Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[ns_ng]

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

 

 

The MSDS ( Material Safety Data Sheet) indicates E2 is a mixture of ethyl, methyl and iso-propyl alcohols. The current Eclipse is 100% methanol.

 

High purity IPA is commonly used in the semiconductor industry to clean and dry wafers.

IPA is an aggressive solvent and will remove oil and grease. But IPA is hygroscopic and will absorb moisture. Even though you may start off with high purity IPA, 99.99%+, it will very soon be contaminated with water. I would not use an old bottle of IPA for cleaning sensors.

[k-hawinkler]

The MSDS ( Material Safety Data Sheet) indicates E2 is a mixture of ethyl, methyl and iso-propyl alcohols. The current Eclipse is 100% methanol.

 

High purity IPA is commonly used in the semiconductor industry to clean and dry wafers.

IPA is an aggressive solvent and will remove oil and grease. But IPA is hygroscopic and will absorb moisture. Even though you may start off with high purity IPA, 99.99%+, it will very soon be contaminated with water. I would not use an old bottle of IPA for cleaning sensors.

 

 

Thanks. Isn't a little E2 bottle pretty much hermetically sealed when closed?

How do I get water in there here in the generally very dry climate of New Mexico?

I only take the E2 cap off for a brief moment when dispensing a drop or two.

Then put the cap back on. And do that on average once a year.

What's the problem?

Edited December 7, 2014 by k-hawinkler

[k-hawinkler]

Was referenced in the German part of the forum.

 

True Sense Imaging, maker of CCD's for the M-E and M Monochrom, now ON Semiconductor - Page 3

 

Quote:

 

"Yesterday, 08:43 PM #22 Brian's Avatar Brian Brian is online now

Super Moderator

Join Date

Apr 2013

Posts

1,505

Thanks

1,104

Thanked 590 Times in 431 Posts

This problem can be solved, I really cannot understand why the KAF-18500 cannot be revised to use the more durable cover glass. It is the same refractive index, is as efficient absorbing IR as is the existing glass. Leica should consult with On Technology and Schott for a long-term solution. The KAF-18500 was made for Leica, was not offered as a general offering. Changing out the cover glass is not hard, and sensor manufacturers try to accommodate the customer. 20+ years ago Kodak revised a KAF-1600 for me, called them up and told them i wanted one without the IR cover glass. They called back a few weeks later, said they would do it, made a batch of 50 with clear glass covers. No delamination problems, the sensor still works.

Last edited by Brian; Yesterday at 08:47 PM"

[adan]

Whew - I last looked at this thread when it was 2 pages long. A lot of developments. I've spent a few hours catching up.

 

I'm lucky. I live in high, dry Colorado and do not - yet - have any sensor corrosion on my M9s. Even the one acquired a week after the intro on 9/9/09. But I accept that my babies have a "genetic defect" that could show up at any time.

 

I think the real problem for Leica is that they take a low-rent, third-world approach to maintenance. (And that may be a calumny on the third world. Perhaps I should say third rate).

 

This sensor problem would be nothing but a minor irritation - IF Leica had a first-class repair and service system (by which I mean, parts and staff to deliver any repair from any location, in 10 days, all the time, every time.)

 

I lived for a while in Puerto Rico, and they had an approach to infrastructure investment that reminds me a lot of Leica today. Spend huge amounts of money on fancy new "stuff" - and then budget very little for maintenance.

 

Within 3 years of the tropical climate (slightly back on topic) the new stadiums and theaters would start to corrode and rot. But no-one cared, because they were off spending money on the next fancy new thing. Fancy new things got you re-elected - good repair and maintenance did not.

 

That did not - BTW - apply to the individuals of P.R. - just the institutional mindset. When I had a brake failure out in the hinterlands, a mechanic at the next open-air garage under the palm trees was able to replace the failed parts (correctly) in two hours and get me back on the road.

 

I think Leica needs to get their head right regarding repair and servicing - a 10-fold (at least) increase in budget for parts, storage, workspace, and staff.

 

And if needed, increase the price of their cameras accordingly. I'd rather pay $8,999 up front, and not have to worry about down-time, than pay $8,999 in dribs and drabs, and lose the use of my cameras for a quarter of a year as well.

[ronnjay]

Could this issues send Leica out of business? If not, could it seriously slow down further M lens and camera development?

Has anybody idea how many M9 type CCD sensor users are there?

 

Here is an estimate of production......Leica Sells Approximately 40 M9 Bodies Per Day | La Vida Leica!

[jaapv]

Well, I have a feeling nothing has been settled definitively yet. Let’s give Leica a chance to respond to the concerns expressed here.

 

Although legal action is clearly a viable option, I would say it is premature right now. Given Leica’s history and traditions it must be possible to arrive at a solution that can satisfy most affected customers without being unbearable financially for Leica.

I am more than sure that Leica is working hard at this, and hope there will be something tangible soon.

 

Driving away the hard core of their loyal customer base (and I see quite a few of those in this thread) cannot be in anybodies interest, nor the forcing of an unsustainable conclusion.

 

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]

Edited December 8, 2014 by jaapv

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks. Isn't a little E2 bottle pretty much hermetically sealed when closed?

How do I get water in there here in the generally very dry climate of New Mexico?

I only take the E2 cap off for a brief moment when dispensing a drop or two.

Then put the cap back on. And do that on average once a year.

What's the problem?

 

K-H,

 

I think the problem is more what Jaap pointed out, that as Eclipse did not opt to use a polythene bottle but I think have used the cheaper PET, which contains filler and plasticiser, some of these components may have dissolved over time in the Methanol/Ethanol/IPA mix. I know some years ago he showed using one of his dental microscopes, a white deposit left on the sensor. That is the reason I am going to store my new brew in a glass reagent bottle, which I will store in the dark. Again, casting my brain back to chemistry at school and university, if you leave alcohols in the light and exposed to air, they will become contaminated with aldehydes and eventually fatty acids, acetic etc.

 

Wilson

[k-hawinkler]

K-H,

 

I think the problem is more what Jaap pointed out, that as Eclipse did not opt to use a polythene bottle but I think have used the cheaper PET, which contains filler and plasticiser, some of these components may have dissolved over time in the Methanol/Ethanol/IPA mix. I know some years ago he showed using one of his dental microscopes, a white deposit left on the sensor. That is the reason I am going to store my new brew in a glass reagent bottle, which I will store in the dark. Again, casting my brain back to chemistry at school and university, if you leave alcohols in the light and exposed to air, they will become contaminated with aldehydes and eventually fatty acids, acetic etc.

 

Wilson

 

Many thanks Wilson.

Once or twice in the past I have also used "Smear Away".

That seemed to get rid of some crud.

Thanks again to you and Jaap.

[edwardkaraa]

I use sensor swabs plus. They're individually foil packed and premoistened with the right amount of methanol. No such problems as with the plastic bottles, not that I'm fully convinced about the residue issue.

[wattsy]

This sensor problem would be nothing but a minor irritation - IF Leica had a first-class repair and service system (by which I mean, parts and staff to deliver any repair from any location, in 10 days, all the time, every time.)

 

+100 (or whatever the internet convention is).

This is absolutely the nub of the problem for me. It wouldn't bother me if the sensor required (free) replacement every year if it the replacement service was quick and painfree.

 

In this vein I asked Leica if it was possible to book a repair slot (essentially a place in the queue) and keep my Monochrom in the meantime. This didn't strike me as a complicated request – after all, Leica managed a similar arrangement for the early M8 recall (I seem to recall they offered specific repair slots with something like a 7 day turnaround) but I have been told it is not possible to do this. Instead, I have had to send my camera in to obtain my place in the queue (even though I'm also told they are still waiting for Monochrom sensors) and it looks likely that I will have been without the camera (perfectly usable with a bit of cloning) for at least a quarter of a year by the time I get it back next year. Bit of a shambles if you ask me.

 

Come back Steven K. Lee – he might have had some funny ideas about "soccer moms" and perpetual upgrades but at least he understood the importance of not pissing off your customers.

[TDI]

Rendered unusable? Very unlikely, given an absolute minimum of PP skills...

 

I've seen a picture that would require more than the minimum skills you mentioned... I'll post a link when I've (re)found it. And, given that the illness spreads, those basic PP-skills will get you only so far. At some point you are going to run out of clear, like-colored spaces to copy to the faulty ones.

 

Edit: Here we go with that link. No PP is going to remedy THAT:eek:: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/338016-riesenprobleme-mit-der-m9.html

Edited December 8, 2014 by TDI

[keithlaban.co.uk]

In this vein I asked Leica if it was possible to book a repair slot (essentially a place in the queue) and keep my Monochrom in the meantime. This didn't strike me as a complicated request – after all, Leica managed a similar arrangement for the early M8 recall (I seem to recall they offered specific repair slots with something like a 7 day turnaround) but I have been told it is not possible to do this. Instead, I have had to send my camera in to obtain my place in the queue (even though I'm also told they are still waiting for Monochrom sensors) and it looks likely that I will have been without the camera (perfectly usable with a bit of cloning) for at least a quarter of a year by the time I get it back next year. Bit of a shambles if you ask me.

 

What a ludicrous situation! Come on Leica, you really need to get your collective acts together.

[jaapv]

I've seen a picture that would require more than the minimum skills you mentioned... I'll post a link when I've (re)found it. And, given that the illness spreads, those basic PP-skills will get you only so far. At some point you are going to run out of clear, like-colored spaces to copy to the faulty ones.

 

Edit: Here we go with that link. No PP is going to remedy THAT:eek:: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/forum-zur-leica-m9/338016-riesenprobleme-mit-der-m9.html

 

Of course - but the "disease" spreads slowly. It will not do this overnight, and should have been sent in long before it came to this.

[Carl Kellner]

Hello @ll

 

Reminder: Assembling The Leica M9 on Vimeo @ 13:23...

...isn't that simple?!

[M-Mount]

Has anybody contacted on semiconductor yet if they can produce the KAF-18500 with clear cover glass? Maybe someone in the US can call them?

[M9reno]

I wonder if they would be less than eager to get involved in this question, as there are pending questions of liability.

 

In any case, if anyone has contacted them, it will have been Leica itself.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I'd be grateful if some kind soul could take a look at the following links and confirm (or not) that the marks on the sensor are evidence of the M9 corrosion/delamination problem. They are quite unlike anything I've seen in the past consisting as they do of rings with a dark centre.

 

http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Corrosion.jpg

 

http://www.keithlaban.co.uk/Corrosion2.jpg

 

Thanks in advance.

[M9reno]

They look exactly like mine (pages 22 and 32 of this thread). I would say yes, this is de-lamination.

[bjornthun]

How large percentage of M9 class cameras is affected by the corrosion issue, and what is the likelyhood that a hitherto unaffected camera will develop the corrosion issue? Has this been determined yet, or has Leica said anything about that yet?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[k-hawinkler]

They look exactly like mine (pages 22 and 32 of this thread). I would say yes, this is de-lamination.

 

I had the same thought.

It looks like the process has started.

How old is that camera?