M240 battery

[Loggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What Leica Cameras AG need to do for the electronics/digital parts of their cameras - which largely they don't make - is to ensure that firmware can be updated to accommodate upgrades.  So that in years down the line we can still get new batteries, sensors etc that are better than the originals because of technological progress. 

In the days of Barnack cameras, it was possible to upgrade a model I to model II, III, IIIa etc or from a IIIc to a IIIf.  They could do that because they made pretty nearly everything from raw materials.

The equivalent now would be to be able to upgrade from an 1800mAh Li-Ion battery to a newer tech, upgrade the memory, sensor etc.  

In 50 years time there would still be working digital Ms, albeit with enhanced performance. 

[sumolux]

On 3/3/2025 at 11:59 AM, Loggy said:

What Leica Cameras AG need to do for the electronics/digital parts of their cameras - which largely they don't make - is to ensure that firmware can be updated to accommodate upgrades.  So that in years down the line we can still get new batteries, sensors etc that are better than the originals because of technological progress. 

In the days of Barnack cameras, it was possible to upgrade a model I to model II, III, IIIa etc or from a IIIc to a IIIf.  They could do that because they made pretty nearly everything from raw materials.

The equivalent now would be to be able to upgrade from an 1800mAh Li-Ion battery to a newer tech, upgrade the memory, sensor etc.  

In 50 years time there would still be working digital Ms, albeit with enhanced performance. 

I follow your thinking, but I do think there is a big difference between the obsolescence question regarding film and digital M's.

The development of Leica film cameras is (was) only about the details of making an enclosed light proof box along with levers/gears to make it work, with most research and manufacturing  done in house. (Happily for lenses, there is no (large) problem of upgrade compatibility!)

However, as you mention, Leica digital cameras are fully dependent upon secondary companies to supply sensors and batteries, which also are undergoing advances in chip technology and battery construction every year at increasingly faster tempos over whihc Leica has no control. Even the changes in thickness of batteries would likely make many 'upgrades' dubious or impossible to execute. Under the idea of upgrading older cameras, If for instance a supplier decides to only make sensors with a gazillion pixels and drops production of 20, 60 whatever for a small number of rangefinder fanatics, the changes within an older digital M to accomodate that would be extraordiarily complex, wellneigh virtually impossible.

The reality is, if we dare admit it to ourselves, that although many older digital M's are still going strong and will likely do so for yet another decade or more, the likelyhood of upgrading to a more advanced digital M model with added (desired) features is very high indeed for those who are already FULLY shooting digital M.

As someone who shoots mostly film, I don't care if I have to take the bottom off my type M240, or stockpile 4 batteries for futurproofing, and I don't need Wifi connectivity either.

However, 5-10 years from now I might be singing a differnt tune, and be happy to upgrade my digital M experience, once I accept that all digital M's will inevitably have an entirely different lifecycle than my M4 and MP6 - and I will appreciate the new updated possiblities by purchasing a new digital model. 

 

[bocaburger]

On 3/3/2025 at 4:59 AM, Loggy said:

What Leica Cameras AG need to do for the electronics/digital parts of their cameras - which largely they don't make - is to ensure that firmware can be updated to accommodate upgrades.  So that in years down the line we can still get new batteries, sensors etc that are better than the originals

In the M8 era a former head of Leica lost his job for proposing upgradeability.  Most camera makers including Leica do as much as they can with firmware upgrades, plus the occasional major hardware upgrade such as was the case with the M9-family corroding sensors.  But the economics of built-in modularity and factory upgrades don't seem to be reasonable either to Leica or the consumer.  

But having a discontinued camera bricked by thw failure of unavailable parts is IMHO quite another issue than bricked by the unavailability of what was initially engineered to be a consummable, such as the battery.   Ik it's been said Leica is still offering the BP-SCL2 as a "spare part" but I have first-hand knowledge of people currently on back-order wait-lists several months with no info as to when they will be fulfilled.  Ditto a couple people waiting for a BP-SCL5 for the M10 which is not nearly as ancient as the M240.  
 

However, (again IMHO) I think it's unfair to blame Leica for this, because the only reason owners of decades-old cameras from other brands (and most Leica's that share batteries with a Lumix cousin) aren't in the same boat is because of 3rd-party batteries.  The problem is the M-series is low-production with proprietary batteries, and the numbers are not attractive to 3rd-party makers.  

[RachelR-UK]

Just found this topic on the M240 (including a whole lot of discussions on the camera 😀

I've been buying used batterys for my M240 and they are generally OK but of course you never know how old they are. I recently splashed out and bought a new one from  uk dealer and had to wait a very short while until they had more in stock so they do seem to be available here in the UK.

[RachelR-UK]

Bought my new Leica BP-SCL2 from Park Cameras in April 2024 but they no longer list them 😒

[lct]

5 hours ago, RachelR-UK said:

Bought my new Leica BP-SCL2 from Park Cameras in April 2024 but they no longer list them 😒

I don't know where batteries of discontinued cameras are still listed but Leica BP-SCL2 ones can be ordered as spare part # 420-240.020-000 according to Leica.

[rsolomon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Emailed Leica NJ for a status update on Monday, they responded quickly, unfortunately still on back order.   It’s been a     l o n g.  time, too long 

[bocaburger]

On 4/15/2025 at 9:27 PM, rsolomon said:

Emailed Leica NJ for a status update on Monday, they responded quickly, unfortunately still on back order.   It’s been a     l o n g.  time, too long 

I suppose there's still some hope as long as they haven't officially declared it discontinued.   I've had the pleasure of being in Dr. Kaufmann's presence several times since he first took over Leica and he comes across as a shrewd businessman who actually loves the company he helms...traits that rarely coexist in today's corporate environment.   I would be flabbergasted if he was not keenly aware that the future of Leica is inexorably beholden to its reputation of remarkable product durability and longevity.   And that given the cost of new Leica,  legacy second-hand product provides a significantly important entry pathway for newcomers.  And that keeping legacy models viable given Leica's high-price low-production boutique niche-market proprietary-componentry business model may sometimes involve costs that other more mainstream manufacturers avoid via an eager third-party supply infrastructure.  Such as batteries.  In short I would be very surprised if Leica is not working on a solution to this issue (and to the issue of batteries for the M10-series which have also been in short supply, and to the potential future issue of batteries for the M11-series and beyond). 

 

 

 

 

[rsolomon]

To me , battery availability is / will be everything at some point, this because when the battery is needed and can not be purchased the camera is not functional.

[weatherproof]

On 3/15/2025 at 11:40 AM, bocaburger said:

However, (again IMHO) I think it's unfair to blame Leica for this, because the only reason owners of decades-old cameras from other brands (and most Leica's that share batteries with a Lumix cousin) aren't in the same boat is because of 3rd-party batteries.  The problem is the M-series is low-production with proprietary batteries, and the numbers are not attractive to 3rd-party makers.  

It is fair to blame Leica because they chose to chip their batteries to ensure no one else can make a replacement. The M8 and M9 do not suffer from this artificial scarcity with their batteries. Meanwhile M240-series and M10 owners have been dealing with this issue for the past year.

[lct]

M9 i dont know but M8 batteries are chipped too. The third-party batteries of my M8.2 must be totally discharged in the camera to avoid false charging readings.

[charlesphoto99]

15 hours ago, lct said:

M9 i dont know but M8 batteries are chipped too. The third-party batteries of my M8.2 must be totally discharged in the camera to avoid false charging readings.

All modern camera batteries are chipped. It's just a matter of whether they are chipped to be proprietary and so only the camera maker has access to the code. 

[jaapv]

On 4/28/2025 at 11:55 PM, weatherproof said:

It is fair to blame Leica because they chose to chip their batteries to ensure no one else can make a replacement. The M8 and M9 do not suffer from this artificial scarcity with their batteries. Meanwhile M240-series and M10 owners have been dealing with this issue for the past year.

If the batteries were unchipped you would be dealing with your fire insurance…

[bocaburger]

All anyone can do now is speculate and guess, and mine would be that Leica is having a difficult time finding a supplier willing to produce a run of these batteries in a small enough quantity to satisfy the projected demand without them ending up with a warehouse full of unsold ones that no longer take a charge.   Thr same issue must be confronted by 3rd party mfrs as well.  

[weatherproof]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

If the batteries were unchipped you would be dealing with your fire insurance…

That's a fair nitpick, but I meant locked in.

[rscheffler]

On 4/29/2025 at 10:21 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

All modern camera batteries are chipped. It's just a matter of whether they are chipped to be proprietary and so only the camera maker has access to the code. 

I suspect it's a matter of whether a third party is willing to invest the resources to reverse-engineer the chip's protocols in order to provide a fully functional aftermarket battery for the M240 series. As suggested already in this thread, economics likely play a significant factor due to the very small potential market.

For my other system, Canon mirrorless, the OEM batteries are chipped but about 50% of my batteries are third-party and work perfectly in the two cameras I have that were current when those aftermarket batteries became available. However, Canon's latest camera able to physically accept those batteries, the R5 Mark II, is able to differentiate between the third party batteries I use and Canon originals. And it locks out those third party batteries. However, these third parties now sell knockoffs of Canon's newest version of that battery released with the R5II. So, there being a proprietary chip doesn't really prevent third party options, if said third parties really want access to that market (which being Canon, will be multiples greater than Leica).

In any case, this thread interests and somewhat alarms me, because the M240 remains my most current M body. Back around 2019, two of the four batteries I bought in 2014 were suddenly no longer recognized by the charger. I replaced both of those with new ones (bought at a Leica store while in Germany), only to have both fail shortly thereafter, though one did manage to 'self recover' somehow. Leica replaced the other one under warranty, but that took forever, even back then, over 5 years ago. 

I have not been using the M system much the last few years and this thread reminded me to check all the batteries, which had depleted down to 10-30%... which I will now top up to 80% and mentally remind myself to check on them more frequently. Because as others have stated, if (when) those fail, the camera will become essentially unusable/useless. And I don't see myself buying another M in the near future...

I don't recall if this is the case with the M11, but I hope Leica provides the option for powering future camera models over USB (and recharging a battery in the camera over USB) to at least provide some options. That said, with my Canons, for power via USB to work, there must still be a battery in the camera and it must have at least some charge.

Edited May 5 by rscheffler

[lct]

See what Leica USA wrote below.
Source:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4769920?page=2#forum-post-68256778

Quote

Due to high demand, this battery was previously available only through our parts department. However, with an increase in requests, it’s now being converted back to a standard five-digit SKU (14499) and will soon be available for regular purchase again.
Please note that we do not accept pre-orders or back-orders through the Leica Online Store. Instead, we recommend reaching out to one of our retail stores listed below to place a pre-order directly. Once the battery is in stock, the store will contact you to complete your purchase.

 

[andybarton]

Good news. At least someone at Leica has their head screwed on the right way round.

[charlesphoto99]

9 hours ago, rscheffler said:

I suspect it's a matter of whether a third party is willing to invest the resources to reverse-engineer the chip's protocols in order to provide a fully functional aftermarket battery for the M240 series. As suggested already in this thread, economics likely play a significant factor due to the very small potential market.

No, I respectfully say that you are dead wrong. This is all Leica protecting their IP. It has nothing to do with the wills or wants of third parties. Considering the M10 has been Leica's largest selling digital camera body to date, third parties would be all over that if they could, but they can't. M8/9 they could as it wasn't blocked. After that Leica saw themselves losing $150-200 on each battery (considering the battery costs $10-25 to make) and therefore shut them down. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rscheffler]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto99 said:

No, I respectfully say that you are dead wrong. This is all Leica protecting their IP. It has nothing to do with the wills or wants of third parties. 

I don't believe it's that black and white and it seems we will have to agree to disagree, in part. I agree it is Leica protecting something. Same with Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. having chipped their batteries, too. As you suggested, it's possibly very much about protecting revenue and perhaps also ensuring quality of operation with batteries over which they have manufacturing and quality control, to ensure that M users receive batteries that allow full camera functionality. This appears to be the argument used by other brands, such as Canon, to (attempt to) block third party 'counterfeit' batteries. And I agree with the OEMs that poor quality aftermarket batteries can ruin the user experience. However, third parties can provide quality batteries (based on my experience with those I have for my Canon cameras) and have consistently circumvented Canon's barriers. So why haven't third parties done so for more recent Leica batteries? I don't believe Leica's battery chips are more difficult, or impossible, to reverse engineer. Without evidence of such, I will stand by my assumption that it's simply not worth the effort for third parties due to the very small potential market. While the M240, M10 and M11 have been successes for Leica in terms of sales volume, this does not necessarily mean it's appealing for other parties when compared to the much larger potential battery market for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. Those are relatively low hanging fruit compared to Leica, likely why there are multiple third party battery vendors for those brands.