The myth of smoothness of leicas

[Axelwik]

Disassembling a Leica for routine maintenance is an invasive procedure, possibly more damaging to the camera than using it without routine maintenance.

That really depends on the person doing the work. Even though I was an aircraft mechanic for 21 years I wouldn't do it - not my expertise. But when I watch my guy do it (he's also a swiss-certified watchmaker) I have full confidence that what I'm getting back is going to be better because of his work, and it is.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Many things are common knowledge in car maintenance, but car manufacturers always, with no exception, publish maintenance details for every car model they make.

Many appliances/devices (consumer or professional) have recommended maintenance plans clearly defined in user manuals. Funny that Leica never ever felt the need to mention vital information that M cameras require periodic service even if there is no apparent issue in operation. Maybe they want their cameras to brake (but as we can see that plan hasn't been working very well)...

I looked at the manual of my 553ELX (not a Leica, but equally complex) and it recommends having the camera services in no specific intervals "now and again", and strongly recommends a 6 months schedule in case of shooting "several hundreds of film per week".

 

[cliveh]

Disassembling a Leica for routine maintenance is an invasive procedure, possibly more damaging to the camera than using it without routine maintenance. Since 1953 Leica rangefinder cameras have been my preferred cameras except where through-the-lens viewing or larger formats were more appropriate. None have ever had (or needed) routine maintenance. None have ever failed, even in arctic cold and desert heat, except from extreme abuse. Photographers who must produce results upon demand are certainly justified in relying on preventative maintenance and always having back-up equipment. I have rarely been burdened with this responsibility. Other photographers with different goals and greater responsibilities are justified in much different approaches to routine maintenance. Discussions like this are useful in comparing our experiences with those of others. We each should evaluate our needs and our resources, and act accordingly.

I beg to differ. Just like you service your car you should service a Leica. A good technician can get a Leica running as sweet as a nut with just the right amount of oil and cleaning of rangefinder optics and lens. Try it and you will notice the difference both in handling and results.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I beg to differ. Just like you service your car you should service a Leica. A good technician can get a Leica running as sweet as a nut with just the right amount of oil and cleaning of rangefinder optics and lens. Try it and you will notice the difference both in handling and results.

Totally agree. Scheduled maintenance would reduce wear on critical parts. Thats the reason you change oil periodically on a car, even if there is nothing wrong with your car. What do you think will happen if you follow the wisdom of "if not broken don't fix it" on your car?

Also, big difference between someone opening a camera just after seeing a youtube video and someone trained to know exactly what amount/kind of oil to use, and where to use it and where to avoid it.

Small wonder that lots of soviet cameras/lens you see on the market are crap, since they had been tempered by any numbers of amateurs (since sometimes CLA for this cameras/equipment is more expensive than the camera itself); this is part of the common belief they were all crap. Pretty easy to mess up.

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry guys. But it ain't happening.

The last time I sent something to Leica for an oil change it took 6 months to get it back. And that was just to San Francisco. I could have driven it there in less than a day. After that fiasco I decided I no longer needed a Leica and it had nothing to with the cost of the service. I shudder to think what it would have taken if I had to send it to Germany like I did with my Zeiss Ikon ZM when I had the focus adjusted.

On the other hand my F6 made it back from Nikon in 3 weeks after service, and that included the trip to Japan and back. I don't want to make you guys jealous so I won't tell you how many times my K1000 has been in for service in a little over 50 years. I am not a pro so I don't shoot a hundred rolls every month but I do shoot over one hundred each year. I admit I have slowed down since I turned 60 and bought my first LX, which also hasn't been serviced since I bought it, though it had been serviced by the person I bought it from.

I have checked my LX owners manual and paperwork and there is absolutely no requirement mentioned about regular service intervals either in the manual itself or on the warranty page, which is only 12 months anyway.

But enjoy yourselves. I would not for a moment want you to stop having your Leica cameras serviced as regularly as you feel necessary. Someone has to spend their money to keep those Leica service techs eating well.

I will admit, my Leica was a smooth operator. So is my Spotmatic. Even my Contaflex is pretty near as smooth as my Leica and that camera has a WHOLE lot more going on inside when you wind it on.

 

[Hassasin]

My Rolleiflex 3.5 f ran perfect after 40 years. Then Harry took it in for service and 15 years later it needs another service. I don't care I've not used it much, it was hardly used over its first 40 years and ran perfect.

Most marriages will last a lot longer without any counselling.

 

[Pioneer]

My Rolleiflex 3.5 f ran perfect after 40 years. Then Harry took it in for service and 15 years later it needs another service. I don't care I've not used it much, it was hardly used over its first 40 years and ran perfect.

Most marriages will last a lot longer without any counselling.

That is about how long since Harry serviced my Rollei. It is still working just fine but it only gets exercised about 12 times every year so I don't think it really counts. It is smooth but I'm not sure it is as smooth as my Leica. It is certainly quieter than my Leica was, if that counts. I have taken pictures of my grandkids with that camera where they didn't even realize they had been photographed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I have never owned a Leica, the M Leicas that I have used have always felt much smoother than any RF or AF SLR that I have used.

 

[RezaLoghme]

They are mechanical marvels. But you cant have it all. I am using V-System and Leica R in analog and digital (SL mount + Novoflex) and that is enough. M is tempting, Rollei TLR is tempting, Mamiya and Yashica TLR are tempting, but enough is enough.

 

[Jim Jones]

I beg to differ. Just like you service your car you should service a Leica. A good technician can get a Leica running as sweet as a nut with just the right amount of oil and cleaning of rangefinder optics and lens. Try it and you will notice the difference both in handling and results.

My Leica M4 was new in perhaps 1970, and was my preferred camera except when a SLR or bigger negative was needed. I switched to digital in 2010. In those 40 years I shot about 1000 rolls of 35mm B&W film and less color, although less than half of it would have been in a SLR. Almost all of this photography was for me, so not servicing was an acceptable gamble that I won. A back-up camera was usually available if needed. My motor vehicles get the servicing they need, and they also last long.
There is great diversity in photographers, therefore diversity in how they treat their cameras. When possible I start with camera gear that is built to last. Along the way I accumulated cheaper gear for back-up, eliminating some urgency for routine servicing. This might well be unacceptable for many photographers. However, I have great faith in Leicas, having used them (and many other cameras) from 1953 until 2010. Despite some hard use, from -60 degrees F to desert heat and no routine servicing, they have never let me down except in accidents. One needed a visit to a Leitz repair facility after a tripod leg failed while on a car top platform, catapulting the Leica and tripod head first into the ground. Damage was moderate. After all, it was a Leica.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Looking at the high prices (new and pre-owned) of Leicas then and now, what exactly is the "gamble" of not servicing them?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Looking at the high prices (new and pre-owned) of Leicas then and now, what exactly is the "gamble" of not servicing them?

I include the price of a CLA service in the cost of any used lens, unless I am buying from a place such as KEH.com which will provide a CLA for free in the first 6 months if necessary, of any lens I am contemplating purchasing. That goes of all brands of lenses, not just Leica.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Same here. Looking at the total cost of ownership over its lifespan, a CLA every 5-10 will be ok.

 

[250swb]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy a £50 lens from anybody only to then spend £150 on having it serviced. It's more efficient to use some judgement and buy a good lens in the first place. It would only work with a very expensive lens, and if you've bought a very expensive lens it will have a warranty won't it, so if there's something wrong with it get the dealer to fix it?

As for the idea that if you don't have your Leica serviced there's sure to be something insidious going on inside that will bite you is internet paranoia. There was a time when Leica M's were used as professional cameras shooting far, far more film between servicing than many here are likely to get through in a lifetime. But mirrors can delaminate the day after the camera is serviced, the shutter cloth could tear on the same day, in other words if it's going to happen it will happen anyway. So a regular CLA service does nothing at all for reliability, it doesn't stop the mechanical things breaking or you knocking the rangefinder out of adjustment. Once you've removed the concept of reliability from a CLA you'll then see a CLA only needs doing when an adjustment is needed, and a camera that's gone ten years may well go another ten without needing a CLA, especially when todays photographers would have a fit at the thought of shooting ten rolls a day.

The solution is simple, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and if a Leica noob have the seller pay for a CLA or give a warranty before you buy it because 9 times out of 10 the revelation of what a CLA can achieve in accuracy and smoothness is only because you've bought a dog in the first place.

 

[RezaLoghme]

250swb, does that also apply to other mechanical things, like cars (your 250SWB?), watches, etc.? Or are cameras unique in that sense?

Just a reminder - we are largely talking about stuff that is somewhat "old", and quite often without any provenance. If I buy a M3 from a friend, knowing that he has looked after the camera properly, that is - for me - a different scenario than buying a M3 on Ebay from an unknown seller making vague statements about the object in question.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to buy a £50 lens from anybody only to then spend £150 on having it serviced. It's more efficient to use some judgement and buy a good lens in the first place.

While it seems sensible to use judgment and buy a "good lens", there's also no reason to not cheaply buy a fixable lens and get it fixed. You may get longer use from it. I know that seems almost silly in this candy-store world of used cameras and lenses. But some of these lenses and cameras are worth fixing and it's nice that people can get paid to fix them.

With a Leica, it's pretty easy to tell if something is wrong and it needs repair. All the gear motion is in line, and you can feel if there's real resistance in any part of it when you advance the film. If there's not and all the shutter speeds seem good, then why bother getting it serviced? There's not actually much reason. It's a well-made thing and can be used until it becomes unreliable in some way.

 

[RezaLoghme]

How about we agree that whoever wants to to preventive CLAs with their gear can do so, and whoever want to wait and see until a piece of gear breaks, can also do so? These two approaches can co-exist peacefully.

 

[guangong]

Common knowledge to whom? Leica Ms & Nikon Fs & F2s didn't seem to get that memo.....

In early 1960s one of the consumer guide magazines queried the camera repair shops and asked, of the various camera brands, which ones were the most serviced. In those days most of the shops, such as Morty Forscher, were geared towards servicing professional photographers. The magazine then claimed Leicas, Nikons, and perhaps Rollei, to be cameras that buyers should avoid.

 

[Axelwik]

In early 1960s one of the consumer guide magazines queried the camera repair shops and asked, of the various camera brands, which ones were the most serviced. In those days most of the shops, such as Morty Forscher, were geared towards servicing professional photographers. The magazine then claimed Leicas, Nikons, and perhaps Rollei, to be cameras that buyers should avoid.

Bad/incomplete data leads to bad conclusions.

 

[GregY]

Bad/incomplete data leads to bad conclusions.

Agreed

 

[davela]

A well-serviced M3 has the most effortless advance of any 35mm camera I've ever used, and I've used many, many. The M2 comes close. I find little to fault in the early M era 50's and 60's Leica product, optically or mechanically, in fact to me it's more than just high quality, it's inspiring.

 

[davela]

In early 1960s one of the consumer guide magazines queried the camera repair shops and asked, of the various camera brands, which ones were the most serviced. In those days most of the shops, such as Morty Forscher, were geared towards servicing professional photographers. The magazine then claimed Leicas, Nikons, and perhaps Rollei, to be cameras that buyers should avoid.

Most of the cameras serviced by camera shops were Leica, Rollei, and Nikons, because these were the cameras used by professionals. They were worked hard, and reliability was paramount for their owners. This fact was a reflection of their excellence as tools, not of their defects. Amateur grade cameras see much less use, and are often set aside by their owners early in their life, and repaired much less often (and they are often not worth being repaired anyway).

 

[davela]

In fact Leica's, Nikons, and Rolleiflexes were cameras that were also most frequently modified and improved in various ways by repair shops, a testament also to their utility and value to their owners.

 

[MattKing]

Bad/incomplete data leads to bad conclusions.

As does good data that is misunderstood.

 

[Axelwik]

As does good data that is misunderstood.

Yep, and cherry-picking only the data that support one's convictions ignoring overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Happens a lot in politics/special interests (of all flavors by the way).