Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[daure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What's past is prologue. All I care about now is that Leica are doing something about it above and beyond the unacceptable offers they have made so far. Customers are in the dark and it's gaining momentum by the hour.

 

Having spoken yesterday with three of the main Leica dealers in my town, it seems that their are in a deep dark too..

[Advertisement]

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

[Firefly]

Yes, but R&D includes extensive testing of design solutions, even from one of the best glass suppliers. While I am not going to try to investigate the technical reasons for de-lamination, or corrosion, someone above suggested that the humidity limitations of the glass was indicated by Schott. If that is the case, clearly a lot more testing of the design was necessary to avoid the present problems. And more R&D would be needed if it is going to be solved it now..

 

It would appear from some posts that this is not a sudden problem and some sensors failed within months, along with the cracked sensors the alarm bells should have rung a long time a go.

It is somewhat unfortunate that these problems have happened and maybe all the initial R&D in the world might not have shown up these potential issues but they have had the best part of five years to get to grips with this and done something about it.

I am not going to pretend to know the first thing about digital camera design but I am going to take a guess here and say an alternative sensor could have been designed and tested over three or four years, one that could be expected to have a reasonable design life (whatever that is).

Accepting that things can and do go wrong I expect most of the currently disgruntled owners would be happy with this upgraded/redesigned sensor, particularly if the turn around was prompt and the upgrade free or certainly much less than the quoted prices.

I have noticed that some do not appear to care less and will just throw their camera away or pay for what is probably an uneconomic repair but there will be others who maybe pushed the boat out to realise a dream who cannot entertain such thoughts.

 

As some talk of legal action I do wonder about the M-E and Monochromes that are still on Dealer's shelves unsold, now the fault is known and more widespread than just the odd one or two shouldn't these be withdrawn for moral reasons if not legal?

 

regards to all, Rob

[jaapv]

For a company like Leica, in a continuing existential technological transition (from mechanics to electronics), a careful allocation of scarce funds is essential. "Building a beautiful factory and HQ" is hugely more expensive in capital costs than expansion into simpler or even rented facilities until the company is technically and financially secure. There are also other solutions...all a lot less capital-hungry than building a beautiful campus. Leica may think they have "style", but obviously they cannot afford what Apple can.

I really doubt that an investment in realestate with a writeoff time of thirty years, and against gain through more production volume and more efficient production can be compared to the financing of R&D which will be written off against specific future sales.

[edwardkaraa]

This delamination problem seems to be the industry's best kept secret. As someone mentioned earlier, the Nikon D70 also suffered from it. I also had a Canon 1Ds (original) that had this problem, eventhough I had no idea at the time what it was. I just accepted the fact that neither my cleaning nor Canon's professional cleaning could move the 50+ dots that were spread around the periphery of the sensor. The camera was 3 years old when I bought it so I thought it to be the sensor's normal degradation with age.

 

Of course, this M9 sensor's degradation is very serious. It happens at a much faster pace when the conditions are helping. I wonder what Leica could do about this problem but no matter what it does, it would be at a huge financial loss. I think the best solution would be a compromise, because on one side, Leica has to properly address the problem and admit the defect, and provide an adequate solution. On the other hand, you really don't want to kill the goose with the golden eggs. It is absolutely in noone's interest. The example of the Contax ND comes to my mind. It failed because of its Philips sensor and the company couldn't take the losses and decided to quit the business.

[em9]

Checking my second sensor, put in 1.5 years ago due to delamination of the first one (after 2 years into the purchase), I was relieved to see there were no spots on it.

 

In stead I discovered a sensor crack.

 

(... oh the irony... )

 

Happened somewhere in the last weeks, with the camera resting. A diagonal crack in the corner. And clearly visible on the sensor itself.

 

It shows that the sensors they put in new - at least back then - have the same problems. It seems they replace the sensor without any changes to the design. That's what makes these replacements a bit dodgy, even when they're done for free: you know they're putting in yet another crackspot sensor, and you start to lose trust.

 

Apologies. I know this thread isn't about sensor cracks, but to me it's the same diff.

 

Guess I'll soon (?) have a third sensor to try out.

 

On the upside: I did get the full Leica M9 experience!

[jaapv]

For a company like Leica, in a continuing existential technological transition (from mechanics to electronics), a careful allocation of scarce funds is essential. "Building a beautiful factory and HQ" is hugely more expensive in capital costs than expansion into simpler or even rented facilities until the company is technically and financially secure. There are also other solutions...all a lot less capital-hungry than building a beautiful campus. Leica may think they have "style", but obviously they cannot afford what Apple can.

Mitch, I think you may find that without knowledge of the financial structure and underlying financing including tax implications such remarks are nothing more than blowing smoke. Nor do they add anything to the discussion except FUD. Let's concentrate on the matter in hand. It is serious enough.

Edited December 3, 2014 by jaapv

[Firefly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course, this M9 sensor's degradation is very serious. It happens at a much faster pace when the conditions are helping. I wonder what Leica could do about this problem but no matter what it does, it would be at a huge financial loss. I think the best solution would be a compromise, because on one side, Leica has to properly address the problem and admit the defect, and provide an adequate solution. On the other hand, you really don't want to kill the goose with the golden eggs. It is absolutely in noone's interest. The example of the Contax ND comes to my mind. It failed because of its Philips sensor and the company couldn't take the losses and decided to quit the business.

 

Edward, I don't think anyone is trying or wanting to put Leica out of business, it could be argued though that they are doing a pretty good job of it themselves. Nevertheless they have a responsibility to put this right, regards Rob

[Lenshacker]

I wonder if the easiest "quick fix" would be to stop using cement to permanently fix the IR cover glass to the sensor. The cover glass (inexpensive part) could be replaced without changing the sensor. This would still be labor intensive to teardown the camera, replace the part, and recalibrate. But- much less expensive than buying a new sensor.

 

Schott suggests that steep cutoff IR glass that is sensitive to humidity have a "sandwich" of glass that is resilient to humidity cover it. This is a problem for Leica M Cameras, and is a reason why other manufacturers have cover glass ~2mm thick. The M9 is 0.8mm, the M8 is 0.5mm. I suspect the thin resin layer was a compromise, but does not provide long-term protection in humid environments. SO- back to producing a sensor stack with easily replaced cover glass, or a version of the KAF-18500 with resilient cover glass as used in the M8. With the M Monochrom- that certainly works as IR contamination is not noticeable. for the M9/M-E, IR filters over the lens would be required.

[brucek]

for the M9/M-E, IR filters over the lens would be required.

 

No problem. I still have all of the IR-cut filters I still use on my M8.2...

[pico]

I have over two dozen dust spots on my M9 sensor. No big deal! I have a Photoshop action and Droplet that takes care of them all at once with no fuss. Cannot you who do not use PS do the same? Just asking.

[andybarton]

You shouldn't have to.

 

Such actions will compromise your photographs.

[IWC Doppel]

I just hope that Leica will offer a fair compromise and find fair solutions for loyal customers

[andybarton]

They have already told you what their solution and offer is

[k-hawinkler]

They have already told you what their solution and offer is

 

Hopefully that's not their final offer!

If you asked me, unacceptable!

[Guest]

This delamination problem seems to be the industry's best kept secret. As someone mentioned earlier, the Nikon D70 also suffered from it. I also had a Canon 1Ds (original) that had this problem, eventhough I had no idea at the time what it was. I just accepted the fact that neither my cleaning nor Canon's professional cleaning could move the 50+ dots that were spread around the periphery of the sensor. The camera was 3 years old when I bought it so I thought it to be the sensor's normal degradation with age...

Sorry to tell you but you are the first to mention this problem with the 1Ds (original). I'm not questioning your credibility, but I have two 1Ds bodies in permanent use since they came out, with macro lenses + ring flashes and because they do the job and function faultlessly, I have not replaced them. Nor have I read about this issue with the particular camera model before.

 

PS The Canon model you mention was released in Sptember 2002, 12 years ago and is still working faultlessly here.

The M9-P, M-E and Monochrome are in the present price list of September 2014 and have the problem prone chip.

Edited December 3, 2014 by tri

[Paul J]

IWC said fair offer Andy.

 

My options from Leica were described to me as:

1) I trade in on an M240 was Leica's recommended path to me. Costing me £3K or more. lol

2) they replace the defective sensor with another of the same and pray it doesn't happen again. You are only lucky if it fails within 3 years or it's going to cost you a world of pain and money.

 

Only it has happened to me again, my sensor has already been replaced for the same issue 18 months ago and yet here I am again. I don't see it ever being any different. It costs a lot of money in priority fees if you need the camera sooner than the estimated 3, 4 month repair time.

 

To me it's clear: They have a defective part in their product. Replace the part with one that is not defective so it will last a reasonable amount of time (they advertised decades of use) or replace the camera.

 

I don't even want an M240. I want the M9 I bought, made to last.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Paul J

[M9reno]

Wow, £3K is no deal at all. If you sold the used M9 for the normal going price of £2.5K, and bought a new M(240), you'd be in the same place.

 

Or you could just sell the M9 and walk away from Leica altogether.

 

Unless they cynically figure that no used M9 is worth £2.5K any more after this fiasco, which is entirely possible.

[Paul J]

I have over two dozen dust spots on my M9 sensor. No big deal! I have a Photoshop action and Droplet that takes care of them all at once with no fuss. Cannot you who do not use PS do the same? Just asking.

 

lol. here is a tiny crop. This sensor has already been replaced, btw.

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!

Edited December 3, 2014 by Paul J

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M9reno]

And it will only get worse!

[k-hawinkler]

IWC said fair offer Andy.

 

My options from Leica were described to me as:

1) I trade in on an M240 was Leica's recommended path to me. Costing me £3K or more. lol

2) they replace the defective sensor with another of the same and pray it doesn't happen again. You are only lucky if it fails within 3 years or it's going to cost you a world of pain and money.

 

Only it has happened to me again, my sensor has already been replaced for the same issue 18 months ago and yet here I am again. I don't see it ever being any different. It costs a lot of money in priority fees if you need the camera sooner than the estimated 3, 4 month repair time.

 

To me it's clear: They have a defective part in their product. Replace the part with one that is not defective so it will last a reasonable amount of time (they advertised decades of use) or replace the camera.

 

I don't even want an M240. I want the M9 I bought, made to last.

 

 

Thanks Paul. I could not have said it better myself!