What happened to the Leica DMLB?

[Nebulous]

If you haven't already heard in my other recent post, I wound up buying a used Leica DMLB on eBay for my first microscope. It arrived yesterday and I've been having a blast as I learn my way around the scope. I noticed however, that the product documentation and other online instructional content for the DML* models are essentially non-existent aside from a single manual containing a bunch jumbled information and blurry product images on the myriad DML* configurations. I've been able to extract some useful information on the functionality of the scope from this, but the included images are so blurry it's like treading through sludge trying to figure out if one of the sections on a specific function is available on my configuration. I'm sure I'll be back with more questions after I've had enough fun with the basics and start to consider upgrade options. Anyhow, my question is this: What happened to the Leica DMLB? I can't even find this specific version of the DML series on the entire Leica website—including their archived products page. Was it renamed to something different? Is it such a good scope they are concealing it's existence from the public for business purposes? Conspiracy theories aside, I'm genuinely curious why the online footprint of this scope is so scant compared to its counterparts.

[PeteM]

The DME, DMLS, and DMLB has been replaced by a series of DM (Das Mikroskop) models along the lines of DM300, DM500, DM750, DM1000, DM2000, DM2500, DM3000, DM4000 etc.

The low-end models, say up to about DM750, are pretty mundane educational models. You might as well buy any similar Chinese scope.

The DMLS might be roughly comparable to a DM1000. Both are solid scopes.

Only by the DM2000 do you have something resembling a DMLB, with the ability to accept DIC sliders. The price of a DM2000 with plan achromat objectives (rather than, say, plan fluors) will be around $5000 - far above what you paid for a slightly more robust (IMO) used DMLB. You'd need a DM2500 to get the same bright 100-watt halogen lamps as a DMLB so-equipped. I'd guess an ICT (DIC) model with top-notch objectives would be around $20K.

By the time you get to DM3000, you're beginning to get electronic automation to rotate the nosepiece, adjust the irises and condenser, and so on. While these can speed up things in a pathology lab, they're a failure point as well. The automation adds significant cost and, for most hobbyists, almost no real value. Once you have a control box and software involved, you're also somewhat forced into a corner -- as is the case of most every computer-containing product since the US passed "digital rights" legislation. What tailfins were to planned obsolescence in the 1950s and 1960s, software, operating systems, and computer controls are proving to be for products in the 2020s.

To give some props to Danaher (now the parent company of Leica microscopes), they're in it to manage the business and continue to serve their (mostly high-end customers) unlike, say, Olympus, which sold its microscopy business to private equity. Someone who needed the features of something like a DM3000 and could justify the cost might continue to be well served by Leica.

[PeteM]

To add, prior to Danaher buying Leica, the company was a tortured tale of mergers with remnants of Spencer, American Optical, Bausch & Lomb, Cambridge Instruments, Jung, Leitz, and Reichert in the mix. Several threads on Microbe Hunter touch on various aspects of this.

While many of these companies had superb optical engineers (and thus Leitz-Leica being one of the "big four"), the company suffered through mergers, cost-cutting in the face of lower-cost Japanese competitors, and so on.

Leitz' and Leica's better microscopes are generally excellent (superb DIC, wonderful optics, solid workmanship) - but didn't have the broad acceptance of something like a then-less-expensive Olympus BH2 when new around the 1970's to 1990's. It's also why there are more used Olympus and Nikon scopes in the hands of hobbyists today than something like a Leica DMLB. Add to that the brand confusion. For example, the lower cost and more cheaply built MIcroStar IV (an heir to American Optical's series 10/20 and 110/120) came in nearly identical Reichert, Jung, Cambridge, and Leica models as the companies were bought, merged, and sold.

[MichaelG.]

This might be useful:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... a_dmlm.pdf

MichaelG.

[Nebulous]

Interesting writeup Pete. I know you touched on some of these points in your brands PDF—which by the way was a huge help. It's still odd to me that there isn't even one reference to the DMLB model anywhere on the official Leica website. I agree with you about the move to electronic automation being another point of failure; When I was looking at Chinese imports, I avoided these features altogether for that reason. Very happy with the purchase anyhow. Couldn't imagine a better scope to learn the intricacies of microcopy on given it's modularity.

Thanks Michael—Unfortunately, this is the jumbled manual I was referring to in my post. It has some useful information, but it's all over the place in terms of sections referring to various configurations. And the resolution of the images are so low it's nearly impossible to tell, in many cases, what parts the diagrams are even referring to.

[MichaelG.]

[…]

Thanks Michael—Unfortunately, this is the jumbled manual I was referring to in my post. It has some useful information, but it's all over the place in terms of sections referring to various configurations. And the resolution of the images are so low it's nearly impossible to tell, in many cases, what parts the diagrams are even referring to.

Oops !

Looks like that might be the best they could manage

Maybe one of the University labs wrote something better for local use [?]
… but it would be the very Devil to find

MichaelG.
.

Edit: ignoring what appears to be a typo in the title this includes a few reasonable illustrations
http://www.biu.helsinki.fi/guides/instr ... -guide.pdf
… but I’m sure you are looking for more detail.

[PeteM]

Sad to say, support for legacy products is poor to abysmal in the microscope world. Vendors want you to buy new, rather than bring older ones back to life. In fact, some have threatened to sue for copyright infringement when hobbyists post older manuals with still-active copyrights. Under recent law, that's something like the author's life plus 70 years.

Personally, I believe that is often short-sighted. To give an example from the agricultural and construction equipment world, makers and their dealers like Caterpillar (Deere, Kubota, etc.) benefit from a robust used equipment market. Farmers and contractors start to build brand loyalty. Those starting out may only be able to afford used equipment - but it's better for the Cat dealer to sell something used in good shape than see the sale go to a low-priced import competitor. Farmers, contractors, miners, and the like at the top may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for something new and super-productive. Because their older combines, bulldozers, or excavators are well-supported they can get top dollar for them and buy new $$$ equipment far more frequently. The entire market turns over more frequently.

Car makers with reliable products, say Honda or Toyota, earn similar build brand loyalty from kids with a first car, to families starting out with their first new car, to those doing well in work moving on to something like an Acura or Lexus. This same dynamic is also why mobile phone carriers offer generous trade-in allowances -- and a zillion other cases where there's a robust market in used equipment supported by the OEM maker.

Whether it was DSLR camera brands or cordless power tool brands, companies like Nikon and Canon (cameras) or Makita and Milwaukee (cordless tools) provided long support and upgrades so customers would keep buying additional lenses, tools, and accessories. Microscope makers, by contrast, will sell a microscope with a three-place turret and never imagine a customer might want to fill a 4-5-6-7 place turret with so much as a 20x objective. One might also imagine they should be the ones offering engineered LED upgrades, but nope.

Developing a unique feature or subtle feel (Honda interiors or IBM track nubs, in some of my old research for IBM and US car companies) that customers love is another way to build loyalty and repeat sales. As an example on your DMLB, there is the two-speed fine focus gearing. Nikon Microphot is the only other example I'm aware of. I'm also a fan of the "look" of their objectives and especially their DIC - the contrast is just a bit better than, say, Olympus. This may be why there is a cadre of professionals who've wanted only Leica for their pro scopes or hobby scopes later in life.

One might think that a hobbyist father with something like an Olympus BH2 or even a Leica DMLB might inspire their child to have a microscope-using career -- and then prefer Olympus or Leica when they enter, say, a research lab or buy scopes for a university. That sort of thinking simply isn't on the radar for most microscope companies because their management has often sought to maximize short-term profits. They've abandoned the mass market to the Chinese (or their own brand-labeled outsourced scopes) and cut support for legacy products to the minimum they can get away with for their high-end medical and research customers.

In the Olympus case, there are so many good-condition used BH2's out there that hobbyists like Alan Wood and Carl Hunsinger have stepped in to provide legacy support. That's somewhat true with other individuals supporting Nikon. German forums seem to do much the same for Zeiss. Leica, while having truly excellent scopes like your DMLB, doesn't really have the same level of hobbyist champions. Which, in a way, is good news for you. Had your Leica DMLB been an Olympus BX50, you might have paid $1000 more for it.

[apochronaut]

Wow. You mentioned short sighted. That should be the main title of your post. The big oversight is U.S. foreign policy . Do you thnk Olympus and Nikon emerged from the vacuum they were in to become dominant players or Toyots or Honda , without complicit acceptance by the U.S. gov't? Was it because they were better at what they did? The U.S. needed a compliant economically sound suplicant in the far east to buffer the commis! ... so they let them away with a lot : even running dispensible U.S. companies out of business: as long as they set up a U.S. storefront. The playing field wasn't even and even within that context , B & L and AO product in the 70's and 80's and 90's was so far superior to Japanese that the only way that the Japanese began to dominste the market was price. It became a Walmart market,
How does this play into the effort to provide after market support? Well, when you have to compete with illegitimate business competitors, you have to partition energy. The Japanese weren't that concerned with that because they were supplied amply., so they could buffer the commis. They just had to figure out how to step around the law : and Olympus eventually got caught. Sometimes , Pete , you sound like an ambassador for the Japanese consulate.

[PeteM]

As you say, US trade policy certainly played a role in the decline of some US companies—as did the internecine battles Wayne covers and a switch from engineers running these companies to financial folks looking for a quick buck as they bought up companies, mashed them together, slashed resources, and promised "synergies."

Post WWII and into the early 2000's the US was all about free trade and opening up markets for US businesses. There were some battles for protectionism (steel, autos, aerospace, and the like) - but as you suggest - not much of a lobby for the remnants of A.O., B&L, and Reichert.

Decades back, I headed the board of judges for a new product development awards program (the APEX - American Product EXcellence awards). One of the sad stories at that time was the demise of Polaroid and Kodak. Both had a history of technical excellence. Both had astonishingly good early digital cameras at the dawn of the digital age -- and won APEX Awards for that work. Both companies essentially failed to sustain their lead in that entire market due to financial managers deciding there weren't immediate profits to be had. That sort of culture is also behind the failure of many US companies. Boeing, for example, has taken the same path from technologically superior world leader to near-criminal cost-cutting.

On the flip side, companies like Google and Apple are now leaders in smartphone imaging.

As noted above, Olympus has recently moved into that short-selling camp (by selling to a private equity firm), while the remnants of the only US-based company (Danaher and Leica) are actually doing a pretty good job of supporting customers at the high end.

As to Nebulous' question of why Leica doesn't seem to even mention the DMLB it's because, like their competitors, they don't see any immediate profits in supporting legacy products.

[wabutter]

Interesting writeup Pete. I know you touched on some of these points in your brands PDF—which by the way was a huge help. It's still odd to me that there isn't even one reference to the DMLB model anywhere on the official Leica website. I agree with you about the move to electronic automation being another point of failure; When I was looking at Chinese imports, I avoided these features altogether for that reason. Very happy with the purchase anyhow. Couldn't imagine a better scope to learn the intricacies of microcopy on given it's modularity.

To add another point of reference to this discussion. The DM LB exist today in the form of a newer model designation. The basic platform, optics formulation and in the form factor of the DM1000 to DM2500 series. One of the dynamic aspects of the heighten competitive market place a drive toward shortenng product life cycles. The Concept of Ideation to Innovation drives product development so that at any give point in time, the more than 50% of the mix of products offered by a company are less than 5 years old in their life cycle. Ths results in iterative improvments and changing of product model names, simply to keep the model relavant. The DM LB shares a huge percentage of components with the DM 2500. The company want to promote progress and innovation. It is one way to establish an image of superior innovation and engineering excellance, not necessarily differentiation by price.

[Scoper]

So what are the differences between the DM1000 to DM2500 series?

[PeteM]

So what are the differences between the DM1000 to DM2500 series?

See post #2 above.

There's also a Leica PDF brochure available on the Web that covers those models.