameras they would do it. So would any other camera company. Technological possibility does not mean it makes sense for the company nor does it say anything about the relative cost of upgrade vs new.

[harmen]

Imagine Leica had followed a modular approach for the evolution from M9 to M240. If we consider keeping the primarily mechanical top and front intact and take the rest to be more easily exchangeable, we'd end up without EVF connection, video button, and LED illuminated frame lines. It would have led them to create a different camera than the M240. Alternatively they could have built the 240 as we know it and subsequently spent time developing a derivative that is limited to the upgradable portion of the 9. That effort went to the Q instead, one imagines. I'm not at all surprised with their choices.

[CheshireCat]

All the more reason not to waste a good body for a failure of crappy electronics.

 

 

After so many posts about this, I think you made your point more than clear.

Now, just hold your breath and wait for the imminent modular M.

... keep holding ... don't post ... keep holding ...

[jdlaing]

You can pretty much forget anything modular.

[IkarusJohn]

Yes John. You are right. You must be right because you are always right.

Come now, we all know that's not true. I have been consistently wrong, and apparently quite incapable of explaining myself.

 

I think we all know exactly what will happen - Leica will continue doing what it seems to be doing well. I certainly don't believe in conspiracies.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Joshua Lowe]

All of this pushes me further and further away from digital.