M8 perpetual upgrade program? What happened?

Frankie said:
It is called class-action suit and the lawyers get 33.3% of the settlement.

The question is: How many M8's were sold, how much can the plaintiffs claim and what is the final payday [and how soon] for the lawyers be?

Leica did not say what in the M8 is not upgradable... A simple defense is to offer a silly accessory and call it an upgrade. 😀
Click to expand...

Not a strong legal challenge. In order to sue you have to say what you have lost. In other words what the damage is. Leica could easilly say that the M8 was upgradeable in its life cycle but that it was fully eveolved. They can say that the advent of the M9 has provided the better continuation. They can claim that this was not forseable at the launch of the M8 and had leaps in full frame technology since the M8 launch been known at the time they would not have made that statement about perpetual upgrade and that they were acting in good will. Equally this statement was not part of the contract for buying the camera so count me out on this one. If you are cross the simplest action is not to buy an M9


best wishes

Richard

Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
Leica could easilly say that the M8 was upgradeable in its life cycle but that it was fully eveolved. They can say that the advent of the M9 has provided the better continuation*. They can claim that this was not forseable at the launch of the M8 and had leaps in full frame technology since the M8 launch been known at the time they would not have made that statement about perpetual upgrade and that they were acting in good will.
Click to expand...

All of which they would have to substantiate, dates, contracts etc.

*of M8 support?

Again my argument is not against the advent of the M9 but the failure to continue the comprehensive M8 upgrade program.

Anyway I am getting a bit soap-boxy so I shall get down. Thanks to all for input - I shall continue to make noise elsewhere!
 
Last edited:
Richard Marks said:
Not a strong legal challenge. In order to sue you have to say what you have lost. In other words what the damage is. Leica could easilly say that the M8 was upgradeable in its life cycle but that it was fully eveolved. They can say that the advent of the M9 has provided the better continuation. They can claim that this was not forseable at the launch of the M8 and had leaps in full frame technology since the M8 launch been known at the time they would not have made that statement about perpetual upgrade and that they were acting in good will. Equally this statement was not part of the contract for buying the camera so count me out on this one. If you are cross the simplest action is not to buy an M9


best wishes

Richard

Richard
Click to expand...
They could even charge you 5450 Euro to transfer the flash shoe from your M8 to an M9...🙄
 
Richard Marks said:
Brian

I am glad if your D1X is still in use and meets your needs, but lets not pretend that it is as good as it gets. It was pretty good in its day but just look how Nikon have hoaned and evolved that product in the last 10 years. Then again, if you are happy with a D1x best not to!

All the best for the year ahead.

Richard
Click to expand...

I'm not saying "it's as good as it gets", I'm saying "it's as good as I will ever need for the intended job". If I wanted a D3x, my budget could easily handle picking up two of them. I do not need to convince anyone but myself that they are required. I do not need them for the job.

If I buy the M8 or M9 for home use, it's just because I want one. It is not required for professional work.

I will say this, Leica did not state how much the cost would be for the "perpetual upgrades". They would be well-served to take the M8 in and knock some money off of the M9, refurb the M8, and sell them with a warranty. The cost to rebuild an M8 into an M9 would probably be over $5,000. They could re-use the Rangefinder mechanism in a "real upgrade". Most of the chassis would have to be replaced as the "throat" of the body has to be enlarged. So better to just allow a trade-in for $1,500 credit.
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
I'm not saying "it's as good as it gets", I'm saying "it's as good as I will ever need for the intended job". If I wanted a D3x, my budget could easily handle picking up two of them. I do not need to convince anyone but myself that they are required. I do not need them for the job.

If I buy the M8 or M9 for home use, it's just because I want one. It is not required for professional work.

I will say this, Leica did not state how much the cost would be for the "perpetual upgrades". They would be well-served to take the M8 in and knock some money off of the M9, refurb the M8, and sell them with a warranty. The cost to rebuild an M8 into an M9 would probably be over $5,000. They could re-use the Rangefinder mechanism in a "real upgrade". Most of the chassis would have to be replaced as the "throat" of the body has to be enlarged. So better to just allow a trade-in for $1,500 credit.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian

Clearly your D1X has been a very good buy.
But my point is simply that our perception changes as technology advances. I simply used the D1x as an abstract example as at the time no one could imagine things getting much better. But when ever we think this we are likely to be proved wrong in very little time. Hence I do not belive the M9 is all the camera i can ever need and that means I am not exactly desperate to shell out £5,000. If it was, that money would be a bargain of course!

Regarding what you can afford this is not relevent to my argument and I am not sure why you feel the need to raise this here.

I do agree with you that M8 adopters at least should have been given a bit of a soft landning on the M9 price. But this is business and Leica are not in a position to do this even if they wanted to. I still feel very mislead regarding the IR issue and my own faulty M8. In reality I did a direct swap of my M8 for a D700 juts before the M9 launch. I am pretty happy and not exactly rushing out for an M9 (even if one were available).

Best wishes

Richard
 
Frankie said:
The M9 was already behind its time when introduced. There will be an M10 soon [watch for October 10, 2010 announcement].
Click to expand...
Yeah - and then for 11-11-2011, 12-12-2012 etc...🙄
In case you didn't notice, 10-10-2010 is two weeks AFTER the Photokina, hardly a realistic time to announce anything new in cameraland...
 
All I'm trying to say is that a professional buys the gear required to do the job. You get to a point where improvements in the tool do not get the job done in a more efficient manner. At that point, improvements to the technology are irrelevant.

With Digital- there will always be improvements at a rate that is staggering to most users. You do not need to keep up with every improvement to get a job done. At work, I like using a Pentium Pro with a 333Mhz processor. Used it for 10 years. Not because of lack of budget, but because it gets the job done. It's a dinosaur by any modern standard. But it works as well as it ever did.
 
This is about a company intentionally misleading their existing and new customers into buying an expensive product based on a promise that the camera will be upgraded and kept current. An out and out lie that they had to know they had no real intention of honoring. What can be done about it now? Maybe nothing, but it speaks to the way Leica is willing to manipulate their customer base to make sales. I'd say at the very least, it's dishonest. I sold my M8 early on and would never buy another Leica digital (still have an MP) To much for too little, but Leica is still mixing that Cool-Aid for anyone willing to drink it and some just seem to love the taste. You don't drown by falling in water. You drown by staying there.
 
Last edited:
I wrote this somewhere else but it applies here too:

The perpetual upgrade promise makes me reconsider the reasoning behind the subtle styling change to the body between the M8 & M9 (notch & top LCD delete). Maybe there was an element of litigation avoidance from some of the more litigious Leica customers out there ...
 
GrahamWelland said:
I wrote this somewhere else but it applies here too:

The perpetual upgrade promise makes me reconsider the reasoning behind the subtle styling change to the body between the M8 & M9 (notch & top LCD delete). Maybe there was an element of litigation avoidance from some of the more litigious Leica customers out there ...
Click to expand...

The M8 became fat and ugly during the digital reincarnation. The subtle styling change in the M9 top plate was hoping to disguise that fact...while the dimension [read: hardware tooling] remains exactly the same.

Many bought it. To quote a Mr. Andy Un, a retired camera store salesman while arguing against Leica: "A sucker...is easily pleased."
 
endustry said:
Leica needs something akin to Canon's 5D in order to retain their reputation for durable, well-built cameras in the digital age. I think the 5D is technically sufficient for just about any shooting task and I expect to see some still in use ten years from now as the sensors and shutters slowly give out. Leica needs a dRF that will do the same and the M9 had better be it.
Click to expand...

imho, the 5D and the M8 are fairly analogous: good sensors in so-so bodies at reasonable prices (when compared to other same-brand, roughly same-time offerings, e.g. the 1Ds Mk II or the M9). the 5D and the M8 produce similarly sized files of comparable quality. the M9 is in another league, given its resolution and price.

from an image quality perspective, i could be pretty much be equally happy with a 5D or an M8, especially if i ran alt lenses like the ZE line on the 5D.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
So much sound and fury to kick a dead horse. 🙂
Click to expand...

But I studied this thread with high interest.

Yes, Leica betrayed its customers.

Some are incensed enough to want to sue.

I looked at such emotions in the same light as I had experienced in the mid- late 80's in my field. Back then, Leica[-Heerbrugg] argued that the trade-in value of the old [analogue stereo plotter] would have recovered the original investment and time to buy the new [analytical stereo comparator]...ergo, you never lose value buying Leica...many fell for it.

[A stereo plotter any time in history was the price of a good family home in Canada and USA. Many carried a 10 or 15 year mortgage until the bank foreclosed.]

That market condition gave me an opportunity; and a gang I put together had succeeded in building a digital retrofit system. Leica, nor anybody else took us seriously until their competing new products also did not sell.

The benchmark M8/9 pricing provides the same. See this thread for more details:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1218494&postcount=34
 
"the 5D and the M8 produce similarly sized files of comparable quality."

Here we go again. I've also seen it "proven" that the M8 blows away the 1DSMkIII. I think all this stuff is nonsense.
 
What a joke. Leica uses lenses from 1932 on it's latest Digital M9 and somehow they betrayed their customers.

Grow-up and quit whining. If you want sensor upgrades on a continuing basis, buy an MP and forget Digital. Film has been improved since the 1930s, and the Leica II can still use the new stuff. Digital cameras just cannot do that. The technology is fundamentally different.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
What a joke. Leica uses lenses from 1932 on it's latest Digital M9 and somehow they betrayed their customers.

Grow-up and quit whining. If you want sensor upgrades on a continuing basis, buy an MP and forget Digital. Film has been improved since the 1930s, and the Leica II can still use the new stuff. Digital cameras just cannot do that. The technology is fundamentally different.
Click to expand...

I should have said M8 customers, my bad. 😀
 
Last edited:
Brian Sweeney said:
If you want sensor upgrades on a continuing basis, buy an MP and forget Digital.
Click to expand...

I don't want nor need a continuous sensor upgrade.

I believe when sensors reached FF, a truce amongst competitor would be silently declared.

Smaller pixel sizes will change things, but will take years. I vaguely recall Kodak took 3 years before the 6.8 micron pixel became 6 microns.

[Had Leica wanted progress, the newer 6 micron Kodak anti-blooming CCD introduced well before the M9 developments started would have resulted in a 24 Mpixel camera...but then the off-set micro lens engineered for the 6.8 micron pixel CCD also had to be redone. What a pain.]

The ideal would be to have the sensor/CPU package easily upgradeable without having to buy a new camera. In the case of a Leica M, the RF and shutter have not been improved much in 50 years, why now?
 
Brian Sweeney said:
What a joke. Leica uses lenses from 1932 on it's latest Digital M9 and somehow they betrayed their customers.

Grow-up and quit whining. If you want sensor upgrades on a continuing basis, buy an MP and forget Digital. Film has been improved since the 1930s, and the Leica II can still use the new stuff. Digital cameras just cannot do that. The technology is fundamentally different.
Click to expand...


A-Freakin-Men.
 
So here's a question:

So lets say a class action suit IS launched... M8 owners everywhere get in on it and after a lengthy battle they decide in favour of the people and Leica is forced to dish out a big settlement... and then looking at the situation and seeing that they're going to be forced to keep these M8's up to date, which is what everyone wants... they decide there just isn't a big enough market, it's too much hassle and they won't be able to sell new camera's at a high enough price to justify spending more RnD on future DRF's and the Leica M8 and M9 go the way of the Epson RD1.

Will that make people happy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom