Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[imants]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry, I edited before I read your post.

In that case the chain of liability becomes interesting.

Yea but it is still Leica who has to look after and be fair to its customers..........

[jaapv]

Sure, but I can imagine Leica’s lawyers having a hard look at that one.

[pop]

It seem quite obvious to me that they have to have a reasonable grasp of the obligations of their suppliers before making any promises to their customers.

[pgk]

The seal is breaking down, and humidity is getting to the glass.

Whilst your post makes good sense and you obviously have extensive knowledge in this field, my problem with this is that if it was a simple single issue problem then I would expect all sensors used in damp and humid conditions (as mine has been, but it shows no corrosion) to show corrosion, but they don't all seem to do so.

 

And if it is water that that proves to be the problem, its how it gets to where it causes corrosion which is in reality the problem and this might be more complex than it initially appears. From the start there have been many theories and speculations as to the cause of the corrosion - all I will suggest, based upon my experience, is that things are seldom as simple as a single straightforward cause or route when not all problems occur at the same time or in the same way.

 

I am not going to indulge in further speculation other than to say that if I was working on this at Leica I would want to be absolutely certain that the cause or causes are 100% known and understood before I tried to determine a remedy (the mechanism and costs and who should bear them are another story). It may be that the problem IS simple and that the solution is modified sensor replacement for ALL cameras, or it may be that the problem is a combination of various factors and may only affect a small percentage of cameras produced - none of us actually know do we?

 

Until Leica sort out the root cause or causes, determine viable remedies and instigate these, there is still IMO little point in speculating - only the design engineers know what compromises, if any, were really accepted and whether current technology or available components may allow for a remedy other than a complete change in sensor type, and that is available but requires a new body.....

[plasticman]

I am not going to indulge in further speculation other than to say that if I was working on this at Leica I would want to be absolutely certain that the cause or causes are 100% known and understood before I tried to determine a remedy (the mechanism and costs and who should bear them are another story). It may be that the problem IS simple and that the solution is modified sensor replacement for ALL cameras, or it may be that the problem is a combination of various factors and may only affect a small percentage of cameras produced - none of us actually know do we?

 

Until Leica sort out the root cause or causes, determine viable remedies and instigate these, there is still IMO little point in speculating - only the design engineers know what compromises, if any, were really accepted and whether current technology or available components may allow for a remedy other than a complete change in sensor type, and that is available but requires a new body.....

 

It should be borne in mind that, judging from the history of this problem, Leica have been replacing sensors with delamination for the last four years. I'm amazed that the urgency in finding the root cause, and coming to some satisfactory solution, appears to be linked only to the exponential rise in customer alarm due to the problem becoming public knowledge.

 

If anything my biggest disappointment in this whole debacle is that Leica seemed to consider replacing faulty sensors with the same inherently faulty unit as somehow a sustainable 'solution' to their problem.

[pgk]

If anything my biggest disappointment in this whole debacle is that Leica seemed to consider replacing faulty sensors with the same inherently faulty unit as somehow a sustainable 'solution' to their problem.

Little story. At 50k miles I had a rear wheel bearing fail on my car. It was replaced. 5k miles later the other one went. It too was replaced. A thousand miles later the first replacement one went. It looked as though I might have a problem:(, but.... it was replaced and 100k miles later (yes 100k) both are still fine. Obviously the replacement was faulty, and equally obviously a small number will continue to be.

 

We still don't know what the situation with Leica is do we? Replacement may the the best solution if only a few or small % of sensors are failing - even though it obviously carries the risk of the replacement sensor failing too. If a larger % are now failing, then they may now be having to rethink the problem and its solution. Without knowing what Leica know or are looking at we cannot determine whether their course of action makes/made sense or whether it still does/doesn't.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It should be borne in mind that, judging from the history of this problem, Leica have been replacing sensors with delamination for the last four years. I'm amazed that the urgency in finding the root cause, and coming to some satisfactory solution, appears to be linked only to the exponential rise in customer alarm due to the problem becoming public knowledge.

 

If anything my biggest disappointment in this whole debacle is that Leica seemed to consider replacing faulty sensors with the same inherently faulty unit as somehow a sustainable 'solution' to their problem.

 

I agree. The delamination spots look like dust/oil to the unsuspecting person. I myself got fooled for many months. Until more and more people became aware of the issue, Leica was silently replacing sensors without mentioning the reason to the clients.

[jaapv]

It should be borne in mind that, judging from the history of this problem, Leica have been replacing sensors with delamination for the last four years. I'm amazed that the urgency in finding the root cause, and coming to some satisfactory solution, appears to be linked only to the exponential rise in customer alarm due to the problem becoming public knowledge.

 

If anything my biggest disappointment in this whole debacle is that Leica seemed to consider replacing faulty sensors with the same inherently faulty unit as somehow a sustainable 'solution' to their problem.

And the exponential rise in customer alarm is due to the change in policy.

 

Whether there is any option to replace the sensors with any other type remains to be seen. There may be a technical obstacle.

Having said that I fail to see why the Monochrom should be provided with a very efficient IR filter.

[plasticman]

Little story. At 50k miles I had a rear wheel bearing fail on my car. It was replaced. 5k miles later the other one went. It too was replaced. A thousand miles later the first replacement one went. It looked as though I might have a problem:(, but.... it was replaced and 100k miles later (yes 100k) both are still fine. Obviously the replacement was faulty, and equally obviously a small number will continue to be.

 

We still don't know what the situation with Leica is do we? Replacement may the the best solution if only a few or small % of sensors are failing - even though it obviously carries the risk of the replacement sensor failing too. If a larger % are now failing, then they may now be having to rethink the problem and its solution. Without knowing what Leica know or are looking at we cannot determine whether their course of action makes/made sense or whether it still does/doesn't.

 

I don't see that your analogy is relevant? But in any case, it seems to me that you've been doing as much speculating about the nature of the problem and about how many cameras might be affected as anyone else here - but you're also very free to criticize others for their thoughts.

 

I was just reflecting on the situation as we actually know it: Leica have admitted that new sensors can suffer the same problem as the faulty unit they are replacing. I find it strange it took them this long to realize this was not a sustainable model.

[plasticman]

And the exponential rise in customer alarm is due to the change in policy.

 

Is that true? It seems to me the issue accelerated as it became more widely known, not just because Leica intended for the customer to bear the cost of the replacement sensor. I can't imagine anyone wants to send their camera into Solms for lengthy periods for sensor replacement on a regular basis - even if the service were free.

[k-hawinkler]

And the exponential rise in customer alarm is due to the change in policy.

 

Whether there is any option to replace the sensors with any other type remains to be seen. There may be a technical obstacle.

Having said that I fail to see why the Monochrom should be provided with a very efficient IR filter.

 

 

Maybe that required fewer modifications when designing the MM starting with the M9.

Nikon did something similar with D800 and D800E.

The didn't actually remove the filter but try to negate its effects.

[pop]

...I find it strange it took them this long to realize this was not a sustainable model.

 

From what I have been able to observe, it took them "this" long to realize that the problem was inherent in the camera's design and not in the individual copies or production lots of the sensor. It is not even unlikely that at one time they returned their stock as defective to the supplier, based - again - on what we have been able to observe here in the forum.

 

Anyone, I have still my doubts whether anyone here in the forum really knows the cause or causes of the problem.

[pgk]

I find it strange it took them this long to realize this was not a sustainable model.

Plasticman. There is a huge leap between speculating and drawing conclusions and dressing them up as factual statements. Your sentence above is an example. Its a conclusion based on speculation which you are stating as a fact. And this is one of the reasons that this thread has lost most of its objectivity. (FWIW my M9 is 'sustainable' and will continue to be even if it eventually requires sensor replacement, It will only become 'unsustainable' when parts are no longer available and it fails).

 

The hard facts: we still don't know the scale of the problem, whether it is an inherent design problem, or much else. All that we really know is that there are a number of examples of sensor corrosion (10s, 100s, 1000s ???) and that Leica have replaced a number of sensors. Only Leica knows the numbers.

 

We also know that Leica have suggested wet cleaning may be a factor. Beyond that everything remains rumour and speculation.

From what I have been able to observe, it took them "this" long to realize that the problem was inherent in the camera's design and not in the individual copies or production lots of the sensor.

pop, can you reference this or is it a personal conclusion?

[edwardkaraa]

It would be interesting to make a poll to find out the percentage of afflicted cameras at least on this forum? I think the numbers would be quite representative of the scale of the problem?

[pop]

pop, can you reference this or is it a personal conclusion?

 

It is indeed a personal conclusion, in part based on those factoids:

• Leica replaced sensors, even without being prompted to do so, for a while and free of charge.
  
• Sensor replacements virtually came to a halt, apparently several times, with reference to lack of supplies.
  
• Leica started charging the customers for the replacement of "corroded" sensors.
  

[mmradman]

Leica need to fix two things, management & sensor issue(s) - in that order.

 

 

It is indeed a personal conclusion, in part based on those factoids:

• Leica replaced sensors, even without being prompted to do so, for a while and free of charge.
  
• Sensor replacements virtually came to a halt, apparently several times, with reference to lack of supplies.
  
• Leica started charging the customers for the replacement of "corroded" sensors.
  

[dkCambridgeshire]

Assuming the problem is due to sensor glass bonding agent degradation, we do not know:

 

Is the sensor glass assembly performed by robot?

 

Is the sensor glass assembly performed by production operative/technician?

 

Can manufacturing QA procedures lessen failure rate by weeding out potential failures before sensor assemblies received by Leica?

 

Has the adhesive/bonding agent used been changed upgraded at any time and if so for what reason?

 

Why use bonded sensor glasses given that other camera sensors' glasses are not bonded?

 

 

And given that many sensors appear to be perfectly OK, is there a common link to the perfect sensors ... e.g. glass assembly skills / experience or type of bonding agent ?

 

All potential variables which might be a factor(s) need identifying at the production stage(s)

 

dunk

Edited December 10, 2014 by dkpeterborough

[edwardkaraa]

In the small survey thread I started on this forum, the responses so far are 8 yes to 12 no.

 

The number is yet too small to draw any conclusions, but it's interesting that less than half of the cameras sold are affected. It's still a high number but it does show that not every camera gets this corrosion.

 

It would be interesting to try and find any common conditions. Does the MM have less corrosion cases? Do dry weather conditions protect the cover?

[photomac]

Important Information Concerning the CCD Sensors // Global // About Leica News // Leica News // World of Leica - Leica Camera AG

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[LUF Admin]

Here is the official statement by Stefan Daniel:

 

Dear Forum Members,

 

We have been closely following debates on the CCD sensor issue in forums and blogs and take the opinions and criticism we read very seriously. For us, it is important that we offer only technically faultless products. We are therefore particularly sorry if the imaging quality of your camera should be adversely affected by corrosion effects on the IR filter cover glass. We would also like to express our sincerest regrets to all customers who may have encountered this problem.

 

We have now identified the problem and are currently concentrating our efforts on finding a permanent technical solution. Our response to this problem is a full goodwill arrangement offering free replacement of affected CCD sensors. This goodwill arrangement applies regardless of the age of the camera and also covers sensors that have already been replaced in the past. Customers who have already been charged for the replacement of a sensor affected by this problem will receive a refund.

 

The effect does not affect the CMOS sensor of the Leica M (Typ 240). Should you, as an M customer, be considering an upgrade from your camera to a Leica M or M-P (Typ 240), Customer Care would be pleased to make you an attractive offer following a check of your camera and under consideration of the model and its age.

 

We have posted the details of the problem and the terms and conditions of our goodwill arrangement in the News section of our corporate Web site at Important Information Concerning the CCD Sensors // Global // About Leica News // Leica News // World of Leica - Leica Camera AG an have provided a link to the currently available Leica M Monochrom and M-E models. We will also be notifying our distributors regarding the new terms and conditions.

 

We are aware that Leica’s reputation for superior quality and endurance was the driving factor for your decision for Leica. We profoundly regret that we have been unable to completely fulfil our promise to you and our own standards from the outset. We are now making every effort to find a permanent and satisfactory technical solution for this problem and hope that our goodwill arrangement is able to rebuild and maintain your trust in the Leica brand!

 

Best regards,

 

Stefan Daniel

Director

Product Management Photo