[Leica] Re Modular Leica - an indignant reply

[lucien_vd at mac.com (lucien_vd at mac.com)]

Larry,

Do you think they will offer this upgrade program for the new S2 they  
just designed from scratch ?

Best,

Lucien


Le 30-oct.-09 ? 16:06, Lawrence Zeitlin a ?crit :

> Perhaps I didn't make my point clear enough about a modular Leica.  
> The Leica
> SYSTEM has been modular almost since its inception. The lens mount is
> standardized and Leica mount lenses can be fitted at will to change  
> the
> characteristics of the camera. The shoe mount takes viewfinders of  
> various
> types. All sorts of things can be fastened to the tripod socket. For  
> film
> cameras, base plates can be interchanged to fit motors and rapid  
> winders.
> Even a few internal components such as the view/rangefinder can be
> interchanged. But the camera body itself is basically a casting into  
> which
> parts are relatively permanently fastened. Alteration and change is
> difficult. Significant repair of the camera requires major  
> disassembly. Even
> such a trivial task as cleaning the optics in the viewfinder  
> requires a
> return to the shop. In the modern world, this type of assembly is  
> antique.
> There is some excuse in doing this for the film cameras. After all  
> the basic
> mechanicals of the camera were designed three quarters of a century  
> ago. But
> in modern camera and optical instrument design, functions are  
> grouped in
> units which can be removed and replaced as needed for upgrade and  
> repair.
> The Olympus OM cameras were designed that way in the '70s. The  
> Hubble space
> telescope has been virtually rebuilt in orbit by replacing blocks of
> components. B52 bombers are still in service 50 years after they  
> were first
> made by retrofitting modern equipment in the field. Yet changing the  
> sensor,
> replacing a failed electronic part, adjusting a lens, putting on  
> those code
> dots, or performing an upgrade from M8 to M8.2, requires a Leica to  
> return
> to Solms. This is clearly a marketing decision. Leica has adopted  
> the car
> dealership method of making a profit. Sell the car for what the  
> market will
> bear and make the real money on service.
>
>
> In today's world, mechanical and optical parts cost more than  
> electrical
> parts. If you plot the cost of the mechanical components of a device  
> over
> the years, you will see an ever increasing rise as materials and labor
> become ever more expensive. On the other hand there is an ever  
> decreasing
> cost of electronics. The laptop I am writing this on cost about 1000  
> USD yet
> has hundreds of times more calculating capability than the computers
> installed on the NASA Moon Mission. My first scientific calculator,  
> an HP
> 35, cost me five hundred dollars. I picked up a handful of much more  
> capable
> scientific calculators at a Dollar store recently for, you guessed  
> it, one
> dollar apiece. It is much, much cheaper and far more efficient to do  
> things
> with electrons than with gears, springs, and lens elements. That's  
> why even
> Leica uses software for shutter timing, lens falloff correction,  
> exposure
> counting, exposure measurement and many of those other things that  
> cameras
> do.
>
>
> The things that make a Leica a Leica, viewfinder/rangefinder, lens  
> mount,
> and body feel and configuration are expensive but have not changed
> substantially since 1954. My old M3, using a modern lens and today's  
> film,
> matches the picture taking capability of an M7, a camera released 50  
> years
> later. That's because most film camera photographic capability  
> resides in
> the film itself. With a better film, you have a better photographic  
> machine.
> But Leica's digital M cameras appear to be monolithic. There is no  
> way of
> enhancing the photographic capability except by major rebuild or  
> altering
> the software. It is hard to imagine that sensor and electronic  
> design will
> not evolve over time even faster than film improved. Sensors will  
> become
> more capable with higher ISOs, even exceeding the ISO 100,000 level,  
> with
> lower noise, fewer artifacts, self cleaning surfaces, better color  
> rendition
> (the Bayer filter is already considered obsolete). Most of these  
> features
> are available on other cameras. But to have the features in a  
> digital M
> Leica requires either an expensive rebuild or purchase of an  
> entirely new
> camera. True, the lenses don't wear out but then neither does the
> viewfinder/rangefinder or lens mount or body. Why should I have to  
> replace
> what I have to take advantage of new developments? The camera should  
> have
> been re-imagined in a way that would permit new electronics to be
> retrofitted as easily as my M3 can use a new type of film. I  
> suggested a
> modular approach but there are other ways to achieve a similar  
> result. But
> apparently not for Leica.
>
>
> So I think that it was short sighted of Leica to imply that the M8  
> and now
> the M9 was the end of the road in RF camera development. True, the  
> cameras
> will appeal to die hard Leica fans and a few pros. But the cameras  
> (and most
> of us Luggers, as seen in the photos on the LUG) are antiques. The  
> cameras
> are in danger of becoming the Fabrege eggs of photography, beautiful  
> to look
> at and fondle but not the best for making an omelet.
>
> Larry Z
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information