The robustness and longevity of the M-series and its brisk second hand market does nothing for new sales of Ms (except that people hold on to their optics and where possible use it on mirrorless cameras, so new M-glass has a market)
p.
Yes the waiting list is long but that does not say anything about numbers sold. I do not have acess to Leitz digital camera sales numbers, but according to this luminous landscape article: https://luminous-landscape.com/state-of-the-business-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/, the Japanese sales of L&M -
mount cameras must be quite small. Luckily for us who appreciate their optics, however, their recent economic performance has been strong.
You ask what i mean; My point about "leica washing-up liquid" for the fashionistas is that the reputation of the company was built on long term service, both mechanically and by the company. I resent that my SL2, the R8&9 cannot be maintained by them and recall with pleasure my visit to the HauserTorwerk in Wetzlar when my then IIIC was modified. Nevertheless, the company could not have survived by continuing to maintain such facilities.
As to the M6, I prefer the viewfinder of the M3 where with both eyes open, the frame is clearly projected in space. Less easy to see ilike that with the M6.
p.
Yes the waiting list is long but that does not say anything about numbers sold. I do not have acess to Leitz digital camera sales numbers, but according to this luminous landscape article: https://luminous-landscape.com/state-of-the-business-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/, the Japanese sales of L&M -
mount cameras must be quite small. Luckily for us who appreciate their optics, however, their recent economic performance has been strong.
You ask what i mean; My point about "leica washing-up liquid" for the fashionistas is that the reputation of the company was built on long term service, both mechanically and by the company. I resent that my SL2, the R8&9 cannot be maintained by them and recall with pleasure my visit to the HauserTorwerk in Wetzlar when my then IIIC was modified. Nevertheless, the company could not have survived by continuing to maintain such facilities.
As to the M6, I prefer the viewfinder of the M3 where with both eyes open, the frame is clearly projected in space. Less easy to see ilike that with the M6.
p.
The luminous article you cited summarizes 2019 statistics from the Japanese domestic market. A lot has changed since then. And you mentioned SL2. If you mean the Leicaflex SL2, you resent a company that will not repair a product they discontinued 45+ years ago?? You are serious?
Probably because they'll still work on a 70 year old camera like the M3But for some reason, Leica is beholden to another standard!
I got all mad when Hyundai refused to work on my sweet 1988 Excel. And I quote 'get that hunk o junk off our premises before we call the cops'
And that was only from 1988!
The only film camera that Nikon works on now is the F6.
Not really. At least not in Europe. Nikon was not in the position to replace the internal F6 battery.
..
My complaint about leitz alias Leica is not that they abandon unprofitable business, but that they do not make efforts to facilitate old product longevity which they are singularly well placed to do. while instead they work to accelerate the basically wasteful tendency to buy new and discard old.
p.
That is a ridiculous complaint. Every other mfg, if they wanted to, could still be maintaining old gear. They choose not to. Leica still maintains their M line as best as they can. The very fact that the brand new M mount lenses they make now work on M cameras which now can be up to 70 years old, as well as their latest digital M cameras like the M11 proves your point false that they are interested in encouraging to buy new and discard old.
A new 2023 M11 can use a 50mm Summitar lens from 1950 with no adapters. The M mount introduced with the M3 is used in their latest M digital cameras today.
It is every other manufacturer that encourages the wasteful tendency to buy new and discard old that you are complaining about. Not Leica.
What is particularly sad in the case of Leitz is that as first producing a still camera for 35mm film , using their mechanical experience and skills from microscope production to excel, they have completely abandoned their earlier mechanical devices while basking in their fame.
p.
Absolutely, I agree, repairing is better than discarding, and as i pointed out in my first comment I praise Leica for their optics and pointed out that it is eminenlly sensible from a commercial point of view to cut costs and benefit from their reputation. However, companies that wish to flog more long lived merchandise would do well to compete on solidity.
What is particularly sad in the case of Leitz is that as first producing a still camera for 35mm film , using their mechanical experience and skills from microscope production to excel, they have completely abandoned their earlier mechanical devices while basking in their fame.
No one buys a bar of soap for its longevity. Tthe original Lever soap co made their fortune by being first in selling soap by the bar instead of in bulk. Not quite the same reason for complaint if Lever labelled anything else they sold as Sunlight soap .
p.
The one producing microscopes (Leica Microsystems GmbH) and the one producing cameras (and binoculars) (Leica CameraAG) are two different enities.
They still work on Leica M cameras going back to the 1950s.
They do not. If you try to get repaired Leica M older then M6 you will be advised to request the service by the company Paepke in Duesseldorf. Leica itself doesn‘t have any spare parts for older M generations as well.
Leica Germany just repaired a friend's M2.
Did it cost as much as a m2 from eBay?
Huss: Why they recommended to go with my M2 to Peapke? Strange
Maybe a specific part they didn’t have? Who knows.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?