Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[M-Mount]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is not my understanding of the extended warranty. I thought we only got an extension of warranty for 12 months from the date of sensor replacement. In other words, since my M9 was new on 30 Oct 2009 and the sensor replaced in March 2012, I would now fall into the €1200 + €300 band for a subsequent replacement. In other words, more than the camera is worth.

 

The replacement would be free:

 

"By a repair, we replace the CCD sensor with a sensor of the same type we use for serial production. We can thus not exclude totally a new case of corrosion after repair. Therefore, the goodwill arrangement also applies for a replaced sensor, which shows signs of corrosion. In these cases we will consider the sensor replacement date the same as the purchasing date."

[M9reno]

Wilson, I read the second post from Leica as modifying significantly the conditions outlined in the first.

 

The timescale is in effect based on the age of the sensor, not the camera. A replacement sensor thus comes with three years' full warranty, and re-starts the clock.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think the deal is rotten. The sensor-lepra problem is exclusively of the making of Leica and its supplier, not the client.

 

In any case, Leica really must make its conditions (and the rest of the situation) absolutely clear in an email to all registered M9 owners and on their website. But probably they do not wish to draw any further attention.

[andybarton]

The replacement would be free:

 

"By a repair, we replace the CCD sensor with a sensor of the same type we use for serial production. We can thus not exclude totally a new case of corrosion after repair. Therefore, the goodwill arrangement also applies for a replaced sensor, which shows signs of corrosion. In these cases we will consider the sensor replacement date the same as the purchasing date."

 

The purchasing date of what?

 

The camera, presumably.

 

In which case, if your new replacement sensor fails after a year or two, you are faced with a similar bill for replacement.

 

If it were the date of the sensor replacement, why not say that? Make it absolutely clear.

 

This ambiguity must, IMO, be clarified. This is a huge issue.

Edited November 30, 2014 by andybarton

[jaapv]

As always, the German version is clear, the translation ambiguous.

 

Der ausgetauschte CCD-Sensor ist technisch identisch mit dem in Serienprodukten verbauten Sensor. Ein erneutes Auftreten von Korrosionseffekten kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden. Die erweitere Kulanzregelung über die gesetzliche Gewährleistung hinaus gilt daher auch für den ausgetauschten Sensor ab Reparaturdatum

From the date of the repair.

[andybarton]

It would be a good idea for Leica to confirm and clarify this to their non-German speaking customers.

[wlaidlaw]

My concern was where a sensor was replaced for free (as in my case). I thought the extension of warranty for another three years, only applied if you had paid for a sensor to be replaced. Otherwise the warranty was only extended by twelve months or to the three year from new point, whichever came last.

 

As Andy says, it would be nice to have this spelt out unambiguously by Leica, so at least we would know exactly what we are unhappy about.

 

Wilson

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As Andy says, it would be nice to have this spelt out unambiguously by Leica, so at least we would know exactly what we are unhappy about.

 

I think Leica have clarified this in the post earlier in this thread. Where a sensor is replaced (because of the problems under discussion) the sensor will again be replaced for free if the problem reoccurs within three years. This "guarantee" relates to the sensor only and not other components in the camera.

 

"By a repair, we replace the CCD sensor with a sensor of the same type we use for serial production. We can thus not exclude totally a new case of corrosion after repair. Therefore, the goodwill arrangement also applies for a replaced sensor, which shows signs of corrosion. In these cases we will consider the sensor replacement date the same as the purchasing date."

[M9reno]

As always, the German version is clear, the translation ambiguous.

 

From the date of the repair.

 

Ambiguity is built into the terms carefully chosen in both English and German ("goodwill arrangement", "Kulanzregelung"). Not a warranty, but a voluntary undertaking by Leica that, among other things, is non-binding and fully revocable.

[jaapv]

Kulanzregelung is a legally binding term that applies to a free repair outside of warranty. I think we are getting a bit paranoid now.

[edwardkaraa]

My concern was where a sensor was replaced for free (as in my case). I thought the extension of warranty for another three years, only applied if you had paid for a sensor to be replaced. Otherwise the warranty was only extended by twelve months or to the three year from new point, whichever came last.

 

As Andy says, it would be nice to have this spelt out unambiguously by Leica, so at least we would know exactly what we are unhappy about.

 

Wilson

 

When my sensor was replaced this is also what I understood from CS, that the sensor is guaranteed for 12 months. However, that was last year, and the new announcement seems to change that.

[M-Mount]

Maybe only for sensors changed after the goodwill announcement

[M9reno]

Kulanzregelung is a legally binding term that applies to a free repair outside of warranty. I think we are getting a bit paranoid now.

 

On whom is a goodwill arrangement legally binding? Perhaps on the client, who is thus barred from enforcing the arrangement, unlike a warranty. Maybe an expert could illuminate whether this is correct.

 

Edward, the answer to your question is that there is a 12-month warranty, but a three-year free replacement under a goodwill arrangement. The warranty and the goodwill arrangement may overlap by 12 months, but they are very different things.

[Lenshacker]

If anything, Leica users have paid less in repair cost based on the goodwill of the company. What is going to bind them to the policy? Their reputation. No doubt in my mind that they will stick to it.

 

The M8 spectral response looks like what you would expect using a "group 1" filter, lacks a steep cutoff but is not as susceptible to environmental damage. With the IR contamination issue of the M8 on their minds, the M9 moved to a steep cutoff filter. All manufacturers are held to the same rules of glass chemistry. Most cameras have AA filters in front of the IR absorbing glass, and that is the surface that gets cleaned. With more manufacturers eliminating the AA filter, selection of the types of IR cover glass used will be more of an issue in the future.

 

Not that they would do it- but ON Semiconductor could always go back to using a tougher IR glass, but it would mean using the IR reflecting filters over the lens again.

[M9reno]

If anything, Leica users have paid less in repair cost based on the goodwill of the company. What is going to bind them to the policy? Their reputation. No doubt in my mind that they will stick to it.

 

Reputation may be sufficient incentive, but the goodwill arrangement seems about limiting legal liability. I can see many reasons why they might not want to be contractually bound to replace these sensors.

[M-Mount]

With more manufacturers eliminating the AA filter, selection of the types of IR cover glass used will be more of an issue in the future.

 

What IR filters are using Nikon, Sony and Fuji in their cameras without AA cover glass?

(810, A7r, X-Series)

[Lenshacker]

What IR filters are using Nikon, Sony and Fuji in their cameras without AA cover glass?

(810, A7r, X-Series)

 

The data sheets are not available -at least easily?- for these sensor and I do not know. Given the lack of need for IR reflecting filters with these cameras, the chemistry must be for a sharp cutoff type filter.

 

Maybe Roger at lensrentals will look into this, they have taken enough sensor stacks apart to know.

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/the-glass-in-the-path-sensor-stacks-and-adapted-lenses

Edited November 30, 2014 by Lenshacker

[bocaburger]

All manufacturers are held to the same rules of glass chemistry. Most cameras have AA filters in front of the IR absorbing glass, and that is the surface that gets cleaned. With more manufacturers eliminating the AA filter, selection of the types of IR cover glass used will be more of an issue in the future.

 

Not that they would do it- but ON Semiconductor could always go back to using a tougher IR glass, but it would mean using the IR reflecting filters over the lens again.

 

No offense but that all sounds like hooey to me and I'll tell you why. In my time with the M8 I used Leica, B+W and Heliopan IR filters. They all did an adequate job of cleaning up the M8's mess, but the Heliopans had far better AR qualities and were far more scratch-resistant. Thus there is no relation, certainly not an inverse one, between IR filtration and coating durability.

[Lenshacker]

No offense but that all sounds like hooey to me and I'll tell you why. In my time with the M8 I used Leica, B+W and Heliopan IR filters. They all did an adequate job of cleaning up the M8's mess, but the Heliopans had far better AR qualities and were far more scratch-resistant. Thus there is no relation, certainly not an inverse one, between IR filtration and coating durability.

 

I'm not talking about coating durability, I am talking about glass chemistry and corrosion. See the Schott page linked to in earlier posts.

[jaapv]

On whom is a goodwill arrangement legally binding? Perhaps on the client, who is thus barred from enforcing the arrangement, unlike a warranty. Maybe an expert could illuminate whether this is correct.

 

Edward, the answer to your question is that there is a 12-month warranty, but a three-year free replacement under a goodwill arrangement. The warranty and the goodwill arrangement may overlap by 12 months, but they are very different things.

German law is quite different from British law. Of course not on the client, on the firm making the statement.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M-Mount]

The S8612 seems to be a very effective IR filter:

 

Schott S8612 52mm x 1 75mm UV IR Cut Filter Visual Bandpass IR Suppression | eBay