Crack!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but I think this is the only one with a 0.8 mm IR filter glass.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest trond]

Dear Jaapv,

 

There is always some kind of cover glass over the sensor. This cover glass is an integral part of the sensor package. It is hermetically sealed and filled with some kind of neutral gas, probably nitrogen.

 

This cover glass is mounted in a clean-room environment under strictly controlled conditions, to make sure that no dust or aggressive pollution is left inside the sensor package.

 

If done correctly, this sealing will be completely airtight for at least 100 years.

 

In addition, there is usually one more layer of glass (not part of the sensor package), the anti alias filter, and/or the IR filter.

 

The IR filter is always present (if the camera is not a dedicated IR camera), the anti aliasing filter, is as we know, not present in the M9.

 

This AAF/IR-filter filter can be replaced on most cameras for a few hundred dollars (2-400 USD).

 

If the inner glass cracks, there is nothing much to do, but to replace the entire sensor, as the sensor will be exposed air pollution and humidity.

 

It is not clear to me if the cracks reported are the IR-filter or the sensor cover glass itself.

 

The key differentiator between M9 and ALL other "large" senor cameras, is that the M9 is the only camera that has a completely open optical path, not blocked by a mirror or a lens shutter.

 

I am not again saying that this is the cause.

 

The heat can also be generated inside the camera, but I doubt that enough heat would be generated even during a long "bulb" exposure.

 

Compact cameras have a too small sensor for thermal expansion to be a problem.

 

This probably also holds for APS-C and Micro 4/3 also, as their sensors are in a size range (approx 20mm) where difference in thermal expansion between materials, is not large enough to create a problem.

 

They will not crack even if they are literally fried.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[elgenper]

Whatever caused my crack, it was not the sun or any other external heat source. I suspect this is because of tensions in the glass itself, produced either during the manufacture of the glass, its assembly on the sensor, or the assembly of the sensor unit in the camera.

 

But it would have been reassuring if Leica had seen fit to say something -- if only "we have noted the problem and we are investigating it."

 

The old man

 

Well, at least Leica´s track record (not crack record....) for handling sensor issues is good. Just think of the Digilux 2; mine had its sensor replaced after 4 years.

[jaapv]

Dear Jaapv,

 

There is always some kind of cover glass over the sensor. This cover glass is an integral part of the sensor package. It is hermetically sealed and filled with some kind of neutral gas, probably nitrogen.

 

This cover glass is mounted in a clean-room environment under strictly controlled conditions, to make sure that no dust or aggressive pollution is left inside the sensor package.

 

If done correctly, this sealing will be completely airtight for at least 100 years.

 

In addition, there is usually one more layer of glass (not part of the sensor package), the anti alias filter, and/or the IR filter.

 

The IR filter is always present (if the camera is not a dedicated IR camera), the anti aliasing filter, is as we know, not present in the M9.

 

This AAF/IR-filter filter can be replaced on most cameras for a few hundred dollars (2-400 USD).

 

If the inner glass cracks, there is nothing much to do, but to replace the entire sensor, as the sensor will be exposed air pollution and humidity.

 

It is not clear to me if the cracks reported are the IR-filter or the sensor cover glass itself.

 

The key differentiator between M9 and ALL other "large" senor cameras, is that the M9 is the only camera that has a completely open optical path, not blocked by a mirror or a lens shutter.

 

I am not again saying that this is the cause.

 

The heat can also be generated inside the camera, but I doubt that enough heat would be generated even during a long "bulb" exposure.

 

Compact cameras have a too small sensor for thermal expansion to be a problem.

 

This probably also holds for APS-C and Micro 4/3 also, as their sensors are in a size range (approx 20mm) where difference in thermal expansion between materials, is not large enough to create a problem.

 

They will not crack even if they are literally fried.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

Trond, there is another factor. The M9 sensor has no AAfilter/sensor cover glass, just the IR filter. that will call for different bonding techniques, the essence of which are known only to Kodak. Now I DO know about thin-layer bonding an I can assure you that the bond layer thickness is crucial, especially during thermal cycling, which does not need to be extreme either to show up errors. Another factor that leads me to suspect the bonding process is that the corner that cracks - always the same one - is the corner that I managed to lift during a sensor cleaning disaster using a stamping system.

 

As a friendly word to Lars - Leica managed to exchange my sensor within two weeks - despite running out of replacement sensors briefly.

[mjh]

It is not clear to me if the cracks reported are the IR-filter or the sensor cover glass itself.

It is one and the same in the case of the M8 and apparently the M9, too. Only with the M9 the filter is both thicker (0.8 rather than 0.5 mm) and it’s composition may be different. Also it’s a different size, obviously – not that it would necessarily make a difference. (The spec sheet for the M8’s KAF-10500 refers to the cover glass as a “0.5 mm BS7 IR absorptive coverglass” (“BS” being short for “borosilicate”, I suppose); there are no specs available for the sensor in the M9.)

[jonoslack]

If the gnomes of Solms are indeed keen to fix this, I may still have the camera back sometime in September, but I am already having symtoms of abstinence (sweating, shaking hands, Angst ...)

 

I'm very sorry to hear about this Lars - it seems to me on casual observation that cameras affected were delivered in October and November (i.e. not the first batch, but soon after).

Also, people seem to have had it fixed very quickly, so perhaps you'll have you camera back sometime in July (the last thing I sent to Solms was returned within 10 days including shipping). You might find it quicker to contact Solms directly?

 

Good Luck Anyway.

[Guest trond]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is one and the same in the case of the M8 and apparently the M9, too.

 

This is a potentially dangerous design!

 

As the sensor is almost fully exposed to mechanical damage.

 

I wish you would not tell me this, my hands will shake the next time I clean my M9 sensor

 

Maybe it is done due to the special requirement in a rangefinder optical path.

 

Usually the IR/AAF/phase filters of most camera sensors can be removed or replaced for a moderate cost.

 

Making cleaning accident less of a disaster!

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[UliWer]

I'm very sorry to hear about this Lars - it seems to me on casual observation that cameras affected were delivered in October and November (i.e. not the first batch, but soon after).

.

 

As far as we can guess from reports in this Forum, the sudden cracks of the sensor glass happened to several cameras from last year. There was a longer thread about this problem at the end of 2009. As Lars' camera was produced at the same time as the earlier reports it seems to be a problem of a certain series. I havn't heard of this issue from later cameras. So there is hope that it was a limited fault in production which is solved now.

 

Otherwise high numbers of M9 produced and sold could turn out as a boomerang for Leica's revenues and their public esteem.

[250swb]

This is a potentially dangerous design!

 

Well, irrational panic aside for the time being...........

 

While the ambient temperature has been discounted as a common thread, perhaps the temperature of the sensor itself has something to do with it? On my Olympus for instance after a prolonged period of long exposures I got a warning on the LCD saying the sensor was overheating. And cameras do get warmer with less time between shots. So perhaps if it is thermal stress its coming from inside the camera.

 

Steve

[Baptiste]

Dear Jaapv,

 

There is always some kind of cover glass over the sensor. This cover glass is an integral part of the sensor package. It is hermetically sealed and filled with some kind of neutral gas, probably nitrogen.

 

This cover glass is mounted in a clean-room environment under strictly controlled conditions, to make sure that no dust or aggressive pollution is left inside the sensor package.

 

If done correctly, this sealing will be completely airtight for at least 100 years.

 

In addition, there is usually one more layer of glass (not part of the sensor package), the anti alias filter, and/or the IR filter.

 

The IR filter is always present (if the camera is not a dedicated IR camera), the anti aliasing filter, is as we know, not present in the M9.

 

This AAF/IR-filter filter can be replaced on most cameras for a few hundred dollars (2-400 USD).

 

If the inner glass cracks, there is nothing much to do, but to replace the entire sensor, as the sensor will be exposed air pollution and humidity.

 

It is not clear to me if the cracks reported are the IR-filter or the sensor cover glass itself.

 

The key differentiator between M9 and ALL other "large" senor cameras, is that the M9 is the only camera that has a completely open optical path, not blocked by a mirror or a lens shutter.

 

I am not again saying that this is the cause.

 

The heat can also be generated inside the camera, but I doubt that enough heat would be generated even during a long "bulb" exposure.

 

Compact cameras have a too small sensor for thermal expansion to be a problem.

 

This probably also holds for APS-C and Micro 4/3 also, as their sensors are in a size range (approx 20mm) where difference in thermal expansion between materials, is not large enough to create a problem.

 

They will not crack even if they are literally fried.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

 

Fair enough, nevertheless I would expect the crack to happen where the mechanical constraint is maximised (I admit that some other factors account as well, such as bending capacities of the sensor, external constraints on the sensor, by anchor points maybe?). I wouldn't expect it to happen at an edge of the sensor (unless it is stuck by some grabber or so...). Obviously no crack has happened at the middle of the sensor until now, they are all happening more or less at the same location... Did we get a statement about that ?

 

Best regards,

Baptiste

[lars_bergquist]

I do not think thermal stress is the cause of the problem. As I reconstruct the shooting session when the cracking must have occurred (IF it did occur then -- the frames were erased without uploading) the fastest rate must have been three shots in about five seconds, followed by a long pause. I think that mechanical stress is at the root.

 

Glass is a strange substance. It is not crystalline in the proper sense, but amorphous, and it exhibits creep. After some centuries, a vertical window pane is noticeably thicker at the bottom than at the top. Even if stress-induced creep or flow in the material over just a few months is sub-microscopic, it could conceivably lead to sudden failure.

 

I don't care much for the idea that a stress-induced failure should be a crack right down the middle. That presupposes that the stress is symmetrical, which is unwarranted.

 

There is a very strong possibility that the cracking occured while the camera sat peaceably on a shelf in my sitting-room. We should stop the habit of erasing frames in the camera while we still have space left on the card. Even if they are patently useless as images, they may still tell us something of great technical interest when we see them on the computer screen. Today I cannot say for certain under exactly what conditions the failure occurred.

 

The old glass-cracking man who considers a career in spoon-bending

 

P.S. The reason why nothing has been said officially about the problem may well be that Leica and Kodak both are reluctant to point fingers at each other. That is understandable.

[wlaidlaw]

As the owner of an early-ish M9 (October 2009), I hope that Leica will be taking a reasonable view on ex-gratia repairs of cracked sensor cover glasses, when and if they occur out of warranty. In that Stefan Daniel has commented on the issue, Leica have to some extent, acknowledged that it is their responsibility. In my case, being a UK supplied camera, I have 2 years warranty plus passport but I am not sure of the length of the warranty in other countries.

 

Wilson

[Guest trond]

Fair enough, nevertheless I would expect the crack to happen where the mechanical constraint is maximised

 

This is why the crack happens in the corner, because this is where the stress will be the greatest.

 

Why it seems to always (?) be in the same corner is a different story.

 

Maybe there is some kind of heat source in this area inside the M9.

 

Only Leica knows the answer to that.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[Guest trond]

 

P.S. The reason why nothing has been said officially about the problem may well be that Leica and Kodak both are reluctant to point fingers at each other. That is understandable.

 

Dear Lars,

 

Silence is common practice in consumer electronics in these cases.

 

Leica is well aware of the statistics in this matter.

 

We do not know how many of the total 10-20000 (?) M9s produced so far is potentially affected by this problem.

 

On the forum 5-10 (?) cases have been reported, so potentially this affects less than one in one thousand cameras.

 

Leica is then best off by dealing with one case at a time, rather than risking 20000 cameras returned to their doorstep, with a demand for replacement of sensors on all of them.

 

Only if the problem became epidemic, an official statement could not be avoided, and a product recall of a large number of cameras would be required.

 

For Leica, that could be a life threatening situation, because it would require all the workforce capacity for an extended period of time to replace the faulty cameras.

 

We do not know how large this problem is, but it probably affects a small number of cameras.

 

Until it is apparent that the problem is large, I think it is vise for Leica to threat it with silence, just replacing the few(?) faulty cameras as quick and as painless as they can.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[jaapv]

As the owner of an early-ish M9 (October 2009), I hope that Leica will be taking a reasonable view on ex-gratia repairs of cracked sensor cover glasses, when and if they occur out of warranty. In that Stefan Daniel has commented on the issue, Leica have to some extent, acknowledged that it is their responsibility. In my case, being a UK supplied camera, I have 2 years warranty plus passport but I am not sure of the length of the warranty in other countries.

 

Wilson

Normally Leica does not treat matters like this as a limited warranty case. For instance Digilux2 sensors are still being replaced without any costs.

[brill64]

do you keep the camera regularly in a dehumidifying cabinet?

[Shootist]

The cracking of the cover glass is clearly a design flaw. The Sensor in the M9 is not mounted in the center of the opening, hence the red edge on one side of image with wide angle lenses, and it is crammed in there causing stress. This cracking has happened over and over to many M9's.

[Ario Arioldi]

The cracking of the cover glass is clearly a design flaw. The Sensor in the M9 is not mounted in the center of the opening, hence the red edge on one side of image with wide angle lenses, and it is crammed in there causing stress. This cracking has happened over and over to many M9's.

May be this clear to you, I'm not convinced at all that there is a connction betrweeen the red edge problem and the cracking of the cover glass.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

The Sensor in the M9 is not mounted in the center of the opening, .

This is the first time I have seen this stated so absolutely. I would be most interested in your evidence. The red edge is no indication as it can be seen on the M8 in extreme cases as well and was very prominent on the Kodak DSC14, which is a totally different sensor, certainly mounted centrally.

[wilfredo]

Lar's

 

You have my condolences.