How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?

DownUnder said:
in Australia we are truly fortunate to have a few highly qualified camera repair people who know and can work on Leicas.
Click to expand...
I thought only Camera Clinique (now: Imaging by Design) in Melbourne would work on digital Leica down under. And meanwhile they only accept jobs if they come from the Leica Store. Even analog gear is not easily serviced down under in my experience.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I have a Leica 1a from 1928 that still works fine.
Click to expand...
Which is what I was referring to in the line about "sensors" 😉 Had the worst projections come true, it would be an objet d'art on the shelf and the only analog photography would be homemade emulsions (wet or dry) on glass plates or paper. My 4x5 Graphlexen would be about as "miniature" as would be useful once again in that corner of the multiverse 😉

I rather prefer this world where your Leica 1a is still snapping and where my new to me 1959 Nikon S4 will be later this morning as well.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I have a Leica 1a from 1928 that still works fine.
Click to expand...

I have one from 1930 that also works, in fact it works much better than it did when it was new because I can get factory loaded TMY and Adox CHS100 II and lots of other much better films than you could get in 1930. But I am totally sure that all the film that went through it could only be used once. However you photograph, part of the chain has a limited usability.
 
I think maybe the question is would you expect a digital Leica to last longer than a more "mainstream" (and much less costly) digital camera. For the price I would certainly—and reasonably—expect a digital Leica to last a hell of a lot longer than, say, a Nikon DSLR.

The only dedicated digital camera I presently own is a Nikon D7000, introduced 2010. That's lasted 15 years and although it could probably use a service, it's still chugging along. I can buy new batteries from Nikon or third-party makers if needed. (A search on B&H for "Nikon D7000 battery" brings up three pages of results.) It helps that the D7000 was a very popular camera and subsequent Nikons, including the newest mirrorless models, use a compatible battery.

Obviously Leica is not operating on the same scale as Nikon, but they should be realistic about that and use common batteries that are replaceable and likely to be available long into the future.
 
Disappointed_Horse said:
I think maybe the question is would you expect a digital Leica to last longer than a more "mainstream" (and much less costly) digital camera. For the price I would certainly—and reasonably—expect a digital Leica to last a hell of a lot longer than, say, a Nikon DSLR.
Click to expand...

I am genuinely curious. Why do you think it should last longer? Because it costs more?

The technology is mostly equivalent. It will not last longer. You are paying because it is a Leica, not because it is made better, or made of better components. Lower production and smaller batch size probably means that on average they are made worse, out of components that are more failure prone.
 
Freakscene said:
I am genuinely curious. Why do you think it should last longer? Because it costs more?

The technology is mostly equivalent. It will not last longer. You are paying because it is a Leica, not because it is made better, or made of better components. Lower production and smaller batch size probably means that on average they are made worse, out of components that are more failure prone.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Just like I would expect a Rolex to last longer than a Casio, even if the Rolex doesn't keep time as accurately. Also, the fact that I am primarily a film shooter has probably colored my opinions about this, as all of my favorite film cameras are 40+ years old and still work perfectly and are serviceable for the foreseeable future.

I think the counter-example is the iPhone. I don't think anyone buys an iPhone (or any other smartphone) expecting to get more than 3–4 years of use out of it. An iPhone may (probably will) continue working a lot longer than that, but after that time period the OS will have become more resource-intensive, the battery will probably need replacing, and newer models will offer greater performance and many new features, so most will simply spring for a new phone. An iPhone, however, does not cost $9,000. [Edited to add: I think this planned obsolescence is terrible. I'm only offering it as a counter-example of what I would expect from a $9,000 camera. An iPhone you replace every 3–4 years is an expense; a camera that costs you $9,000 should be something close to an investment.]
 
Last edited:
I hope they will live for many, many years.
I just bought a M8 which seems to work just fine. I got one original battery which also seems so work just fine. The seller did also send two spare batteries that are not original.
And now I ordered one new original battery, so I hope they will last for a while.
 
I still own a lot of film cameras from half frame to 8x10. If I only cared about the end result and not about the process I can say my Leica SL2 or whatever brand/model of your choice, plus three zooms covering 14mm to 300mm can take the same pictures, very competently without the need of a tripod. Moreover I can take photos with the same camera no film camera can do, at least not without flash and filters. Whether something can be repaired years from now is never a concern like whether I can still use my MacBook Pro 10 years from now. I need it I buy it I use it. Simple formula.
 
Coming late to the party on the digital M front - I picked up an M240 last year - I've got to say I'm actually pretty impressed with the batteries used on that camera.

I bought mine with two batteries. The camera was barely used, so I doubt the batteries have had a lot of "exercise" (which is normally a death sentence for batteries). Still, I barely ever need to change the things, and I rarely ever turn the camera off. I just got back from a holiday in the Peak District and used one battery for the entire trip, and it still had 20% left after five days. No battery I'd ever used on any of my Fuji bodies lasted anything like that long, first party or otherwise.

On the battery front in general: I am (still) a huge video game nerd. Have been since I was a kid in the 80s, playing with a ZX Spectrum. Proprietary batteries are a real issue in that world, with every handheld console from the late 2000s onwards using different proprietary batteries, and only the early ones in that era having easily replaceable batteries (Nintendo's DS and Sony's PSP). The third party batteries are a mixed bag of fraudulently mislabelled capacity, totally dead cells, unsafe charging circuits, and so on; dissecting and recelling official batteries for these systems started to become commonplace as early as the mid 2010s as a result. A lot of third-party replacements for Fuji's early NP-W126 batteries for the X-series bodies are just as bad.

I understand that people want third-party batteries to exist to keep these cameras going, but all my experiences with third-party batteries suggests that you should probably be careful what you wish for. I'd hope that Leica would keep small-scale production runs going for as long as there's any demand, but battery recelling is probably going to be the most reliable future for any outdated digital camera eventually.
 
Thanks for the discussion all. I agree that batteries are going to be the main problem, that and essential components.

I do think it's a good sign that my M9 still works like new, and I also have other older digital cameras (like my original Canon 5D) that is still going strong after many, many exposures.

As discussed above, I also don't think we can necessarily expect a digital Leica to last longer than a digital Nikon, just due to price. They are ultimately similar pieces of technology, and if anything, I might even expect the Nikon to last longer. That said, as others have said, how long the manufacturer keeps parts in stock will be the real test.
 
Disappointed_Horse said:
Well, yes. Just like I would expect a Rolex to last longer than a Casio, even if the Rolex doesn't keep time as accurately. Also, the fact that I am primarily a film shooter has probably colored my opinions about this, as all of my favorite film cameras are 40+ years old and still work perfectly and are serviceable for the foreseeable future.

I think the counter-example is the iPhone. I don't think anyone buys an iPhone (or any other smartphone) expecting to get more than 3–4 years of use out of it. An iPhone may (probably will) continue working a lot longer than that, but after that time period the OS will have become more resource-intensive, the battery will probably need replacing, and newer models will offer greater performance and many new features, so most will simply spring for a new phone. An iPhone, however, does not cost $9,000. [Edited to add: I think this planned obsolescence is terrible. I'm only offering it as a counter-example of what I would expect from a $9,000 camera. An iPhone you replace every 3–4 years is an expense; a camera that costs you $9,000 should be something close to an investment.]
Click to expand...
The idea that an new iPhone every 3 or 4 yrs is an necessity is just an adoption of marketing. That's been true in the photo world as well. It's kept camera stores in business....not selling to new customers but courting returns..... trading up from the Pentax Spotmatic to the MX & then the LX....from the Nikkormat up the line every few years to the F6 with the promise of better photographs.
" I would expect a Rolex to last longer than a Casio" who convinced you of that? Will a BMW outlast a Toyota just because it costs more?
 
Last edited:
I can't help but believe the battery problem will be resolved. Too many cameras out, ripe field of opportunity for some third party. Technically the digital M should last quite a long time as there are fewer moving parts. The lack of repair parts is the problem, I'll enjoy my M10 as long as it works and then will replace it with something other than a digital Leica. There just isn't that big difference between one and just about any other digital camera out there to justify the cost difference.
 
PatrickT said:
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last? What about getting them repaired by Leica? What can we expect?
Click to expand...
20+ years might be do-able, but M10 is already a legacy model, so I’d expect limited factory and 3rd party support and minimal parts availability, not on par with more popular Sony cameras which are sometimes in production for a an eternity. This is one instance where Leica’s exclusivity may not work in your favor.
 
I'm not a digital camera user, but the bad news for Leica digi users (as good as the cameras are) is there is virtually no chance the cameras will have the longevity of the film Leicas. I don't own a Leica 1 but it was amazing to me how good a 90 yr old camera can perform. And it never crosses my mind that my 56 yr old M4 might fail me.
IMG_6678.JPEG
 
Last edited:
38Deardorff said:
The idea that an new iPhone every 3 or 4 yrs is an necessity is just an adoption of marketing. That's been true in the photo world as well. It's kept camera stores in business....not selling to new customers but courting returns..... trading up from the Pentax Spotmatic to the MX & then the LX....from the Nikkormat up the line every few years to the F6 with the promise of better photographs.
" I would expect a Rolex to last longer than a Casio" who convinced you of that? Will a BMW outlast a Toyota just because it costs more?
Click to expand...

That's true. As far as I am aware, planned obsolescence, i.e., updating new models yearly or nearly so, first originated in the bicycle industry in the late 19th or early 20th century and was adopted by the car industry as it matured and then virtually every other industry. (Political, but see The Story of Stuff on YouTube for more.)

As far as the longevity of watches and cars, I've never owned a Rolex, but if I spent that kind of money on a watch, I would expect to use it for the rest of my life and hand it down to my heirs still working perfectly (with required service). I have owned a Casio G-Shock, which has worked perfectly for about 18 years. I somehow doubt my descendants will be arguing over it after I am gone, but I have no reason to expect it to stop working. And the G-Shock uses cheap and commonly available batteries, not proprietary ones that could go out of production, so my descendants could continue using it if they wanted to.

I've never owned a BMW either, but I have owned Toyotas and Hondas and have put over 200,000 miles on some of them. I don't think a luxury brand car would last longer than a Toyota or a Honda, which is one reason I've never felt much need or desire to buy one. (Actually, a friend of mine is a Mercedes mechanic and he says that if you want a Mercedes, you should also have a Toyota to drive while the Mercedes is in the shop.)
 
38Deardorff said:
I'm not a digital camera user, but the bad news for Leica digi users (as good as the cameras are) is there is virtually no chance the cameras will have the longevity of the film Leicas. I don't own a Leica 1 but it was amazing to me how good a 90 yr old camera can perform. And it never crosses my mind that my 56 yr old M4 might fail me.
View attachment 4863530
Click to expand...


In a way this means nothing. Mechanical/analog(ue) camera technology is pretty much the celluloid which moves from one side of the camera to the other as it is operated. It is simply a box with a shutter and a way of attaching a lens, period. The digital cameras are always in the process of evolving. Sensor quality improvements, color perceptions, speed and sensor size have all marched along in the last quarter century.

I have an old Sony DSC S70 with a 3meg CCD sensor. I get great photos with it with wonderful color.

Moving along to the gold standard with digitals, the Leica M9, we have great saturated color, detail and ability to present a believable 3D image. M9 photos look great, really. Here is a subtle one of spring Rhodies. It was deliberately underexposed.

L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr
​
And on to my most current honey, the X2D with its gorgeous CMOS BSI sensor, individually tuned at the factory. There is progress, the images do get better, to me anyway. Every time I pick up this camera and shoot with it I am grateful. I like porcine analogies, like Blind Hogs, this camera will make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

B0000862 by West Phalia, on Flickr
​
So while the old analogs are rugged and last, in some ways it is pointless. The only change to be seen will be film technology and there are those who say Kodachrome was it. For me it was Agfachrome. OTOH with digital we are presented with an ever evolving technology. And while that 25 year-old Sony DSC S70 turns out some good images, the newer digitals are really good. There will be forever the CCD vs CMOS debate. Today's CMOS crank out some really great color.

​
 
boojum said:
In a way this means nothing. Mechanical/analog(ue) camera technology is pretty much the celluloid which moves from one side of the camera to the other as it is operated. It is simply a box with a shutter and a way of attaching a lens, period. The digital cameras are always in the process of evolving. Sensor quality improvements, color perceptions, speed and sensor size have all marched along in the last quarter century.

I have an old Sony DSC S70 with a 3meg CCD sensor. I get great photos with it with wonderful color.


​
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on your point of view/philosophy. It's a sad day when you buy a $9000 USD camera body that becomes obsolete in a relatively short period of time....particularly when historically photographic equipment has proven to have longevity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom