Horrifying prospect for any digital M8 8.2 owner!!!

[twopointeight]

I had conversation with customer service at Leica, N.J. a few weeks ago. They are no longer offering the M8 upgrade to M8.2 specs. Also, if you should need a new LCD screen for your M8 or M8.2 it will be replaced with the original plastic screen as there are no more sapphire screens available. Not the end of the world. I'm about to send my M8.2in for the discounted CLA, and it will be good to go for at least another year or two. Is there a problem?

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . btw, this thread is not about film or digital or your bank account, its about a company honoring its promise - and we still don't know for a fact if the topic of this thread is factual.

Eminently true.

And, if it is factual, how much it matters. Suppose 10 LCDs fail. Yes, bad news, but not a disaster. Suppose 100: a bit nasty. Suppose 1000: very nasty.

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

We are setting new standards here, but none worth remembering.

 

[splitimageview]

Leica should secure enough parts from their suppliers to fix M8s for the next few years, and they probably have. But they won't be fixable forever, unless you have a parts camera to rob parts from.

 

[back alley]

gentlemen...let's all cool down a bit, eh?

as far as factual...this was hashed out on another forum a day or 2 ago and leica new jersey confirmed that the lcd was no longer available for replecement or repair. they offered to appraise the m8 and discount the purchase of an m9...

 

[Matus]

I have mailed the question to Leitz directly and hope they will reply.

Kent, If you really mailed the question to Leitz, then they will be very surprised 😉

Leitz turned to LEItz CAmera mera (or LEICA) in 1986 (the year they moved to Wetzlar). There is company Leitz in Oberkochen (linked above) and they are NOT in camera business.

 

[funkydog]

I can accept that a proper function of an M8/9 cannot be gueranteed for 4 decades but Leitz should be able to replace a display at least for 10 or 12 years.

For the sake of discussion, how much extra would Leica need to charge up front on top of an already expensive camera in order for the company to hold an additional 12 year parts and repair inventory _after_ the camera model has been discontinued; for an obsolete LCD specification that was first used in a Leica camera in 2006? Leica would have had to buy up the entire world's production of that LCD from the years 2006-2012 and beyond to satisfy this requirement.

Perhaps it would be far more economical and practical for Leica to exchange old M8's sent for repair with newer models (M9,10,11,12,etc). Give you a whole new digital camera rather than attempt to fault diagnose and revive a tired old camera.

 

[sevo]

Look at how many cameras with built in selenium meters are now meterless, now that Metrawatt ceased production of replacement selenium cells around 2006.

Do I smell a Scherer UL there? Metrawatt made meters for many a camera maker - but the selenium cells they used in the fifties to seventies usually were by the regular German electronics giants (Siemens and AEG), as evident by the stamp markings on them.

If Metrawatt ever made their own selenium cells, they certainly did not do so in the mid 2000's, and even less so under that name, as they had already been absorbed by (Swiss) electrics giant BBC in the late sixties, who'd split out all light metering activities into Gossen by the eighties, while Metrawatt carried on into the leading European brand for electrical power grid installation testing equipment.

 

[Roger Hicks]

For the sake of discussion, how much extra would Leica need to charge up front on top of an already expensive camera in order for the company to hold an additional 12 year parts and repair inventory _after_ the camera model has been discontinued; for an obsolete LCD specification that was first used in a Leica camera in 2006? Leica would have had to buy up the entire world's production of that LCD from the years 2006-2012 and beyond to satisfy this requirement.

Perhaps it would be far more economical and practical for Leica to exchange old M8's sent for repair with newer models (M9,10,11,12,etc). Give you a whole new digital camera rather than attempt to fault diagnose and revive a tired old camera.

It's hard to argue with this. After all, who KNOWS how long a new component will last?

But here's another logical/cynical argument. Let's say they decided to keep 5000 new M8 LCDs in stock. And let's say, for the sale of argument, that a repair costs $2500.

In their situation, I'd offer a repair at $2500 and a replacement Leica (current model) as a trade-in (so we have the old body to cannibalize) at $3500.

Which would YOU go for?

Cheers,

R.

 

[splitimageview]

Time to shut this one down?

 

[fstops]

You are the rudest person I have ever seen on RFF. Arrogant. Unhappy. What else?

Sorry for my harsh reply but you were asking for it by being arrogant and unintentionally ironic.

 

[taskoni]

You're not very sharp, are you?

He is pretty sharp person my friend.

It is interestingto find out what is your position in the thread, so far you insulted a very intelligent person and friend, you draw a parallel between shovel, tractor and Leica, not very sharp too but what do you care about Leica warranty? Are you a Leica user?

The thread might be not for film vs digital but certainly it's not about you and your problems of communication. There's no need for Internet tough guys here.

Regards,
Boris

 

[funkydog]

Let's say they decided to keep 5000 new M8 LCDs in stock. And let's say, for the sale of argument, that a repair costs $2500.

In their situation, I'd offer a repair at $2500 and a replacement Leica (current model) as a trade-in (so we have the old body to cannibalize) at $3500.

Which would YOU go for?

Speaking just for myself, I'd pay the $3500 and exchange the busted old camera for a new one. I don't have any sentimental attachment with old digicams. If I elected to have it repaired, who knows what else could go wrong after the warranty on the first fix has expired that would require another $2500 to fix.

 

[robbiechad]

I think so, besides I do not have $3500 dollars.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Speaking just for myself, I'd pay the $3500 and exchange the busted old camera for a new one. I don't have any sentimental attachment with old digicams. If I elected to have it repaired, who knows what else could go wrong after the warranty on the first fix has expired that would require another $2500 to fix.

Exactly. I think most would. And I think that if Leica has any sense, this may be their policy in the future. I'll ask 'em at photokina.

The numbers are of course open to dispute. What if someone deliberately smashed the LCD in order to get a cheap new M9/M10? But this is not beyond the wit of man to recalculate.

Cheers,

R.

 

[funkydog]

The numbers are of course open to dispute. What if someone deliberately smashed the LCD in order to get a cheap new M9/M10? But this is not beyond the wit of man to recalculate.

If I was running Leica and had a bottomless pit of money to draw on, I'd offer a business model where every buyer of a current camera has a free or discounted upgrade to the next consecutive model. Something like computer software upgrades. It's easy to see why I am not the CEO of Leica.

 

[sevo]

For the sake of discussion, how much extra would Leica need to charge up front on top of an already expensive camera in order for the company to hold an additional 12 year parts and repair inventory _after_ the camera model has been discontinued; for an obsolete LCD specification that was first used in a Leica camera in 2006? Leica would have had to buy up the entire world's production of that LCD from the years 2006-2012 and beyond to satisfy this requirement.

Well, perhaps technically, if they already had been the only remaining buyer of that particular LCD - but given the number of M8/M9 bodies sold, relative to consumer cameras, media players and other display using gadgets, that would have been a very small series, or Leica was a very small customer relative to the other buyers.

Presumably they did buy the number of replacement LCDs they estimated as necessary. That they obviously were caught off their guard by the discontinuation by the up-stream maker and could or would not redesign the M9 to use a different display for the remaining production (nor cease production of the M9 to save up spare displays for the M8) may be contrary to the expectations many have of Leica. But as a small maker of consumer products they do not really wield the power to convince their suppliers or investors to follow a different approach...

 

[fstops]

Eminently true.

And, if it is factual, how much it matters. Suppose 10 LCDs fail. Yes, bad news, but not a disaster. Suppose 100: a bit nasty. Suppose 1000: very nasty.

Cheers,

R.

Maybe, and this is pure speculation, maybe people at Leica had a meeting and discussed how the used market is really making a dent in their sales, after all the $3000 depreciation on buying a Leica M9 is not easy to ignore so most people opted for used Leica Ms trusting that those cameras could be serviced.

With this news the prices for used digital Leica M cameras will be impacted because the risk factor has gone up. And on the long run the logic of buying a digital M also seems rather shaky when a Leica M will have the same life as a regular digital camera.

Imho, this sort of cutting corners and flip-flopping is not good in the long run both for Leica and its consumers, especially in the dawn of cheap FF hitting the market.

Leica could have subcontracted the work or even charged a fee, but this approach is not good for anyone.

 

[funkydog]

Presumably they did buy the number of replacement LCDs they estimated as necessary. That they obviously were caught off their guard .. ..may be contrary to the expectations many have of Leica. But as a small maker of consumer products they do not really wield the power to convince their suppliers or investors to follow a different approach...

Yes. Unfortunately, they do not have the same clout as Apple does with its LCD vendors.

 

[faris]

You're not very sharp, are you?

That is a rude, discourteous and unwarranted statement.
Dave is a civil person and his posts have always been respectful of others.

I agree with Dave. You want to play, you pay. Simple as that. Can't afford it, move on. The market shall determine the viability ( or otherwise ) of a company; Leica and/or the other cam companies.

Best regards.