'Leica batteries'

[Chris Nebard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

47 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

Yes, we'd probably better not get too far into the whole UV/protective filter debate, the subject of endless debates between people who think you'd be mad to use them, vs others who think you'd be mad not to! But I think it's a good example of something Leica must be selling at a really substantial markup, when we know there are high quality alternatives for perhaps 1/3 of the price from companies with excellent reputations. As masjah says above, Leica sells at the price the market will bear. If people are prepared to pay £120 for an E39 UV, Leica are happy to oblige them.

With generic things like filters, straps and standard caps, of course, we have plenty of choice. With batteries and other very specific accessories, we may have no other choice than to buy from Leica, assuming the item is even still available. But before I get too critical, Leica were recently able to replace a compact binocular case for a price I thought was perfectly reasonable, not much more than the third party alternative I was considering. So full marks to the Sports Optics spares division!

I agree. And regardless of their branding and the pricing of accessories, other alternatives etc., one of the reasons I love Leica is the available after-sales service which I’ve always accessed via Leica Manchester (great people) and which has been excellent on the odd occasion I’ve needed it. 

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, Anbaric said:

This is, after all, a company that charges £120 for a UV filter, which they probably outsource somewhere and I doubt is any better than the £40 B+W equivalent.

You are in luck. LensRentals tested filters a few years back: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Leica's filters tested significantly better than any £40 alternative, or even any premium alternative. That's not to say that the quality improvements will be significant to you, but they are a valid choice if you use filters.

 

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a mechanic. He showed me a tiny sticker. It was for the best selling model of one of the biggest car makers in the world, and it sold for $120 as a spare! Surely it must have cost less than a penny to produce, given that the car in question sold a million units a year...

[Anbaric]

46 minutes ago, BernardC said:

You are in luck. LensRentals tested filters a few years back: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/06/the-comprehensive-ranking-of-the-major-uv-filters-on-the-market/

Leica's filters tested significantly better than any £40 alternative, or even any premium alternative. That's not to say that the quality improvements will be significant to you, but they are a valid choice if you use filters.

 

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I had years ago with a mechanic. He showed me a tiny sticker. It was for the best selling model of one of the biggest car makers in the world, and it sold for $120 as a spare! Surely it must have cost less than a penny to produce, given that the car in question sold a million units a year...

At the risk of going further off-topic, I've seen that test before, and wasn't very impressed. Testing transmission at a single wavelength from a monochromatic laser isn't that informative, because transmission can vary substantially by wavelength (several % in the visible range), and the differences between single samples of the better filters from different manufacturers at 635nm was tiny. What do these filters do over the whole visible light range? Have a look at the light transmission profiles by wavelength of a range of filters in this earlier test, which unfortunately doesn't include Leica or some of the latest filters like Hoya HD or B+W Nano:

https://www.lenstip.com/113.1-article-UV_filters_test.html

e.g., this is how one B+W UV transmitted:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I doubt Leica is using some magical glass or coatings here, but (at a guess) something probably already made by Hoya or Schneider Kreuznach.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Anbaric

[BernardC]

1 minute ago, Anbaric said:

I doubt Leica is using some magical glass or coatings here, but (at a guess) something already made by Hoya or Schneider Kreuznach.

Surely they procure their glass from a supplier. Either that or Leica uses their legendary glass research lab to make one-off filters, and sells them at a huge loss. What the LR test shows is that Leica's filters aren't exact copies of anyone else's. If they were, they wouldn't be at one extrame of the scale, on their own. Your point is valid that LR didn't run every possible test. They admit that, and unfortunately they didn't have Leica filters in all sizes, so they didn't even run every test on the filters they had on-hand.

Hoya, Schott, and a few others, have huge glass catalogs. Saying that a piece of glass comes from either major supplier tells us absolutely nothing. It could be window pane, or it could be the rarest and most precious anomalous dispersion wonder-glass (not technically glass, but the point stands).

The question is: Does Leica use the exact same glass, coating, and thread, as a cheap filter? I don't think that's the case, given the evidence revealed by serious tests done by companies using specialized equipment.

As I mentioned before, this doesn't mean that any difference is significant to you, or worth a specific amount of money. In my case, I only use ND and polarizing filters (no UV). I have found that "expensive" filters make a noticeable difference.

[masjah]

42 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Surely they procure their glass from a supplier. Either that or Leica uses their legendary glass research lab to make one-off filters, and sells them at a huge loss. What the LR test shows is that Leica's filters aren't exact copies of anyone else's. If they were, they wouldn't be at one extrame of the scale, on their own. Your point is valid that LR didn't run every possible test. They admit that, and unfortunately they didn't have Leica filters in all sizes, so they didn't even run every test on the filters they had on-hand.

Hoya, Schott, and a few others, have huge glass catalogs. Saying that a piece of glass comes from either major supplier tells us absolutely nothing. It could be window pane, or it could be the rarest and most precious anomalous dispersion wonder-glass (not technically glass, but the point stands).

The question is: Does Leica use the exact same glass, coating, and thread, as a cheap filter? I don't think that's the case, given the evidence revealed by serious tests done by companies using specialized equipment.

As I mentioned before, this doesn't mean that any difference is significant to you, or worth a specific amount of money. In my case, I only use ND and polarizing filters (no UV). I have found that "expensive" filters make a noticeable difference.

Conventional wisdom had it that Leica bought in their filters on an OEM basis from B + W (aka Schneider Kreuznach). Also that they were single coated rather than multiple coated. Anbaric's comment re this testing being done at a single wavelength is relevant. Destructive interference is wavelength dependent, so the advantages/disadvantages of single/multiple coatings probably wouldn't show up. I too have seen these tests a while ago, and decided they were pretty meningless as a result.

I use filters, but only for lens protection. I bought Leica filters with my first two (brand new) R lenses, but since then always bought B + W. There is a physical difference, in that Leica filters are compliantly mounted in their rim by some sort of circular leaf spring (you can actually displace the glass in and out by gentle pressure against the spring). Presumably this is to provide stress relief against differential temperature related changes between the glass and the metal. 

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

Surely they procure their glass from a supplier. Either that or Leica uses their legendary glass research lab to make one-off filters, and sells them at a huge loss. What the LR test shows is that Leica's filters aren't exact copies of anyone else's. If they were, they wouldn't be at one extrame of the scale, on their own. Your point is valid that LR didn't run every possible test. They admit that, and unfortunately they didn't have Leica filters in all sizes, so they didn't even run every test on the filters they had on-hand.

Hoya, Schott, and a few others, have huge glass catalogs. Saying that a piece of glass comes from either major supplier tells us absolutely nothing. It could be window pane, or it could be the rarest and most precious anomalous dispersion wonder-glass (not technically glass, but the point stands).

The question is: Does Leica use the exact same glass, coating, and thread, as a cheap filter? I don't think that's the case, given the evidence revealed by serious tests done by companies using specialized equipment.

As I mentioned before, this doesn't mean that any difference is significant to you, or worth a specific amount of money. In my case, I only use ND and polarizing filters (no UV). I have found that "expensive" filters make a noticeable difference.

I completely agree they won't be using cheap glass, and I also agree that cheap filters are a false economy. The less said about the uncoated Tiffens the better! There's no point in having a high quality lens if the filter you put in front of it isn't flat, or isn't multicoated (or coated at all), or has poor-quality threads that might stick to your lens or even damage it. I think the Leica filters are obviously using very good glass, optically flat and multi-coated, but I'm not convinced from a 0.1-0.2% difference measured on an improvised rig at a single wavelength that it's any better than the very good glass use in the high-end filters made by the other manufacturers (one of which probably makes Leica's).

Have a look at the Lenstip plots, generated on a spectrophotometer (which seems like an appropriate instrument for this sort of test, because it scans the whole visible light range and beyond). The Lensrentals test corresponds to a single data point between 600 and 650nm. You can come up with a transmission percentage at this single wavelength, and rank the filters by it, but I don't think that's a good overall measure of the quality of the filter on its own (though a low percentage would obviously be a black mark). Most of the multicoated filters do very well at 600-650nm in the spectrophotometer profiles (close to 100%, so the methods agree there), but fall off, by several percent, at the blue and red ends of the spectrum, and with different profiles. We don't know what the Leica filter does across the rest of the entire visible spectrum from the single wavelength Lensrentals test. I imagine it does well, just like the better competing filters, but they haven't tested it.

Consider these two filters in the Lenstip tests:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The first is a Hoya (HMC), from one of the manufacturers that has been suggested to be the current maker of Leica's filters. The second is a B+W (MRC), which I also think has been linked with Leica in the past. Measured at around 635nm (as in the Lensrental test), both have close to 100% transmission. But measured at around 580nm, the B+W looks superior. On the other hand, the Hoya does a better job of sharply cutting off UV, if that happens to be important to you (perhaps if you're a mountain photographer shooting film!). So which filter is 'better'? And how would we tell the difference if we only had a 635nm reading?

I think that by far the most useful thing in any of these reviews is the sort of real-world flare resistance shots done for the Lenstip tests. And the main conclusion is that high-quality multicoating makes a big difference. I'd also rate other things as important. B+W MRC/MRC Nano are very easy to clean, as are Hoya HD and Fusion (but not their earlier SHMC or Pro-1). I like the brass rings that B+W (but not Hoya or I think current Leica) use. On the other hand, Hoya's tough HD glass seems like a good feature.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Anbaric

[Anbaric]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, masjah said:

Conventional wisdom had it that Leica bought in their filters on an OEM basis from B + W (aka Schneider Kreuznach). Also that they were single coated rather than multiple coated. Anbaric's comment re this testing being done at a single wavelength is relevant. Destructive interference is wavelength dependent, so the advantages/disadvantages of single/multiple coatings probably wouldn't show up. I too have seen these tests a while ago, and decided they were pretty meningless as a result.

Leica say their current filters have 'new multicoating', which may suggest a switch of supplier. What I think are alloy rings perhaps suggest Hoya. Hoya and B+W both make multicoated filters these days, of course, but also have cheaper / older ranges that are uncoated or single coated.

[sillbeers15]

The basic function of a lens filter is to maximise visible transmission light and remove higher & lower wavelength transmission.

Flat glass is coated to improve transmission of visible light.

Leica could have a tighter specification from it's suppliers resulting in a more consistent delivery of filter performance and quality to customers.

It is the 80 - 20 rule: 20% control in specifications & quality while price is charged 80% higher.

Let's not forget Leica has lesser economics of scale compared to the other makers, so the cost per unit increases and gets passed onto customers.

[Herr Barnack]

On 10/2/2021 at 12:59 AM, sillbeers15 said:

It is just simple business sense...

That's odd - I never thought of sticking it in your customers and breaking it off as "just simple business sense."  🤢

[sillbeers15]

5 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

That's odd - I never thought of sticking it in your customers and breaking it off as "just simple business sense."  🤢

I've stayed with S&P 500 Multinational Corporation for too long. All of us think this way.

[Herr Barnack]

I do not begrudge Leica their pricing on their cameras and lenses. 

The China made batteries and flash units are a different matter altogether. 

Would it really kill Leica to reward customer loyalty with reasonable pricing on these items that are made with bargain basement priced offshore labor?

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[david strachan]

.

Edited October 4, 2021 by david strachan

[sillbeers15]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I do not begrudge Leica their pricing on their cameras and lenses. 

The China made batteries and flash units are a different matter altogether. 

Would it really kill Leica to reward customer loyalty with reasonable pricing on these items that are made with bargain basement priced offshore labor?

 

All latest Mercedes Benz EQ series EVs source their battery from China battery supplier CATL. Battery is the single most costly component in an EV. Go figure that out!

[2M6TTLs]

On 10/2/2021 at 8:08 PM, masjah said:

Nice to meet another Leica owner from our neck of the woods. Given the relatively low cost of living in our region, we'd doubtless feel the Leica premium pain even more, though I guess living in Japan may have got you used to it!

Costs even more to get the new Leica gear here compared to other countries, probably higher than anywhere else in the world but the used market has some great bargains sometimes (especially as the Japanese don't beat up their cameras).

[laowai_]

On 10/3/2021 at 11:28 AM, Anbaric said:

Consider these two filters in the Lenstip tests:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

I’d love to see the transmission curves in log(y) scale. This makes the difference much more obvious than in the way they are presented here.

Edited October 5, 2021 by laowai_

[laowai_]

On 10/1/2021 at 6:52 AM, 2M6TTLs said:

Just bought an SL2s with 24-70. All is well but couldn't help noticing the battery is made in China.

Anyone know why Leica batteries are so expensive if made in  China? Wouldn't the reason to have them made in China be to reduce cost?

Seems a bit ridiculous. I would expect they could easily be made in Germany for that price. 

Most Lithium-ion type batteries you buy in the store are made in China or use cells made in China. Second is Japan and Korea. 
Chinese battery manufacturers have essentially two quality levels: manufactured for domestic (Chinese) consumption and build for export. Battery cells for export amongst other things go through extra testing (using primarily Japanese made test equipment) to reduce the chance of the battery catching fire. 

For the Leica batteries, it is conceivable that a contract manufacturer buys the cells, adds a BMS, encases the whole thing in plastic and sell this as a assembled battery pack.
Usually you see lower battery packs using lower cell components shortly after the OEM packs. Doesn’t seem to have happened for Leica-branded batteries yet, possibly because minuscule volumes.

The whole battery industry is changing rapidly these days. This is driven by EV manufacturing. We see Japanese, Korean and Chinese cell manufactures setting up shop and joint venture in the US. But I seriously doubt that we will see US made battery cells for handheld consumer products in the near future. 

Ultimately the retail price is a combination of manufacturing, distribution, retail and taxation.

 

[pgk]

On 10/1/2021 at 12:52 PM, 2M6TTLs said:

Anyone know why Leica batteries are so expensive if made in  China? Wouldn't the reason to have them made in China be to reduce cost?

Seems a bit ridiculous. I would expect they could easily be made in Germany for that price. 

A lot of assumptions here. Firstly, Quality Control (QC) is a major cost of anything sophisticated which is why there are many cheaper products available today which are simply replaced rather than repaired if not working correctly, because its a lot cheapper to minimally QC stuff.

China has significant expertise in lithium battery manufacture but is subject to the same increased costs created by time consuming  QC. I tried to get a replacement battery for a Kodak dSLR some years back. None of the originals were available but I could order very cheap replacemts from China, or actually buy a guaranteed replacement from a specialst here in the UK. After a lot of discussion I realised that the UK sourced versions were identical to those from China but, in order to guarantee compliance with legalites and that the batteries were to specification, the UK supplier was testing them thoroughly and rejecting any which did not meet these requirements. Which bumped the price up by a large margin (about 5x). China probably manufactures batteries competitively but the QC costs of supplying to another EU companies specifications will still be significant I would think. Whether there are specialist makers in Germany who could supply and QC competitively I have no idea. All manufacturer's own batteries are quite expensive, Leica's are more so, like everything else they sell but nobody is forcing us to buy their products so we decide whether to do so and bear their prices.

[laowai_]

5 hours ago, pgk said:

5 hours ago, pgk said:

[…] but, in order to guarantee compliance with legalites and that the batteries were to specification, the UK supplier was testing them thoroughly and rejecting any which did not meet these requirements. Which bumped the price up by a large margin (about 5x). China probably manufactures batteries competitively but the QC costs of supplying to another EU companies specifications will still be significant I would think. 

I am not at all familiar with EU compliance regulations for LiB packs.

However there is only so much you can test on an assembled battery pack. Discharge testing is time consuming and gives you a good indication of the storage capacity of the pack and it shows if the BMS works properly for the current charge/discharge cycle. Beyond that you don’t really get a lot of information.

Many of the crucial tests need to be done at the cell level before filling the cell with electrolyte. For example, an insulation test is a crucial step and can determine if your separator is compromised, i.e. the cell is likely to catch fire in the future during a fast charging cycle.

In that sense, as useful as they are, I would not put too much trust in the extra tests you mentioned.

 

[Paul2660]

The US cost of the Q2 and or SL2 battery is excessive, it's that simple.  The same basic battery that powers a S1R is 79.00.  I understand that the battery from Panasonic doesn't have the integral bottom of the camera in with it's design.  However I would much rather have a door like 99% of all other cameras have instead of the design from Leica, if that is the main reason for the extra 225.00 per battery.  

If one is charge $285.00 per battery, then for sure they need to find a way to give the cell a greater milliamp rating so that you can get a longer life from the cell.  

Love the camera and the design for the everything else, but the cost factor of the battery should have been taken into more consideration.  900.00 for 3 batteries that have less than stellar life especially if the photographer uses considerable amounts of Live View or Multishot (which I do).  

It a good thing that Leica did allow an external power capability with the the USB port so that you can attach a large external battery to run the SL2..  One of which can power the SL2 for several days. 

Paul C 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

I checked a few retailers outside of the US, and the going rate is just over half as much. For instance, 130 UKP, which is approximately 175 USD. That includes VAT, so you would expect the usual tech-product exchange rate to apply (1 USD = 1 Euro = 1 UKP).

The markup seems to come from the US, not from China or from Germany.

On a related note, I assumed that Panasonic was the supplier for Leica batteries. They are one of the main players in the lithium cell market. Either that or Sony Corp (who are printed on a Canon battery that I happen to have handy).