Leica M7 now discontinued

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mine is 3009xxx.

 

By the way, I was amused that no one (including the shop owner) seemed to have any clue about the ‘announcement’. Maybe just good acting, or this forum seems to be a few steps ahead of the dealers!

[Advertisement]

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

[digbyhp]

 

I guess Leica is in an unusual position, where they are now marrying beautifully constructed, fully repairable and very expensive analogue technology (like a rangefinder design from the 50s) to what may be short-lived electronics. You might reasonably expect any mechanical Leica to outlast you - spending 2 months salary on a camera can more easily be justified if you can use and maintain it for the rest of your life. But you can't make this assumption about any camera that depends on electronics to operate. This problem is particularly acute for the digital Leicas, of course. The rangefinder in an M9 is probably as maintainable as the one in an M4, but the original sensor may self-destruct after a few years (and Leica has stopped replacing them for free, so the supplies are probably running down).  A 12 year old Digital-Modul-R probably still works if you can power it up, but where can you buy the batteries?

 

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

The discussion around the M7's electronics longevity is not new to this thread (and is of interest to me because I own two of them!)

Over the last 10 years on this forum electronics is periodically cited as a reason not to purchase an M7 over a mechanical M, yet electronics longevity does not seem to be an obstacle for the many people who buy new digital Leicas at enormous cost. 

[mikemgb]

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

The discussion around the M7's electronics longevity is not new to this thread (and is of interest to me because I own two of them!)

Over the last 10 years on this forum electronics is periodically cited as a reason not to purchase an M7 over a mechanical M, yet electronics longevity does not seem to be an obstacle for the many people who buy new digital Leicas at enormous cost. 

 

I believe film and digital cameras are purchased with two different mindsets. It is well known that a digital camera has a finite life, typically 5-10 years, after that most people expect to replace them with newer versions with better sensors, faster processing, more bells and whistles, etc.

 

A film camera is generally viewed as a camera for life, there should be no need to replace it every decade or so.

Edited May 30, 2018 by mikemgb

[pico]

[...]

A film camera is generally viewed as a camera for life, there should be no need to replace it every decade or so.

 

Yes, but regardless film users worry about the availability and escalating price of film, and how long it will be available.

[mikemgb]

Yes, but regardless film users worry about the availability and escalating price of film, and how long it will be available.

 

Trust me, I know all about that, I worry that it may not be too long before our only options are Ilford and Lomography.

 

This is not to disparage either company, I love Ilford products and I have just started shooting Lomography colour.

Edited May 31, 2018 by mikemgb

[Michael Geschlecht]

Hello Everybody,

 

1 part of the cost of a digital camera that some people sometimes forget to factor in is the part of the cost of the camera that is, in effect, the non-cost of film & development (But not printing.).

 

If we write, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost of buying & paying for the development of (But not the printing of.) a 24 exposure roll of film is 12 Pounds/Dollars/Euros. Then the portion of the original cost of the camera which is being SUBTRACTED from the Current Cost of the camera is 1/2 of a Pound/Dollar/Euro each time the shutter is "clicked" Whether or not the picture is made into a photo.

 

So each time the shutter is "clicked" the camera has just cost the buyer 1/2 of a Pound/Dollar/Euro LESS than the original purchase price.

 

This is 1 of the reasons that people are willing to pay more for a digital camera than they are willing to pay for an equivalent film camera.

 

If you take 2,000 photos then you have, in effect, subtracted 1,000 Pounds/Dollars/Euros from what you originally paid for the camera.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

Edited May 31, 2018 by Michael Geschlecht

[digbyhp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe film and digital cameras are purchased with two different mindsets. It is well known that a digital camera has a finite life, typically 5-10 years, after that most people expect to replace them with newer versions with better sensors, faster processing, more bells and whistles, etc.

 

A film camera is generally viewed as a camera for life, there should be no need to replace it every decade or so.

 

The 'two mindsets' was my conclusion as well, but still curious - I can understand someone accepting that, say, a $2500 (AUD) Nikon DSLR may only have a 10 year lifespan, but I would personally place a different longevity expectation on a Leica costing about 3-4 times as much. Perhaps all related to one's disposable income and what you can justify to yourself. 

[wlaidlaw]

Hello Everybody,

 

1 part of the cost of a digital camera that some people sometimes forget to factor in is the part of the cost of the camera that is, in effect, the non-cost of film & development (But not printing.).

 

If we write, for the sake of simplicity, that the cost of buying & paying for the development of (But not the printing of.) a 24 exposure roll of film is 12 Pounds/Dollars/Euros. Then the portion of the original cost of the camera which is being SUBTRACTED from the Current Cost of the camera is 1/2 of a Pound/Dollar/Euro each time the shutter is "clicked" Whether or not the picture is made into a photo.

 

So each time the shutter is "clicked" the camera has just cost the buyer 1/2 of a Pound/Dollar/Euro LESS than the original purchase price.

 

This is 1 of the reasons that people are willing to pay more for a digital camera than they are willing to pay for an equivalent film camera.

 

If you take 2,000 photos then you have, in effect, subtracted 1,000 Pounds/Dollars/Euros from what you originally paid for the camera.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

 

On that basis, my M9, the digital camera with the highest shutter actuation count of 44,000 approx is worth around minus £18,500.  

 

Wilson

[colonel]

The 'two mindsets' was my conclusion as well, but still curious - I can understand someone accepting that, say, a $2500 (AUD) Nikon DSLR may only have a 10 year lifespan, but I would personally place a different longevity expectation on a Leica costing about 3-4 times as much. Perhaps all related to one's disposable income and what you can justify to yourself.

 

I disagree, cost has little to do with longevity and more to do with style, brand , functionality, etc.

An Issy Miyake t-shirt for £100 is still made in China

A channel bag for £3000 is still as susceptible to wear as a Michael Kors one for £400

 

I do happen to think however that Leica’s are by and large much better made and I predict the digital ones will easily outlive their DSLR brethren. Particularly the 240 which is relatively bullet proof from software through to construction

 

However, as I said previously, Leica M is expensive as it’s hand made mechanical perfection in Germany

 

I’ve had endless arguments why a hand made mechanical watch in Switzerland or Glashutte costs more then a mass produced swatch or g-shock, and funnily enough are less accurate, but have given up these days

Edited May 31, 2018 by colonel

[M9reno]

To use current prices in a London dealership, if you are happy paying £5,799 for a new M10, or £3,600 for a new M7, chances are you are not too concerned about the price of film plus film developing as a reason to choose digital, or to choose Leica.

[wlaidlaw]

I’ve had endless arguments why a hand made mechanical watch in Switzerland or Glashutte costs more then a mass produced swatch or g-shock, and funnily enough are less accurate, but have given up these days

 

The answer is marketing costs and profit margin. The majority of Swiss mechanical watches use movements/ébauches from ETA, Ronda or Gallet. There are other Swiss movement makers names, e.g. Valjoux, but most are now subsidiaries of ETA, in turn owned by Omega-Swatch. Even the makers who claim to make their own movements, with a few exceptions for the more expensive watches (Patek Philippe), buy kits of parts from ETA and are more fettlers and assemblers than true watchmakers. Even Rolex and Breitling use ETA kits for many of their mechanical watches. Interestingly, Breitling moved from buying their quartz movements from Gallet to in house manufacture about 4 years ago. They have had quite a few problems and my Breitling B50 Cockpit analogue + digital display watch has failed twice, with the rechargeable circuit and lithium ion battery replaced once and the main motors once. 

 

One of the most common movements used by many of the "name" Swiss watchmakers is the ETA/Valjoux 7750/28,800 chronograph movement, available in three grades, élabouré, top and the best one being COSC certified Chronometer standard and a very good movement it is too. The wholesale cost of a chronometer grade 7750 movement is around SWFcs.450, so you are paying an awful lot for the case and strap in something like a Panerai. Nowadays these movements are largely built by robotised machinery but with human supervisors and checkers. If you are ever able to arrange a visit to the main ETA factory in Grenchen or the smaller one in Solothurn, it is well worth it. The main assembly rooms are like watching mechanical ballet. 

 

Wilson

[Anbaric]

Well, despite my ‘resolution’ of yesterday morning (post 107), and thanks to the philanthropic generosity of a wealthier member of the family, I have secured a (used) backup M7 from Richard Caplan. Additional supplies of slide film and E6 chemistry are on their way. I just love shooting it too damn much, and the stepless shutter of the M7 is the best for the job. Long may these great machines do what they were built for.

Enjoy!

 

Incidentally, does Richard Caplan still stock a reasonable range of s/h film cameras, M and LTM? - Very few are listed on the website, but maybe they only bother with the more expensive (mostly digital) bodies? 

[wlaidlaw]

Enjoy!

 

Incidentally, does Richard Caplan still stock a reasonable range of s/h film cameras, M and LTM? - Very few are listed on the website, but maybe they only bother with the more expensive (mostly digital) bodies? 

 

Not a huge amount the last time I went in a few months ago, probably 3 or 4 used film Leicas but now mostly digital. There were a lot of M lenses plus a few LTM, some shop sale and some commission. I think the biggest stockist of film Leicas M and LTM in London now, would be Ivor Cooper at Red Dot. Unlike a few of the other London box shifters, I think both Ivor and Richard are trustworthy and back up what they sell. 

 

Wilson

[M9reno]

I only had a glance, but my impression is that there was a lot more behind the glass than appeared on the website. They are definitely worth visiting!

[Ronazle]

The demise of the film Leica, sad, regards, ron

Edited May 31, 2018 by Ronazle

[Martin B]

The demise of the film Leica, sad, regards, ron

 

More likely caused by harder to get electronic components for the M7 to repair, and also to avoid in-house competition with much more expensive MP and MA analog versions which are still sold new. 

[MarkP]

.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by MarkP

[wlaidlaw]

I only had a glance, but my impression is that there was a lot more behind the glass than appeared on the website. They are definitely worth visiting!

 

I used to sell via Richard Caplan but I now have such a good relationship with Ffordes for modern stuff and Peter Walnes for old stuff that I stick to them. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Michael Geschlecht]

On that basis, my M9, the digital camera with the highest shutter actuation count of 44,000 approx is worth around minus £18,500.  

 

Wilson

 

Hello Wilson,

 

Yes, you are correct. This is my point.

 

Part of the cost of photography is the camera & the  lens. Another part is the cost of collecting the images & producing them.

 

In the past that was done with film & chemical manipulation of that film. 2 parts that added to the cost of the final image.

 

By removing (For the most part.) the film & processing of film associated costs: The cost of producing the final image (Which is the goal of all of this.) has been reduced.

 

Simple math.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael

[Michael Geschlecht]

To use current prices in a London dealership, if you are happy paying £5,799 for a new M10, or £3,600 for a new M7, chances are you are not too concerned about the price of film plus film developing as a reason to choose digital, or to choose Leica.

 

Hello Al,

 

Not necessarily. At the cost of 1/2 of a Pound per "click" some people can get to 6,000 Pounds in a reasonably short time.

 

Best Regards,

 

Michael