On the M9 and M Monochrom: Leica did not replace just the cover glass. They replaced the entire CCD and Circuit board. OnSemi switched to BG55 glass and for the M9, used a new Dye formulation for the Bayer filter. This is at a time that DigiKey charged ~$4000 for just the CCD. Leica took 4 months to replace the KAF-18500 on my M Monochrom, did it for free. The M9- had it back in under a month, was $900. the camera was ~8 years old at the time, so not much more than a CLA with 1 year warranty. Knowing the full price of the CCD from Digikey, it was a bargain. The only reason Leica stopped replacing CCDs in the M9 and M Monochrom is that OnSemi shutdown manufacture of all CCDs. Dalsa also stopped. They are extinct.
The M8- used an IR filter that will not corrode, but has a 5% leakage in IR. Leica provided Two UV/IR cut filters free of charge. Those of us that used Digital cameras in the early 90s, such as the Kodak DCS200 and DCS400 series- knew all about IR leakage and the need for IR cut filters. I had several when I bought the M8 in January 2010, 3 months old, 400clicks, $2500 with two batteries. My complaint with the M8 is the stupid -TRULY STUPID- lossy compression used for the DNG file. After learning the Button Dance and M8RAW2DNG- much better DNG files.
ANYWAY: very few manufacturers serviced cameras so long after the warranty expired, the problem caused by a commercial part that was flawed. The engineers that decided to use S8612 cover glass should have known better. Kodak liked that glass, used it for their DSLR's. They could make a thick sandwich of it, could not do that on the Leica M-Mount. I blame Kodak for the choice in cover glass, and deciding that a thin coating would be all that was required to stop the corrosion. It is Schott glass- I do not know who applied the coating, or what idiot ignored the Schott Data Sheet that states the S8612 should be made into a sandwich using stable glass to keep moisture out. I am reasonably sure it was a different idiot than the one that came up with the M8 DNG-8 compression scheme.
The M8- used an IR filter that will not corrode, but has a 5% leakage in IR. Leica provided Two UV/IR cut filters free of charge. Those of us that used Digital cameras in the early 90s, such as the Kodak DCS200 and DCS400 series- knew all about IR leakage and the need for IR cut filters. I had several when I bought the M8 in January 2010, 3 months old, 400clicks, $2500 with two batteries. My complaint with the M8 is the stupid -TRULY STUPID- lossy compression used for the DNG file. After learning the Button Dance and M8RAW2DNG- much better DNG files.
ANYWAY: very few manufacturers serviced cameras so long after the warranty expired, the problem caused by a commercial part that was flawed. The engineers that decided to use S8612 cover glass should have known better. Kodak liked that glass, used it for their DSLR's. They could make a thick sandwich of it, could not do that on the Leica M-Mount. I blame Kodak for the choice in cover glass, and deciding that a thin coating would be all that was required to stop the corrosion. It is Schott glass- I do not know who applied the coating, or what idiot ignored the Schott Data Sheet that states the S8612 should be made into a sandwich using stable glass to keep moisture out. I am reasonably sure it was a different idiot than the one that came up with the M8 DNG-8 compression scheme.
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I am not now nor have I ever said that Leica does not do good work. What I said and will say again so that is hopefully understood is that they do not do good work consistently. Pros, amateurs and just bling collectors generally complain that turnaround times are excessive. I do not make this up but I do take note of it. And I see it way more often than folks raving about their excellent service with Leica. If you follow the Leica users on YT you will see that they accept six months as common, indeed, short.
Leica can get away with it because of the cameras' reputation. And maybe they are like that famous English shoe company which was famous for shoes that pinched your toes but raved about. "Oh yes, they do pinch but they are great shoes." Yes, repairs do take a very long time but they are great cameras. There is a gulf between engineering and marketing/customer support. Get it?
Leica is not some single humongous being doing everything but groups of teams within departments. And they may all be profit centers with bad budgets, All cost accountants will be shot at dawn, after the guys in marketing. I know a fellow who repairs Leicas and he complains the guts are cheap plastic now. Not all the parts, no, don't run with that. But the guts are not the quality they once were.
But write me off as a cranky old bugger who is mad at Leica and critical of their customer support. Write me off and the others with the same stories. I am not making this up. I am calling attention to it. I wish Leica would do better. They could if they wanted to.
But this has little to do with the Q3 43. Anybody shooting one?
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Yes, I have the same upgraded M9 by Leica. You are way more knowledgeable about this than I. But, when Leica wound up with the sodden baby in their lap they really could have done more than they did. Yes, they would have had to eat it bigtime. They gambled they could skip out on the sensor deal pretty unscathed. They are still selling all they make with waiting lines for what the make. Bad business practice is not cleaning up the mess you make. They got away with it.
Richard G
Veteran
Imaging by design in Melbourne is great. They currently have two of my Zeiss lenses. One was binding intermittently at two different points in focus. Wayne came out, listened to the story of what was happening with my 35 C Biogon. He shook the lens near his ear: a screw loose. In my defense my hearing is down, but I didn’t think to do that. I only use hearing for second hand cameras and second hand cars.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The lesson is clear: buy more second hand lenses. LOL
ellisson
Well-known
I don't get the point of obsessing over the way Leica runs its business, but what I do know for certain is that this thread has little or nothing to do with the new Q3 camera. I'd venture to guess that few users on this forum have yet to buy this camera or even the preceding Q3 camera judging from the meager no. of threads and posts on these cameras. You and others will learn more by going to the Leica Forum (LUF) website where there are several threads on this camera and some early user experience with images by their members. Hopefully you (and others) will find what you are looking for.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The lesson in this thread is clear: ignore it in the future. The OP just wants to rant about Leica.
I'm taking it off my follow list.
G
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
What you say is true. And I sure wish that Leica service policy were not an issue, that it were just not worth discussing. But when one buys a Leica one becomes a hostage to their service policies. And from the repair tech I know Leica has all but cut off the supply of parts to non-Leica techs and no longer sell repair manuals. Yup, it is their right. But another arrogant seller here, Apple, just got in trouble withe the "right to repair" regulations. I would love to see Leica dragged into court over this. Not because I dislike Leica but because of why I dislike Leica. These guys are princes, with a "k". Maybe I am naive and simple-minded in thinking that Leica should play a fair game. There are so many defenders of their behavior that it would seem so. But it is not.
If you think that Leica is doing all they can for customer support and repair and cannot or need not improve just say so. And why is it a problem for me? I have Leicas. I have skin in the game.
And it has a great deal to do with the Q3. Do you want to risk buying a camera with limited support? Would you buy a car which only dealers could repair? And you had to wait a long time for repairs? I guess not.
So while we are waiting for someone to report in on their Q3 43 we can toss around other subjects. Like what accessories might be appropriate. Or if the color balance is really that good and the IQ. The images look good in the YT reviews. The reviewers like the camera other than the filter/hood problem. It has been welcomed by all and sundry.
Last edited:
trix4ever
Well-known
Yes, they cleaned the sensor on my Q and Gr and Gr digital iv, awkward bloody jobs, they were very happy to do them and not too pricey either. Great outfit.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have been thinking about the Q3 43 and what Leica is doing with it. I believe they have two versions of the Q with a 28mm lens that has gotten a warm welcome in the marketplace. It is supposed to be a good camera. I would accept that. Why did Leica go to 43mm, and odd length and one not much seen before? It has been pointed out that the Ur Leica was 40 or 42mm, I forget which. And this is supposed to be a very good approximation of our natural field of view.
So, 43mm has the human FOV in its favor. But the market is pretty much 35mm or 50mm in this range. CV has some very nice 40mm's, but there is not a lot of 43mm running around. Except for the X2D with the XCD55V as a 55mm medium format lens which translates to a 43mm on a 35mm film format. And the X2D has been pretty popular and if it is I am betting it has cut into Leica sales. So has Leica made a new, sweet 43mm lens with some good color science to present a smaller, less expensive alternative to the X2D? I want to see comparisons between these two cameras to see how valid this might be. To present the market with a half-price X2D is smart marketing. If the images are really good it is a really good marketing idea. OTOH it could be just a coincidence. But I doubt it.
So, 43mm has the human FOV in its favor. But the market is pretty much 35mm or 50mm in this range. CV has some very nice 40mm's, but there is not a lot of 43mm running around. Except for the X2D with the XCD55V as a 55mm medium format lens which translates to a 43mm on a 35mm film format. And the X2D has been pretty popular and if it is I am betting it has cut into Leica sales. So has Leica made a new, sweet 43mm lens with some good color science to present a smaller, less expensive alternative to the X2D? I want to see comparisons between these two cameras to see how valid this might be. To present the market with a half-price X2D is smart marketing. If the images are really good it is a really good marketing idea. OTOH it could be just a coincidence. But I doubt it.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Popping in just for a moment to correct yet more mis-information from an uninformed source.
The 40-45mm focal length on fixed-lens 35mm cameras was *extremely popular* for decades of compact, fixed lens 35mm cameras. Canon, Minolta, Yashica, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, Konica, Olympus and several other brands all made such fixed-lens cameras.
The modern Contax G system standard lens was a superb Zeiss Planar 45mm f/2.8 T*. The Pentax SMC-Pentax-FA 43mm f/1.9 Limited is/was perhaps the best of Pentax' ultra-best, Limited series SLR lenses, so much so that they re-mounted it as a Leica Thread Mount special, the SMC-Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Special, as a limited production item—they typically sell today for US$1000-1400. Leica's own CL film camera was standard with the Summicron-C 40mm f/2, an excellent lens that many people hunt for and use, and Minolta kept going with the M-Rokkor 40mm f/2 II on their RF camera that continued on after the CL line was discontinued by Leica.
43mm is an excellent choice for a general purpose, do nearly anything lens on 35mm format, as it is the "normal" for the 24x36mm format. The establishment of the 50mm "normal" for 35mm happened due to two things: Leica (and others) in the 35mm RF space went to 50mm as their standard offering first because it netted a slightly longer focal length and was considered a plus to eliminate cropping as best possible on the miniature format; then the SLR era dawned and, due to the swinging mirror behind the lens, a 50mm focal length was easier and cheaper to make in volume than shorter focal lengths, and with the strength of the 50 on RF cameras preceding them, 50mm then became the de facto standard "normal" lens.
You might do some research into actual, historical facts before you go on about things. 🙄
G
Last edited:
Richard G
Veteran
Ayn Rand would admire your singularity, and your not hiding your light under a bushel.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
That's fine. What do you think about the camera?
yossi
Well-known
Ricoh (not Leica, so I digress) makes GR III (28mm equivalent) and a GR IIIx (40mm eq). Apparently they are both quite popular.
Of course we won't believe Leica would copy Ricoh's idea in coming up with a 43mm P&S
Of course we won't believe Leica would copy Ricoh's idea in coming up with a 43mm P&S
ellisson
Well-known
Much camera choice involves personal taste, e.g., Rolex vs Timex, Jaguar vs Ford, etc. The engineering, haptics, prior use/experience with other cameras, financial resources, and what ever narrative is appealing to you on various websites such as this one and Youtube, not to mention time of life, vision and health: what you can actually use for work or simply enjoyment. Subjective, all. Leica is on the luxury side of things, great for some, not for others. Makes for interesting conversation and jousting.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ricoh produced the GR IIIx responding to the same requests from their buyers as Leica has had with the Q3 43. Just as with the Q3 43, I have often looked at the GR IIIx with some notion of acquiring one, but if I'm going to go with a fixed-lens camera, the larger format and higher Mpixel resolution of the Q3 lends much more flexibility and capability, in my view.Ricoh (not Leica, so I digress) makes GR III (28mm equivalent) and a GR IIIx (40mm eq). Apparently they are both quite popular.
Of course we won't believe Leica would copy Ricoh's idea in coming up with a 43mm P&S
Ricoh has also taken the strategy of providing matched front element lenses for the GR III line ... a wide converter for the GR III and a tele converter for the GR IIIx. I think it would be a plus to see Leica offer a similar set of front element converters for the Q3/Q3 43, but given the format and much higher pixel resolution, even just a wide converter for the Q3 43 would be great for those occasional uses when a wider FoV might prove useful.
There's really nothing very new under the sun. All of these kinds of things have been done before, in the film era. For instance, Rollei produced the fixed-lens TLRs in standard, wide, and tele models. To say "Leica is copying Ricoh" is mostly facetious.
@boojum queries yet again: "So what do you think about the camera?"
As said before, the Q3 43 is basically the Q3 with a longer focal length—and possibly better performing—lens. The Q3 has been given accolades by so many users and reviewers it's hard to find anything negative about it in print other than some inconsequential nitpickiness, with the single outstanding appeal to Leica of 'I think it's great but I wish it had a 35 or 50 mm (longer focal length) lens.' The Q3 43 is the answer to that appeal.
The one negative thing that I've heard about it is that the standard lens hood does not allow enough space for a filter to be fitted in all possible circumstances. Not a big deal to me, since I only fit "protection" filters when I think my lens needs "protection", and easily solved by fitting an alternative lens hood anyway. It's a color camera so I wouldn't find myself fitting B&W or color correction filters to it, and any other on-lens screw in optical gizmo I'd naturally remove the lens hood anyway. My only other reservation is that it's an EVF camera, and the major reason why I went back to using M cameras after years of using EVF cameras is that my eyes now have trouble adjusting to the brightness of an EVF in bright sunlight. I can only see what the Q3 43 EVF looks like when one is available to work with, so maybe I'll head up to San Francisco Leica Store and see if I can play with one for an hour.
I think it's a terrific camera, based on what I've seen out of the Q3 and the (very little) hands on experience I've had playing with one. If I didn't already have the cameras I do, I'd have ordered one already. I might yet do that but not for a while since I already have four new-to-me cameras in the pipe to work with and learn thoroughly. 😇
G
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Two things could make me return to using digital (a bit):
1. Make the Q3 43 in a monochrome version.
2. I win the Powerball jackpot and can afford to buy one.
Meanwhile, if anyone can afford this thing, and has one, well, lucky you! Enjoy it.
And, just for entertainment, let's put Godfrey and Boojum together in a Jello wrestling pit and enjoy the rumpus.
1. Make the Q3 43 in a monochrome version.
2. I win the Powerball jackpot and can afford to buy one.
Meanwhile, if anyone can afford this thing, and has one, well, lucky you! Enjoy it.
And, just for entertainment, let's put Godfrey and Boojum together in a Jello wrestling pit and enjoy the rumpus.
ellisson
Well-known
Good idea Retro-Grouch, but I think we would have to give each of them a Q3 43 camera to make that happen! Both winners is the best IMHO.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
100% agreement. But you left out ego. That influences purchases. There was a Jaeger-Le Coulter built camera in another thread that just fascinated me. But my ego and wallet do not stretch far enough to buy one. I would wind up like the dragon of Western culture, guarding what it cannot use, gold and virgins. But the JLC built camera is a wonderful thing to behold. OTOH it is easier to rationalize the Q3 43.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
You mean, you would have no use for gold and virgins!?
But seriously (!), my own experience is that ego expands in a rate directly proportional to the size of my wallet. I have bought some really stupid stuff when I was flush. Now that I'm retired and on a limited income, that Rollei SL66 ain't on the table. I just limit myself to slightly less stupid stuff, like shooting lots of Ektachrome in 120.