Crack!

[mtomalty]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We do not know how many of the total 10-20000 (?)

 

 

Not to stray off topic but has Leica delivered 10K M9's ?

 

Without the benefit of any direct info I would have guessed the number to be lower

and hats off to Leica if the quoted number is an accurate assessment.

 

Mark

Mark Tomalty Photography Montreal Canada Travel Landscape Stock FineArt

[Guest trond]

Dear Mark,

 

This is just my wild guess.

 

Based on the video from the factory tour in september 2009, I would estimate the production to 50+ units per day, or 1000+ per month.

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[mtomalty]

This is just my wild guess.

 

I realized that, Trond, and wasn't calling you out on your numbers.

 

Just when seeing the number in 'print' it started me thinking about what a reasonably

accurate number of production bodies would be at this point in time.

 

Regards,

Mark

[Guest trond]

Dear Mark,

 

I just tried to check this further.

 

I have two friends with M9 cameras.

 

One of them was bought on the first day of M9 sale, i.e. 09.09.2009.

 

My own M9 was delivered on November 4th, and has a serial number that is 6244 units later.

 

Further, another friend got his M9 i May 2010, and has a serial number which is 30383 units later.

 

There may be MPs and M7s produced in between, but I think it is safe to assume that at least 20000 M9s have been delivered so far.

 

My hat off for Leica, this would be quite an achivement if this number turns out to be correct!

 

Best regards

 

Trond

[Alnitak]

Dear Mark,

 

I just tried to check this further.

 

I have two friends with M9 cameras.

 

One of them was bought on the first day of M9 sale, i.e. 09.09.2009.

 

My own M9 was delivered on November 4th, and has a serial number that is 6244 units later.

 

Further, another friend got his M9 i May 2010, and has a serial number which is 30383 units later.

 

There may be MPs and M7s produced in between, but I think it is safe to assume that at least 20000 M9s have been delivered so far.

 

My hat off for Leica, this would be quite an achivement if this number turns out to be correct!

 

Best regards

 

Trond

 

It's pretty well-established that Leica's serial numbers within any model are not consecutive, so one really can't tell much from the numbers on M9's (or anything else from Leica for that matter).

[Guest malland]

As documented in another thread, my M9 had cracks in the same corner. Solms turned the camera around in five working days, although the process took a total of three weeks owing to delays in Customs both in Germany and in Thailand.

 

Actually, the crack was there when I picked the camera up from a dealer in Paris in mid-November, as it showed up in the first few shots; but I didn't discover the problem until a week later because the day after I picked up the camera I left Paris for Bangkok, and didn't see the cracks until a week later when I processed the pictures.

 

My story gets more sinister in that a couple of weeks after receiving the camera with the crack problem fixed, presumably involving a sensor replacement, my M9 developed an intermittent problem — documented in another thread here — which manifested itself in runs of shots in which there was a lighter-colored spurious rectangle within several frames in a row. This problem, presumably a processing problem, Leica did not deal with as quickly: the whole process took 2-3 months (I don't recall exactly).

 

At first Solms couldn't replicate the problem and wanted to send the camera back as is, despite the fact that I had sent them files showing the spurious rectangles. Then they told me that this was a Lightroom processing issue and wanted to send the camera back to me again. I insisted that it couldn't be a Lightroom issue because, on the one hand, I was using Aperture and, on the other, if it was a raw developer processing problem this would most likely happen to all files and not intermittently. Finally, they were able to replicate the problem and replace the camera, except that they reused the top and bottom plates from my old camera.

 

By the time I received the camera back, I lost confidence because of the run-around I got when they couldn't find the problem and the way they wanted to send the camera back to me without having found or solved the problem. I also kept on thinking that the spurious rectangle problem may have been caused by the way Leica Service dealt with the camera when they fixed the sensor glass crack problem. In any case, as I had a buyer I simply sold the camera, which still had about 18 months left on the guarantee.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Tropical Light

[Baptiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As documented in another thread, my M9 had cracks in the same corner. Solms turned the camera around in five working days, although the process took a total of three weeks owing to delays in Customs both in Germany and in Thailand.

 

Actually, the crack was there when I picked the camera up from a dealer in Paris in mid-November, as it showed up in the first few shots; but I didn't discover the problem until a week later because the day after I picked up the camera I left Paris for Bangkok, and didn't see the cracks until a week later when I processed the pictures.

 

My story gets more sinister in that a couple of weeks after receiving the camera with the crack problem fixed, presumably involving a sensor replacement, my M9 developed an intermittent problem — documented in another thread here — which manifested itself in runs of shots in which there was a lighter-colored spurious rectangle within several frames in a row. This problem, presumably a processing problem, Leica did not deal with as quickly: the whole process took 2-3 months (I don't recall exactly).

 

At first Solms couldn't replicate the problem and wanted to send the camera back as is, despite the fact that I had sent them files showing the spurious rectangles. Then they told me that this was a Lightroom processing issue and wanted to send the camera back to me again. I insisted that it couldn't be a Lightroom issue because, on the one hand, I was using Aperture and, on the other, if it was a raw developer processing problem this would most likely happen to all files and not intermittently. Finally, they were able to replicate the problem and replace the camera, except that they reused the top and bottom plates from my old camera.

 

By the time I received the camera back, I lost confidence because of the run-around I got when they couldn't find the problem and the way they wanted to send the camera back to me without having found or solved the problem. I also kept on thinking that the spurious rectangle problem may have been caused by the way Leica Service dealt with the camera when they fixed the sensor glass crack problem. In any case, as I had a buyer I simply sold the camera, which still had about 18 months left on the guarantee.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Tropical Light

 

This is a sad story, and I do perfectly understand you and the choice you finally did. Off the discussion - What camera are you using now?

 

Best Regards,

Baptiste

[Guest malland]

...Off the discussion - What camera are you using now?...

I'm using a Ricoh GXR/A12 (APS-C sensor) and a small-sensor Ricoh GRD3. But I'm keeping my six Leica-M lens until I see where Leica goes with the M10, if that is what the next version will be called.

 

I must say that I hope the M10 will have live view, which I value highly, preferring it to a viewfinder, although many people here seem to ridicule this. What I do is to use the LCD on the back of the camera to establish roughly the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. For street photography this encourages the type of fluid style that I value.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

[Baptiste]

I'm using a Ricoh GXR/A12 (APS-C sensor) and a small-sensor Ricoh GRD3. But I'm keeping my six Leica-M lens until I see where Leica goes with the M10, if that is what the next version will be called.

 

I must say that I hope the M10 will have live view, which I value highly, preferring it to a viewfinder, although many people here seem to ridicule this. What I do is to use the LCD on the back of the camera to establish roughly the edges of the frame and then look directly at the subject when pressing the shutter. For street photography this encourages the type of fluid style that I value.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Scratching the Surface©

 

As coming from a D700, I should say that I rarely used the live view, mostly because of all the constraints due to focusing & mirror motion. But I think that the Rangefinder's desing is more adapted to Live View... And even if implemented, those who don't want to use it are free not to. So why not! (And it would be interesting for wide angle lenses). All this assuming that it would be properly implemented and tested, not damaging the sensor & so on...

[Shootist]

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.

 

Then why is the red edge on the M9 so one sided on all M9's. Either the sensor is mounted slightly off center or ALL lenses ever produced by anyone for the M mount are all produced with the center point of the lens slightly off. Which I find hard to believe.

[jaapv]

The cause of the red edge has not been firmly established. I am with you that there must be a reason, but I find an off-centre sensor highly unlikely, because in that case the M9 should be the only camera showing the effect - which it isn't.

[gravastar]

The easy way to check for an off center sensor is to photograph a white wall/sheet of paper with a circular lens hood that just starts to vignette. Look to see if the darkening is the same in all corners or is it displaced. It's not so easy to do this with a chart with squares etc. because the viewfinder could be misaligned with respect to the sensor.

 

Bob.

[ArtZ]

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.

 

Concerning the M8, I've only seen "red corners" using the WATE @ 16 or 18mm together with J. Milich adaptor. I don't get "red corners" using Leica's adapter with Leica 67 mm IR filter.

 

I suppose if I get "red corners" with Milich's adapter @ 16/18mm it's because vignetting. I tend to agree with Shootist theory. If the M9 sensor is not centered, something inside the camera (I think of the battery, as Mark Norton explained some months ago) could produce some vignetting and thus the "red edge effect"

[jonoslack]

The cracking of the cover glass is clearly a design flaw.

 

HI there

If it were a design flaw why does it only seem to have happened to cameras within quite a tight time period (i.e. mostly cameras delivered in later October and November). Apart from Lars' recent unfortunate crack it seems to me that it's been rather rare

 

Sounds to me much more likely to be material failure of some sort or another (otherwise why would it now be so rare even though they haven't changed the design).

 

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,

 

You are stating something as a fact which has been denied so many times - and even if it were the case, how on earth would it explain the fact that in some lenses the red edge extends more than 1/3rd across the image, is much more visible on the top (or the bottom).

 

As far as I'm aware there hasn't been a definitive explanation of the red edge issue, but your off centred sensor really doesn't cover the facts (even if it hadn't been denied).

 

and it is crammed in there causing stress.

This is building a house of cards from dubious logic - total speculation

 

This cracking has happened over and over to many M9's.

It did happen to a lot of cameras around Christmas and New year - have you heard of it happening to many M9's since then?

[UliWer]

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.

 

There are enough evidences around, that the theory of the "moved sensor" has no justification at all:

 

Just one example: the red shift is stronger on the right side than on the left:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/119258-fehler-bzw-ungereimtheiten-fw-1-116-a-5.html#post1268187

 

Or if you look at the second photo in this thread from the subway station - equal red shifts on both sides (btw. with the M8):

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m8/98843-problem-mit-dem-super-elmar-18mm.html#post1040024

 

Anybody with a 3.8/18mm or any other lens which causes the red shift can test the theory by making a photo of a grey card (if she or he manages to get the lens so near to the grey card that it covers the whole frame...). I am sure testing with a grey card shows the red shift completely regular on left and right sides. With a sensor "moved" to one side, this could not be.

[jonoslack]

Then why is the red edge on the M9 so one sided on all M9's. Either the sensor is mounted slightly off center or ALL lenses ever produced by anyone for the M mount are all produced with the center point of the lens slightly off. Which I find hard to believe.

 

Why are those the only possible explanations?

I've heard several other possibilities, the most convincing being that the angle of incidence of light interacts with the rggb filter, which is inherently 'lop sided' so that spillage on the left hand side tends towards red and on the right hand side towards cyan/blue (which can also be seen).

 

I'm not suggesting that this is the cause, but it's worth saying that if the sensor wasn't centred then there is no sense at all in the fact that you tend to get blue on the other side of the shot. Or the fact that the vignetting isn't darker on the left than the right.

 

I'm sure that there are other possible explanations - and of course there is then the possibility of two (or more) different issues interacting to cause the problem. The fact that nobody seems to know what causes it does suggest to me that it isn't a simple issue (and certainly not as simple as you are portraying it).

[wlaidlaw]

Jono,

 

On my M9 and my WATE at least (I did a quick and dirty test with a friend's WATE and M9 some time ago and the results were pretty much the same whichever way you permed them), the vignetting is asymmetrical as well as the red shift. Here is a picture of a pretty evenly illuminated cream wall today and if everyone can stop leaping out of their chairs with excitement on the startling composition, you can easily see the increased vignetting to the left. WATE at 16mm /f4 - lens correction on, latest FW installed and reset done.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jonoslack]

Jono,

 

On my M9 and my WATE at least (I did a quick and dirty test with a friend's WATE and M9 some time ago and the results were pretty much the same whichever way you permed them), the vignetting is asymmetrical as well as the red shift. Here is a picture of a pretty evenly illuminated cream wall today and if everyone can stop leaping out of their chairs with excitement on the startling composition, you can easily see the increased vignetting to the left. WATE at 16mm /f4 - lens correction on, latest FW installed and reset done.

 

Wilson

 

Hi Wilson

That's certainly convincing . . . . . but surely the sensor cannot be out of alignment by that much ! (the darker area is about 1/4 further along on the left (and if the sensor is out of alignment surely it can't be more than a mm).

Presumably you took that with lens recognition set to manual (because if you didn't, it may be just that Leica's correction is gentler on one side where it needs to deal with the red).

 

I just don't see that a very small alignment change could make such a big effect.

Added to which, although Leica have absolutely admitted the issue - they have also said that the sensor is aligned centrally.

[wlaidlaw]

Jono,

 

It's too dark now to do another photo but I took that with lens correction set to auto, as I assumed that that is what Leica would want you to do. I will do this same tomorrow with lens correction set to "off".

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ho_co]

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

 

Jaap--

Actually, in that case, Sony acknowledged the defect and agreed to replace that batch of defective sensors at no charge to the manufacturer.

 

But I agree that we haven't anything to worry about.

 

Consider the cracking M8 bodies and the self-destructing shutters. Stefan Daniel has said they look at those cases on an individual basis.

 

In my experience, Leica is quite fair to its customers. After all, we're all they've got.