eleskin
Well-known
Well here it is. On one thread here, an M9 needs a new sensor and the cost is the same as a new state of the art full frame camera. I know, I know, this is the cost of Leica and that should be understood. Even still, this is sickening! Leica had the right idea when the M8 first came out with their camera for life concept.
[1] In fact they should have designed the M8 differently where the camera shell and rangefinder detach and you could put a new electronics module in at a reasonable cost. What we have now is a camera body that can last 100 years but electronics that become outdated in a few years. It is sad that the beautiful Leica camera bodies and rangefinders are throw away when the cyber guts go bad. A waste in my mind!
[2] I look at an M6 I still have and keep saying why on Earth can't someone make a digital back for the film Leica? It is being done for medium and large format, why not this camera. The technology is here today! If such a product were offered today for $3500 or so I would buy it without question.
I'll dig even deeper here and maybe become more emotional here: I feel we are being discriminated against just because we like rangefinders! What? Let me explain: I love the rangefinder because of the method used to create the image. I could not care less if it was a Leica or any other camera, I just love the rangefinder experience. Unfortunately, that experience seems to be a luxury in the digital world because Leica has no real competition, thus those of us who are on limited budgets have to suffer because we like to take photos in a certain way.
[3] This is a horrible situation and does little to promote rangefinder photography in the 21st century, especially for young people in school who have modest means.
[4] Why Voigtlander and Zeiss have not come out with a full frame digital by now is beyond me. It is really sickening. There, I said it.
For now, I am considering an A7r for all the reasons above, especially now with the $300 off promotion. Not to take advantage of that would be pure stupidity for me. Maybe our best hope will be an independent company that will make the digital module for all existing film Leica cameras.
[5] The technology is there. Could you imagine using an M3 or M6 digitally in the 21st century? That would bring a joyful tear to my eye!
[1] In fact they should have designed the M8 differently where the camera shell and rangefinder detach and you could put a new electronics module in at a reasonable cost. What we have now is a camera body that can last 100 years but electronics that become outdated in a few years. It is sad that the beautiful Leica camera bodies and rangefinders are throw away when the cyber guts go bad. A waste in my mind!
[2] I look at an M6 I still have and keep saying why on Earth can't someone make a digital back for the film Leica? It is being done for medium and large format, why not this camera. The technology is here today! If such a product were offered today for $3500 or so I would buy it without question.
I'll dig even deeper here and maybe become more emotional here: I feel we are being discriminated against just because we like rangefinders! What? Let me explain: I love the rangefinder because of the method used to create the image. I could not care less if it was a Leica or any other camera, I just love the rangefinder experience. Unfortunately, that experience seems to be a luxury in the digital world because Leica has no real competition, thus those of us who are on limited budgets have to suffer because we like to take photos in a certain way.
[3] This is a horrible situation and does little to promote rangefinder photography in the 21st century, especially for young people in school who have modest means.
[4] Why Voigtlander and Zeiss have not come out with a full frame digital by now is beyond me. It is really sickening. There, I said it.
For now, I am considering an A7r for all the reasons above, especially now with the $300 off promotion. Not to take advantage of that would be pure stupidity for me. Maybe our best hope will be an independent company that will make the digital module for all existing film Leica cameras.
[5] The technology is there. Could you imagine using an M3 or M6 digitally in the 21st century? That would bring a joyful tear to my eye!
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: I talked to 'em about it when the M8 came out, and they reckoned it was neither technically nor economically feasible.
Highlight 2: They could but it would double the size of the camera, thereby somewhat reducing the attraction of a Leica.
Highlight 3: Why should any company "promote rangefinder photography" if they cannot make a profit out of it?
Highlight 4: Digital RFs are quite difficult to make; require special sensors; and appeal to a tiny market. Now guess why no-one else makes them?
Highlight 5: No it isn't. Also, see highlight 2.
Cheers,
R.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Why should I read if you don't care to format you text in a readable form? Your unformated text is digital rot.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Enjoy your Sony! I know my Bravia television creates a great picture.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I was going to produce a detailed reply but Roger's post says it all, so far as I'm concerned.
kingqueenknave
Well-known
Can you provide a link to the thread that states the actual repair cost?
eleskin
Well-known
Come on
Come on
Look at what Ricoh did with the GXR. A modular camera is possible. Second, Leica came out with the M8 in 2006. It is now 2014. Electronics have advanced by leaps and bounds, hence it should be possible today for Voigtlander or Zeiss to make a digital rangefinder at a reasonable cost. Third, maybe the market is so small because there are no alternatives at decent prices so people can have an opportunity to discover the rangefinder. We now have people who never shot film and only know DSLR's. The rangefinder is as retro as you can get and retro is cool right now. Look at the new X-T1!!!! People may rediscover the rangefinder and its advantages if they were given the opportunity. At $7000 that opportunity is limited to people with huge disposable incomes or those who need to save every scrap to get one. Something that is becoming more difficult, especially in the US where Obamacare will rape the middle class, among other things ( i am a registered Democrat).
Come on
Look at what Ricoh did with the GXR. A modular camera is possible. Second, Leica came out with the M8 in 2006. It is now 2014. Electronics have advanced by leaps and bounds, hence it should be possible today for Voigtlander or Zeiss to make a digital rangefinder at a reasonable cost. Third, maybe the market is so small because there are no alternatives at decent prices so people can have an opportunity to discover the rangefinder. We now have people who never shot film and only know DSLR's. The rangefinder is as retro as you can get and retro is cool right now. Look at the new X-T1!!!! People may rediscover the rangefinder and its advantages if they were given the opportunity. At $7000 that opportunity is limited to people with huge disposable incomes or those who need to save every scrap to get one. Something that is becoming more difficult, especially in the US where Obamacare will rape the middle class, among other things ( i am a registered Democrat).
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Like Rangefinders and want it to be affordable? Use film ones.
Camera market is driven by consumers and gear heads. They don't want to recycle. They want it to smell like new, and looking new, in nice box and nice package.
Plus, RF market is minuscule.
99% of pictures taken are taken with AF, 70% of them are with auto selection for AF points.
FF digital sensors aren't manufactured at same Chinese factory where they stamp and glue plastic Holga and Diana, but by and for companies making money on sales of new electronic cameras.
Leica is no exception, with some good marketing decision to support film Ms. If they ever implement digital film plate it is going to cost same or more as you are facing with yours digital M now.
Camera market is driven by consumers and gear heads. They don't want to recycle. They want it to smell like new, and looking new, in nice box and nice package.
Plus, RF market is minuscule.
99% of pictures taken are taken with AF, 70% of them are with auto selection for AF points.
FF digital sensors aren't manufactured at same Chinese factory where they stamp and glue plastic Holga and Diana, but by and for companies making money on sales of new electronic cameras.
Leica is no exception, with some good marketing decision to support film Ms. If they ever implement digital film plate it is going to cost same or more as you are facing with yours digital M now.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Zeiss answered the question of why not a few years ago: they were unable to develop a digital rangefinder that could compete with Leica on price….And it appears they tried.
Leica is simply too far ahead in this specialized field - and controls the key patents.
The affordable entry into the DRF world is a M8.
Obamacare will rape the middle class? Maybe one should look beyond the borders of the USA. Most civilized countries have a pretty good health care system that does not leave parts of the population by the wayside, without any raping going on….
Leica is simply too far ahead in this specialized field - and controls the key patents.
The affordable entry into the DRF world is a M8.
Obamacare will rape the middle class? Maybe one should look beyond the borders of the USA. Most civilized countries have a pretty good health care system that does not leave parts of the population by the wayside, without any raping going on….
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Format size. Flange-to-film distance. Compatibility with 80 years of existing lenses. Patents.
A question often asked is, "Which bit don't you understand?"
The question here is, "Which bit DO you understand?"
Cheers,
R.
redisburning
Well-known
the electronics have never been the expensive part. it's the rangefinder and having to specialize the sensor cover to handle the angle of incidence of light.
rscheffler
Well-known
There is something you can do about it - improve your financial position. I certainly haven't found the formula to doing this efficiently, but it seems to be possible, therefore there is hope for anyone willing to give it a shot.
For Leica to survive the last decade, they had to produce something digital. And they did. At least with the M9 it was successful enough to lift them away from the brink of oblivion. Maybe eventually the kind of camera you describe will be possible, but I wouldn't expect it to be less expensive in the long run than the current 'buy & replace every 1.5-3 year digital camera cycle,' no matter where you position yourself in it. If anything, a product with longer term relevance will be priced higher to offset lower volume.
The DMR was modular, and fairly large. Unfortunately the digital guts have to go somewhere and with an existing analog camera, it's not going to be somewhere inside it. Given that many M users are sensitive to camera size, I'd guess a 2-3" extension below the camera and additional thickness wouldn't go over too well. Given time and technology, that can be shrunk somewhat. But the best immediate solution is what Leica provided - a digital M close in size and handling to its analog predecessors.
The GXR showed it was possible. But was it viable? Why has Ricoh let it whither for so long? All of its components contain electronics and eventually all of them become obsolete, or appear outdated, therefore require refreshes anyway. It's probably easier to provide a fully contained solution - no need for backwards compatibility with older components. It's also probably more desirable for the bottom line...
For Leica to survive the last decade, they had to produce something digital. And they did. At least with the M9 it was successful enough to lift them away from the brink of oblivion. Maybe eventually the kind of camera you describe will be possible, but I wouldn't expect it to be less expensive in the long run than the current 'buy & replace every 1.5-3 year digital camera cycle,' no matter where you position yourself in it. If anything, a product with longer term relevance will be priced higher to offset lower volume.
The DMR was modular, and fairly large. Unfortunately the digital guts have to go somewhere and with an existing analog camera, it's not going to be somewhere inside it. Given that many M users are sensitive to camera size, I'd guess a 2-3" extension below the camera and additional thickness wouldn't go over too well. Given time and technology, that can be shrunk somewhat. But the best immediate solution is what Leica provided - a digital M close in size and handling to its analog predecessors.
The GXR showed it was possible. But was it viable? Why has Ricoh let it whither for so long? All of its components contain electronics and eventually all of them become obsolete, or appear outdated, therefore require refreshes anyway. It's probably easier to provide a fully contained solution - no need for backwards compatibility with older components. It's also probably more desirable for the bottom line...
thompsonks
Well-known
I'm surprised by your initial 'fact,' that an M9 now needs a new sensor and it's too expensive. They don't wear out by themselves. If it had cracked, Leica would replace it for free and do a complete checkup on the camera and then recover it in M9-P 'leather' – as they did on mine, long after end of official warranty. I believe they can also take care of a hot pixel. So what went wrong? If you (or someone) messed it up, for example by improper cleaning, then of course it would be expensive.
As to the fiture of RF cameras, we're probably there now. Enjoy your A7, but don't expect very many of your M lenses to cover the corners. With the right lens, they're a great hi ISO backup to M9.
As to the fiture of RF cameras, we're probably there now. Enjoy your A7, but don't expect very many of your M lenses to cover the corners. With the right lens, they're a great hi ISO backup to M9.
swoop
Well-known
Leica seems to be replacing any genuinely faulty sensor free of charge. That particular thread, the poster mentioned having scratched the sensor attempting to clean it.
The longevity of Leica's is tied to the quality you expect out of them. I've always said that the M9 is the digital equivalent of film in quality. Some can accept that, sone can't. I've had a 5D mk2 for years and always wished I had that sensor in my M9 and that is exactly what I got with the M240. I see no reason to upgrade my 5D and 3 years from now I can't imagine any feature that will have me upgrading my M240.
The longevity of Leica's is tied to the quality you expect out of them. I've always said that the M9 is the digital equivalent of film in quality. Some can accept that, sone can't. I've had a 5D mk2 for years and always wished I had that sensor in my M9 and that is exactly what I got with the M240. I see no reason to upgrade my 5D and 3 years from now I can't imagine any feature that will have me upgrading my M240.
GaryLH
Veteran
The bottom line for any company is profit. So many companies in the past have tried to be a Leica clone dating back to the film days
- the various ltm clones w/ I think the last being the Canon RF
- Minolta CLE (Minolta CL doesn't count since it was made in partnership w/ Leica)
- Konica RF
- Epson RD
I kind of suspect the marketing department is looking at the past history here. RF mechanism are not cheap... An electronic split image like what the Fuji did in the x100s, xe2 and xt1 maybe the closest anyone will ever c.. To make a sensor that works for all the different RF lenses like what Leica or even Ricoh did is not something the normal manufacture would like to take the cost burden for when their goal is to maximize profit for their own camera and lens sales.
If u want the rf experience u got three choices
- stay w/ film or Leica drf or find a used Epson RD
If RF experience is not key and u are ok w/ the limited number of lenses that will work w/ brand x manufacturer, then there are plenty of choices.
Gary
- the various ltm clones w/ I think the last being the Canon RF
- Minolta CLE (Minolta CL doesn't count since it was made in partnership w/ Leica)
- Konica RF
- Epson RD
I kind of suspect the marketing department is looking at the past history here. RF mechanism are not cheap... An electronic split image like what the Fuji did in the x100s, xe2 and xt1 maybe the closest anyone will ever c.. To make a sensor that works for all the different RF lenses like what Leica or even Ricoh did is not something the normal manufacture would like to take the cost burden for when their goal is to maximize profit for their own camera and lens sales.
If u want the rf experience u got three choices
- stay w/ film or Leica drf or find a used Epson RD
If RF experience is not key and u are ok w/ the limited number of lenses that will work w/ brand x manufacturer, then there are plenty of choices.
Gary
Last edited:
CrisR
Well-known
My M9's sensor was repaired for free, I wasn't even the original owner.
Roger also covered everything. I don't see Sony allowing drop in sensor upgrades btw.
Roger also covered everything. I don't see Sony allowing drop in sensor upgrades btw.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I sometimes get the feeling people jump on folks who express their frustration with costly limited options for a camera they want and then go on to clarify just what they mean (and want).
I'm among the crowd who wants a rangefinder shaped-and-sized digital with full frame and ..... M mount. Seems like such a simple request. I'm not wedded to the optical rangefinder now tht EVFs have become quite usable, but I'd prefer it if my dreams could be made true. The reasons why I don't see my desired camera (at my price point) are not mysterious to me. However, I can't accept their unchanging inevitability. I have hope that technology, market demand, economic tweaks, and stars in Saggitarius align and I get the opportunity to pounce on that dream camera.
How remote is that hope? I'm not sure, but I know the context: I'm a professional married to a spouse who is also a professional, meaning we have multiple advanced degrees and jobs with salaries. We also have a kid about to enter university, a house, aging parents, and retirement accounts that have actually shrunk in recent times.... I may be able to afford the M9 "on paper", but practically its a different story... At this point, I can budget $2000 if I'm compelled to get the camera (meets my desired features). But, $5-6000, or even $3500 (used M9 prices) just doesn't feel like a wise choice. Not to mention it would begin to represent a real financial outlay. I am not a professional photographer and have not been paid for photography in many years. Its now a hobby. I just so like the results I get from my rangefinders and wonderful lenses.
I lay all this out because, of all the "dreamers" I've talked to or read posts from, this is a common experience. I know that some (I'd venture most), like me, have accumulated a nice selection of M or LTM lenses. I really dislike the people who spout "if you don't like the price of the new M, wait til you see the lenses". Um, yeah, I know about the lenses. I've already taken care of that. I would like the motivation to get more.
I don't think its that far off to hit that sweet spot of camera features and price point where a decent sized glut of people like me get what we want and say thank you with our $$.
I'm among the crowd who wants a rangefinder shaped-and-sized digital with full frame and ..... M mount. Seems like such a simple request. I'm not wedded to the optical rangefinder now tht EVFs have become quite usable, but I'd prefer it if my dreams could be made true. The reasons why I don't see my desired camera (at my price point) are not mysterious to me. However, I can't accept their unchanging inevitability. I have hope that technology, market demand, economic tweaks, and stars in Saggitarius align and I get the opportunity to pounce on that dream camera.
How remote is that hope? I'm not sure, but I know the context: I'm a professional married to a spouse who is also a professional, meaning we have multiple advanced degrees and jobs with salaries. We also have a kid about to enter university, a house, aging parents, and retirement accounts that have actually shrunk in recent times.... I may be able to afford the M9 "on paper", but practically its a different story... At this point, I can budget $2000 if I'm compelled to get the camera (meets my desired features). But, $5-6000, or even $3500 (used M9 prices) just doesn't feel like a wise choice. Not to mention it would begin to represent a real financial outlay. I am not a professional photographer and have not been paid for photography in many years. Its now a hobby. I just so like the results I get from my rangefinders and wonderful lenses.
I lay all this out because, of all the "dreamers" I've talked to or read posts from, this is a common experience. I know that some (I'd venture most), like me, have accumulated a nice selection of M or LTM lenses. I really dislike the people who spout "if you don't like the price of the new M, wait til you see the lenses". Um, yeah, I know about the lenses. I've already taken care of that. I would like the motivation to get more.
I don't think its that far off to hit that sweet spot of camera features and price point where a decent sized glut of people like me get what we want and say thank you with our $$.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
May I have also a honest input: I got myself a second hand M8 four years ago. I have had NO problems with it. I do maybe 20 exposures a month with it, as it is for me a "digital polaroid" when in doubt how my leica M images will look alike. I use M6 and M3 for my images.
Pioneer
Veteran
I do feel your pain but the easily replaceable sensor went away with film. Of course the good part is that you can bring it back with an M6 and a really good scanner, but that also has its own problems.
mfogiel
Veteran
I think, that Leica is making the kind of compromises, that suit best Leica marketing strategy and Leica bottom line. It is a pity, that perfectly good digital cameras have a somewhat short lifespan, but this also happens with lots of other electronics. I think we simply have to adjust. If you do not want digital rot, stick to film.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.