Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[k-hawinkler]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

That looks really sick!

[pico]

You shouldn't have to.

 

Such actions will compromise your photographs.

 

I think not. None are more than a few pixels large.

.

[pico]

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

 

That's truly ugly. High ISO? Sharpened or high-pass/overlay? Do you shed a lot? Live in a dusty place? Change lenses in a forest?

 

Mine are entirely benign in comparison.

Edited December 4, 2014 by pico

[edwardkaraa]

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.

 

My point was that this problem may not be so uncommon, but users are mostly unaware of it, as it is easily mistaken with dust or oil. I am sure my 1Ds had this problem but I am not saying it is a common problem with this model. I believe it may be a very sporadic occurrence with susceptible sensors, but when it happens, no service center tells you it's delamination and just keep on cleaning the sensor for you, without success and without giving you an explanation. As I pointed out many times in other posts that you can easily read one or two pages up, the ME and MM are current models and Leica has the obligation to do more than what it has proposed.

 

By the way, the sensor cover of the 1Ds is 1.0mm, which is considered quite thin compared to other DSLR.

Edited December 4, 2014 by edwardkaraa

[edwardkaraa]

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

 

Hi Rob. All what I'm saying is that it would be better to get the eggs without killing the goose If the goose is dead, no more eggs! I think you're right however that Leica seems to be doing it to itself without the need of any external help. There is no doubt that they need to fix this, asap.

[wattsy]

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.

 

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

 

A brand new M240 is currently around £4,200 (lowest I've seen is £4,150) including the "instant" £500 discount available until January. Leica's "trade-up" offers need to reflect this.

 

Incidentally, I had a missed call and answer phone message from Leica Mayfair last Friday. My initial thought was that maybe Leica had pulled their collective finger out and fixed my Monochrom much sooner than expected. It turned out that they were calling to let me know about "some great offers" for the month of December. Clearly sales must be very slow and the shop pretty desperate to lower themselves to calling their previous customers in this way. I only wish that I had been able to take the call so that I could politely tell them where to stick their special offers.

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A brand new M240 is currently around £4,200 (lowest I've seen is £4,150) including the "instant" £500 discount available until January. Leica's "trade-up" offers need to reflect this.

 

Incidentally, I had a missed call and answer phone message from Leica Mayfair last Friday. My initial thought was that maybe Leica had pulled their collective finger out and fixed my Monochrom much sooner than expected. It turned out that they were calling to let me know about "some great offers" for the month of December. Clearly sales must be very slow and the shop pretty desperate to lower themselves to calling their previous customers in this way. I only wish that I had been able to take the call so that I could politely tell them where to stick their special offers.

 

If Leica offers a £3k upgrade, then it means they value your M9 at close to £1k? Wow. I think an M-P(240) costs £5.5? In which case the deal is not as bad, but still bad, since it leaves you no better off than you would be if you swapped sensors and put the M9 on the market yourself.

 

We've all been receiving masses of promotional emails in the past week from Leica. If they won't communicate with M9 users about the M9, they could at least take a break on the marketing.

[chris_livsey]

The "letter" to sign thread is closed ?

[LUF Admin]

The "letter" to sign thread is closed ?

 

Yes, the authors of the letter asked us to do so.

 

The think that a long discussion below that letter would water down the impact.

 

Andreas

[pop]

The "letter" to sign thread is closed ?

It has been closed from the beginning to prevent the discussion from becoming fragmented. Thanking and unthanking is, of course, possible.

[DigitalHeMan]

The "letter" to sign thread is closed ?

 

 

If you are referring to the German language thread, it says in the text that you can sign the letter by thanking the post. I'm not quite sure what that will achieve though, unless the thread is brought to the attention of Leica management.

[plasticman]

Do you shed a lot? Live in a dusty place? Change lenses in a forest?

 

Hi Pico

This thread is interesting to a broad spectrum of members: current owners of the M9, M-E, M9-P and MM, and also potential future owners - the used M9 price is now a reasonable re-entry to a digital M for people like me who rarely need or use digital cameras anymore.

 

By reading this thread, I'm trying to assess whether all M9 cameras are affected by this problem, and to what extent the problem deteriorates over time - possibly until the entire sensor is covered by delamination crust, or alternatively whether the sensor is usable for a good many years while the spots are isolated and infrequent.

 

Whichever way it goes, a used M9 remains a possible poisoned chalice, so some of us seriously want to get to the bottom of this, and get a realistic assessment and ideally a long-term fix from Leica. As far as I'm concerned, I won't be buying another digital Leica until we get some real response from the company, instead of the smoke-blowing buried deep in this forum thread that most people will never see.

 

In any case, your repeated advice to use a Photoshop action as though the problem is sensor dust isn't really relevant to the thread as it doesn't address the problem of gradual deterioration and spread, quite apart from the fact that it shouldn't be necessary for a camera of this age and (a relevant criteria for some of us) price.

[pico]

In any case, your repeated advice to use a Photoshop action as though the problem is sensor dust isn't really relevant to the thread as it doesn't address the problem of gradual deterioration and spread, quite apart from the fact that it shouldn't be necessary for a camera of this age and (a relevant criteria for some of us) price.

 

I did correct my advice after it was made clear that the discussion concerns irregular white bits in the sensor, and not dust on the sensor.

 

It would be helpful to narrow the issue to specifics, to have more photographs of the specific deterioration of the sensor and the image it produces. So far it is difficult to discern exactly what one should look for. Some of the evidence we have been shown could be dust, perhaps oil, not lamination or corrosion damage.

 

The OP, Clong34, has one such image. We need more.

 

Just trying to avoid Chicken Little syndrome.

Edited December 4, 2014 by pico

[mwilliamsphotography]

Unfair analogy with airbags. Spots on a sensor, IF YOU EVEN GET THEM, will not cost you your life. I don't think Leica stored their parts outside in a parking lot in the sun until they were needed.

In protest I think you should smash your camera with a hammer and send the pieces back to Leica.

 

: -) equals "Joke" ... apparently you didn't get it, and took the airbag comment literally. Really?

 

If one is to smash their Leica camera in protest, the least one can do is use a gold hammer with a Rhino horn handle, rather than a common hammer.

 

Leica would probably like that ... it'd give them a few spare parts that they seem unable to produce themselves in a timely manner : -)

 

All that aside ... seriously, why should any Leica M9/MM/ME owner put up with this? I mean what the heck should we expect for upwards of the $6,000 to $8,000 we paid for this gear?

 

- Marc

[jaapv]

Like this unhappy customer?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwKUdLvwXeo

[k-hawinkler]

: -) equals "Joke" ... apparently you didn't get it, and took the airbag comment literally. Really?

 

If one is to smash their Leica camera in protest, the least one can do is use a gold hammer with a Rhino horn handle, rather than a common hammer.

 

Leica would probably like that ... it'd give them a few spare parts that they seem unable to produce themselves in a timely manner : -)

 

All that aside ... seriously, why should any Leica M9/MM/ME owner put up with this? I mean what the heck should we expect for upwards of the $6,000 to $8,000 we paid for this gear?

 

- Marc

 

They should not put up with this.

If you have not done so, are you going to sign the open letter?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/355714-offener-brief-die-leica-camera-ag.html

[keithlaban.co.uk]

If you have not done so, are you going to sign the open letter?

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/355714-offener-brief-die-leica-camera-ag.html

 

I perhaps would if I knew what it said. Google translate makes a nonsense of it.

[k-hawinkler]

I perhaps would if I knew what it said. Google translate makes a nonsense of it.

 

 

Thank you. Excellent point.

An English version of the letter is in the works by the authors.

[Lenshacker]

Products | SCHOTT North America

 

Open up the PDF files in various windows, click between to see which have the best spectral curves vs resistance to humidity. BG-18 would mean giving up ~1/3rd of a stop maybe? It's easy to see why you would pick S8612 based on transmittance. Based on longevity, there are better choices at the expense of transmission. I'm sure this is being discussed. It's possible to REV a sensor, as was done for the M Monochrom and for the sensor used in the Nikon D4, which now has a monochrome version for a microscope camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest]

As I wrote here yesterday, both my M9-P and M-Monochrom have had to have their sensors replaced because of de-lamination, about 8 and 12 months ago, respectively. The sensors have not been wet-cleaned after replacement. Yesterday, I tested the M-Monochrom and it already had a few small de-lamination spots. Today, I had a time to test the M9-P: it also has small de-lamination spots. That's four out of four sensors that have gone bad.

 

From my experience and wide-ranging reports available on the web, it seems to me that the idea that de-lamination/corrosion may be limited to a relatively small number of cameras seems polly-annish at best, as does the idea that the problem can be effectively compensated by a Photoshop action. This clearly is a design problem and calls for a recall by Leica.

 

No matter how much I like the M9-P and the M-Monochrom, I need cameras that I don't have to be concerned about being infected by creeping crud. I'm starting to look at the Fuji X-T1, for which there are some excellent lenses. And that is where I may go if Leica doesn't provide a fair solution. I spoke about the "botheration" factor — this is not a problem that the camera users should be burdened with.

Edited December 4, 2014 by not_a_hero