M9 sensor life

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The company I worked for (for 40 years) had a similar policy, that spares would be available for 10 years after a product was discontinued (rather high cost industrial products). However, once the instrument products began incorporating microprocessors they found this was no longer practical, and in fact we had to obsolete products to a much shorter life cycle because our suppliers obsoleted the parts we used, and would not make them to the small quantity we used. Quite a shock to a machine-shop based company that used to sell the same models for 20+ years.

[bocaburger]

Yes - but what percentage has actually cracked? An estimate - less that 100 out of 50.000 cameras - the frequency seems far less nowadays, so it appears to be a dimishing curve. It seems reasonable to assume that most sensors that were going to crack have cracked by now. Maybe a trickle from the last batch and a couple more from older cameras - those are odds I am willing to take.

 

The odds are close to 100% that buying an M10 will cost me an additional $5K on top of the $5K I could get by selling my M9 now. I believe the odds of my M9 becoming unrepairable and of zero value in the next decade are less than 100%...so I will also take those odds

[pico]

Do you have a link to that legislation? I have have often come across similar claims but couldn’t find any evidence for such a law to exist. It seems to be a myth.

 

There is probably confusion concerning trade association agreements and the letter of the law. I do not think there is an EU law that requires the same outside of normal contractual agreements for this particular matter. For example, an automobile dealership in a certain country might offer a promise of certain maintenance for a certain period of time, including adequate replacement parts. Such must appear (or be referred to) in the sales contract or be particularly explicit to be enforced.

 

Current EU guidance is that,

 

EU guidelines are not laws. To the best of my knowledge the 'guidelines' are suggestions to future standard makers to harmonize across countries.

[brianv]

I'm not familiar with that sensor...does it have a cover glass with a significant history of cracking issues? If so, then maybe there is some relevance to the M9. As it stands, I have to wonder if in 20 years it might be easier to find more intact M8s than M9s. Of course a cracked glass doesn't render the sensor inoperable, so someone with dedication could always Photoshop the crack out of his images

 

It's the same family as the KAF-10500 and KAF-18500. All electronic components have many failure modes. It's nice to know that some 20 year old detectors are still working. If I get half that life out of the newer cameras, I'll be happy. My Nikon E3 is still working well, it is a Fuji sensor and is 15 years old. I suspect some new comers to the Digital world have less faith in these "new-fangled digital cameras."

[bocaburger]

It's the same family as the KAF-10500 and KAF-18500. All electronic components have many failure modes. It's nice to know that some 20 year old detectors are still working. If I get half that life out of the newer cameras, I'll be happy. My Nikon E3 is still working well, it is a Fuji sensor and is 15 years old. I suspect some new comers to the Digital world have less faith in these "new-fangled digital cameras."

 

It isn't the sensor that fails in the M9, it's the cover glass that cracks, and that glass specific to the M9 and different than what's used on the same sensor in other applications.

[IkarusJohn]

Missed one - or rather, it is what you describe without naming it, in the rest of your post: "Service life."

 

...

 

Keep in mind that an M3 can be serviced after 50 years because 50 years later, Leica is still making many of the same parts for use in new MPs or M7s. That won't apply to digital cameras because Leica doesn't make most of the critical parts in-house (sensor: Kodak/TrueSense; shutter: Seiko/Copal; circuit boards: Jenoptik; Processors/card slots/LCDs: ?) - and because parts commonality doesn't apply. It is likely NOTHING except maybe the RF and body shell will be interchangeable between an M9 and a 2018 M11 - let alone a 2058 M25.

 

It's one thing to stockpile 20 years' worth of spare $2.00 cloth/rubber shutter curtains - and something quite different to stockpile 20 years' worth of spare $500 CCDs.

 

Maybe Leica is factoring that extra expense into the $7-9K price of a digital M. And then again - maybe they aren't.

 

...

 

And this, for me, is the elephant in the room.

 

In relative terms (ie, spending power), the M9 is more expensive than the M3 was on release, and we can expect the M10 to be even more expensive. Yet, it is built to the same exacting (expensive) standards, with a far shorter service life.

 

Now, the experts here can say - boo hop, get a life, but for me this is a problem. I waited for digital IQ to reach a comparable standard to film and I believe the M9 achieves that. I don't want or need more pixels, better high ISO performance, faster buffer or a better LCD. I'm happy with what the M9 delivers, and I don't need to step onto the upgrade cycle. In film terms, if I can use that analogy, I would keep my M3 until it fell apart.

 

But with the M9, it's built like a brick shithouse, yet its usable life will not be determined by me wearing it out, but by the camera reaching the end of its service life - that's another thing altogether to my mind.

 

So, turning to the core of the problem, while I am happy to invest in Leica glass, the idea that Leica is building to traditional M camera standards, and charging accordingly, they are not factoring in the reduced service life, it appears. I have no problem paying to have my M9 fixed and serviced after the warranty expires, but I have a real problem paying a camera for life price, when Leica will (or already has) made the decision when my camera will no longer be capable of being fixed.

 

What this boils down to is, while I may be very happy with my M9, and not want more, I will be forced into a cycle of upgrades to cameras I don't particularly want ...

 

The price of the M9 (and its construction quality) is completely unjustified, to my mind. To use a car analogy, it's a bit like fulfilling a life's ambition to buy a Porsche only to discover that tyres or engine parts that fit it will only be available for the next 10 years; Porsche will make other cars in 10 years, but they will use different engine parts and tyres at that time which won't fit your Porsche. Ideally, Leica should either secure a supply of its weakest part to match the rest of the build quality, or it should downgrade the rest of its construction quality to match the service life of the weakest part.

 

I'm not really singling out Leica, as I suspect that this is something they have drifted into in the switch to digital. My car is 6 years old, and we all treat it as new (it looks new) - it has about 120,000 km on it, and I expect to get at least the same amount again before it becomes uneconomic to repair. My M9 is now 2 years old - I can imagine the look on my wife's face if I say to her that I have to replace my M9 at even greater expense because Leica no longer stocks the parts.

 

As a keen amateur, I have not factored the entire purchase price of my M9 into a 10 year Service Life. I guess I should. Do we expect the sensors and other potentially vulnerable electronic parts to be available for 10 years from the end of the M9 / M Monochrom production?

 

Cheers

John

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John,

 

I agree with a lot of what you say. I just hope that given the number of M9's sold, if Leica is unable to repair, a cottage industry will appear which will be able to repair or substitute new equivalent parts.

 

It has already happened with Porsche. There is a considerable industry supplying parts for older cars. I was able to get someone to rebuild the DME-ECU with new chips, on my 1977 RSR, when Porsche could not supply a replacement. Likewise a company called ARP was able to supply new con rod bolts and head studs when Porsche could only supply standard not competition spec ones.

 

Wilson

[brianv]

It isn't the sensor that fails in the M9, it's the cover glass that cracks, and that glass specific to the M9 and different than what's used on the same sensor in other applications.

 

How many have cracked? 100 out of 50,000? Infant mortality or a production batch problem? 100 failures out of 50,000 is not a major concern for a sensor that has been out for 3 years. 100 out of 50,000- Leica replaces them, no big deal. Electronic component failure, increased detector non-uniformity, and dead pixels or of more concern than a 100/50,000 problem that the company corrects even if out of warranty. The KAF-1600 still works- no catastrophic failure. The detector has good uniformity, no bad colums. Picked up 3 hot pixels out of 1.6Million. Still can be used. and the cover glass is permanent, and did not crack.

 

So that gives me some assurance, if you want to worry about the cracked sensor- sell the M9 fast and put the money aside for the M10. Hurry before this problem scares everyone off! Welcome to the digital world.

 

You are much more likely to get scratches on film from the pressure plate being damaged. Back to Photoshop.

 

Inputs:

 

Number of units: 50000

Total accumulated time: 50000 units * 1.5 years * 8760 hours/years * 1.0 duty cycle = 657,000,000.0000 hours.

Total accumulated failures: 100

Duty cycle: 100 %

Confidence: 60 %

 

 

Solution:

 

Point estimate MTBF=6,570,000.0000 hours.

 

MTBFlower = 6,364,459.8214 hours at a 60% confidence level.

 

λupper = 0.1571 failures per million hours (FPMH) at a 60% confidence level.

100% duty cycle used as we are discussing the glass cover, which is always there.

[adan]

And this, for me, is the elephant in the room.

 

....... I have a real problem paying a camera for life price, when Leica will (or already has) made the decision when my camera will no longer be capable of being fixed.

 

.....As a keen amateur, I have not factored the entire purchase price of my M9 into a 10 year Service Life. I guess I should. Do we expect the sensors and other potentially vulnerable electronic parts to be available for 10 years from the end of the M9 / M Monochrom production?

 

Cheers

John

 

Understood. And I checked and Leica does indeed on their web site use the phrase "for life" several times - within one paragraph:

 

Compact, Built for a Lifetime, and Enduring in Value

 

It is not rare for a Leica to become its owner's lifelong companion. This also applies to the digital Leica M9 and equally to the M9-P: despite the considerably larger sensor, it has been possible to maintain the compact body size of their predecessors, the Leica M8 and M8.2. With dimensions of only 139 x 37 x 80 mm, the Leica M9 and M9-P retain the ideal size of the M series and the unique honor of being the world's smallest full-format digital system cameras. The full-metal housing, made from a high-tensile magnesium alloy, and a top deck and bottom plate machined from blocks of solid brass, provide perfect protection for their precious inner mechanisms. The digital components and shutter assembly of the M9 and the M9-P are similarly constructed with a lifetime of endurance in mind. Free updates ensure that the cameras' firmware always embraces the latest developments. In short: an M camera is not only an investment for life, but also a lifelong companion.

 

Reference: Leica Camera AG - Photography - M9 & M9-P

 

The reality is we don't actually know what Leica is doing to support this claim. Perhaps they are indeed putting aside a couple of extra sensors for each camera sold (or the money to set aside stock once TrueSense advises them production is ending.)

 

We kind of went through all this during Leica's on-again-off-again "upgrades for life" situation with the M8 - the one that led to the exit of Steven Lee as CEO.

 

Personally, I've never bought a "camera for life." I thought I had a couple of times - but something different always came along. Canon FX, Nikon SP, Leica IIIc, Canon P, Nikon F, Nikon F2, Canon F-1, Canon AE-1, Nikon F (again), Nikon F3, Nikon FM2....(15 years of various Nikons omitted)....Contax ST, Contax RX, Contax Aria, Contax G1, Contax G2, Leica M4-2, Leica M4-P, Leica M6, Digilux 2, Sony R-1, Leica M8, Leica M9. Not to mention other formats - Yashica 6x6 TLRs, Kowa 6, Crown Graphic 4x5.

 

At this point, my longest-owned cameras were - a couple of Nikon Fs in my college years, and the M8/M9s at three years each.

 

When it comes to digital, my math is that I'm getting - at a bare minimum - 1,000 rolls of film and processing (36,000 exposures) included in the price, that I would have to spend money on otherwise (that being what my M9 has shot so far). The reality is probably more like 125,000 exposures before the shutter or sensor blows - and that adds up to 3500 rolls, or $52,000 worth of Velvia and E6 processing.

 

Out of those savings, I should be able to put aside $9,000 for a new M-whatever every decade. Or even someone else's used M9 innards, if that really is the camera I want to stay with.

[jaapv]

And you are not even considering the decreasing number of failures.

[bocaburger]

 

How many have cracked? 100 out of 50,000? Infant mortality or a production batch problem? 100 failures out of 50,000 is not a major concern for a sensor that has been out for 3 years. 100 out of 50,000- Leica replaces them, no big deal. Electronic component failure, increased detector non-uniformity, and dead pixels or of more concern than a 100/50,000 problem that the company corrects even if out of warranty. The KAF-1600 still works- no catastrophic failure. The detector has good uniformity, no bad colums. Picked up 3 hot pixels out of 1.6Million. Still can be used. and the cover glass is permanent, and did not crack.

 

1. 100/ the M9s owned by people on this forum, which is far less than the total number sold.

 

2. The glass on your sensor is not the same as the glass on the M9's sensor.

 

Thus with flawed data the conclusions of your made-to-impress analysis are likewise flawed. Garbage in, garbage out I think is the geek expression.

[algrove]

John,

 

I agree with a lot of what you say. I just hope that given the number of M9's sold, if Leica is unable to repair, a cottage industry will appear which will be able to repair or substitute new equivalent parts.

 

It has already happened with Porsche. There is a considerable industry supplying parts for older cars. I was able to get someone to rebuild the DME-ECU with new chips, on my 1977 RSR, when Porsche could not supply a replacement. Likewise a company called ARP was able to supply new con rod bolts and head studs when Porsche could only supply standard not competition spec ones.

 

Wilson

 

I keep my 1968 911 going due to cottage industries and a darn good old mechanic who grew up repairing old Porches.

[bocaburger]

 

I keep my 1968 911 going due to cottage industries and a darn good old mechanic who grew up repairing old Porches.

 

Vintage Porsches are worth a darn sight more than vintage digital cameras. Spending $1200 on a repair to keep a '68 Porker running is not comparable to spending the same $1200 to replace a sensor in an M9 when it will be six or eight years old and probably worth $3000 tops. At least it won't be something enough people would do to commission a new batch of long-obsolete electronics. Sorry to break the news but even though the M9 looks like a simple old M4, other than the rangefinder it is a computer, most of which is comprised of parts made for Leica by electronics companies who have no compassion for the sentiments of Leica mystique, and are fully vested in the planned obsolescence and throw-away paradigm of modern times.

[AlanG]

All Leica really needs to do in future models is place the sensor, lcd, and and all of the electronics in a single compact modular package that can readily be removed and replaced by an updated one. (A technician may need to do this to ensure sensor alignment.) And continue to use the same basic connecting architecture between that module and the camera body in future models even as they add features such as AF and sensor based IS. They could even use the same basic module package with full frame or APS sensors on various models to add to efficiency of manufacturing since Leica doesn't make that many cameras. Future models could have changes to the electronics or to the mechanical design independently.

 

If you look at how small a Nex body is and consider that it even has a shutter and battery, state of the art electronics must be pretty compact and fairly inexpensive. And once cameras lose the mechanical shutter, there won't be much to a Leica M body beyond the lens mount, viewfinder/rangefinder, and electronics. A clip on EVF would be in its own forward/backward compatible module already as long as the connection stays the same. Other than the lens to sensor alignment and the rangefinder/viewfinder quality and adjustment, how much craftsmanship and precision is needed in a camera like this?

[jaapv]

1. 100/ the M9s owned by people on this forum, which is far less than the total number sold.

 

According to Leica nearly all cracked sensors have been reported on this forum.I guess we have Google to thank for that.

[IkarusJohn]

John,

 

I agree with a lot of what you say. I just hope that given the number of M9's sold, if Leica is unable to repair, a cottage industry will appear which will be able to repair or substitute new equivalent parts.

 

It has already happened with Porsche. There is a considerable industry supplying parts for older cars. I was able to get someone to rebuild the DME-ECU with new chips, on my 1977 RSR, when Porsche could not supply a replacement. Likewise a company called ARP was able to supply new con rod bolts and head studs when Porsche could only supply standard not competition spec ones.

 

Wilson

 

Interestingly, the local Leica importer made the same comment to me today when he called to tell me that my M9 and Noct are back.

 

I like to think (hope) that the Monochrom will be available for quite some time, increasing the likelihood that the M9 sensor will continue to be available for some time.

 

Cheers

John

[brianv]

1. 100/ the M9s owned by people on this forum, which is far less than the total number sold.

 

2. The glass on your sensor is not the same as the glass on the M9's sensor.

 

Thus with flawed data the conclusions of your made-to-impress analysis are likewise flawed. Garbage in, garbage out I think is the geek expression.

 

According to Leica nearly all cracked sensors have been reported on this forum.I guess we have Google to thank for that.

 

 

Quote some real numbers, I went by Jaap's numbers that appear to be confirmed by Leica. Statistically, you are much more likely to be affected by component failure other than the cover glass cracking. Shutter failure is much more likely than the sensor failing.

 

This is getting more like Chicken Little rather than a reliability study.

[pgk]

..... there is no actual law as I believed. There is however EU guidance and this recommends that spare parts should be available for 8 years. It is about time this was enshrined in law and the EU did something useful for us .....

It might well be a recommendation but it is certainly not adhered to nor is it IMHO enforceable. But 'good' companies (of which there are many) will try to keep spares available for as long as they can because this enhances their reputation.

 

I have two Fuji S2Pro dSLRs at home, both working after 10 years. Many do not though and I am told that this is because they were power hungry cameras and their sensors heated up during operation which finally led to their delamination, and consequent death of the sensor. That said the two that I have still work ok. So newer less power thirsty sensors shouldn't heat up as much, should use better laminated materials and should have a longer life I should think. Whilst cheaper cameras quickly become uneconomic for sensor replacement to be viable, expensive cameras which still produce usable files might continue to be economic depending on their resale value I suppose.

[jaapv]

Quote some real numbers, I went by Jaap's numbers that appear to be confirmed by Leica. Statistically, you are much more likely to be affected by component failure other than the cover glass cracking. Shutter failure is much more likely than the sensor failing.

 

This is getting more like Chicken Little rather than a reliability study.

Quite informally, Brian, the exact numbers are unknown, these are ballpark ones.

At least we don't have dropping acorns on this forum.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[brianv]

I just looked at the activity on this forum for cracks in the IR cover glass of the M9 sensor, and compared with the thread on the fuji forum for sticky aperture blades on the X-100. Most of the sensor crack problems occurred in early batches of cameras, and seems fairly rare of late. It sounds like the production process was changed, rather than a fundamental redesign.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130528-help-sensor-crack.html

 

The "SAB" problem appears to be a design flaw, and Fuji changed the design of the shutter/lens assembly.

 

http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/topic/2316-poll-has-your-x100-failed-with-sticky-aperture-blades/

 

So back to how reliable is the KAF-18500, and what is the primary failure mode. I don't see the thread on cracked cover glass hitting 28 pages in less than a year on forum that is not much older. I'm okay with the MTBF numbers as shown.