Service time Wetzlar

[Helge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 7 Stunden schrieb BradS:

 

Parts is parts. No matter if electronic or mechanical. Once they're gone, repair tends to be infeasible.

Oh, there are big differences 😉

Mechanical parts can be re-engineered if there is a dimensional drawing (or someone took the dimensions from an original) by any skilled person with the necessary tools.

ASICs can not be re-engineered, not even if the original schematics are available (at least not considering reasonable means). In addition, talking about ASICs, the production ends by „natural“ reasons at a certain point in time. All manufacturers rely on specialized suppliers for ASICs. Once the lifetime of the specific production process comes close to it’s end, the supplier will ask the tier 1 manufacturers for a last time buy. Once this last batch has been used up, no further supply can be produced anymore.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Helge

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

1 hour ago, Helge said:

Oh, there are big differences 😉

Mechanical parts can be re-engineered if there is a dimensional drawing (or someone took the dimensions from an original) by any skilled person with the necessary tools.

ASICs can not be re-engineered, not even if the original schematics are available (at least not considering reasonable means). In addition, talking about ASICs, the production ends by „natural“ reasons at a certain point in time. All manufacturers rely on specialized suppliers for ASICs. Once the lifetime of the specific production process comes close to it’s end, the supplier will ask the tier 1 manufacturers for a last time buy. Once this last batch has been used up, no further supply can be produced anymore.

That cannot be true.  Surely, if enough parts are ordered, the electronics can be fabricated from scratch.  Have the minerals become unavailable, or the processes cannot be re-established?

Supply chains are all about maintaining technology, spares and protecting IP.  If your original supplier goes bust and you have the IP and required designs, surely there is someone who will make the parts for you, if you order enough?

Edited August 3, 2023 by IkarusJohn

[Helge]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

That cannot be true.  Surely, if enough parts are ordered, the electronics can be fabricated from scratch.  Have the minerals become unavailable, or the processes cannot be re-established?

Supply chains are all about maintaining technology, spares and protecting IP.  If your original supplier goes bust and you have the IP and required designs, surely there is someone who will make the parts for you, if you order enough?

It is true for sure! I myself experienced the issue several times in ~40 years of professional life developing electronic circuit boards using ASICs. Chemical/physical production processes are been replaced every 3-5 years due to progress in miniaturization, efficiency and costs. No ASIC manufacturer has the money or the space to maintain old, outdated production equipment for longer than necessary. New products require cutting edge technology. It would be insane to provide a multi-million equipment and block very valuable production floor space for a couple of spare parts (unless you are a governmental customer like the US army and you pay those multi million dollars upfront 😉).

It is absolutely common to terminate ASIC processes and let your customers calculate the amount for that last time buy including a generous safety margin.

That works for the usual warranty time frames and if there is a sufficient number of sold products to calculate the number of necessary spare parts. If there are only some 1000s of products out there and the customers expect 10 years or more, any unexpected issue affecting the operating life of your products can kill that calculation.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Helge

[IkarusJohn]

Sorry, I should elaborate.

A client (a water company) we developing a new water treatment plant.  It adopted 4 log purification - flocculation, ultrafiltration, ozonation and granular activated carbon.  Using ultrafiltration was new.  The membrane supplier was a small Canadian company, and the plant needed to be designed around the filtration cassettes, both in terms of physical size and flow rate.  Stage 1 of the development of the plant was 150ML/day, doubling in size in phase 2.

The risk was, if the client went with the membrane supplier, then the whole plant would then be captured by that supplier’s technology.

Phase 2 came around earlier than expected.

In the meantime, the little Canadian company had been taken over by a huge US multi-national, and had discontinued the range of membrane my client required.  They’d gone to a new model, faster, better etc.  And more expensive.  The huge US multi-national was not really interested in the needs of a relatively small company (bigger than Leica) down at the bottom of the Pacific, wanting an inconvenient order (smaller than Leica’s orders from its electronics suppliers).

What the US company had overlooked is that as part of the original supply, the Canadian company had provided a biding undertaking - (1) to continue the supplies of membranes, to maintain spares and to provide upgrades; (2) if the membranes became unavailable, to provide suitable upgrade models at a price discounted below the best price provided to others; and (3) if they ceased production altogether, to assign all designs, information required to fabricate the membranes and all intellectual property in the membranes to my client at no cost.

The US company finally agreed to talk to us on reasonable terms.

The reason I keep banging on about Leica not ensuring that it could replace the M6 meter, the 8 LCD, the M7 shutter, the M9 sensors and other parts of it supply chain is that it should have protected its reputation, its customers and its pricing strategy by ensuring it could continue to repair - at a cost, but continue nonetheless.  Even taking the most difficult element in all this, the M9 sensor cover glass, it is supplied as one unit to Leica’s specification.  If the M digital body is designed and specified as one consistent dimension, then I see no reason why suppliers could not provide the components to that dimension.

Now, none of this would be cheap or easy, but if Leica’s supply chain is reputable, I doubt that the cost could not be factored into the camera price.  They are massively expensive already.

[IkarusJohn]

4 minutes ago, Helge said:

It is true for sure! I myself experienced the issue several times in ~40 years of professional life developing electronic circuit boards using ASICs. Chemical/physical production processes are been replaced every 3-5 years due to progress in miniaturization, efficiency and costs. No ASIC manufacturer has the money or the space to maintain old, outdated production equipment for longer than necessary. New products require cutting edge technology. It would be insane to provide a multi-million equipment and block very valuable production floor space for a couple of spare parts (unless you are a governmental customer like the US army and you pay those multi million dollars upfront 😉).

It is absolutely common to terminate ASIC processes and let your customers calculate the amount for that last time buy including a generous safety margin.

That works for the usual warranty time frames and if there is a sufficient number of sold products to calculate the number of necessary spare parts. If there are only some 1000s of products out there and the customers expect 10 years or more, any unexpected issue affecting the operating life of your products can kill that calculation.

Interesting.  I have no idea what “ASIC” is.

OF course, what you say is based on decisions within the industry that suppliers will dump existing technologies and move on - smaller, faster, better, etc - abandoning past tech.  We’ve seen Microsoft and Apple do this with computers.  But, that’s because we let them …

I don’t really think this is a real estate issue - factory space is cheap, if it can be used profitably.

My sense is that Leica, a new-comer to electronics, has handled its supply chain management poorly - not just ensuring that they can repair and maintain existing products, but also in its new products.

Incidentally, the scenario I referred to above has also been used in the tech industry, for internet backhaul and RF remote network control - the last was a huge, multi-million dollar project with massive technology risk.

[Helge]

You admit that you don‘t know what an ASIC is, Google would help you 😉, however this puts the rest of your statement into perspective 😎

An ASIC is an application-specific integrated circuit. The continuous improvement of processes is nothing ‚because we let them‘ but rather ‚because we want them‘ to do so. Nobody is buying an outdated slow computer with an outdated SW with inferior functionality 😉

About floor space: we are not talking about the oily workshop of your car dealer. The manufacturing space for integrated circuits is extremely expensive, since it is a highly dust free cleanroom, very costly in capital investments, maintenance and energy.

The described issue is absolutely common in the industry, handling it better had just been developed in the last 10 years.

Leica is definitely not a real newcomer in electronics, your judgment ist just based on non-facts. They may have made it a little better, however they had to face a lot more challenging issues (relatively low production volume and very long service expectations).

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/31/2023 at 4:50 AM, IkarusJohn said:

Nothing arranged yet, but I will be asking for a full body PET scan.

Can I join others and add my best wishes for a good outcome.

[IkarusJohn]

3 hours ago, Helge said:

You admit that you don‘t know what an ASIC is, Google would help you 😉, however this puts the rest of your statement into perspective 😎

An ASIC is an application-specific integrated circuit. The continuous improvement of processes is nothing ‚because we let them‘ but rather ‚because we want them‘ to do so. Nobody is buying an outdated slow computer with an outdated SW with inferior functionality 😉

About floor space: we are not talking about the oily workshop of your car dealer. The manufacturing space for integrated circuits is extremely expensive, since it is a highly dust free cleanroom, very costly in capital investments, maintenance and energy.

The described issue is absolutely common in the industry, handling it better had just been developed in the last 10 years.

Leica is definitely not a real newcomer in electronics, your judgment ist just based on non-facts. They may have made it a little better, however they had to face a lot more challenging issues (relatively low production volume and very long service expectations).

Pffft

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, pedaes said:

Can I join others and add my best wishes for a good outcome.

Thank you Pedaes.  One step at a time.

[BradS]

10 hours ago, Helge said:

Oh, there are big differences 😉

Mechanical parts can be re-engineered if there is a dimensional drawing (or someone took the dimensions from an original) by any skilled person with the necessary tools.

ASICs can not be re-engineered, not even if the original schematics are available (at least not considering reasonable means). In addition, talking about ASICs, the production ends by „natural“ reasons at a certain point in time. All manufacturers rely on specialized suppliers for ASICs. Once the lifetime of the specific production process comes close to it’s end, the supplier will ask the tier 1 manufacturers for a last time buy. Once this last batch has been used up, no further supply can be produced anymore.

Ah, no. Absolutely not true. That is what layman on the internet who don't know what they don't know keep repeating - it is disconnected from the truth.

Electronics and in particular ASIC are arguably easier to reproduce than machined mechanical parts. See my B-52 Avionics example above.

It is simply a matter of economics. 

Besides, the electronics are usually at least an order of magnitude more reliable than the electrical components and connections between them (battery, wiring and interconnects).

Edited August 3, 2023 by BradS

[Helge]

I think, I‘m very experienced in that subject, I worked more than 20 years in ASIC development.

You are not completely wrong, however your conclusion is pretty wrong😉

Yes, theoretically some more options might be there😀

Once production processes are not available anymore, the component (the ASIC) must be redeveloped respective all parameters. The same is to some level also necessary for the rest of the electronic, since the parameters will never be the same. Yes, this is theoretically feasible, however it costs a fortune, some Million $ have to be spent…

If you are going to maintain an outdated, actually discontinued semiconductor manufacturing process (physically and chemically) for a virtually identical ASIC it gets even a lot more expensive. Manufacturers would charge you some 10 Million $ for doing this. This is usually only done for military avionics, since they have such deep pockets (like in your example). But which R8/R9 owner would pay more than the original camera price for just a small ASIC? This is all not even close to feasibility for such a small company and a relatively less expensive product (compared to a B52), as I mentioned before already.

I was working for a tier 1 automotive supplier, and we did almost never go to any of the 2 alternatives (recreation of ASIC, never paying for maintaining an old process), even for some 10.000 vehicles expected. We always went for a new product instead. If you ask Canon or Nikon for doing this for a camera 10 or 20 years out of production, they will just refuse to do any repair.

Mechanical parts however are just defined by their dimensions and material, recreation can be done for very small batches by any experienced precision engineer (with the necessary tools), who has access to the original drawings.

And yes, you are right, connectors, wiring and other components (I.e. capacitors) are a lot more susceptible to failing. These are exactly the failures that can be still repaired for R8/R9 (together with most mechanical failures). But ASICs do also fail, which makes your 20 year old Leica R in most cases a nice decoration piece.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Helge

[Huss]

20 hours ago, logan2z said:

When the new M6 was released there were several interviews with Leica's head of Global Marketing in which he said that Leica would manufacture one-off parts as needed to repair older film cameras.  Of course he didn't talk about the cost or the time required to do so, but hearing that they could/would do it was at least somewhat encouraging.  My understanding was that this was pretty much restricted to mechanical parts.  So it could be the case that when existing part stocks are depleted some mechanical parts could still be manufactured and used for repair purposes.

They've forgotten how to make pressure plates that don't scratch film...  The chances of them manufacturing a one off part correctly?

[BradS]

4 hours ago, Helge said:

I think, I‘m very experienced in that subject, I worked more than 20 years in ASIC development.

You are not completely wrong, however your conclusion is pretty wrong😉

Yes, theoretically some more options might be there😀

Once production processes are not available anymore, the component (the ASIC) must be redeveloped respective all parameters. The same is to some level also necessary for the rest of the electronic, since the parameters will never be the same. Yes, this is theoretically feasible, however it costs a fortune, some Million $ have to be spent…

If you are going to maintain an outdated, actually discontinued semiconductor manufacturing process (physically and chemically) for a virtually identical ASIC it gets even a lot more expensive. Manufacturers would charge you some 10 Million $ for doing this. This is usually only done for military avionics, since they have such deep pockets (like in your example). But which R8/R9 owner would pay more than the original camera price for just a small ASIC? This is all not even close to feasibility for such a small company and a relatively less expensive product (compared to a B52), as I mentioned before already.

I was working for a tier 1 automotive supplier, and we did almost never go to any of the 2 alternatives (recreation of ASIC, never paying for maintaining an old process), even for some 10.000 vehicles expected. We always went for a new product instead. If you ask Canon or Nikon for doing this for a camera 10 or 20 years out of production, they will just refuse to do any repair.

Mechanical parts however are just defined by their dimensions and material, recreation can be done for very small batches by any experienced precision engineer (with the necessary tools), who has access to the original drawings.

And yes, you are right, connectors, wiring and other components (I.e. capacitors) are a lot more susceptible to failing. These are exactly the failures that can be still repaired for R8/R9 (together with most mechanical failures). But ASICs do also fail, which makes your 20 year old Leica R in most cases a nice decoration piece.

You kinda prove my point but...

considering that the function of what ever integrated circuitry inside a camera is relatively trivial,  it is pretty plain that even if it is not feasible to reproduce an ASIC, it is certainly possible to reproduce the function of the ASIC given a decent engineering spec or failing that it could certainly be re-engineered ... this isn't rocket science.  Lots of stuff gets replaced with an FPGA, a QSPI flash chip and some verilog. I can certainly imagine replacing the function with a Microchip PIC or ATMega AVR micro-controller.  The issue isn't about availability of electronics. It's about economics and a will to proceed, business,  profitability, etc...

[logan2z]

6 hours ago, Huss said:

They've forgotten how to make pressure plates that don't scratch film...  The chances of them manufacturing a one off part correctly?

Point taken.  But at least they're willing to give it a go  

[Helge]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb BradS:

You kinda prove my point but...

considering that the function of what ever integrated circuitry inside a camera is relatively trivial,  it is pretty plain that even if it is not feasible to reproduce an ASIC, it is certainly possible to reproduce the function of the ASIC given a decent engineering spec or failing that it could certainly be re-engineered ... this isn't rocket science.  Lots of stuff gets replaced with an FPGA, a QSPI flash chip and some verilog. I can certainly imagine replacing the function with a Microchip PIC or ATMega AVR micro-controller.  The issue isn't about availability of electronics. It's about economics and a will to proceed, business,  profitability, etc...

At the end everything is about economics, if you would like to call it that way 😀😀😀

Yes, Leica could pay some Million $, just to be able to repair some hundreds of failing R8/R9 etc🤣 Your proposal is basically the idea of re-developing the vast majority of the camera’s electronics 😉

I think you would definitely agree, that nobody would pay his/her share on such an effort, which would end-up in +10,000$ 

(Not asking for the availability of skilled people developing such a repair solution)

This is absolutely far beyond feasibility.

We will see this type of long term issue with numerous old electronic equipment, customers would like to repair a long time after the end of all warranty times. The standard solution in the industry is the replacement of the complete product, but there are some spots, where something else will be necessary. This affects not just older film cameras, it is btw also valid for small format movie cameras from the 80s (Sound cameras by Nizo, Bauer, Fuji even if there is no sound Super8 anymore), for medium old vintage cars from the 70s (motor electronics, ABS, dashboard) and for some beloved entertainment electronics also.

However at least most cars have been produced in a lot larger production volumes that I.e. R8/R9 (~40k units), so some recycling concepts have been established.

[IkarusJohn]

This is all too binary, in my view.  The exceptions don’t make the rule - the fact that some parts are difficult or expensive to make ot that it would cost millions to fabricate one out of date part for one camera owner isn’t the point.

Leica has simply dropped the ball on too many occasions.  Fine bodies, lovely to hold.  Expensive doorstops when the electronics fail, and it appears they have no supplier suport..

[Helge]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

This is all too binary, in my view.  The exceptions don’t make the rule - the fact that some parts are difficult or expensive to make ot that it would cost millions to fabricate one out of date part for one camera owner isn’t the point.

Leica has simply dropped the ball on too many occasions.  Fine bodies, lovely to hold.  Expensive doorstops when the electronics fail, and it appears they have no supplier suport..

Maybe you didn’t get the point. This problem is not only not really Leica‘s fault (however they might have been able to prolong service for some years), this problem is pretty common to other products as well and basically not avoidable in most cases. It is not related to bad or good support by suppliers, there is not much they can do about it.

It is / it will affect a lot higher integrated electronic solutions from the late 90s up to ~2010 using application specific components. Even standard components could be affected, however those are easier to be „recycled“ out of a lot other products.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Helge

[IkarusJohn]

12 hours ago, Helge said:

Maybe you didn’t get the point. This problem is not only not really Leica‘s fault (however they might have been able to prolong service for some years), this problem is pretty common to other products as well and basically not avoidable in most cases. It is not related to bad or good support by suppliers, there is not much they can do about it.

It is / it will affect a lot higher integrated electronic solutions from the late 90s up to ~2010 using application specific components. Even standard components could be affected, however those are easier to be „recycled“ out of a lot other products.

Leica designs and develops its products.  What it has done since offering digital cameras is to pass more of its responsibility for digital failures to its customers.  That is exactly the point.  What we are discussing is the extent to which Leica should retain that responsibility.

It is not a simple case of customers accepting that digital systems fail and go obsolete, so we must just accept that.  That may be the case with computers (though that is changing - phones and computers are lasting and being supported longer as performance plateaus).  Cameras are less complex, and their technology requirements less.The M cameras just take still pictures with M mount lenses.

Perhaps, let me put the issue into a different perspective - the M8 was novel; Leica said a full frame digital M wasn’t possible; the M9 was ground breaking, but quirky (I’m being generous); the M(240) was a development, but what Leica provided was what technology had to offer rather than what photographers required; the M10 was better than the M(240) - a further development, but it returned to what photographers needed and wanted.  It was a better camera that offered less.  The M11 is again offering what’s possible, rather than improving what is needed (just my view, I accept) - I don’t need 60MP in an M body without IBIS..

We don’t need to keep running on the technology treadmill.

Now, my answer to the supply question is a company like Leica could do better in its supply chain to get what it needs and to ensure support and supply.  That is my professional opinion.  That doesn’t mean 100% replacement of defective parts for 100% of the life of the owner at no cost.  But I don’t agree that 10 years is acceptable, or that longer support is unavailable.

Please note that I am not virtue signalling, suggesting that I am more experienced  or knowledgeable than you, or that you are not reading or understanding my posts.  This is the internet.  I’m interested in what you have to say.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[69xchange]

Leica’s website has been updated. Up to 8 months turn around time now.

[CSG123]

6 hours ago, 69xchange said:

Leica’s website has been updated. Up to 8 months turn around time now.

And Leica keeps on giving!