Leica discontinues CCD (M9 and Variants) sensor production

[rivi1969]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

I don’t think anyone needs to establish that they relied on any specific marketing statement by Leica on longevity.

The fact is that Leica cameras have always been made and sold for a premium price, coupled with Leica’s long term support.  Its cameras and lenses have a huge legacy, and Leica has supported that legacy for almost 100 years.  What was perhaps overlooked was that, while the M8 & M9 were developed and put to market as digital M cameras, with the legacy that came with them, they had electronics included with them which did not match the rest of the camera (in longevity and support terms).

While no buyer could reasonably assume that the electronics would last as long as the rangefinder, lens or other traditional parts of the camera, I don’t think it was unreasonable to assume that Leica would provide the required support for those parts - on the contrary, such support was a reasonable expectation.

Now, that does not mean (as has been suggested) that Leica needed to purchase and store a mountain of spare parts - I don’t think any manufacturer does that.  But they do secure ongoing commitment from their suppliers to provide parts.  Now, some also opine that technology moves on and suppliers can’t or won’t be able to continue such supplies.  I don’t accept the “can’t”, as in other applications (particularly industrial), that’s exactly what they do.  CCD sensors are still made for applications other than still photography.  As for the “won’t”, again that is a question of price and will.

The fact of the matter is that Leica dropped the ball on this.  Made worse by installing the same faulty sensor in cameras with corroded sensors, and not standing behind those repairs - the second replacement with the better sensor wasn’t covered by the warranty.  I think that was disgraceful, but it goes hand in hand with their initial attempts to deny the problem altogether.  Imagine if Leica had contacted every dealer, and every owner who had registered the product, and proactively advised them of the fault and that they were working on a replacement, and programmed in the repairs.  Instead, they hid from the problem for weeks, until the pressure was too much.

Hopefully, we won’t see a repeat with the M10 based cameras.

Correct. And their plan to secure ongoing commitment from their customers via that trade-in program is pretty lame. However I bet many die-hard fans will take it with a smile on their faces.

[Advertisement]

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

[84bravo]

In the big scheme of camera manufactures, Leica is a bit better than Canon and Nikon in regards to supporting out of production cameras. The M9 is now ten years old and has been supported with free recalls for original owners. They offered sensor replacements at a discount later. Not great, but pretty good support for a faulty camera design. Now they are simply out of sensor parts. They will still repair the M8 within the limits of spare parts available. That camera is now fourteen years old.

I am a professional photographer and also use Canon DSLR equipment. I also use the highest level of their Canon Professional Services for fast repair and support. Once a piece of equipment is more than two generations old, Canon won't touch it. Not only will they not repair that equipment, they won't even take it for cleaning which is part of the CPS package and is often a courtesy offered to pros at large events (olympics, superbowl, etc). My 400f2.8 and 300f2.8 work great, but Canon won't support them anymore. These were $12k and $6k lenses that are my bread and butter tools for professional sports. I'm quite literally on borrowed time with these lenses which are less than 10 years old. When an electronic module dies in these lenses they become doorstops.

I don't like how manufacturers fail to support their top level gear and I've talked at length to my Canon pro rep about it (he's a good friend). The unfortunate reality of modern digital gear is that repairs can only be made by the manufacturer. Leica is no different in this regard, but they at least offer support as best they can beyond an arbitrary time frame mandated by Nikon or Canon (two generations for Canon).

[rramesh]

The reality is that digital sensors rarely fail. Leica faced a big challenge in the catastrophic de-lamination rendering many sensors having to be changed early in its life. At that point in time they clearly knew how many M9, M9-P and MEs were in the market. They ordered new sensors with a different cover possibly from a new vendor. They could have easily planned for a sufficiency in these new sensor parts. Not having enough is inexcusable. 

[adan]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

While no buyer could reasonably assume that the electronics would last as long as the rangefinder, lens or other traditional parts of the camera, I don’t think it was unreasonable to assume that Leica would provide the required support for those parts - on the contrary, such support was a reasonable expectation.

Not trying to be (too) argumentative, because we have a lot of fun on other subjects.

But I'm afraid "reasonable" or "unreasonable" are vague, ambiguous terms, and so is "required support." What is "reasonable?" What is "required?" For how long? Who decides? What is the standard or norm?

As to "unreasonable to assume," I consider it always unreasonable to assume.

As one of my newspaper supervisors used to say, both as to journalism, and as to office interactions, "Never 'assume' - it makes an ass out of both u and me."

Synonyms for "assume" are "take for granted, surmise, suppose, conjecture." In other words - guesswork. It comes in a close second behind "good intentions" in paving the road to Hades.

Which leads us to the discussion we're having now.....

[rivi1969]

1 hour ago, 84bravo said:

In the big scheme of camera manufactures, Leica is a bit better than Canon and Nikon in regards to supporting out of production cameras. The M9 is now ten years old and has been supported with free recalls for original owners. They offered sensor replacements at a discount later. Not great, but pretty good support for a faulty camera design. Now they are simply out of sensor parts. They will still repair the M8 within the limits of spare parts available. That camera is now fourteen years old.

I am a professional photographer and also use Canon DSLR equipment. I also use the highest level of their Canon Professional Services for fast repair and support. Once a piece of equipment is more than two generations old, Canon won't touch it. Not only will they not repair that equipment, they won't even take it for cleaning which is part of the CPS package and is often a courtesy offered to pros at large events (olympics, superbowl, etc). My 400f2.8 and 300f2.8 work great, but Canon won't support them anymore. These were $12k and $6k lenses that are my bread and butter tools for professional sports. I'm quite literally on borrowed time with these lenses which are less than 10 years old. When an electronic module dies in these lenses they become doorstops.

I don't like how manufacturers fail to support their top level gear and I've talked at length to my Canon pro rep about it (he's a good friend). The unfortunate reality of modern digital gear is that repairs can only be made by the manufacturer. Leica is no different in this regard, but they at least offer support as best they can beyond an arbitrary time frame mandated by Nikon or Canon (two generations for Canon).

My local Canon service told me they don’t have spare parts for the original 2005 5D, but they could give it some nice general cleaning and adjustment to mine for 70 bucks, offer I might take next week. I don't know if the 5Dii is reaching that point or not (I guess so).

The problem with Leica is they should have enough sensors for ALL M9s because they knew all M9s will fail at some point.  

Edited August 15, 2020 by rivi1969

[IkarusJohn]

47 minutes ago, adan said:

Not trying to be (too) argumentative, because we have a lot of fun on other subjects.

But I'm afraid "reasonable" or "unreasonable" are vague, ambiguous terms, and so is "required support." What is "reasonable?" What is "required?" For how long? Who decides? What is the standard or norm?

As to "unreasonable to assume," I consider it always unreasonable to assume.

As one of my newspaper supervisors used to say, both as to journalism, and as to office interactions, "Never 'assume' - it makes an ass out of both u and me."

Synonyms for "assume" are "take for granted, surmise, suppose, conjecture." In other words - guesswork. It comes in a close second behind "good intentions" in paving the road to Hades.

Which leads us to the discussion we're having now.....

All very interesting, but lawyers make a living out of defining what is reasonable and assumptions that can fairly be made - millions often rest on the outcome ...

Edit - to be fair, you are quite right; but what then?  Write terms and conditions of sale, trying to imagine every eventuality and the point at which Leica takes responsibility, and then how much?  Do we then WRITE THE IMPORTANT BITS IN CAPITALS AND BOLD as some jurisdictions require?

The current trend is to write with care, and accuracy, and legislate for “mutual trust and cooperation”.  This does actually work, to a point.  I tend to avoid words like “reasonable” in contracts, but the courts have for some time accepted the concept to fill the gaps - Clapham omnibus and all that.

Returning to the point, I think everyone quite rightly and quite fairly assumed that the M9 met the durability and support to be expected of any previous M.  But, time has passed.  

More critically, the question you posed at the end of your post is the important one - has Leica learnt its lesson and covered itself better with the M10 series?   I hope so.  I think the M10 is the last word in the M series - all future rangefinders and bodies will be based on this camera.  The electronics will be a different matter, but the M10 gestalt is the future.  Mark (eat?) my words! 😉

Edited August 15, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[carbon_dragon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon isn't "saddled?" "honored?" with the baggage of making cameras so tough and durable and classic in design that they're still making them 70 years after the initial version. It would be as though Canon still made the Canon 7 or P today! That would be pretty cool, there was that Nikon rangefinder special edition Nikon did a few years ago.

Anyway, had anyone, Canon or Leica, just stonewalled owners as soon after production as the M9s started failing there would have been a class action lawsuit filed and Leica would have lost a ton of money and goodwill. I'm fairly certain the minimal effort they put into the initial free sensor changes and the later ... ummm... discounts on sensor changes were the minimum their lawyers told them would keep the lawsuits from happening. I doubt it was out of altruism. 

Maybe we need to see this in a positive light. Had this not happened to the M9 we wouldn't have gotten this wake-up call. The M10R made today is going to be unrepairable eventually and maybe as quickly as 2030. Maybe it's a good to be reminded of this fact now. Given my age, I'll probably fail before my M10 though.

I think I said this before. I used Contax SLRs for quite a while. I had an two RTSs, one RTS 2, and one RTS 3 (oh and an Aria). The RTS line had really the first generation of electronics. The RTS failed and were unrepairable due to parts issues. I bought another RTS and it failed almost immediately. I tried buying a 2 and that also failed. My 3 had an issue with the internal viewfinder display that was really annoying. I had a friend who was an ex Yashica repair technician. He had contacts in Japan. It took 2 years, a fair bit of money, and a trip to Japan (for the camera) but it's working today. The Aria has been flawless ... so far. Truth is I don't use them quite so often today, but that RTSIII is a real pleasure to use. That is what is going to happen to digital M owners ... eventually. It's really just a question of time. I knew that when I bought them honestly because I was already experiencing those issues with the Contaxes. It's mostly why I buy used. But I'm more OK with having my Canon 5D go out on me (though it's still working fine) than my M9 because it's was so much less expensive (even new) than my M9 was used.

I'm not saying Leicas are different, I'm just saying Leica Ms have the POTENTIAL of being different. It may be the only model line of the only camera brand which *could* make some more extreme effort to keep its cameras operational for longer than every other camera line -- just owing to the heritage, the hand-crafted nature, and the precision of the non electronic parts of the camera. Yet that would require the kind of special effort and expense that we all know is absent from the industry (including the current incarnation of Leica). It won't happen, but if it EVER did, it would be the company that dared to make something as nuts as a monochrome digital camera or a $10000 50mm/0.95 lens or a $6000 50mm f/2 APO lens. 

[adan]

36 minutes ago, carbon_dragon said:

Canon isn't "saddled?" "honored?" with the baggage of making cameras so tough and durable and classic in design that they're still making them 70 years after the initial version.

And Canon (and Nikon and Olympus) are backed up with income and profits from a wide array of non-photo products. They are relatively large, diverse corporations as camera-makers go.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups

https://www.nikon.com/products/https://www.nikon.com/products/

https://www.olympus-global.com/products/?page=products

As were Ernst Leitz GMBH and Wild-Leitz, to an extent - but once Wild-Leitz broke up into Geosystems and Microsystems and Cameras & Sports Optics in the 1990s, the latter no longer had that crutch to lean on.

For those happy to spend Leica's cash for them on warehouse space and "pay-any-price-for-spares," remember that only five years before the M9 came out, Leica Camera was virtually bankrupt. As a publicly-owned company at the time ("Ein Stück Leica" - own a piece of Leica) Leica Camera had to file a warning with the German government that (roughly speaking) they were losing money at such a rate that they had only months of operating cash on hand. That is when Dr. Kaufmann stepped in to purchase the company, a bit at a time.

I sense just a little bit of "Well, let Leica eat cake." An - unawareness - of just how carefully Leica had to spend its resources (or constantly seek new investment), up until after the M9. And still has to, although things have improved (and prices now cover the actual costs - the U.S. price of a 75 APO-Summicron has increased 95% since 2004, while general inflation here has been 37%).

 

[jdlaing]

42 minutes ago, adan said:

And Canon (and Nikon and Olympus) are backed up with income and profits from a wide array of non-photo products. They are relatively large, diverse corporations as camera-makers go.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups

https://www.nikon.com/products/https://www.nikon.com/products/

https://www.olympus-global.com/products/?page=products

As were Ernst Leitz GMBH and Wild-Leitz, to an extent - but once Wild-Leitz broke up into Geosystems and Microsystems and Cameras & Sports Optics in the 1990s, the latter no longer had that crutch to lean on.

For those happy to spend Leica's cash for them on warehouse space and "pay-any-price-for-spares," remember that only five years before the M9 came out, Leica Camera was virtually bankrupt. As a publicly-owned company at the time ("Ein Stück Leica" - own a piece of Leica) Leica Camera had to file a warning with the German government that (roughly speaking) they were losing money at such a rate that they had only months of operating cash on hand. That is when Dr. Kaufmann stepped in to purchase the company, a bit at a time.

I sense just a little bit of "Well, let Leica eat cake." An - unawareness - of just how carefully Leica had to spend its resources (or constantly seek new investment), up until after the M9. And still has to, although things have improved (and prices now cover the actual costs - the U.S. price of a 75 APO-Summicron has increased 95% since 2004, while general inflation here has been 37%).

 

You can remove Olympus from that list. It no longer applies.

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, adan said:

For those happy to spend Leica's cash for them on warehouse space and "pay-any-price-for-spares," remember that only five years before the M9 came out, Leica Camera was virtually bankrupt. As a publicly-owned company at the time ("Ein Stück Leica" - own a piece of Leica) Leica Camera had to file a warning with the German government that (roughly speaking) they were losing money at such a rate that they had only months of operating cash on hand. That is when Dr. Kaufmann stepped in to purchase the company, a bit at a time.

I used to work in a freezing works as a student (Thos. Borthwick).  They had a massive warehouse of spares, engineers and workshops to make everything needed.  They were trying to reduce that massive waste of capital in the 1970s - they didn’t survive the Thatcher reforms here or in the UK. 

These days, securing just in time supplies has become the norm.  Leica, I suspect, balances minimum economic orders and batches in their own production with projected demand and holding costs. These days, demand will be more of a driver than supply side cost - ar least since the M9.  

As you say, Andy - the M9 probably saved the company.  Easily enough demand for them to get the supply side right, rather than warehousing space for spares - I seriously doubt anyone is doing that anymore.  You hold the bare minimum you need.  Leica’s problem seems to have been ensuring supply and the cost when the massive corrosion issue arose. At first they hid under a rock, hoping it would go away.  I have always suspected that the sensor fault (the specification of the cover glass with that sensor) was actually Leica’s responsibility and not Kodak’s.  It had to do cost sharing deals with Schott, Kodak and us, its customers.  These days, I hope Leica has a better supply arrangement.

Conversely, I suspect the film camera quality issues reflect a lack of investment (due to limited demand) - there must surely be a minimum sized batch to maintain the expertise and systems in place, which current demand falls below.  If there’s a warehouse, it holds film cameras from the last batch ...
 

[M9reno]

It was only a few months ago that Leica engaged in the well-publicised selling of "factory-refurbed" a-la-carte M9 cameras.  It’s a pity that now these beautiful cameras have no sensor support.

[R6M6]

My intention was to buy a M10P by trading in my M9 ( new Sensor in 2017). Leica Store Wetzlar offered 500€ for the M9 - an affront! So I decided to keep my M9 instead of buying a M10P and use it as long  as possible. Not a bad  decision - old love was renewed!

[analog-digital]

Am 12.8.2020 um 22:58 schrieb Ko.Fe.:

M3 with A7 sensor it is well documented DIY conversion.

 

And what's the point of it? 🙄

[Jeff S]

On 8/29/2020 at 5:05 AM, M9reno said:

It was only a few months ago that Leica engaged in the well-publicised selling of "factory-refurbed" a-la-carte M9 cameras.  It’s a pity that now these beautiful cameras have no sensor support.

Hopefully those refurbs don’t need sensor support, as they incorporated the ‘permanent’ sensor (non-corroding cover glass) version. But that likely meant fewer new sensors for repairs to older cameras. Smart business, though.

Jeff

Edited August 30, 2020 by Jeff S

[Boojay]

1 hour ago, R6M6 said:

My intention was to buy a M10P by trading in my M9 ( new Sensor in 2017). Leica Store Wetzlar offered 500€ for the M9 - an affront! So I decided to keep my M9 instead of buying a M10P and use it as long  as possible. Not a bad  decision - old love was renewed!

Maybe you can take consolation from the fact that since the announcement of no more exchange sensors,  the price of used M9's and variants in other marketplaces seems to have risen quite a bit.  

[Ko.Fe.]

11 hours ago, analog-digital said:

And what's the point of it? 🙄

The idea in general is to ditch dependence on Leica Camera AG as much as possible. Film M with retrofit digital third party sensor is step forward for it. No Leica sensor,. No Leica shutter is even better, possible with global shutter. 

The only Leica is good at is RF and sexy body. Those lasts long. 

[analog-digital]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Ko.Fe.:

The idea in general is to ditch dependence on Leica Camera AG as much as possible. Film M with retrofit digital third party sensor is step forward for it. No Leica sensor,. No Leica shutter is even better, possible with global shutter. 

The only Leica is good at is RF and sexy body. Those lasts long. 

Then just DO NOT buy a Leica and your problem will be solved

[Ko.Fe.]

6 hours ago, analog-digital said:

Then just DO NOT buy a Leica and your problem will be solved

I have purchased already and have no intention to sell. Any other non related to this topic advise?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[analog-digital]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Ko.Fe.:

I have purchased already and have no intention to sell. Any other non related to this topic advise?

What should WE say about this topic?

Everything is in the link. I do not understand such contributions.

[Ko.Fe.]

On 8/31/2020 at 12:59 PM, analog-digital said:

What should WE say about this topic?

Everything is in the link. I do not understand such contributions.

I don't understand "do not buy Leica" statements either. To me this topic about Leica promise of "M9 as lifetime camera" and its failure. And how to avoid such failures. Making cameras modular and even allowing third party components is the way to keep camera as "lifetime camera".