Now that the R6.2 is gone and the M7 is (almost) there, do you think the days of the all-mechanical M´s are counted? J.S.

-- jürgen schliehe (juergen.schliehe@t-online.de), February 21, 2002

Answers

Jurgen - same question as below, here's my same answer!

Well Jurgen, this was done to death a short while ago but I agree with you entirely. Throughout it's near fifty year history the NEW M model has always killed off the old - notwithstanding the ressurection of the traditional M style body after the ill-fated M5.

There always seems to be three groups, those that hark back to the all-mechanical meterless M2/4 type, those happy with the M6 as is and those who want AE, high shutter speeds, automation etc.

I can't see Leica making three M's to satisfy all of us and they aren't about to start making the M4 again so hopefully they will continue to make the M6 at least.

However, I fear the only group who will be happy in a few years are the third group, but hey! - that's progress!

Who, as a novice potential M user, when presented with the M7 or M6 by the friendly salesman will leave the shop with the M6?

Boardmeeting in Solms in 2004 - Leica MD - "Well, two years ago we introduced the M7, 80% of M sales have been this model - we must discontinue the M6..."

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 21, 2002.

the reason leica dropped the r6.2 was that copal stopped making the shutter for it. leica couldn't afford to develop and build one themselves and no other shutter would fit into that body. maybe one day there will be a mechanical r8, but i doubt it.

it is a different story with the m. they produce the shutter themselves. but i think it is possible that they will drop the m6 in the future. i can't believe they can afford to two different bodies with two colors and three magnifications. what retailer could stock the whole range of 12 models (even more with titanium finish and special models)?

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

Seems hard to believe they couldn't stockpile a few thousand shutters before production stopped?

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), February 21, 2002.

I think all will depend on sales: If most new buyers turn to the M7 and the sales of the M6 fall into a slump, Leica might stop making mechanical cameras. Frankly, I don't believe it will happen, unless the new camera reaches a much broader audience than the M6 (and given its price it's unlikely to happen). In their niche market, Ms cameras are attractive to people with very specific tastes which are different from the ones of a mass market. I think (and hope) the fact these cameras are mechanical is important to a good deal of current owners of Ms.

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), February 21, 2002.

i got this information directly from leica at the leica-owners-course in milton keynes

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

It's naive to think that somewhere on earth a factory doesn't exist that could manufacture R6.2 shutters for Leica at a reasonable cost. The fact is sales of the entire R line is soft and without a digital body, destined to get softer. The R6.2 competed directly against the R8 for which Leica has a great deal of R&D investment to recoup, and there is no sharing of parts between the two. The M7 seems outwardly (and inwardly except for the shutter timing and meter display) to utilize most of the parts from the M6TTL, so it would certainly be less expensive for Leica to carry on producing both, or to run sporadic batches of M6TTL's id demand continues.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), February 21, 2002.

The fact is sales of the entire R line is soft and without a digital body, destined to get softer. The R6.2 competed directly against the R8 for which Leica has a great deal of R&D investment to recoup, and there is no sharing of parts between the two.

I think Jay hit it on the head here... the problem with the R line is pretty much due to poor decision making on Leica's part - like designing an "all new" R8 that shook people up, and as if that wasn't enough, releasing it before fixing all the bugs. A smarter move would have been to evolve the R7, using the same body casing and internal parts, but with an updated shutter and meter, and quick load system (the Canon FTB already had it a couple of decades ago so this should be no problem), and THEN making a mechanical version that is ergonomically identical. If Leica doesn't have sufficient resources or capital to make a body that can compete with the likes of Canon or Nikon, they should either pair up with somebody who can, or make lenses in alternative mounts (hey, if Sigma can do it why not Leica?).

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), February 21, 2002.

The R7 was already beginning to look like too much was being put into the body than it could take. The baseplate had to be increased in thickness. The philosophy of adding more and more features to the R4 body reached its apotheosis with the R7. There was nowhere else to go. That is why they had a totally new R8 in the first place. The R8 is much better ergonomically than any other Leica R camera. But it is big. Leica assumed that this was a fair trade off bearing in mind the monster F5s and EOSs out there too. It is perhaps easy to poke holes in their ideas in retrospect, but their plan did make sense.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

Once the M series gets away from all-mechanical, the days of reasonable repair costs for existing Ms are numbered. Are they going to train people to fix obsolete equipment? If the electronic stuff is quiet and reliable, it will sell. I hope it is easily exchangeable (where you just remove the old unit and put the new one on-- I can't think of the word for it just now). I hope the electronic shutters are more accurate and consistent than the mechanical. I hope they don't go to AF. I wish they had increased the max speed to 1/2000. As for R sales, you can tell just by reading the number of posts on this forum that there is much more interest in the M series.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 21, 2002.

The word I was trying to think of, above, is "modular".

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.