M9 sensor life

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The reliability or replace-ability of the sensor will be irrelevant if other electronic components fail and can't be replaced or if Leica charges too much to make various repairs worthwhile.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

There's a similar thing happening with Porsche as with these cracking sensors. There's a bearing in the normally-aspirated water-cooled flat-six engines that fails without due warning and when it does causes such catastrophic damage the engine is not salvageable. Like the cracking sensors, there are reports on internet forums. Like Leica, Porsche will not admit to more than what has been reported on forums. Like the Leica Forum, Porsche forums are awash with people rattling off wild statistics, and opinions run the gamut from those convinced every car is a ticking time-bomb to others convinced it's all a tempest in a teapot.

 

Even if the numbers quoted here are correct, 100 out of 50,000 is still 1 in 500, not 1 in a million. 1 in 500 is a pretty significant failure rate. And the fact it is still happening with the M9P seems to negate the early-teething-trouble and one-bad-batch hypotheses. The decreasing frequency could be explained by decreasing sales. Surely the M9P has not sold in the same numbers as the M9, and sales of both have tapered off drastically from where it was a couple years ago.

 

In the case of Porsche, a cottage industry supplier developed a reasonable-cost solution. Perhaps that will also happen with the M9 sensors. It really seems like the cover glass ought to be replaceable as a component, either as a service procedure or on an exchange-basis so that they can be rebuilt more economically in batches. Tossing them seems like a waste of perfectly good sensor electronics.

[wlaidlaw]

The failure rate is a lot higher than 1 in 500 for early Boxsters and 996 Porsches. Strangely the worst ones are the ones that have been driven gently. On ones that have been driven hard, the seal fails long before the bearing on the intermediate shaft and the bearing then self lubricates from oil splashing around. So don't buy an early water cooled Porsche from an elderly lady or vicar ;-}}

 

Also virtually every 996 and 997 Turbo over 5 years old used in salted road areas, has had to have all three of the front alloy radiators replaced due to corrosion at a cost of £2,000 - contribution from Porsche? - Forget it sir! Leica's out of warranty service looks generous in comparison.

 

Wilson

[brianv]

The question is about Sensor reliability and how it relates to the life expectancy of the camera. A 1 in 500 failure point for a 3 year old product is not the death bell tolling. Life expectancy of the shutter is ~150K for many cameras, and is most likely to be the failure point. Kodak/Truesense detectors are used in scientific applications with shutters having 1M cycle MTBF.

 

I'm on my fourth windshield on my 2008 car. Do not drive down the highway behind a dump truck carrying gravel holding your M9 out the window with no lens, no body cap, and with the shutter open set to "B". This will increase the likelihood of the cover glass becoming the single-point failure rendering the M9 useless.

[wlaidlaw]

I believe there are already companies who will upgrade the Epson RD-1 sensor to the later Sony sensor as used in the D70 Nikon. There are a lot more M9's around than Epson RD-1's, so I see no reason, that, subject to the availability of suitably offset micro-lensed CCD sensors, the same surgery could not be done on the M9 at some future time. The big issue would probably be to re-write the firmware, which may belong to Jenoptik and it would not therefore, be in Leica's parvenu, to make open source, as a service to customers.

 

Wilson

[bocaburger]

The failure rate is a lot higher than 1 in 500 for early Boxsters and 996 Porsches.

 

Actually, nobody can venture anything close to an accurate estimate, because Porsche won't say how many they replaced under warranty. For obvious reasons. The same obvious reasons why one might be skeptical when Leica says that all the cracked sensors are the ones documented on this forum.

 

Strangely the worst ones are the ones that have been driven gently. On ones that have been driven hard, the seal fails long before the bearing on the intermediate shaft and the bearing then self lubricates from oil splashing around.

 

True, but (sorry for the OT) the way the bearing is situated it doesn't receive as much oil splash as it should, so many experts believe even with the seal gone, the bearing should be at least inspected at intervals; and given the cost of doing that (dropping the transmission) not replacing it is senseless. Also that is why two companies in the US are making a retrofit bearing using silicon nitride (ceramic) which has a much higher duty rating under conditions of poor lubrication.

 

contribution from Porsche? - Forget it sir! Leica's out of warranty service looks generous in comparison.

 

True dat!

 

The question is about Sensor reliability and how it relates to the life expectancy of the camera. A 1 in 500 failure point for a 3 year old product is not the death bell tolling. Life expectancy of the shutter is ~150K for many cameras, and is most likely to be the failure point.

 

Really? How many people have had their M9 shutters fail compared to how many have had their sensor glass crack? And of the people who have had sensor glass cracks, how many of those were anywhere near 150K actuations?

 

Kodak/Truesense detectors are used in scientific applications with shutters having 1M cycle MTBF.

 

By now it seems like you don't want to understand that it is not the sensor that fails, it is merely thrown in the trash because the glass cover is integral. And unless I miss my guess those you refer to used in scientific applications do not have the same specification cover glass as the sensor in the M9.

 

I'm on my fourth windshield on my 2008 car. Do not drive down the highway behind a dump truck carrying gravel holding your M9 out the window with no lens, no body cap, and with the shutter open set to "B". This will increase the likelihood of the cover glass becoming the single-point failure rendering the M9 useless.

 

Again, really? How many of the people who reported their sensor glass cracking followed your suggested protocol?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, nobody can venture anything close to an accurate estimate, because Porsche won't say how many they replaced under warranty. For obvious reasons. The same obvious reasons why one might be skeptical when Leica says that all the cracked sensors are the ones documented on this forum.

 

OT I know but .....when I bought my wife a new car two years ago, we were offered a low mileage series one Boxster S. I got the friend whose company does any major work on my '77 911 rally car to speak "on the quiet" to the service manager at a local main dealer (not the one I use for servicing my 997TT and who had the Boxster for sale) and get the rough odds of an intermediate shaft failure for that age of car and mileage. The message that came back was "could be 1 in 50". Now that is in the crowded south of England where the opportunity to drive a Porsche like it is meant to be driven is very limited, which makes the problem worse. My wife decided to pass on the Boxster (service/repair costs would be down to her business) and opted for a new Ford Focus coupé convertible CC3 instead (the 38% discount was a factor as well). An extended warranty covering the shaft failure was so expensive that it also indicated a problem.

 

At 1 in 500 failures, the M9 seems a good bet. I should like to see Leica making more of an effort to market and provide extended warranties to give us peace of mind. After my sensor replacement in February of this year, I was a little surprised not to be offered a warranty extension to purchase. They could put the money received into buying a stock of sensors plus a few extra shutters and chip sets.

 

Wilson

[brianv]

The cover glass problem seems to have mostly occurred with early cameras, the term "early Adopter" is synonymous with "Bleeding Edge". For my own personal use with my money, I wait until a product is half way through the cycle- the exception being the M Monochrom. It is based on mature technology, no worries on my part. For work- custom detectors and prototype support electronics with very limited production is the norm.

 

The cover glass of the M8 is thinner than that on the M9, and the M8 has not shown a problem. I believe Jaap's explanation that the problem was with the manufacturing process, and it was corrected.

 

So- if the cover glass breaks on my M9, Leica will replace it. That much is well documented. I doubt that it will break, the MTBF is way against it. Dropping or sitting on the camera- more likely failure point.

[bocaburger]

Now that is in the crowded south of England where the opportunity to drive a Porsche like it is meant to be driven is very limited,

 

Unless you're Richard Hammond I had the upgraded ceramic-hybrid IMS bearing installed in my 3.6L M96 when I had the clutch done. I also have a comprehensive warranty on it. Belt and suspenders

[bocaburger]

The cover glass problem seems to have mostly occurred with early cameras..............The cover glass of the M8 is thinner than that on the M9, and the M8 has not shown a problem. I believe Jaap's explanation that the problem was with the manufacturing process, and it was corrected.

 

"Mostly" is not the same as "all". It's still happening with the M9P. Maybe not in huge numbers, but then again the M9P isn't selling in the numbers the M9 did. Yes the M8's glass is thinner. It's also much smaller in surface area, a significant factor if you know anything at all about glass properties.

 

I believe manufacturing has something to do with it. I also suspect assembly could play a part. But bottom-line, the cover glass has a modulus of rupture that is low enough to make it very sensitive to those variables, and there continue to be outliers that fail.

 

So- if the cover glass breaks on my M9, Leica will replace it.

 

As long as they have replacements. And that was the whole crux of the discussion: what will happen long-term when they run out of spares?

[brianv]

KAF-1603 - Scientific - Markets - Products - Full Frame CCD

 

I can still buy a replacement detector for my 20-year old Digital camera.

 

And for the DCS-460 (1995), DCS-660, and DCS-760- all over 10 years old.

 

KAF-6303 - Medical - Markets - Products - Full Frame CCD

 

You can also buy a replacement CMOS detector for the SLR/n and SLR/c, and the company has turned over three times. DigiKey carries it.

 

If the cover glass had an intrinsic design flaw, I would expect a greatly increasing number of failures as the product is getting older. Infant mortality rate has always been a problem with electronics. How a company handles the problem is important.

 

If some people are that worried about their "investment", sell now and put the money towards an M10. I'm not worried, and will use the M9 and M Monochrom for a long time. They may not last 20 years and 15 years as my "first generation" digital cameras have lasted. I expect at least 10 years out of them, and probably longer. My M8 is a late production camera. Works great.

[tappan]

I have NO fears that Leica will do the right thing regarding satisfying M9 owners for many, many years to come. I am fairly new to Leica. I have utilized Leica NJ for one coding of a 35mm 'cron version IV and for one M9 upgrade to an M9-P. Both experiences led me to believe that Leica service is very good and their customer service is better than very good. Both times, my equipment came back to me astonishingly fast.

Best,

Mark

[bocaburger]

I can still buy a replacement detector for my 20-year old Digital camera.

 

And for the DCS-460 (1995), DCS-660, and DCS-760- all over 10 years old.

 

 

You can also buy a replacement CMOS detector for the SLR/n and SLR/c, and the company has turned over three times. DigiKey carries it.

 

Just out of curiosity and to put things in perspective, how much is the cost of a sensor + labor to replace it vs the market value of those cameras you mention?

 

If the cover glass had an intrinsic design flaw, I would expect a greatly increasing number of failures as the product is getting older.

 

What I believe is that the application (size, thickness, mounting, heat/cooling) maintains every sensor not far from the threshold for cracking. As long as the tolerances happen to work to neutralize each other, there's no problem, and that's probably the case with most of them. But get one or more of the above just a tad "off", and the probability of cracking goes way up.

[bocaburger]

I have NO fears that Leica will do the right thing regarding satisfying M9 owners for many, many years to come. I am fairly new to Leica.

 

Too new to recall the DMR perhaps? I'm sure Leica will continue to repair the M9 as long as they have spares for it. Once those run out I doubt very much they will contract for the making of more.

[jaapv]

Just out of curiosity and to put things in perspective, how much is the cost of a sensor + labor to replace it vs the market value of those cameras you mention?

 

 

 

What I believe is that the application (size, thickness, mounting, heat/cooling) maintains every sensor not far from the threshold for cracking. As long as the tolerances happen to work to neutralize each other, there's no problem, and that's probably the case with most of them. But get one or more of the above just a tad "off", and the probability of cracking goes way up.

Which is probably correct. So when a batch of cracking sensors showed up over a year ago, I presume Kodak tightened up its tolerances, as the numbers decreased to a slow tricle within a few months.

[tappan]

Too new to recall the DMR perhaps? I'm sure Leica will continue to repair the M9 as long as they have spares for it. Once those run out I doubt very much they will contract for the making of more.

Can you please expand on this DMR experience you are citing?

Thanks,

Mark

[jaapv]

The DMR was built by an outside company. When that company was sold off to Hasselblad in an intercorporate dustup, the spares supply dried up, and there even was a period that it was hard to get a repair done at all. It was a bit of a sorry episode, and certainly not typical.

[bocaburger]

Which is probably correct. So when a batch of cracking sensors showed up over a year ago, I presume Kodak tightened up its tolerances, as the numbers decreased to a slow tricle within a few months.

 

And/or Leica adjusted their protocol for assembly. Either way, the problem was reduced significantly. But not eliminated. So I suspect that would have entailed a more radical (and costly) fix than Leica was willing to undertake.

 

 

The DMR was built by an outside company. When that company was sold off to Hasselblad in an intercorporate dustup, the spares supply dried up, and there even was a period that it was hard to get a repair done at all. It was a bit of a sorry episode, and certainly not typical.

 

We have an expression in the USA "the buck stops here". In this case it means Leica is not permitted to shirk the blame. Moreover, I find it impossible to believe that they could not have found another source somewhere on this planet to continue manufacturing the DMR and its components. What I find the most plausible explanation is that by the time that dustup took place, Leica felt they could not sell enough further DMRs to make it profitable to regroup and enter into new contracts with other suppliers. Furthermore, with only roughly 5000 units having been sold, I strongly suspect they weighed the cost of commissioning a batch of various spares against ticking-off a measely 5000 customers of a system that had never been all that profitable...and the final score was Corporate Profit 1 - R users 0.

 

I will agree that what happened with the DMR is unprecedented in Leica's history. But whether or not it is a harbinger of Leica's future, is at this point not known. Certainly the sheer numbers of M9s sold, and the fact the M system is going strong whereas the R system has been discontinued entirely, would be a strong motivator for confidence that support for the M9 will be better than it was for the DMR. But I believe the reason for that is Leica will have stockpiled more spares, not that they would re-start manufacture of major electronic components if and when they run out of spares.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[brianv]

The availability of the detectors was the primary concern in this thread, the cost of them is less than 10% of the price of the camera when new. IF the sensor ever went out on the 20 year old camera, used Spares are easier and cheaper to comeby on Ebay. I would do the replacement myself, so labor cost is not an issue for me. The 80MByte 2.5" SCSI drive is a more likely failure point. So far, so good- and I have a spare.

 

Wow. Who would have thought that there is a KAF-1600 knock-off.

 

http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/555815633/KAF_1600_Original_new_hot_offer.html

 

Too funny. I'll type in KAF-18500 next.

[bocaburger]

The availability of the detectors was the primary concern in this thread, the cost of them is less than 10% of the price of the camera when new. IF the sensor ever went out on the 20 year old camera, used Spares are easier and cheaper to comeby on Ebay. I would do the replacement myself, so labor cost is not an issue for me.

 

I suspect you are not representative of the majority of M9 owners in that regard.

 

And even though the sensor itself may be available down the line, one mustn't forget that the microlens array and cover glass are specific to the M9. Without them, I dare say one would need to do a mountain of post-processing, if in fact even that would result in IQ anywhere near what we have come to expect from the camera.