Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am still far from clear on the sensor cleaning situation on M9 and other full frame CCD sensor Leica cameras. Leica's statements seem muddled and contradictory, both on this thread and on their website.

 

As I understand it, wet cleaning should be avoided if possible but if not, only Visible Dust Orange wands should be used. However at various times, Leica has said to use only pure ethanol but then have also said that they themselves use isopropyl alcohol, so which is it?

 

I am still using a large bottle of Eclipse E2, I bought a few years ago. I understand this is mainly ethanol but with some isopropyl alcohol added to make it less hydroscopic, so maybe a good compromise. It has no methanol, which was found to react with tin on certain sensors (not sure if this was a coating on the cover glass or in the solder attaching the sensor to the printed circuit). I don't know what the current Eclipse fluid is but I would not be surprised if it was near identical to E2.

 

A 100% clear statement from Leica on sensor cleaning is the least we are entitled to from our expensive purchases, rather than the backside covering/blame transferring exercises we have seen to date. I have tried cleaning the replacement sensor on my M9 with non-contact and the Eye-Lead lollipop but quite a few marks remain. I would like to wet clean before I decide if it needs to go back to base, possibly for a further sensor replacement. I could take it to Leica Mayfair but that is an expensive and for me, uncomfortable, all day journey to get there and back.

 

Wilson

[M9reno]

Wilson, I think you would be able to distinguish delamination spots from dust, even without further cleaning, so I would not worry too much more about the latter. The spots have a very distinctive look: you will know them immediately when you see them.

[Dan Bachmann]

...

Not even a poll: M9 affected now.... The numbers may be more telling than thanks.

 

I came across this:

Does your sensor have white spots? | La Vida Leica!

 

However, the results may be skewed as those paying attention to this issue are those more likely to have this sensor problem.

[jaapv]

As far as I am aware the one thing we did have was a clear statement on sensor cleaning.

I am still far from clear on the sensor cleaning situation on M9 and other full frame CCD sensor Leica cameras. Leica's statements seem muddled and contradictory, both on this thread and on their website.

 

As I understand it, wet cleaning should be avoided if possible but if not, only Visible Dust Orange wands should be used. However at various times, Leica has said to use only pure ethanol but then have also said that they themselves use isopropyl alcohol, so which is it?

 

I am still using a large bottle of Eclipse E2, I bought a few years ago. I understand this is mainly ethanol but with some isopropyl alcohol added to make it less hydroscopic, so maybe a good compromise. It has no methanol, which was found to react with tin on certain sensors (not sure if this was a coating on the cover glass or in the solder attaching the sensor to the printed circuit). I don't know what the current Eclipse fluid is but I would not be surprised if it was near identical to E2.

 

A 100% clear statement from Leica on sensor cleaning is the least we are entitled to from our expensive purchases, rather than the backside covering/blame transferring exercises we have seen to date. I have tried cleaning the replacement sensor on my M9 with non-contact and the Eye-Lead lollipop but quite a few marks remain. I would like to wet clean before I decide if it needs to go back to base, possibly for a further sensor replacement. I could take it to Leica Mayfair but that is an expensive and for me, uncomfortable, all day journey to get there and back.

 

Wilson

[M-Mount]

I am still using a large bottle of Eclipse E2, I bought a few years ago. I understand this is mainly ethanol but with some isopropyl alcohol added to make it less hydroscopic, so maybe a good compromise. It has no methanol, which was found to react with tin on certain sensors (not sure if this was a coating on the cover glass or in the solder attaching the sensor to the printed circuit). I don't know what the current Eclipse fluid is but I would not be surprised if it was near identical to E2.

 

The current Eclipse is containing Methanol (100%?). E2 is not available any more.

[wlaidlaw]

As far as I am aware the one thing we did have was a clear statement on sensor cleaning.

 

Jaap,

 

Where? There have been two posts on this thread which were contradictory. The english and german language parts of the website I believe, give slightly different instructions, neither of which are clear or complete.

 

Surely it is not too much to ask, for Leica to send all registered M9 owners a 100% clear and unambiguous statement by email, on cleaning, with a copy on their website, stating that from date xx/xx/xxxx, this instruction supersedes all previous instructions. The last statement on non-contact cleaning was to put it kindly a waste of space at best and by encouraging the use of highly inflammable canned "air", dangerous at worst.

 

Wilson

[Lenshacker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. However at various times, Leica has said to use only pure ethanol but then have also said that they themselves use isopropyl alcohol, so which is it?

 

 

Wilson

 

Leica states they they use Isopropyl, ON Semiconductor- which bought Truesense Imaging, formerly Kodak's sensor Division- states in an application note to use Ethanol. The latter also states that acetone should never be used, and methanol should be avoided due to poor cleaning characteristics and toxic nature.

 

The complaint regarding "the same defective sensors being used to replace existing sensors" can be addressed by revising the sensor. This also addresses selling new cameras with this design problem. Replacing sensors that are out-of-warranty- Leica needs to address.

 

Kodak developed the KAF-18500 for Leica, and it was available to them on an exclusive basis. The offset microlens array was developed for Leica. The monochrome version of the sensor was developed for Leica. There are more resilient IR cover glasses available with the same refractive index as that used now, with similar cutoff in the Near IR. A long term solution is viable, Leica needs to contact the sensor manufacturer and discuss a solution.Visit the web sites of a few sensor manufacturers, such as CMOSIS. They are open to being contacted for requirements and providing solutions. They "just don't" turn out standard products and expect companies to "just use them". They develop on request.

 

http://www.cmosis.com/products/custom_products

 

 

http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/content.do?id=17084

Edited December 7, 2014 by Lenshacker

[Paul J]

thenewcamera.com one of the larger camera news and rumours sites has picked up on it:

Leica M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M-E cameras Sensor Corrosion Issue

 

The Leica Sensor Corrosion is now heating almost all over the web and we also want to alert as well as give information our users about this issue, M9, M9-P, MM, ME few models are all seemingly doomed by sensor corrosion issue. The root cause of the problem is actually Schott S8612 glass that covers the sensor and the list of effected models is bit huge that includes the M9-P Edition Hermès, M9-P Meisterstück, M9-P White, M9-P Montreux Jazz Festival, M9-P Silver/Red Leather, M Monochrom Ralph Gibson, M Monochrom Silver Anniversary and super pricey M9 Titanium and M Monochrom of the Edition 100 set.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Paul J

[k-hawinkler]

The current Eclipse is containing Methanol (100%?). E2 is not available any more.

 

 

I still have E2.

So, should I continue to use it or not?

[andybarton]

thenewcamera.com one of the larger camera news and rumours sites has picked up on it:

 

What a pity that they couldn't have the decency to credit where the information from Leica was first published. Shame on them.

 

[MarkP]

So if Leica have admitted that this is a potential fault with the sensor I don't see how they can introduce a cost for replacement after just three years. I think that they would lose any legal challenge as they fitted a major component with a potential fault and have admitted so. I expect many years of service out of my camera and do not want to have to fork out big dollars for inbuilt problems of Leica's making. Who would buy a new M9 iteration knowing they may have to pay in excess of 800 Euro for sensor faults occurring within 3 years of purchase.

 

Although it is clear from various posts in this Forum that Leica will often replace a faulty sensor well out of warranty, this recent statement of replacement sensor costs is of concern.

 

Fortunately I've just sold my M9 (with a perfect sensor) but the Monochrom is a keeper - I'm off to test it's sensor later this week.

[edwardkaraa]

I still have E2.

So, should I continue to use it or not?

 

I would say yes. It's as good as any other solution.

[jaapv]

I still have E2.

So, should I continue to use it or not?

I would be very wary of using Eclipse more than a few months old. Not only will it have absorbed moisture, it will certainly contain alcohol-soluble components of the plastic bottle which will produce a residue.

[leicaphilia]

It seems to me that buyers of the M9, MM and ME who have purchased their camera from a merchant as opposed to a private party have a cause of action under the theory that the purchased item is not 'fit for its intended purpose." This basic protection of commercial law is codified in the USA in the Uniform Commercial Code <UCC § 2-315> and in the UK by the "Sales of Goods Act."

 

For Those of You in the UK:

 

See the "Sale of Goods Act" (1979). What it says: When you buy something the item must be fit for its intended purpose. As well as being fit for their normal purpose goods must also be fit for any specific purpose the buyer told the seller it would be used for (e.g. Living in Houston where its really humid).You rights under the Act apply when you buy something from a business, not from a private seller. What's the "purpose of the goods?" In most cases it will be obvious what the purpose of the goods is. If goods aren't able to carry out their normal functions for any reason, they are not fit for purpose. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that goods that are not fit for their normal purpose are not of satisfactory quality and you may have the right to return them to the seller and get a refund.

 

For Those of You in the US:

 

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, <UCC § 2-315> Implied Warranty: Fitness for Particular Purpose.

Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyeris relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless expressly excluded or modified an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

 

Implied warranties come in two general types: merchantability and fitness. An implied warranty of merchantability is an unwritten and unspoken guarantee to the buyer that goods purchased conform to ordinary standards of care and that they are of the same average grade, quality,and value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances. In other words, merchantable goods are goods fit for the ordinary purpose for which they are to be used, in this case as a photographic device. You expect that what is specified, purchased, represented or held out for sale as a camera will meet the expectations for cameras as you have known it to be in the past; the ordinary standard of care.

 

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), adopted by most states, provides that courts may imply a "Warranty of Merchantability" when (1) the seller is the merchant of such goods, and (2) the buyer uses the goods for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are sold. Thus, a buyer can sue a seller for breaching the implied warranty by selling goods unfit for their ordinary purpose. Again, you expect the camera to function as you’ve expected, anticipated and known cameras to do.

 

[please note: While I am an attorney, I do not practice commercial law, so my understanding of potential remedies is limited. However, at least for the US and UK, these are fruitful places to start. And, as an aside, I do not wish harm on Leica as a company, but I do think that folks who bought in good faith from Leica based on their warranties that the camera was robust and deserving of a premium price should get what they've paid for, with the understanding, however, that computerized products like the M9 will not have the productive life of a mechanical device and should not be expected to]

[k-hawinkler]

I would be very wary of using Eclipse more than a few months old. Not only will it have absorbed moisture, it will certainly contain alcohol-soluble components of the plastic bottle which will produce a residue.

 

 

Thanks. Well, we used E2 a few days ago over Thanksgiving and didn't notice any residue.

[wlaidlaw]

I am going to brew my own mixture of absolute ethanol with 5% IPA added and find one of those old glass laboratory acid bottles with a ground glass stopper to keep it in. If you put a tiny smear of silicone grease on the stopper, it is nearly 100% air-tight. I can then use a glass eye-dropper to load the Visible Dust wand.

 

Interestingly the absolute ethanol comes in a polythene bottle which supposedly is contaminant free.

 

Wilson

[edwardkaraa]

There is no need to become paranoid about cleaning liquid just because Leica needed a scapegoat for the sensor peeling. Eclipse has been used for years on so many DSLR, the only incident being with the Canon 5D tin oxide coatings. Canon subsequently modified the coatings because they were inacceptably soft. I am sure cleaning has nothing to do with delamination.

Edited December 7, 2014 by edwardkaraa

[M9reno]

I am going to brew my own mixture of absolute ethanol with 5% IPA added and find one of those old glass laboratory acid bottles with a ground glass stopper to keep it in. If you put a tiny smear of silicone grease on the stopper, it is nearly 100% air-tight. I can then use a glass eye-dropper to load the Visible Dust wand.

 

Interestingly the absolute ethanol comes in a polythene bottle which supposedly is contaminant free.

 

Wilson

 

Wilson, if only you made M-cameras you would have my business.

 

If only...

[pop]

There is no need to become paranoid about cleaning liquid just because Leica needed a scapegoat for the sensor peeling.

 

I don't know where the scapegoat myth comes from. As far as I can see, Leica only advises users not to use certain cleaning techniques so as not to accelerate the corrosion of the sensor. The price of the replacement does not seem to be contingent on the cleaning method.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M9reno]

By scapegoating I think is meant attributing de-lamination in whole or in part to the humidity caused by sensor-cleaning, when the reality (according to the sensor spec sheets) is that the sensor cannot withstand relative humidity levels above 70%, i.e. environments that in photography would still count as normal use. Linking cleaning to de-lamination is a bit like saying night-time is caused by the moon. This nonsense is Leica's story only since July and strangely coincides with its decision to start shunting the cost of sensor repairs onto customers.