Horrifying prospect for any digital M8 8.2 owner!!!

[RBruceCR]

Leíca is not Leica anymore, it's owned by Hermes, a up market consumer goods company. This might prove that the best Leica is the M3 and their brethren.

And I was considering an X2 in my wild dreams...

 

[DamenS]

Any manufacturer makes an estimate of the percentage of parts that may fail related to the estimated number of cameras they will sell to ensure availability for repairs. One thing we know for sure : Leica sold three times the number of M8s they expected - it may be the explanation of his problem.

This logic doesn't work - especially given the screens are the same ones in the M9. So Leica initially produced 3 times the M8's they expected to sell ? Not likely - that would be very poor business practice. Upon selling 3 times the M8's they expected to sell (but all of which they produced for sale), why didn't they then adjust the number of spare parts they had accordingly ? Either by buying more from the supplier OR if they were no longer available, by NOT using their remaining stock in the M9 by using a new model screen in the M9 instead (which would have simultaneously given the opportunity to improve the screen resolution etc.). Not to mention that this would mean those M8 screens also didn't need to support future repairs of M9's (and possible MM's as well). Sorry, but someone clearly "stuffed up" here !

Just a small comparison. A Leica MP that will last your entire life time is 5000$. A Leica M9P is around 7000$. So that means you're getting the Leica MP components, plus a FF sensor and all related electronics for just 2000$ extra. That is very cheap in Leica standards. I think a M9P should be more like 12000$ and I'm sure Leica would provide parts for the next 50 years not 5 if you pay this price 😉

A Leica M9P is "getting the MP components + a FF sensor and electronics" and therefore should be priced at $12,000 ?? Fallacious argument following from erroneous understanding of the facts. An M9p (or any digital Leica) is NOT the same internals as an MP + a FF sensor + electronics. Next you'll be suggesting that people who believe the mechanical build quality and "smoothness" of an MP is no different from a Leica M6, except that the M6 also includes electronics and therefore should be more expensive. The mechanical insides of a camera DO matter to certain people and it is disingenous to call the M9P an MP + and attempt to price it accordingly.

Well, I guess it was fantastic thinking that led some of us to unrealistically hope that Leica somehow could do better than other companies.

No. It was fantastic thinking that Leica could somehow do AS WELL as other companies - that's the whole point. How many other companies are unable to repair their camera models just prior to the current model ? How many camera companies are unable to repair/replace the screens on their 5 year old digital cameras ? Running out of an essential spare part of such a recent product is just a poor business practice no matter how the apologists want to frame the situation. This is entirely ignoring the fact that the Leica is a premium product, sold at a premium price, and part of that price is predicated upon a name (Leica) which has previously justified (an arguable point) such a premium price partially through the presentment of longevity. The consumer is ultimately to blame, as we should now take this longevity out of the equation, until (unless) it is no longer a part of the premium price and adjust our expectations accordingly. This will not occur, but Leica will not be held accountable by a large enough population that they will be forced to improve. We are as much to blame as Leica.

 

[I Love Film]

Hermes sold its shares of Leica in 2006.

You are wrong.

Leíca is not Leica anymore, it's owned by Hermes, a up market consumer goods company. This might prove that the best Leica is the M3 and their brethren.

And I was considering an X2 in my wild dreams...

 

[I Love Film]

This is pure speculation, but the screens probably ran out due to the M9, not the M8.

Far more M9's were sold than ever estimated. So lets say for the sake of argument that Leica contracted with a manufacturer to do a production run of screens in 2009. Perhaps they reordered once or twice.

Years have gone by, and it is not worth it for the manufacture to do another run of screens for Leica, since Leica is a very small company by electronics giant standards. These screens were being used in 2006, so today they are hopelessly obsolete.

The chance of Leica finding another completely pin compatible screen that will work is almost zero.

* EDIT - JAAPV posted that the M9, in fact, uses a different LCD panel than the M8. So this entire post is probably wrong.

This logic doesn't work - especially given the screens are the same ones in the M9. So Leica initially produced 3 times the M8's they expected to sell ? Not likely - that would be very poor business practice. Upon selling 3 times the M8's they expected to sell (but all of which they produced for sale), why didn't they then adjust the number of spare parts they had accordingly ? Either by buying more from the supplier OR if they were no longer available, by NOT using their remaining stock in the M9 by using a new model screen in the M9 (which would have simultaneously given the opportunity to improve the screen resolution etc.).

 

[DougFord]

Alternately those of us left alive in the future may be living in caves waiting for the nuclear cloud to disipate ... making drawings on the cave walls with ochre or charcoal to amuse ourselves while we wait for RFF to come back on line! 😀

...and those of us that shot film, will hold up our negatives to the dim light and marvel at the images . 😛

 

[splitimageview]

This is pure speculation, but the screens probably ran out due to the M9, not the M8.
The chance of Leica finding another completely pin compatible screen that will work is almost zero.

Poor planning. The manufacturer should have alerted them to a last order date for the EOL. Then again, maybe they did, and Leica didn't order enough...

 

[DamenS]

This is pure speculation, but the screens probably ran out due to the M9, not the M8.

Far more M9's were sold than ever estimated. So lets say for the sake of argument that Leica contracted with a manufacturer to do a production run of screens in 2009. Perhaps they reordered once or twice.

Years have gone by, and it is not worth it for the manufacture to do another run of screens for Leica, since Leica is a very small company by electronics giant standards. These screens were being used in 2006, so today they are hopelessly obsolete.

The chance of Leica finding another completely pin compatible screen that will work is almost zero.

Which entirely supports my point (sorry, it wasn't clear from your text whether you were using my quote in support of your beliefs or whether you somehow thought you were saying something different to me). Leica could have chosen not to use the same screen on the M9 (heck they could have even "upgraded" the M9's screen half-way through the product cycle, called it an "M9 Galileo" and charged MORE for it), therefore ensuring they had adequate screen surplus to continue M8 repairs and we would not be in this predicament. Very poor management.

 

[walnuts]

I cherish my mechanical M camera and lenses. I have never held an electronic Leica camera that inspired anything close to confidence. Certainly not any of their digital ones. I honestly believe that Leicas target market stopped being photographers a long time ago.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

A Leica M9P is "getting the MP components + a FF sensor and electronics" and therefore should be priced at $12,000 ?? Fallacious argument following from erroneous understanding of the facts. An M9p (or any digital Leica) is NOT the same internals as an MP + a FF sensor + electronics. Next you'll be suggesting that people who believe the mechanical build quality and "smoothness" of an MP is no different from a Leica M6, except that the M6 also includes electronics and therefore should be more expensive. The mechanical insides of a camera DO matter to certain people and it is disingenous to call the M9P an MP + and attempt to price it accordingly.

Well, maybe not the MP but how about the M7? Anyhow I'm not saying I agree with Leica, but it does give the impression that either the M7 at 5k is grossly overpriced or the M9 at 7k is very cheap.

 

[DamenS]

Well, maybe not the MP but how about the M7? Anyhow I'm not saying I agree with Leica, but it does give the impression that either the M7 at 5k is grossly overpriced or the M9 at 7k is very cheap.

That comparison is certainly closer. I absolutely know which statement I would agree with out of the M7 being grossly overpriced at 5k or the M9 at 7k being very cheap. 😉

 

[willie_901]

Since the spring of 2008 I decided Leica was not a trust worthy company and I would not purchase their products in the future.

This situation has not changed my mind. The issue for me is not the cost. When you pay for quality you should only have to cry once.

Technology has led to sweeping change throughout imaging. The transient nature of extremely expensive digital still-camera bodies is simply one of these changes. Leica's slogan "Built for a Lifetime, and Enduring in Value" (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m9/) is simply not true. The M8 LCD situation is only one symptom presented by a much more insiduous disease.

Leica will thrive with out me and my photography will thrive without Leica.

 

[taffy]

I just hope some entrepreneurial fellow comes along and starts offering 3rd party fixes for busted M8 LCD screens Leica can't fix anymore.

 

[jaapv]

I doubt it - the market is too small. 🙄 It is not a component with a high failure rate.

 

[jaapv]

This logic doesn't work - especially given the screens are the same ones in the M9.
.

Actually they are not - different manufacturer - different interface. same for M8.2.

 

[DamenS]

Actually they are not - different manufacturer - different interface. same for M8.2.

Cool - though I still think of other manufacturers (such as Shindo Laboratory in Japan) who, when faced with a limited number/availability of components, (in this case New Old Stock tubes or valves), will limit the production of devices such that there is sufficient backup available from his reserved stock (and this with valves which are underbiased to the extent that they may very well last 40 years). Now that may be an extreme example of what I am talking about, but that - to me - is good business practise, and is what should occur. Especially for a premium product.

My argument is that Leica - if there truly was a shortage of such screens, which has not yet been established by anyone (hard to believe if they still managed to order 3 times the screens they originally anticipated and the screen was also used by other manufacturers), should have either produced less cameras (not entirely palatable due to missing out on potential sales), or commenced using alternate screens (maybe this is why the M8.2 was introduced ? In which case it should have been introduced earlier when Leica still had ample reserves of the M8 screens for their existing customers).

 

[Jim-st]

Actually they are not - different manufacturer - different interface. same for M8.2.

Hmmm.. then why did they just scrap the M8 upgrade scheme, I wonder, if the M8.2 is a different LCD?

 

[jaapv]

If you go to the website of the supplier of the screens for the first series M8 you will see that the stock is 0.

The part number for the LCD module is TD025WHEB2. You can see it printed on the back of the LCD module in my Anatomy thread. The date code in the picture suggests it was made in March 2006.



I did a search on Panelook.com which is a sort of clearing house for LCD panels with something like 15m in-stock panels registered. This panel has indeed now been discontinued with 0 stock available. It was made by a company called Toppoly.



I'm quite sure Leica's procurement people will have searched high and low for stock, without success. A stockpile of, say, 1000 units at a cost of something like $40k would have saved them untold grief now.



The same information suggests it was used in mobile phones, so the question is, which ones?

It is worth remembering that Leica was in fact bankrupt in all but a legal sense when the M8 came out - I am sure there was no option to create huge stocks of spare parts.

 

[DamenS]

Hmmm.. then why did they just scrap the M8 upgrade scheme, I wonder, if the M8.2 is a different LCD?

It wasn't entirely clear but I think he meant that the M9 has a different screen, same with the M8.2 (not meaning same screen as the M8, but a different screen, just like in the M9).

 

[jaapv]

Hmmm.. then why did they just scrap the M8 upgrade scheme, I wonder, if the M8.2 is a different LCD?

Because the M8 upgrade is not turning it into an M8.2. It is the M8 screen with a sapphire cover. But scrapping the upgrade scheme may mean that the M8.2. screen stock is nearing the minimum level needed for future replacements and that they don't want to get into the same situation as the M8 is in now.

 

[IEDEI]

it's odd and a bit predictable that film M owners are piling into this thread to throw their unwanted insults towards digital Ms. that's not what this thread should be about. there are plenty of digital M owners who care about their devices and would like to ensure their functionality.....nothing more, nothing less.

ah the art of "trolling"....as a noob to these forums, I'm seeing that it even exists on a Rangefinder forum.