How durable is the Leica?

wgerrard said:
Joe, I've got zero empirical data to go on here, but the mechanical parts of a digital Leica ought to last as long as any other Leica if both cameras are built to the same standard.

It is a commonly held belief that if electronic parts are going to fail, they will probably fail early in the lifetime, due to defects. Electronics parts, though, can be damaged by heat, moisture, dust, violent motion (dropping a camera), etc. ......
Click to expand...

Nothing empirical here either but I wonder if the have done a cycle on and off a few million times to test them. I've had great luck with digital cameras lasting a long time with a reasonable level of respect. My second, a D-100/C-1 Olympus was working fine when I gave it away to a needy college instructor to help with an issue out West. Haven't tried my first one, an Epson Photo PC.

I'm hoping the digital Ms will last close to as long as the mechanical Ms have.

B2 (;->
 
I think that for quite a while Digital Depreciation is going to be around. It is still a technology that is in its infancy and until it reaches a point where there is little or no "technical" improvements - the latest "whizzbang" camera will attract attention and depreciate former versions.
As for reliability - I think that most of the higher end digitals are doing quite well. As with any emerging new product - there is bound to be some glitches. These days we have to contend with more complex issues - soft ware and sensor technology on top of the mechanical functions. The days of prodding sluggish shutters and advances on your M's with a screwdriver, toothpick or whatever are gone.
It is all modular! Even a minute glitch somewhere shuts down the whole camera and usually results in a major replacement of a module - at lots of $ expenditure.
In the old days, your M3 or M2 was not that different from the M4 and the choice to trade up was mainly based on some minor improvement, not a complete new product. Leica tried with the M5 and failed.
The M8 has dropped about 50-60% in value and the M8-2 around 30-35% once the M9 was announced. It is substantial "loss", but nothing like the DSLR's - were most stores will not even take them as trade ins anymore.
When you "upgraded" your M2 or M3 - you usually traded it for an allowance on the "new" M4. Today you pay full price and after 2-3 years you are left with an expensive paperweight.
So, the M9 is today $7000 and it will probably hold its value reasonably well -until someone comes up with a competitive version with either more pixels or better high speed performance and at a slightly lower price. The generational gap for digital is short - very short. rather than calculating it in years, now we do it in month. Leica and Nikon used to change models every decade (M2/M3 50's and 60's - M4-M5 late 60's early 70's/M42-M4P late 70's-early 80's,M6 lasted several decades. Nikon F was 60's, F2 70's and F3 80's. This kept used prices stable and allowed stores to take trade ins with a reasonable chance of reselling the older stuff.
Now the used market for M is in lenses - bodies are dropping in value. With DSLR's even the lenses are taking a hit as they are vastly more complex and either not worth fixing or simply not fixable if something goes wrong.
All of this is fine if you are shooting for "pay" and can write down your stuff - if you are simply shooting for fun - it can add up quickly.
 
Thank You Gentlemen for the thoughtful answers about digital durability and depreciation. Being just a lucky amateur I will stick with film M's for now. They have served me well for twenty years. Now I need to set up a darkroom and get back in it. Joe
 
Tom A said:
..... It is all modular! Even a minute glitch somewhere shuts down the whole camera and usually results in a major replacement of a module - at lots of $ expenditure........
Click to expand...

One of the issues with all electronics, the more bells and whistles you add the more you have to test and the more opportunity there is for the product to go South really fast. I would have hoped that Leica had taken the design approach of building not only for reliability but for repair-ability. I'm sure they are just so happy to get it out the door this goal was tossed out about the third scope issue meeting.

I really think what the vast majority of folks would be happier with is a camera that was very basic. Shoots raw, really fast, shutter speed, aperture, sensitivity (ISO/DIN/ASA). Put all the other things into a software package that runs under Windows, Linux, Mac and in the Clouds somewhere. Keep the camera as simple and straight forward as possible and make the other stuff be done outside where it's easy to change/fix/improve/control.

I have a sad feeling that the M7 might have the same issues as an M8 in 10 years or so.

On the other hand, film based Leica and Nikon RFs will be around for many years.

B2 (;->
 
BillBingham2 said:
I have a sad feeling that the M7 might have the same issues as an M8 in 10 years or so.
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but I am extremely curious. As an M8 owner myself, who has owned an M7, owned an M3, still owns an M6 and an M2, I still have to figure out what the statement "the M7 might have the same issues as an M8 in 10 years or so" means.

Will the M7 need an IR/UV cut filter? Will it start using a CCD sensor with an 1.33? (I agree, that can be an issue) Will it become incompatible with Tri-X?
 
I do not own an M7 but suspect they will last well. Electronically controlled shutters have been around for quite a while and are well proven. Further, they are much simpler electronics than what is in the M8/M9. As a side note, the military has embraced modern computers and they serve well in many weapons systems. The future of digital photography may well evolve into very tough, reliable systems but it is not there yet. Joe
 
Livesteamer said:
I do not own an M7 but suspect they will last well. Electronically controlled shutters have been around for quite a while and are well proven. Further, they are much simpler electronics than what is in the M8/M9. As a side note, the military has embraced modern computers and they serve well in many weapons systems. The future of digital photography may well evolve into very tough, reliable systems but it is not there yet. Joe
Click to expand...

For an example of electronic shutters and longevity, look at the Nikon F3.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Will the M7 need an IR/UV cut filter? Will it start using a CCD sensor with an 1.33? (I agree, that can be an issue) Will it become incompatible with Tri-X?
Click to expand...

You already have problems getting some parts (Kodachrome 200) for it! :bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:

While I think there is more than enough examples of electronic shutters lasting a long time, perhaps 10 should be say 30 years. Will you be able to get parts? I do not think they will stop working but finding parts for electronic cameras can be, say problematic. I can send a dead M3 in need to Sherry or DAG and get it back better than new....

B2 (;->
 
I don't think you would want to trust your body work car window or your Leica to protect you if I were to use either my .45 long Colt or Ruger 454 Casull .


Roger Hicks said:
This is a very valid point. You no doubt recall T.E. Lawrence's image of riding a motorcycle fast: something about 'beetles, like spent bullets'.

On the other hand, car bodywork or even car windows will dissipate the vast majority of pistol bullets at anything but point-blank range, and it is next to impossible to shoot out vehicle tyres with most pistols. Source: a police department that didn't want to buy H-D motorcycles, and was taking the pee out of their claim that their tires [sic] were bulletproof. I think too that more than two or at least three of layers of bodywork, especially with the engine block in the way, would dissipate the energy of any normal rifle bullet.

And of course there's a vast difference between a Lee Enfield and a Kalashnikov. For that matter, I'd back the walls of my house (fairly average in my village) against anything up to and including a single round of .5 HMG and possibly even 20mm. But then, the walls of my house are stone and rather over two feet thick. Where I lived in California, .22 would probably have gone through.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
I am sure that in some instances cameras have stopped bullets but the bullet's energy must have been nearly spent anyway. Just a fluke and nothing else. After having punched holes in 1/4 inch mild steel plate at 600 yards using Nato 7.62 ball rounds I would take little comfort in any camera as body armour. Nice romantic thought though.

Bob
 
never say never

never say never

i've read of incidents where a cd stopped one, also a coin, or a badge, so i'd say, 'never say never'.
 
mine have worked in rain, snow and at -15 degs C. Never missed a beat. focus became stiffer in the lenses too, but no prob. My Zeiss actually stiffened less, but both were usable.

I look after mine. I dont bash them about to feel macho, but at the same time feel confident they will do whats required under any circumstances.

I would not keep it under your coat if that means keeping it warm as temp chanhes will result in condensation issues
 
mine have worked in rain, snow and at -15 degs C. Never missed a beat. focus became stiffer in the lenses too, but no prob. My Zeiss actually stiffened less, but both were usable.

I look after mine. I dont bash them about to feel macho, but at the same time feel confident they will do whats required under any circumstances.

I would not keep it under your coat if that means keeping it warm as temp chanhes will result in condensation issues
 
jack palmer said:
I don't think you would want to trust your body work car window or your Leica to protect you if I were to use either my .45 long Colt or Ruger 454 Casull .
Click to expand...
Dear Jack,

Or indeed my own .44 magnum. That's why I said 'vast majority'.

Source for original comment: LAPD, in the days of freeway shootings, since checked with Royal Marine armourer and UK police firearms officer. Both the latter added that although the LAPD advice was almost certainly correct, (a) they wouldn't want to rely on it and (b) you'd need considerable presence of mind to avoud being distracted while driving.

Cheers,

R.
 
Electronics don't mean poor lifespan

Electronics don't mean poor lifespan

Yes, my Nikon F3 worked fine for over 30 years (purchased in 1983), and it still had the original LCD meter display. I sold it earlier this year - regret!

The meter in my Nikon F2A still works fine. I asked Sover Wong about the ring resistor, and he mentioned that the F2A meter has a wirewound resistor that will last more than a lifetime. Slides come out perfectly exposed if I meter correctly.

Even my Canon FX of 1964 has a perfectly functioning CdS meter, using a CRIS adapter and a silver oxide cell. Same for the Canon 7s.

The M7 is a beautiful camera. The slow shutter speeds are absolutely silent until the second shutter curtain closes. I love the semi-spot metering of the Leica M6+, it yields a higher percentage of well exposed slides than even the F3, which has been my benchmark for decades.

Heck, even my Bessa R does very well - a sort of M6 for the LTM crowd.

As K. Rockwell points out, the solder these days have low (or no) lead content that gives rise to "tin fingers". These metal crystals then short out adjacent traces causing failure of the circuit board. Back in the days when they used real lead in solder, the electronics can last basically forever. The military insists upon lead in the solder for the same reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom