Q2 - "Throw Away" Lens Assembly?

[jake-leica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Got an M10 recently, fairly new to Leica.

Been into manual photography and darkroom work for a long time (though a long time ago also, kind of forgot about photography as phones turned into snip-snap picture machines).

Quite enjoy the M10, though also got curious about Q2 as a bit of more versatile option for those times you want auto focus and exposure.

A little disappointed to read that a $5,000 compact camera, especially in the Leica context of longevity and tradition and all that, has a lens and shutter assembly that just gets 'thrown out' if anything is wrong with it.  Like another thread where somebody had an issue with the MF/AF switch and Leica told him he'll need a whole new lens assembly.

That seems really less exciting.  They can't ... or won't (?) fix what is basically most of that camera?  What happens when a switch goes bad in say, 8 years?  The whole thing is a paper weight?

Yes, newbie musings.  Curious though whether we would want to nudge the fine folks at Wezlar to not be like Apple, and selling unfixable products - at these prices especially.

[vedivv]

Not sure if you had your cars fixed lately.  I noticed that when I take my BMW and Audi in for repair, both German automakers, the dealership basically have their technicians replace a whole "module" with refurbished ones.  Probably cheaper and faster to fix things that way.  I am sure actual cost of Apple fixing thing is not that high; they just charge you a lot of money because they can, and we all enjoy the convenience.  

[Advertisement]

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

[nuc001]

Faster to swap out parts and then fix the problem in their own time. More cost-effective too. I'm sure there are some third-parties with technicians who can take the camera apart and fix it properly, but you'd have to wait even longer.

[jake-leica]

8 minutes ago, nuc001 said:

Faster to swap out parts and then fix the problem in their own time. More cost-effective too. I'm sure there are some third-parties with technicians who can take the camera apart and fix it properly, but you'd have to wait even longer.

Think so?  Anybody know more about this?  Would love to know more about repair options.

28 minutes ago, vedivv said:

Not sure if you had your cars fixed lately.

I don't buy BMWs of current vintage.  Plenty of brands that are far more long term serviceable and while maybe less snob appeal, more practical.

Also rather ride a motorbike anyway.

While I'm aware of the obvious (though always appreciate those comments also), rather than to just shrug and "go that's how it is", prefer to vote with wallet, as well as encourage companies to be environmentally and otherwise responsible.  Throwing out that whole lens assembly suggests at least in part that the original design of it didn't have much repairability in mind - these things absolutely can be built to be reasonable serviceable.

These things aren't phones.  

[LocalHero1953]

The Q/Q2 has a leaf shutter (and internal AF mechanism, and image stabilisation) built into the lens, which is why it is changed as a unit. That's the penalty of the Q's small size. The M10 and most other cameras designed and made by Leica have lenses separate from the focal plane shutter - and are bigger. I suspect independent repairers will avoid the Q2 because it would need Leica's tooling to fix/reassemble. The Q2 will be repairable as long as Leica keeps stocks of the lens/shutter unit - at a guess, 10 years might be the limit. Leica has just run out of sensors for the M9, which gives you some idea of how long it might last.

Best solution is as you suggest: vote with your wallet. I don't own one either. But plenty of people vote the other way.

Edited August 26, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[ianforber]

Maybe I’m just using them hard enough, but the 5-6 cameras and associated lenses I’ve had since the late 1970s have never needed repair. Some were film rangefinders, SLRs, some digital and most have been dragged up and down hills while hiking and travelled the world with me. The most I’ve had to do was replace the foam light seals on my old Ricoh 500G rangefinder. So I don’t base my buying decision on a theoretical possibility that something might need fixing at some point in future: I just buy, use and enjoy.  I suspect the availability of batteries is far more likely to be the Achille’s heel of our digital cameras in the longer term. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even batteries -there are plenty of battery refurbishing services.

[Viv]

This is not an issue that worries me.

My Q2, like all the cameras I have or had, is unlikely to be sent for repair.

[vedivv]

On 8/26/2020 at 12:33 AM, jake-leica said:

Think so?  Anybody know more about this?  Would love to know more about repair options.

I don't buy BMWs of current vintage.  Plenty of brands that are far more long term serviceable and while maybe less snob appeal, more practical.

Also rather ride a motorbike anyway.

While I'm aware of the obvious (though always appreciate those comments also), rather than to just shrug and "go that's how it is", prefer to vote with wallet, as well as encourage companies to be environmentally and otherwise responsible.  Throwing out that whole lens assembly suggests at least in part that the original design of it didn't have much repairability in mind - these things absolutely can be built to be reasonable serviceable.

These things aren't phones.  

I am guessing the way it works is that these car companies actually take the whole "module" back to the factory for repair, and the replaced module usually says "refurbished".  I buy extended warranties when purchasing new German cars, so repairs are generally just inconvenience.  What it also means that car dealers can get rid of expensive technicians and replacement with people to simply replace "modules" based on computer diagnostic tool read out. 

Leica is such a small company with limited dealer network, providing easier to replace modules might help reduce repair time.  On the other hand, the design of Leica lens might be unfriendly to mass production/fast repair.  The high standard of Leica manufacturing (especially with lenses like 50/APO) means there is very small tolerance and cannot be repaired locally. 

[Herr Barnack]

On 8/26/2020 at 5:42 AM, ianforber said:

Maybe I’m just using them hard enough, but the 5-6 cameras and associated lenses I’ve had since the late 1970s have never needed repair. Some were film rangefinders, SLRs, some digital and most have been dragged up and down hills while hiking and travelled the world with me. The most I’ve had to do was replace the foam light seals on my old Ricoh 500G rangefinder. So I don’t base my buying decision on a theoretical possibility that something might need fixing at some point in future: I just buy, use and enjoy.  I suspect the availability of batteries is far more likely to be the Achille’s heel of our digital cameras in the longer term. 

That's my approach. 

No camera will go forever, never needing repair or new parts installed.  Turns out that we can say the same for photographers.

I have a suspicion that the both the Q and Q2 will last far longer than some think, provided we don't use them as we would use a Nikonos V or a geologist's hammer.

[vedivv]

16 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

That's my approach. 

No camera will go forever, never needing repair or new parts installed.  Turns out that we can say the same for photographers.

I have a suspicion that the both the Q and Q2 will last far longer than some think, provided we don't use them as we would use a Nikonos V or a geologist's hammer.

Leica in my experience has pretty high reliability.  Repair is needed when accident happens, but that's true with everything else.

By far my Sony cameras have been the least reliable (having problems through normal use).  But even then, the repair decisions were hard only because by the time the camera needed repair, it had depreciated so much that it is usually cheaper to buy a new camera or a used replacement.  However, it is a different story in China.  Due to low labor costs, there are plenty of small shops with skilled repair technicians, who have a lot of practice fixing all sorts of stuff that would have been thrown away in the US.  A few years ago, I gave my "broken" Sony RX1R to a relative in China as a toy (it can still shot sharp images at infinity) after Sony USA quoted me $700 to repair the lens focusing mechanism, and he was able to get it repaired for $60 in Shanghai and the camera was back to perfectly working condition.

[Miltz]

While I understand your point it almost has no real impact. Camera sensors and lenses don’t go bad so quickly. At some point yes, the camera will die but that will be so long from now that you won’t care. Unless their is a defect or something you’ll have it for a loooong time.

[jamiealquiza]

50 minutes ago, Miltz said:

While I understand your point it almost has no real impact. Camera sensors and lenses don’t go bad so quickly. At some point yes, the camera will die but that will be so long from now that you won’t care. Unless their is a defect or something you’ll have it for a loooong time.

The whole point being that when a camera is dead, you can pull the lens off and continue to use it. People still use vintage lenses now; either the Q2 lens wasn’t built to a level of quality deserving of longevity and we’re overpaying for it, or a great lens has to be thrown away prematurely.

I’ve thought about this a bit as a Q2 owner. If anyone wants some Leica cognitive dissonance satisfaction: “a 28mm summilux-m costs more than the whole Q2 and the Q2 sensor is better than the M10; the Q2 lens is ‘free’.”

Edited August 29, 2020 by jamiealquiza

[Guest BlackBarn]

On 8/26/2020 at 3:20 PM, jake-leica said:

especially in the Leica context of longevity and tradition

You’re right Jake-Leica.  Too much Leica love and excuses are thrown at them when this subject is brought up, yet the fact remains that they advertised and sell their products such as the M9 and M10 as products which last a life time and they build the camera cases which probably do but it’s the other working bits on their digital cameras which let their customers down and which they keep silent on. They have a sort of a sort of ‘built like a rock....pity about the heart....let’s not talk about that’ approach.

They must be delighted with the commercial hype that you ‘shouldn’t expect products to last’ is gaining traction with their client base yet they are still cashing in by promoting the opposite. No collective is telling Leica or their distributors this shouldn’t be the case and to better support say their M9 clients as promised.  They hide away from these issues which suggests weak kneed distributors and duck your nut management.

Leica are for people who appreciate the refinement of design, simplicity of use  and quality optics and recognize these aspects cost more. Leica is  a company which  provides this but has a monopolistic client service ethos.....improving customer service it’s not even on their radar. They see sales as revenue and service as costs. They do not see the interrelationship that excellent service leads to the possibility of  increased sales while poor service will encourage the opposite.

 

 

 

 

[Miltz]

8 hours ago, jamiealquiza said:

The whole point being that when a camera is dead, you can pull the lens off and continue to use it. People still use vintage lenses now; either the Q2 lens wasn’t built to a level of quality deserving of longevity and we’re overpaying for it, or a great lens has to be thrown away prematurely.

I’ve thought about this a bit as a Q2 owner. If anyone wants some Leica cognitive dissonance satisfaction: “a 28mm summilux-m costs more than the whole Q2 and the Q2 sensor is better than the M10; the Q2 lens is ‘free’.”

I guess it’s up to the buyer. The Q2 is a sealed camera system and not a traditional camera and lens body. That being said the 28mm lens on the Q2 and the separate 28mm lens Leica sells are very different. The distortion on the Q2 not corrected in software is pretty bad. The 28mm lens Leica sells is in a different class. This is why the lens alone sells more than the Q2 camera. My theory is the Q2 is really a 24mm lens and then corrected to a 28mm in software based on the distortion corrections Leica is doing. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

You’re right Jake-Leica.  Too much Leica love and excuses are thrown at them when this subject is brought up, yet the fact remains that they advertised and sell their products such as the M9 and M10 as products which last a life time and they build the camera cases which probably do but it’s the other working bits on their digital cameras which let their customers down and which they keep silent on. They have a sort of a sort of ‘built like a rock....pity about the heart....let’s not talk about that’ approach.

They must be delighted with the commercial hype that you ‘shouldn’t expect products to last’ is gaining traction with their client base yet they are still cashing in by promoting the opposite. No collective is telling Leica or their distributors this shouldn’t be the case and to better support say their M9 clients as promised.  They hide away from these issues which suggests weak kneed distributors and duck your nut management.

Leica are for people who appreciate the refinement of design, simplicity of use  and quality optics and recognize these aspects cost more. Leica is  a company which  provides this but has a monopolistic client service ethos.....improving customer service it’s not even on their radar. They see sales as revenue and service as costs. They do not see the interrelationship that excellent service leads to the possibility of  increased sales while poor service will encourage the opposite.

 

 

 

 

Did leica market the M9 and M10 as "products that will last a life time"?

Is that actually true?

[carbon_dragon]

20 minutes ago, steve 1959 said:

Did leica market the M9 and M10 as "products that will last a life time"?

Is that actually true?

I'm not sure what their advertisements said, but they actually DID make cameras that lasted nearly forever for a very long time (until digital happened). Only in the digital era do some parts in the camera become unavailable in some number of years because you can't just start the production line again with electronic parts. In the mechanical era, you can actually MAKE parts that work within a camera which is why the Leica screwmounts still work.

So in one sense, Leica has been GREAT at making long lasting bodies. In another sense, I think they still trade on at least encouraging buyers to believe that nothing has changed, whether they come right out and say it or not. And lastly, the M cameras are priced such that it's harder to justify limited lifespan. Yes if you're a pro who needs a medium format camera you might spend $20000 on a camera that may only last for 5-10 years but presumably that is because you need its capability and it is a worthwhile business investment. Pros do use Leicas, but I think the market is more enthusiasts. Hence all the special editions and engravings. Consider that people routinely get decades of service from M mechanical cameras. So even if the price is high, it makes sense economically. But if you get only 10 years service, then you might prefer to buy a Sony A7rIV and get say 6 years out of it for way less money per year -- even if you are a Leica lover and an enthusiast. Prices are higher but more importantly they're even higher per year of active service in the age of digital.

To be fair, Leica IS innovating and joining the world that all other camera makers are in. the Q2, the Xs, the SL, the S, etc., are all well built cameras with great industrial engineering, but no more so than Nikon or Canon or Sony. I'm guessing that Q2 and SL buyers have more reasonable expectations of the length of time the camera will be viable for (and hey they might score and the camera might last a really LONG time). But they're not going to complain (probably) if their Q2 breaks down after 10 years because the sensors are no longer available. If it's because the sensor was misdesigned or misassembled maybe they'll complain a little. But those cameras are "normal" cameras. The Ms just have a sort of mystique due to their amazing durability prior to digital and because of the unbroken design lineage (and the price too).

This subject has obviously been litigated a lot. You can't have infinite spare parts, you have to set some kind of limit. Yes it's a modern fact of life. It is POSSIBLE (not necessarily viable) for Leica to do what it just did for the M10R -- that is make a new version of the camera with a new sensor. They could even offer upgrade programs for M10 owners since fundamentally the camera hasn't changed very much. And they could create an upgrade program to an M9R as well. Would they make their money back? Probably not. It would be a little crazy as a business decision (though I thought the same thing about making a monochrome only camera and a digital camera with no back screen). Leica is a funny company and it has unusual customers too. I'm not sure I know, or can predict what Leica will do.

In effect the M9 thing is Leica telling its customers that the M cameras are not exempt from the parts availability problem that all digital cameras have, whatever their history might be. They are saying don't look at the M9 or M10 and see a modern M3 because it isn't. It may look like it and work like it, but they aren't the same thing. For the M3, it might NEVER wear out in service as long as people are willing to make parts. For the M10, they are saying that like a Sony A7rIV, they are both cameras with a lifespan set by the life and availability of the electronic parts and their spares. But they're saying it quietly.

[robgo2]

The way I see it, when you enter the Leica ecosystem, you know that it is expensive, both for initial purchase and repairs.  Overpriced?  For sure, yet on the other side, Leica cameras and, especially, lenses tend to hold their value better than other brands.  I have a Q2 and had not given a single thought (until I saw this thread) about repair costs.

[Guest BlackBarn]

5 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Did leica market the M9 and M10 as "products that will last a life time"?

Is that actually true?

I only became interested in this issue when I heard they had left  the owners of the M9 in the lurch and felt they could do the same for any Leica product. I had just purchased the M10M and remembered this was sold on the basis of it being a life time product.

All cameras have to be looked after and when necessary serviced, that’s the acceptable part of ownership. However when repair/service costs exceed (which is the issue of this thread)   or the cameras becomes no longer supportable - through no fault of the owner - and  the product was sold and promoted as a durable product then Leica and their Distributers must step up and fully support their clients and carry the cost of doing so. They might claim it was over zealous marketing people but somebody in Leica signed the campaigns off and for  sure the M9 issue was beyond Leicas control but they had quite a few options to honor their intent but they chose to pass on the costs/loss to their customers.  
 

Leica are benefitting from their marketing of durability and customers are paying premiums for that aspect. Leica and their dealerships need to step up and provide that service starting with the M9 owners.

Abstract from their advertising: First for the M10M which I own and the M9 which I have never owned. 

 ‘The Leica M10 Monochrom is hand-crafted by accomplished specialists using superior-quality materials and elaborate methods of engineering.For example, the camera’s top and base plates are neither stamped nor molded, but milled from solid blocks of brass. Due to its robust construction, the Leica M10 Monochrom can weather even the toughest external conditions.Made in Germany’ guarantees the utmost quality, reliability and durability, ensuring long-term value and functionality. After all, a Leica is not just a camera, but represents a worthwhile, life-long investment.’

And for the M9.......’At just 139 × 37 × 80mm, the LEICA M9 maintains the compact size of the LEICA M8, despite the considerably larger sensor. The robust, one-piece, full metal housing, made from a high-strength magnesium alloy, combined with a solid brass top and bottom plate, provide perfect protection for the camera in all photographic situations. For photographers, this all adds up to absolute reliability over decades of use.‘

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[carbon_dragon]

4 hours ago, robgo2 said:

The way I see it, when you enter the Leica ecosystem, you know that it is expensive, both for initial purchase and repairs.  Overpriced?  For sure, yet on the other side, Leica cameras and, especially, lenses tend to hold their value better than other brands.  I have a Q2 and had not given a single thought (until I saw this thread) about repair costs.

If buyers are on board for 10 years of guaranteed repair capability (with any additional longevity being lagniappe, as my Louisiana relatives would say) , and then still buy, that's fine. I did buy my M10 (used) AFTER the whole M9 thing and after I paid to have the M9 sensor replaced (about $1000 quite a while back). Repair costs can be an unexpected surprise if you have "stretched" to buy something expensive (like an expensive car or an expensive watch). It's easy to forget about the upkeep.