Q2 - "Throw Away" Lens Assembly?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

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.‘

Thanks,its clearly a play on words and they were not literally saying the M 9 and 10 would last a lifetime but you make a very good case for leica misleading their customers.

[Guest BlackBarn]

4 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

its clearly a play on words

Possibly....maybe ‘over decades of use’ simply implies a minimum of 20 years not a lifetime but you would have hoped with their M9 experience they should have been a bit more cautious when promoting their M10M. Mind you, their use of  ‘represents a life-long investment’ doesn’t actually state if it would be a good investment or a Madoff donkey.

Whichever way Leica decide to  play their words they have to do a lot better job in supporting their M9 customers and simply accept their intent was to deliver the M9 to be used over decades. Unfortunately it didn’t work out for them but they have sufficient capital to take that hit and not pass the cost onto their customers.
 

[Advertisement]

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

[ynp]

On 8/28/2020 at 7:28 PM, vedivv said:

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.

Very true. My Leica Super-Elmar-S 24mm. was repaired in Shanghai by an independent repair man through a local photo shop. They put a metal gear in the AF mechanism instead of a plastic one Leica used. Not expensive at all.

[Herr Barnack]

On 8/28/2020 at 12:28 PM, vedivv said:

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.

Could Leica have done better regarding the sensor corrosion situation?  Yes.  But they did offer an upgrade program. 

Result?  "WAA!  WAA!!  Not a good enough deal for me" (said many corroded sensor owners).   How dare Leica not give each corroded sensor owner an M10-P, a 50 APO and free call girls for their trouble.  🙄

Quote

By far my Sony cameras have been the least reliable (having problems through normal use). 

That, and stories of abysmal customer service regarding repairs are but a couple of reasons why I take my chances with Leica.  JMHO, but a camera that costs as much as Sony's flagship model should not be considered disposable by the manufacturer. 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[robgo2]

On 8/29/2020 at 1:59 PM, BlackBarn said:

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.‘

In the film era, cameras could reasonably be marketed as "lifetime" products.  After all, a camera was little more than a box that had a lens on the front and film on the inside.  If one wanted to get better IQ, all that was needed was to get better lenses and better film.

In the digital era, this is no longer true.  Digital cameras are boxes that contain sensors and actual computers on the inside.  With improving technology, one needs to replace the whole camera in order to get the best possible IQ and the latest features.  And the fact that the camera is primarily an electronic device, as opposed to a mechanical one, it is more prone to failure with the passage of time. Hence, it is misleading to label digital cameras as being something that one is likely to use for a lifetime. Of course, it is entirely possible that some of them will last a very long time, depending upon the rate of usage, but inevitably, something will fail, and replacement parts will no longer be available, which means that one will be forced to buy a new camera.

I should point out that this situation is not unique to digital cameras, as it applies to the vast majority of consumer electronic devices.  Almost everyone now accepts it as a fact of life. In making purchases, we want products that are said to be reliable, but we do not expect to use them for the rest of our lives.

[Guest BlackBarn]

4 hours ago, robgo2 said:

Almost everyone now accepts it as a fact of life.

Here is the problem. Some are simply adopting this position of acceptance as opposed to demanding longer lasting higher quality components. There is a difference between deciding to buy a new digital camera when  one is attracted to new capabilities than because of product failure. Our choice - in your fact of life - is handing that over into the hands of the manufacturer.

Longer lasting technology can be designed and produced - and it should be for ecological reasons - but it simply doesn’t suit the manufacturers for financial reasons. At the very minimum the move by say the German  Federal Environment Agency calling for minimum lifetime product requirements, should be supported.

However, the issue here is with Leica and their distributors  profiting from marketing digital cameras 1.  as lasting decades and being a life time investment.  2. Pricing in the cost of producing  a life time hand finished camera body - which is very expensive to do - while accepting your ‘fact of life’ mentality on technology, which means customers are paying for something which is unnecessary.3 After this they are not willing to accept the cost of their  miss calculation/ promotion but creating a trend which dumps this onto their clients as in the case of the M9.

This issue can be addressed either by demanding better quality electrical components - which is happening  - or better design of cameras to allow for interchangeable  units when required.   I think Leica can produce digital cameras which can last decades today and develop better customer servicing options but when we accept the unproven  ‘fact of life’ - that’s what we may unnecessarily  end up with.

[robgo2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, BlackBarn said:

Here is the problem. Some are simply adopting this position of acceptance as opposed to demanding longer lasting higher quality components. There is a difference between deciding to buy a new digital camera when  one is attracted to new capabilities than because of product failure. Our choice - in your fact of life - is handing that over into the hands of the manufacturer.

Longer lasting technology can be designed and produced - and it should be for ecological reasons - but it simply doesn’t suit the manufacturers for financial reasons. At the very minimum the move by say the German  Federal Environment Agency calling for minimum lifetime product requirements, should be supported.

However, the issue here is with Leica and their distributors  profiting from marketing digital cameras 1.  as lasting decades and being a life time investment.  2. Pricing in the cost of producing  a life time hand finished camera body - which is very expensive to do - while accepting your ‘fact of life’ mentality on technology, which means customers are paying for something which is unnecessary.3 After this they are not willing to accept the cost of their  miss calculation/ promotion but creating a trend which dumps this onto their clients as in the case of the M9.

This issue can be addressed either by demanding better quality electrical components - which is happening  - or better design of cameras to allow for interchangeable  units when required.   I think Leica can produce digital cameras which can last decades today and develop better customer servicing options but when we accept the unproven  ‘fact of life’ - that’s what we may unnecessarily  end up with.

But as technology advances, cameras get better, and many, probably most, serious photographers want to be near or at the cutting edge.  Their perfectly good cameras no longer feel good enough once something truly superior is available.  Hence, "lifetime" digital cameras will never be in great demand no matter how well made they may be.

[Guest BlackBarn]

1 hour ago, robgo2 said:

Their perfectly good cameras no longer feel good enough once something truly superior is available.

Sorry don’t buy into that.

 I’m also flagging that the mind set which embraces the throw away society is not sustainable and needs to change towards products where longevity is  a key objective.....digital or not. 

I am not certain   ‘serious photographers’ - whatever that means - follow the must have the latest stuff you’re suggesting let alone what the definition of ‘truely superior’ would be. There are photographers out there who are taking far better images than I ever will using decades old equipment. 

Most I imagine are not driven by the latest but like the non serious photographers they want reliable equipment which lasts, does what it says on the packet and retain the option of choice when to upgrade.

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by BlackBarn
Gram..

[robgo2]

22 minutes ago, BlackBarn said:

Sorry don’t buy into that.

 I’m also flagging that the mind set which embraces the throw away society is not sustainable and needs to change towards products where longevity is  a key objective.....digital or not. 

I am not certain   ‘serious photographers’ - whatever that means - follow the must have the latest stuff you’re suggesting let alone what the definition of ‘truely superior’ would be. There are photographers out there who are taking far better images than I ever will using decades old equipment. 

Most I imagine are not driven by the latest but like the non serious photographers they want reliable equipment which lasts, does what it says on the packet and retain the option of choice when to upgrade.

 

Would that it were so.

[vedivv]

People are not inherently wasteful; it is just how economic works.  Electronics are not made to last, for many reasons.  Computers and other devices have much larger carbon footprint and volume, and camera longevity is pretty low on the sustainability ladder.   

And to be fair, this whole thing about "long lasting" technology might not be in Leica control.  In the context of camera makers and semiconductor companies, Leica is a tiny shop with limited bargaining power and control.  Consumer semiconductors these days are not designed to last a long time.  I have a few clients that makes semiconductor chips for military applications; these chips are more than 100x than the civilian version, but these companies are barely making any profit on these chips.  There is simply no return to scale. It is surprising how a little increase in reliability dramatically increases costs.  As much as people complain about Leica costs, they are nothing compared to the cost of specialized tools.

To enjoy things like Leica camera and luxury goods is to realize that that they don't make sense or work that much better than cheaper alternatives, but you enjoy them more because the way they make you feel.  It is precisely the impracticality that makes these things special.  People should realize that most luxury stuff are still stuff we consume, not something that goes up in value.  Buying them as "investment" is simply a rationalization to ourselves (and our spouses, though my wife never believed it).  Weird thing that in discussing Leica cameras people brought up watch discussion, which is a far more expensive hobby.  For a nice Swiss watch, a five year tune up by mfr would easily cost over $1k and turnaround is not much better than Leica repair shops.

[carbon_dragon]

Yes but the argument you're making kind of runs against he argument Leica has made for years. If all that counts is making a camera that is a "reasonable value for money," would we ever end up with a Leica M10? or M6? Back in the 50s maybe the M was merely a tool for photojournalists in competition with Nikon and Canon rangefinders. But at some point, the "over-engineered" nature of Leica's Ms became a selling point. Back then, that over-engineering (rather than simply making them "good enough") had some value (durability over time) as well as a certain pleasure in their use (similar to a fine mechanical watch). The latter is still there, but the former is really not (and hasn't been before the M9 thing).

So it's not like Leica has always given us "pretty good" engineering for a value price. That's what we get from Nikon and Canon and Fuji and so on. There is no shame in that, it makes great cameras available to a whole lot more people and is a noble goal (as well as a profitable one). But is this really what Leica is all about? Well the answer is maybe yes, now it is. Leica may continue to have the trappings of that over-engineering, but it won't actually return value in terms of long term use (except through good fortune, not by design).

[bsmith]

On 8/25/2020 at 10:20 PM, jake-leica said:

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.

N to true, my Q2 had a lens issue and it was repaired, not replaced.  They fix Q2s in NJ facility

[bsmith]

I meant to type , not true

[nicci78]

You all wish that digital cameras should last decades. But guess what ? It is already the case ! 
Just look at old tech M8. They are still fine to be used today. If people stop using them, it is just because it is outdated. That’s all. 
Electro-focus lenses existed for decades now. Since the first Canon EF Mount. If taken care of. They are still usable today. 
 

Q and Q2 will be at least as reliable as any AF lenses in the market. So you should be able to use them for decades. 
 

It is price very cheap. Way cheaper than any digital M. And cheaper than Summilux-M 28mm asph. 
So what’s the problem ? Just a psychological one, that fixed lens camera are inferior to interchangeable one. But I think that is the opposite. Because monolithic design should be tougher than modular one. 
 

One last thing. Q2 is something that cannot exist in interchangeable format : very compact fast 28mm optically stabilised with leaf shutter mechanism 

Because modern interchangeable body will required in body focal plane shutter, sensor stabilisation and a lens mount. All three will require a bigger amount of space than the almost empty Q2 body. 
 

We can consider that Q and Q2 have everything sealed inside the lens. Even the sensor as a kind of last element. The body will serve as a grip + dials + rear screen + EVF + battery.

 

So don’t worry and enjoy your Q or Q2 for decades. I am a user of Q since day 1 and of Q2 for more 15 months now. Totalling 78000 exposures. No sign of slowing down. 
They are Leica’s finest cameras. Yes even better than M cameras. Especially if you are a 28 or 35mm shooter. Otherwise walk your way and forget about them. And shoot any interchangeable combo with your preferred focal length. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, nicci78 said:

They are Leica’s finest cameras. Yes even better than M cameras. Especially if you are a 28 or 35mm shooter. Otherwise walk your way and forget about them. And shoot any interchangeable combo with your preferred focal length. 

Totally agree. I went from Leica Q to Leica M262 + 35Lux to M246 + 35Lux and back to Q-P (and Q Silver as back-up). Shot M with 35Lux exclusively for 2 years, but now back to Q. I learned a lot from shooting M and enjoyed it emensly, but the Q is indeed better (for me and my photography) and without a doubt my fave camera of all time.

[AndrewDD]

I think there is some serious hysteria going on here.

Leica being unable to change a sensor on the M9 because they are no longer manufactured, 9 years after they were made, is scarcely a "throw away society".

As for the Q/Q2, the whole point is that it is a fixed lens. Its a crap lens, which the camera can compensate for as they are made as a single unit. You wouldn't want that lens on another camera. It will last until it breaks, and there is a good chance Leica will be able to repair it for 10 years or so. Calm down, that's as good as you are going to get.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, AndrewDD said:

I think there is some serious hysteria going on here.

Leica being unable to change a sensor on the M9 because they are no longer manufactured, 9 years after they were made, is scarcely a "throw away society".

As for the Q/Q2, the whole point is that it is a fixed lens. Its a crap lens, which the camera can compensate for as they are made as a single unit. You wouldn't want that lens on another camera. It will last until it breaks, and there is a good chance Leica will be able to repair it for 10 years or so. Calm down, that's as good as you are going to get.

Explain your "crap lens" comment?

[AndrewDD]

On 9/3/2020 at 11:22 PM, steve 1959 said:

Explain your "crap lens" comment?

I did.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, AndrewDD said:

I did.

Thanks,so your saying the camera body makes corrections to the lens to compensate for what otherwise would be poor performance?

But that happens on interchangeable lens cameras as well i believe but i suppose your saying much more so on a fixed lens camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

On 9/3/2020 at 6:57 PM, AndrewDD said:

[...]As for the Q/Q2, the whole point is that it is a fixed lens. Its a crap lens, which the camera can compensate for as they are made as a single unit. You wouldn't want that lens on another camera. [...]

Sorry, you really don't understand lens design.
Very simply said it means correcting aberrations which will create aberrations of the next order, which must be corrected by the next element and so forth until one arrives at the level of correction desired.   
The lens on the Q is a hybrid design, which corrects most optical errors better than any purely glass lens ever could in the optical part, shifting the residual aberrations into distortion (and possibly CA)  which can be controlled by digital means, actually better than by optical means, resulting in a lens that is better corrected, smaller, and more affordable than any purely optical lens ever could be. The price for that is that the sensor and processing hardware have actually become an integral part of the lens. Which also means that you cannot judge the optical part of the lens alone. It would be tantamount to removing one or more elements from an M lens and claiming the remaining bit is crap.

It is also one of the reasons that for instance SL and TL lenses outperform their M equivalents. (Except for the size bit, but that has a different rationale) The same situation exists for virtually all mainstream camera brands.

What you are saying is analogous to claiming your car has crap steering because it has power steering, and you wouldn't expect it to turn a corner on the mechanical part alone.