Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They aren't really a small company. Relative to Canon, Nikon, they are, yes, but their products are several times more expensive. They have stores all over the world and are rapidly expanding. They are making products, which are a mix of niche and marketed-as-niche, however, that does not make them exempt from resolving the issue. I agree that we can forgive issues that do arise, not for issues that aren't resolved. They may be a small company, but mine is smaller.

 

I'm sure this what you mean, though Leica are often prone to use this as pretext, and sometimes I feel that the staff are trained to react this way "this is a hand made, it's idiosyncratic, it's a high performance instrument in needing of extra attention" It's a sort of back handed slap that I feel is suppose to make you feel like you've got something unique and it's OK that it doesn't work properly. It isn't OK. Fix it.

 

 

Exactly!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

They aren't really a small company. Relative to Canon, Nikon, they are, yes, but their products are several times more expensive. They have stores all over the world and are rapidly expanding. They are making products, which are a mix of niche and marketed-as-niche, however, that does not make them exempt from resolving the issue. I agree that we can forgive issues that do arise, not for issues that aren't resolved. They may be a small company, but mine is smaller.

 

I'm sure this what you mean, though Leica are often prone to use this as pretext, and sometimes I feel that the staff are trained to react this way "this is a hand made, it's idiosyncratic, it's a high performance instrument in needing of extra attention" It's a sort of back handed slap that I feel is suppose to make you feel like you've got something unique and it's OK that it doesn't work properly. It isn't OK. Fix it.

That is not what I mean at all.I never said anything about them being a small company. In an issue like this it is not relevant. I would call them a medium-sized company. If I wanted to say that I would have done so.

 

The point is that the products they sell are niche products and not mass-produced. Which is the justification of the price and the reason they are bought, but also causes them to behave like individually made products.

 

Of course the buyers are willing to accept that the result of this is the occasional glitch, given the nature of the product they bought. If they cannot accept this they should buy into one of the excellent mass products that are available.

 

But Leica must keep track of the essential corollary, that they must give exceptional solutions in case of trouble. In this case they seem to be off-course in this respecct.

Edited December 2, 2014 by jaapv

[Paul J]

That is not what I mean at all.I never said anything about them being a small company. In an issue like this it is not relevant. I would call them a medium-sized company. If I wanted to say that I would have done so.

 

The point is that the products they sell are niche products and not mass-produced. Which is the justification of the price and the reason they are bought, but also causes them to behave like individually made products.

 

Of course the buyers are willing to accept that the result of this is the occasional glitch, given the nature of the product they bought. If they cannot accept this they should buy into one of the excellent mass products that are available.

 

But Leica must keep track of the essential corollary, that they must give exceptional solutions in case of trouble. In this case they seem to be off-course in this respecct.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Phrases like "small company" and "niche" are being bandied about at the moment, all over the internet, like it's a rationale or reason to sit back and let it go. It's like some sort of consumer grade Stockholm Syndrome.

 

I agree with you, I will always forgive design and manufacturing issues that have arisen, unforeseen, despite good faith and intention and I wholly sympathise on that level. After all, unforeseen issues will always arise that need to be dealt with. However, as we are left in the dark, and we've watched a constructed defence develop, limiting liability through terms and conditions pertaining to the cleaning of a sensor, post sale, combined with correspondence I've had with Leica has been surprisingly dismissive and unsatisfactory, my remaining confidence in the companies responsibility or customer care is quickly eroding.

 

If they cannot accept this they should buy into one of the excellent mass products that are available.

 

With Hindsight, anything is possible. At no point is anyone made officially aware that these are niche products that behave singularly. It's something you chose to accept after you have bought if and when something goes wrong, though, this is little known outside of the user community. It's also much easier to decide upon if the situation does not prove terminal and costly. If the current situation were made known to potential buyers, who in their right mind would buy?

 

I am at the limit of what I find acceptable, and as stated, do not plan to continue as a customer of Leica unless they can stand by their products. All good and well except the fact I am left with some very expensive paper weights that I do not intend to let slide, and will not shift to some poor unsuspecting buyer unaware of the situation.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Thanks for the clarification.

All good and well except the fact I am left with some very expensive paper weights that I do not intend to let slide, and will not shift to some poor unsuspecting buyer unaware of the situation.

 

What I find amazing is that in general the world seems blissfully unaware of this issue. If it were Nikon or Canon it would be headlines all over the photographic press.

[pop]

What I find amazing is that in general the world seems blissfully unaware of this issue. If it were Nikon or Canon it would be headlines all over the photographic press.

 

Not casting any first stones, living in glass houses themselves?

[Luke_Miller]

480 plus posts in this thread and I may be the only one posting who has not experienced sensor de-lamination. So anecdotal evidence would suggest this is a major issue and leads one to worry that this will eventually affect many, if not all, M9/M-E/Monochrom bodies.. Now Leica has been using this sensor since 2009 and continues to do so. both for current production and sensor replacement. It has the repair history for those cameras and states the problem affects relatively few bodies. So which is correct - the anecdotal evidence or Leica's statement? I submit that we don't know.

 

Those who have experienced it are justifiably unhappy with the situation. Losing use of the camera while it is at Leica for sensor replacement is bad enough, let alone having to pay some or all of the cost if the body is outside the window for the good will repair. But whether Leica's response is appropriate depends, I think, on the scope of the problem. If a significant percentage of bodies are affected I think the currently stated policy is inadequate and will lead to serious lost of credibility as a manufacturer of high quality products.. If Leica is correct that a relatively few bodies are affected then perhaps it is more reasonable and possibly more lenient in practice than stated.

 

At this point to jump to the conclusion that many or all bodies are affected assumes (in the words of my lawyer) "facts not in evidence." Perhaps that evidence will be forthcoming in the future but I believe it is premature to act as though it already has.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am with Luke on this. I would worry if this problem only affected the M9, a discontinued model. But the fact is, both the ME an the MM are affected. I am very confident Leica will find a permanent fix, it's just a matter of a little patience.

[Guest]

That would be great, but the other route that can be just as easily envisaged is that the M-E is terminated and a new CMOS version of the M-Monochrom is introduced.

[edwardkaraa]

That would be great, but the other route that can be just as easily envisaged is that the M-E is terminated and a new CMOS version of the M-Monochrom is introduced.

 

Indeed, but these models are very recent, and Leica has an obligation to keep them well serviced for a longer time than the already 5 years old M9. If Leica decides to go the discontinuation way, instead of finding a permanent fix, it is going to be very costly for them, either way.

[Luke_Miller]

My guess is the protective coating on the IR filter on the sensor is relatively easily damaged. And if damaged can lead to humidity triggered corrosion. My M9 manual (Page 168) warns against allowing any object to contact the sensor cover. The recent Leica re-affirmation of this warning (now modified to "only if you know what you are doing) plus reported free customer care sensor cleaning suggests to me that Leica believes user cleaning practices are an element, but most likely not the only element in the failure mechanism. So educating us on how to safely do it (or getting us to let Leica do it) may be one step in minimizing the problem. Hence we now see publication of the materials used for sensor cleaning at the service centers.

 

My M9 has clusters of oil droplets on the sensor that are too small to show in my images at the apertures I use. I'm sure it will require a wet clean to remove them, but I am not about to do it. I have the appropriate swaps and have successfully wet cleaned my Nikons. I will let Leica clean it at some point if other service is required.

[jevidon]

When did they say 'Only a small percentage'? Have I missed something? And how small is small? Enough for them to risk their entire reputation on? Certainly that's is the way it seems to me. I.E. the way it works is Leica charges the poor customer for its mistakes, keeps all of the money, and bye the way offers a low price trade in for the next potentially dodgy product and of course makes a profit on that as well! Sorry but do I look that stupid? (Actually please don't answer that). Don Morley .

 

Leica is aware of the problem and is not in denial. I spoke to them as my M9 is now in service for the M9-P upgrade and sensor change. Aside from Fuji, Leica is the only company I know that does not deny a problem and works to a solution for the customers.

 

At this point, your sanguine attitude toward Leica is unjustified. They admit to the problem and are working on it. That is more than Nikon did and they needed an action by the Chinese government to ban their products before they owned up to the D600 fiasco. Leica cannot survive without a loyal customer base and they seem to be well aware of it. Give them some slack.

[edwardkaraa]

My M9 has clusters of oil droplets on the sensor that are too small to show in my images at the apertures I use. I'm sure it will require a wet clean to remove them, but I am not about to do it. I have the appropriate swaps and have successfully wet cleaned my Nikons. I will let Leica clean it at some point if other service is required.

 

I hate to be the one bringing you the bad news, but that's exactly how the corrosion looks like. If you try to clean the "oil droplets" you will realize they are unmovable.

[Luke_Miller]

I hate to be the one bringing you the bad news, but that's exactly how the corrosion looks like. If you try to clean the "oil droplets" you will realize they are unmovable.

 

You may be correct, but the spots are very small and the clusters are located at both the right and left areas of the sensor where I would expect to find any lubricant thrown off by the shutter. In any event I will monitor them and see if the spots get bigger.

[wlaidlaw]

I have just had a look at my replacement sensor (mid 2012) on my M9. It has had very little use and only one clean since the replacement. I fear it is showing the deterioration rings again when I took an image today of the sky with a defocused 75mm set at f16. The camera has not moved out of the UK since the replacement, so not exposed to high humidity and temperature. I suspect this means that sensor failure is more a question of when not if. I hope that it might just be dirt/oil/other debris but now I am scared to clean it.

 

Wilson

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I have just had a look at my replacement sensor (mid 2012) on my M9. It has had very little use and only one clean since the replacement. I fear it is showing the deterioration rings again when I took an image today of the sky with a defocused 75mm set at f16. The camera has not moved out of the UK since the replacement, so not exposed to high humidity and temperature. I suspect this means that sensor failure is more a question of when not if. I hope that it might just be dirt/oil/other debris but now I am scared to clean it.

 

Wilson

 

I think deterioration rings may well be the key word.

 

I wonder how many out there are rather afraid to put their cameras to the test? Blissful ignorance, perhaps?

[Lenshacker]

I've done the F16 test on a white wall recenty for the M8 (bought used, original owner bought 10/2009), M9 (4yrs old), and M Monochrom (2yrs old). Blew some dust off the latter.

[pico]

I wonder how many out there are rather afraid to put their cameras to the test? Blissful ignorance, perhaps?

 

If damage is not apparent, then why worry?

[M9reno]

Wilson, could you please post an image of the spots?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[keithlaban.co.uk]

If damage is not apparent, then why worry?

 

Because if there is corrosion it's only going to get worse.

[Ecar]

I wonder how many out there are rather afraid to put their cameras to the test? Blissful ignorance, perhaps?

 

I did. However, I shot a white wall, not a blue sky, which sadly doesn't seem to be readily available under my latitudes these days...

My M9 (5 yrs), M9-P (3.5 yrs) and MM (2 yrs) look fine.

But given that sensor failure appears to be a case of "when, not if", I do really hope that Leica will come up with a permanent fix that does not require its customers to pay for something that is at the core of the product they sell and should have been made right in the first place. I appreciate the financial consequences for Leica, but this is ultimately not different than the strap lugs on the M240, which were replaced at zero cost.

Also, I don't buy the digital obsolescence argument: the fact that there are newer (and possibly better) technologies does not mean that it's OK for older ones to stop working - or to be charged extra to keep using them.

On a side note, I should add that the M9s have been traveling on sailboats, experienced storms and have been used extensively in humid coastal areas.

I'm very careful when changing lenses and have had to wet clean the sensors for greasy residue no more than a couple of times, mostly at the beginning of the cameras' lives. Blower and Arctic Butterfly usually take care of any dust.

Maybe I was lucky so far, maybe it's repeated wet cleaning that's bad for the sensors (rather than a humid environment) or maybe it's the liquid used (FWIW, I use the Visible Dust liquids)?