chuckroast
Well-known
Just saw a comment on /r/leica on Reddit that says the batteries ARE available. They said they called Leica (service and parts dept) and asked for part number 420-240.020-000. They were told the batteries are available but there is an 8 week lead time and that currently there is a limit of one battery per serial number. Price was $90.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have had good luck with Leica cameras. On the odd chance I get a good shot it has been a bit better because of the camera. I appreciate that. The older M8.2 and M9 have after-market batteries and I stocked up on them. I have two batteries for the M240. And a recent acquisition has batteries from Leica, at US$200 a pop. I suppose I should be glad there is no pint of blood requirement. Amazon sells an aftermarket kit with two batteries and charger for less than one Leica battery. Granted the mAh is lower in each battery, it is an exact replacement for the Q2's. OTOH it is a much better buy. Leica is like the cow that gives good milk and then kicks over the pail.
I was reading somewhere recently that Herr Doktor Kaufmann saved Leica from bankruptcy. It does not seem a selfless act of altruism.
chuckroast
Well-known
Nor should it be. Leica's stockholders/owners have a reasonable right to get a return on their investment. But it is short-sighted in the extreme to not provide ongoing support for goods already sold. That's how you lose repeat business.
chuckroast
Well-known
I suspect that they don't currently have a steady enough supply at volume to do that, though it's encouraging that you can get the batteries at all.
But this is just he tip of the service iceberg. DAG can still do full overhauls and fix M5 meters with the spare parts at his disposal. He, Sherry Krauter, and others can do full repairs/overhauls on Barnacks, M2s, M3s, M4s, etc. (I have and M2 and and M5 that DAG overhauled and one M4 Sherry did and all of them are pretty much flawless.) What are the odds that in, say, 50 years, you'll still be able to get a Leica digital replacement sensor, control electronics, or display for an M11?
And THAT is the problem. Buying Leica digital is a very big investment. These cameras already exceed any reasonable use case even the most demanding pro might have, whether we're talking about an M11, and SL, or a Q43. Heck, my 10 year old D-Lux Typ 109 covers more than enough for 90% of the shooting I do (its monochrome setting is astonishingly good). IOW, I would expect these to be good for use for a VERY long time just like their film ancestors were. But that's not going to happen because the parts supply is gonna dry up. If you don't think so, go see what it takes to fix an M8 or M9 with sensor corrosion. It's third party only and very expensive.
My Fuiji GA-645Zi cost me about $1600 when new some 25 years ago. Sending it off to fix the bad LCD cost me $600, which is - in my view - reasonable. But spending the better part of $10K for a camera I am unlikely to be able to fix at all in 25 years seems ... crazy to me.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Small point, no sensor cover corrosion in M8/M8.2's that I am aware of. The M9's were fixable at ~$1000 but that price has gone up. Jadon Rosado, Red Dot Repair, was doing sensor cover replacement but has stopped.
M8 Sensor. Corrosion Problem ?: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
www.dpreview.com
chuckroast
Well-known
Small point, no sensor cover corrosion in M8/M8.2's that I am aware of. The M9's were fixable at ~$1000 but that price has gone up. Jadon Rosado, Red Dot Repair, was doing sensor cover replacement but has stopped.
M8 Sensor. Corrosion Problem ?: Leica Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.
Ach, I stand (well, sit, actually) corrected
Kolari Vision is still doing it at about $1000 a pop.
I’m just curious why they are forcing owners to accidentally see an online post regarding ordering direct from Leica parts, as opposed to publishing an official statement through the dealer network.
This way customers get accurate info straight away and just place a back order. They still will probably be frustrated by the lead time regardless.
Archiver
Veteran
@chuckroast I'm wondering how Leica compares with big name cameras like Canon/Nikon in terms of repairability over the years. One could spend $7k+ on a Canon pro DSLR, will there be parts in 25 years? Perhaps more than for Leica because of sales volume, but how likely?
Same could be said for a Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D, which cost a chunk of change and sell in low numbers. I've got 14 years from my M9 so far, with more to come, touch wood.
Same could be said for a Fuji GFX or Hasselblad X1D, which cost a chunk of change and sell in low numbers. I've got 14 years from my M9 so far, with more to come, touch wood.
chuckroast
Well-known
I suspect they're about the same.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The nubbin of the problem, to me, is that Leica likes to present itself as better, above the fray, a superior camera and a superior company. Well, as they say out on the street, "You can talk the talk but can you walk the walk?"
Freakscene
Obscure member
When cameras became digital, a single use component (film) of the chain became absorbed by the camera. You cannot think of digital cameras like film ones. They have a life span. The upside is that if you like taking photos, go crazy. I took about 3,000 frames in 4.5 days in Rajasthan. I could never have done that with film, even when it was mainstream and relatively inexpensive.
100,000 frames out of an M11 is a lot cheaper than 100,000 film frames, even when film was cheap. Go crazy. Use them up. That’s what they are for. And they get cheaper the more you use them.
Edit: use the money you save for making nice prints.
100,000 frames out of an M11 is a lot cheaper than 100,000 film frames, even when film was cheap. Go crazy. Use them up. That’s what they are for. And they get cheaper the more you use them.
Edit: use the money you save for making nice prints.
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
A 3% hit rate is good.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Or ice cream...
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
There's a great deal of wisdom in what you say, and your Rajasthan pictures are proof that this approach can work quite successfully. An alternative approach, which I've come to embrace, is the use of medium format color transparency film. I shoot on average four rolls a month (48 frames, not counting occasional bracketing), and each frame is very carefully considered, for two reasons: expense, and I'm a total control freak. There is probably one definite keeper, probably another "sorta", per roll. Now, let me emphasize that this is the process that works for me, and I'm not making any recommendations for others. The point I'm trying to make is that, as you say, one cannot think of film and digital the same way, either in terms of capabilities or approach. I do know that my engagement with the world as an arena for potential photographs is vastly different in nature from that of the "go crazy" approach. Neither better nor worse, but an option to be considered.
Yes, maybe I'm a bit loopy (maybe???). But then, what about folks shooting large format?
Cascadilla
Well-known
Your calculations make sense, but the problem is coming up with that 100,000 worth of exposures up front. Film usage drains our wallets a little bit at a time rather than emptying them out all at once. I wouldn't mind having a Leica M 11 but I couldn't begin to justify the expenditure for what I would do with it. And I have no illusions that the acquisition of a Leica would make me a better photographer.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Part of getting better is using your camera more and shooting more. Usually take one frame? Take ten. Take a hundred if you like. Any camera that you can use more makes you better if you apply thought to your approach and outcome. You can think and shoot a lot.
It doesn’t need to be an M11. Just get the digital camera you think is best for you, then use it. Try to use it up. The type of comments that this thread is full of seems to be levelled at Leica a lot because they have a long history, including of repairability, and the cameras are expensive. It still doesn’t matter. If you buy a digital camera, you’ll get the best value out of it by using it a lot.
I don’t really have time for film anymore. This is not ‘better’ or ‘worse’. Film makes sense if you like the aesthetic, the process or the output enough to justify the time. It makes a lot of sense if you learned on it and know what you are doing. If not, and especially if you are just starting out, digital makes a lot of sense because you can learn at essentially no cost after getting your camera.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Late last year I got a pair from Leica Store Miami. They were $215 apiece, but I did not have to give a S/N. They were a few weeks on back order and came in brown boxes. I am just getting around to opening them - but the bigger task has been trying to figure out the relative health of my other M batteries (the 240/246 have huge batteries for stills use, so it's hard to find the "weakest").
I agree with Freakscene that things have finite lives, but the lack of aftermarket alternatives and Leica's flitting around with a new battery shape for every camera has not helped. On my Sony side, I had NP-FW50s through three successive cameras over 15 years (a NEX-5, an a6300, and an A7rm2) and BX1s work on every RX100, every ZV-1, and the RX1RM2. Even Fuji has kept battery form factors longer than Leica. That said, Leica should have had an M11-style battery and closure from day 1.
But I disagree with the idea that you can "amortize" digital at some massive rate and yet save time. Shoot 100,000 frames with a digital M, and you are not likely to get more keepers in any given time period than a film M - but you will spend a massive amount of time figuring out which ones they are. I look at it differently. If I get 100 pictures that I think are worth a hundred bucks to me, then it's easy to justify $10k.
I agree with Freakscene that things have finite lives, but the lack of aftermarket alternatives and Leica's flitting around with a new battery shape for every camera has not helped. On my Sony side, I had NP-FW50s through three successive cameras over 15 years (a NEX-5, an a6300, and an A7rm2) and BX1s work on every RX100, every ZV-1, and the RX1RM2. Even Fuji has kept battery form factors longer than Leica. That said, Leica should have had an M11-style battery and closure from day 1.
But I disagree with the idea that you can "amortize" digital at some massive rate and yet save time. Shoot 100,000 frames with a digital M, and you are not likely to get more keepers in any given time period than a film M - but you will spend a massive amount of time figuring out which ones they are. I look at it differently. If I get 100 pictures that I think are worth a hundred bucks to me, then it's easy to justify $10k.
Freakscene
Obscure member
If I can edit on the bus, train or plane, or at night in a hotel room, it saves me time. I couldn’t do that with film. As usual, do what works for you.
Marty
Archiver
Veteran
@Freakscene @Dante_Stella
Part of what has made me a better photographer is the instant feedback of digital. Shooting thousands of frames in every situation boosted my learning curve in ways that shooting film would not. Despite owning my M9 for 14 years, and feeling like I've used it every day and for extended periods, I still have yet to crack 70k exposures, let alone 100k. Many of those frames are throwaways and simple snapshots for documentation, so the learning process for a RF could have been more efficient, had I applied a more strict action/feedback/adjustment process.
I have batteries from my Panasonic GH3 from 2013 which have lasted through my GH4 (2015) and G9 (2020), which says a lot about finding a standard battery type and sticking with it through generations of gear. Leica seems to finally be doing this with the Q2/Q3/SL2/SL3 batteries. Leica kind of orphaned the M240 generation by using those batteries only once.
Spending a large chunk of change on my M9 has given me nearly 15 years of pleasure and results thus far. I justify the expense by amortizing the cost over years of ownership - at 15 years and $9400 initial layout, cost of ownership is about $626 per year up until now.
Part of what has made me a better photographer is the instant feedback of digital. Shooting thousands of frames in every situation boosted my learning curve in ways that shooting film would not. Despite owning my M9 for 14 years, and feeling like I've used it every day and for extended periods, I still have yet to crack 70k exposures, let alone 100k. Many of those frames are throwaways and simple snapshots for documentation, so the learning process for a RF could have been more efficient, had I applied a more strict action/feedback/adjustment process.
I have batteries from my Panasonic GH3 from 2013 which have lasted through my GH4 (2015) and G9 (2020), which says a lot about finding a standard battery type and sticking with it through generations of gear. Leica seems to finally be doing this with the Q2/Q3/SL2/SL3 batteries. Leica kind of orphaned the M240 generation by using those batteries only once.
Spending a large chunk of change on my M9 has given me nearly 15 years of pleasure and results thus far. I justify the expense by amortizing the cost over years of ownership - at 15 years and $9400 initial layout, cost of ownership is about $626 per year up until now.