How much of an M body is Leica vs outsourced?

[kuchars22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

First time member post 

Coming from a Canon DSLR wedding/event shooter for many years, and now just for personal projects and vacations, I'm a fan of the finer things in life so I'm curious to know how much of an M body is proprietary/in-house to Leica and how much is just regular electronics that you can get from any other brand of camera.

I have a nice collection of vintage and modern timepieces that have steep horological history and significance, coupled with the precision and materials and providing exceptional timekeeping that has absolutely zero electronics whatsoever - purely mechanical and a technical marvel even to this day. These watches have "in-house movements", meaning that they are not sourced outside of the company (even their precious metals are made in their own foundry!). So I know where my money is going when investing in these watches, not to mention the increase in value.

Being in the modern camera world, it's inevitable that electronic plays a key part in the manufacturing whatever the brand, but as far as modern day M bodies are concerned, how much of it is in-house vs outside sourced? Of course the rangefinder and associated electronics will always be Leica, the body is also unique depending on the material of the model, but what about everything else like the sensor, CPU, etc? Is a proportion of the the cost of a new M going to intellectual property of their colour science, software implementation and the "Leica experience"? Or is it just a bag of overseas electronics housed in an upmarket box with a unique rangefinder? Or are these components sourced but bespoke/redesigned to Lecia specs? BTW, even luxury watch brands use components from other companies (most commonly Swatch-ETA) and plonk them into their own cases, so I'm fully aware of these practices. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating Leica, I want to invest in their brand as I have with other brands I've bought into - I just want to know (as a newish Leica fan) what it is that I'm getting if I lay down a few pennies for one of these marvels.

Thanks all 

 

 

[jaapv]

This is a simple question to ask and a hard one to answer. Basically the subassemblies are mostly made by Leica Portugal, the machined parts by Weller Feinmechanik (part of the Leica group) the shutter by Seiko-Copal -a development of the Leica R8 shutter-  The CPU a special version by Fujitsu, the sensor specifically designed by CMOSIS, most of the electronic bits and pieces by non-specified far-Eastern producers and the whole thing is assembled in Solms, now Wetzlar. In fact the whole process is so convoluted that I expect to be corrected on one or two points. The camera is a modern computer contraption grafted into a 1950ies mechanical box so most parts have been adapted or redesigned to fit the design. BTW the colour “science “ is based on Kodak expertise. 

[kivis]

Silly me, I thought these guys in Wetzler, made all this by hand.

[kuchars22]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

This is a simple question to ask and a hard one to answer. Basically the subassemblies are mostly made by Leica Portugal, the machined parts by Weller Feinmechanik (part of the Leica group) the shutter by Seiko-Copal -a development of the Leica R8 shutter-  The CPU a special version by Fujitsu, the sensor specifically designed by CMOSIS, most of the electronic bits and pieces by non-specified far-Eastern producers and the whole thing is assembled in Solms, now Wetzlar. In fact the whole process is so convoluted that I expect to be corrected on one or two points. The camera is a modern computer contraption grafted into a 1950ies mechanical box so most parts have been adapted or redesigned to fit the design. BTW the colour “science “ is based on Kodak expertise. 

Wow! That's interesting to know. Doesn't change my opinion about the brand, however. Still think it has strong heritage, but I understand also how the current economic climate forces companies to be more versatile in their strategies if they are to survive as a business.

[Adam Bonn]

Nothing to add to Jaap’s excellent post, but regarding the watch analogy, Rolex (which is the brand I believe your OP alludes too) took many years to finish buying out their suppliers in order to be ‘100% in house’, initially (and for many years) Rolexes were built from (on site) supplier sourced components that had exclusive supply deals with Rolex.

Think about Omega, the speedy that was worn to the moon was made by Omega, today’s speedy is made by Swatch… Swatch bought out ETA, so are ETA equipped Swatches running in-house movements? Is the speedy still an Omega?

The humble Seiko 5 is an in-house watch but haute horology it is not

It’s not really where it’s made, it’s not who makes it, it’s very much how well it’s made 

Luxury products can go wrong… the quality is how well the brand stands behind the product and is prepared to support it.

[kuchars22]

Spot on, Adam. Couldn't agree more. Yes, the ETA in-house argument has been done to death in those watch forums, but as I alluded to in my response to Jaapv, it's a common place for this strategy in order to survive as a business, no matter where your place is in the industry.

 

[Adam Bonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, jaapv said:

BTW the colour “science “ is based on Kodak expertise.

Not so convinced here.. sure yes for the cameras with Kodak sensors, but it’s only really the SOOC Jpegs that Leica are controlling the colour output for, the RAW files are influenced by the software choices we make to edit them with

[Adam Bonn]

2 minutes ago, kuchars22 said:

Spot on, Adam. Couldn't agree more. Yes, the ETA in-house argument has been done to death in those watch forums, but as I alluded to in my response to Jaapv, it's a common place for this strategy in order to survive as a business, no matter where your place is in the industry.

 

I’ve been out of the watch forums for quite a while now, wasn’t there a company that went in-house for the movement and it was an unreliable disaster? 
 

But yes the ETA design = a decent enough movement, but it is what it is, rate it as you wish… the point being it didn’t suddenly get better or worse because the company name on their employees paycheques changed from A to B

In my (little) head I don’t so much think of my Leicas as in-house or supplier sourced manufacture, but as bespoke manufacturer and that’s special enough me (OMMV)

[kuchars22]

2 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

I’ve been out of the watch forums for quite a while now, wasn’t there a company that went in-house for the movement and it was an unreliable disaster? 

Not that I know of

[Datsch]

Lotus use Toyota engines, Fodera bass guitars use Seymour Duncan pickups.No secret, in fact often used as a selling point.  In small-run high end manufacturing it's really a few crazies who try to do everything in house (Le Fay Basses, a tiny super high end outfit,  wind their own pickups for example)

 

 

 

[jaapv]

21 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Not so convinced here.. sure yes for the cameras with Kodak sensors, but it’s only really the SOOC Jpegs that Leica are controlling the colour output for, the RAW files are influenced by the software choices we make to edit them with

Do you remember the first iteration of the M240 when Leica moved away from Kodak? Virulent greens, neon reds… It took two firmware updates to tame things down and I am convinced Kodak consultants held their hand. 

[Adam Bonn]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you remember the first iteration of the M240 when Leica moved away from Kodak? Virulent greens, neon reds… It took two firmware updates to tame things down and I am convinced Kodak consultants held their hand. 

Yes I do remember, but I think that would have been tweaks to the WB algorithm (it certainly wasn’t the inbuilt dcp profile) maybe Kodak helped… unless you mean only the SOOC jpegs

But the 240 was four (colour) sensor generations ago now so I’d be surprised if Kodak had anything to do with the 262/10/10R/11 especially seeing as Kodak filed for bankruptcy in 2012, which even makes their involvement in fixing the 240 (in what 2013?) somewhat tight… maybe CMOSIS or Leica gave their engineers work? (Depends who provides the code for the chip I guess..)

Kinda takes us back to the OP really, is an in-house Kodak engineer still an in-house Kodak engineer if s/he takes their expertise and goes to work somewhere else 🤔😅

[250swb]

8 hours ago, kuchars22 said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating Leica, I want to invest in their brand as I have with other brands I've bought into - I just want to know (as a newish Leica fan) what it is that I'm getting if I lay down a few pennies for one of these marvels.

Thanks all 

I think you can safely say that Leica do not make or refine any of the raw materials that go into their cameras, so the answer is zero. They don't have facilities for making batteries, they don't manufacture the paint or have a field of Leica cows from which to make leather straps. But neither do Rolex have a factory making glass or Rolls Royce a factory making tyres. From which you should assume that like any manufacturer they buy in the parts they need and assemble them to Leica's own specifications. So just like Rolex can use Zenith movements the only thing to consider is 'does it tell the time' or in the case of Leica 'can it take a snap'.

[earleygallery]

I think the question should be more like 'am I getting a unique product or is it just a Fuji camera in a different looking package'?

There are some cameras that are like that, the 'PanaLeica' cameras (rebadged/restyled versions of some Panasonic models). The M is certainly a unique product, in film or digital guise.

[kuchars22]

3 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think you can safely say that Leica do not make or refine any of the raw materials that go into their cameras, so the answer is zero. They don't have facilities for making batteries, they don't manufacture the paint or have a field of Leica cows from which to make leather straps. But neither do Rolex have a factory making glass or Rolls Royce a factory making tyres. From which you should assume that like any manufacturer they buy in the parts they need and assemble them to Leica's own specifications. So just like Rolex can use Zenith movements the only thing to consider is 'does it tell the time' or in the case of Leica 'can it take a snap'.

I don’t expect consumable parts like batteries, leather and tyres to be part of their manufacturing inventory. I’m talking more about the fixed, integral parts such as the sensor, shutter assembly, exposure metering module, etc, part of which has already been explained. 

Of course, the whole objective of the product is to do what it was designed to do, that’s a given, but to many others it’s the craftsmanship that they buy into, whether it’s film or digital, they are still stunning works of art on the outside (including their lenses)

 

 

 

[kuchars22]

4 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

I think the question should be more like 'am I getting a unique product or is it just a Fuji camera in a different looking package'?

There are some cameras that are like that, the 'PanaLeica' cameras (rebadged/restyled versions of some Panasonic models). The M is certainly a unique product, in film or digital guise.

yeah i understand the partnership with Panasonic and their D-Lux range, but wasn’t sure about the M bodies, but you are right, the question is to try and expose how much of the innards can be considered “Leica made” or “Leica assembled” or along those lines. It’s just for my own knowledge (or anyone else who cares to wonder).  

[earleygallery]

2 minutes ago, kuchars22 said:

yeah i understand the partnership with Panasonic and their D-Lux range, but wasn’t sure about the M bodies, but you are right, the question is to try and expose how much of the innards can be considered “Leica made” or “Leica assembled” or along those lines. It’s just for my own knowledge (or anyone else who cares to wonder).  

Majority Leica assembled, minority Leica made (but majority being made for Leica).

[Anbaric]

10 hours ago, kuchars22 said:

I have a nice collection of vintage and modern timepieces that have steep horological history and significance, coupled with the precision and materials and providing exceptional timekeeping that has absolutely zero electronics whatsoever - purely mechanical and a technical marvel even to this day. These watches have "in-house movements", meaning that they are not sourced outside of the company (even their precious metals are made in their own foundry!). So I know where my money is going when investing in these watches, not to mention the increase in value.

There are of course purely mechanical Leicas where we might say much the same, though there has been a degree of outsourcing for a long time. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the well-known British Intelligence report on the Leica in 1946, when the IIIc was the current model:

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!

https://www.macfilos.com/2018/04/06/2018-4-6-the-leica-camera-report-on-the-factory-by-british-inspectors-in-1946/

Mahle seem to have been the go-to suppliers for pressure die-cast components in Germany at the time, and Gauthier were the manufacturers of the famous Prontor shutter. Go back a few years earlier, say to the Leica II (which lacked the slow speed mechanism and was made before a die-cast body was adopted) and presumably even less of the work was outsourced.

[250swb]

On 10/4/2022 at 10:07 PM, kuchars22 said:

I don’t expect consumable parts like batteries, leather and tyres to be part of their manufacturing inventory. I’m talking more about the fixed, integral parts such as the sensor, shutter assembly, exposure metering module, etc, part of which has already been explained. 

Of course, the whole objective of the product is to do what it was designed to do, that’s a given, but to many others it’s the craftsmanship that they buy into, whether it’s film or digital, they are still stunning works of art on the outside (including their lenses)

 

 

 

But you want to compare an electronic camera with a mechanical watch, which is ludicrous. Perhaps start by comparing a Leica film camera made with mechanical parts such as gears and pinions, etc. with a mechanical watch. Or compare a Timex digital watch with a Leica digital camera, either way play your game up on the same field.

Edited October 6, 2022 by 250swb

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[kuchars22]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

But you want to compare an electronic camera with a mechanical watch, which is ludicrous. Perhaps start by comparing a Leica film camera made with mechanical parts such as gears and pinions, etc. with a mechanical watch. Or compare a Timex digital watch with a Leica digital camera, either way play your game up on the same field.

I'm not comparing an object with another object and how they are constructed ("electronic vs mechanical watch [or camera]"). I'm referring to the shared similarity of "history, passion and heritage" of two different luxury companies, that don't have to be the same or related in any way and be in the same industry. One can appreciate the fine history and vision of Leica and their polished cameras, and one can similarly appreciate the fine history and vision of Rolex or any other brand for that matter. My point is that these luxury companies won't be able to manufacture every component in-house, so I expect certain items, notably consumables, to be one of those. 

Having said that, I don't know enough about Leica's manufacturing which is the purpose of my post to gain further insight and knowledge, but I do know about Rolex's manufacturing and that's partly why the watches interests me, not because it looks flash, and why the reference to the watches was made. Looks like you took my response a little personal, which is not the case and far from the truth.