Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[ThePioneer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am very glad that Leica has chosen to stand behind these digital cameras in this manner. In my opinion it shows very good faith and I do applaud them. But I am also aware that Leica has sometimes made statements they have found it difficult to fulfill.

 

However, my M9 will not be replaced by another digital Leica until it has provided me with at least 10 years of solid service. Leica advertised it as the "digital camera for life" and I took them up on it when I bought their camera. I still have that advertisement. Those were very strong words and if it fails my lawyer and their lawyers will be discussing how to handle their problem.

 

I have no problem sending it to them for service, for cleaning, even for this sensor replacement when it becomes necessary. But they will stand behind their promise.

[rscheffler]

Remind me to keep an eye on Leica's future marketing materials for any promises of long-term reliability.... I wonder if this has come around to bite them in the a$$ and if it's the same creative minds who came up with the "M-mini" campaign?

 

To me at least, any claim of a digital camera being built for a (human) lifetime is massive BS. Consumer electronics simply aren't made for that kind of endurance. Even if Leica wanted us all to be able to use our M9s for 30 years, their component suppliers will have moved on long ago. To keep an M9 functional would probably mean stripping out the entire electronics for something current, retaining the metal shell as the only original 'lifetime' component.

 

Great that Leica is doing the right thing about the sensors, though, as it's only 4-5 years old and still in the current product catalog as the M-E and MM, so in this respect, they have to find a solution. One is probably to replace the M-E with the M240 once its replacement is announced.

[k-hawinkler]

Remind me to keep an eye on Leica's future marketing materials for any promises of long-term reliability.... I wonder if this has come around to bite them in the a$$ and if it's the same creative minds who came up with the "M-mini" campaign?

 

To me at least, any claim of a digital camera being built for a (human) lifetime is massive BS. Consumer electronics simply aren't made for that kind of endurance. Even if Leica wanted us all to be able to use our M9s for 30 years, their component suppliers will have moved on long ago. To keep an M9 functional would probably mean stripping out the entire electronics for something current, retaining the metal shell as the only original 'lifetime' component.

 

Great that Leica is doing the right thing about the sensors, though, as it's only 4-5 years old and still in the current product catalog as the M-E and MM, so in this respect, they have to find a solution. One is probably to replace the M-E with the M240 once its replacement is announced.

 

 

Excellent points. Thanks.

With repairs such a camera should last at least 15 to 20 years - my hope.

It doesn't really have to run a new application - aside from some minor firmware updates.

So it should still be fast enough for its intended purpose.

Of course, maintaining an old camera or two doesn't stop me from getting new ones as well.

 

BTW, I have a 10 year old Apple 30" Cinema Display that is still going strong! Knock on wood!

If it should crap out now, I still think I have gotten my money's worth.

That display I bought together with a dual 2.5 GHZ PPC Power Macintosh.

I used it for 9.5 years, had to replace the graphics card once, and finally I think the power supply went out.

One could still have it repaired - of course not by Apple - but I decided against it as it couldn't run new software/applications.

Also new computers are much more power efficient. Another valid consideration.

Thanks again.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Remind me to keep an eye on Leica's future marketing materials for any promises of long-term reliability.... I wonder if this has come around to bite them in the a$$ and if it's the same creative minds who came up with the "M-mini" campaign?

 

To me at least, any claim of a digital camera being built for a (human) lifetime is massive BS. Consumer electronics simply aren't made for that kind of endurance. Even if Leica wanted us all to be able to use our M9s for 30 years, their component suppliers will have moved on long ago. To keep an M9 functional would probably mean stripping out the entire electronics for something current, retaining the metal shell as the only original 'lifetime' component.

 

Great that Leica is doing the right thing about the sensors, though, as it's only 4-5 years old and still in the current product catalog as the M-E and MM, so in this respect, they have to find a solution. One is probably to replace the M-E with the M240 once its replacement is announced.

 

Not necessarily; there are thousands of pro. spec. Canon and Nikon DSLRs from the early noughties in use, all over ten years old, and still giving good service ... and likely to go on working well for more than a few years. I have three such models myself; when my very well used Canon ID MkII was converted for IR use recently it showed no signs of electronic fatigue or of conking out. And recently I bought a 9 year old Nikon D2Hs - 8 fps for 40 consecutive exposures - works perfectly and will probably still be working in five years time.

 

dunk

Edited December 15, 2014 by dkpeterborough

[pgk]

With repairs such a camera should last at least 15 to 20 years - my hope.

I would suggest that 10 years from date of cessation of production would be a reasonable aim-point in my estimation.

Not necessarily; there are thousands of pro. spec. Canon and Nikon DSLRs from the early noughties in use, all over ten years old, and still giving good service ... and likely to go on working well for more than a few years.

There are. But as I've posted before there are probably also a lot of dead or not economic to repair ones too. If you look at the prices of cameras such as the 1DS, any substantial repair is probably going to exceed the value of the camera 10 years on.

 

Leica need to bite the bullet and change their 'lifetime' to a more feasible and transparent repair and support period, albeit one which is still acceptable to customers. Honesty really is the best policy;).

 

If I could make a suggestion to Leica, it would be to issue each camera body with a 'service record' document (as is issued with cars) in which all and any visits to a service/repair facilities could be entered (authorised or otherwise) and work carried out logged (shutter count too). They could also incorporate periodic 'service inspections' so that a camera could be issued with a clean bill of health at set periods. This might well increase the resale value of a camera with a 'full service history' and would tell prospective buyers of an major replaced parts such as sensors, rather than have to rely on miscellaneous paperwork as at present. It would also signal Leica's intended support for the camera model up until a set (10 year?) period.

[vanhulsenbeek]

And please, post some of your excellent images!

 

Avec plaisir: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/landscape-travel/357079-scotland-may-2014-a.html

Edited December 15, 2014 by vanhulsenbeek

[vanhulsenbeek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Excellent points. Thanks.

[...]

BTW, I have a 10 year old Apple 30" Cinema Display that is still going strong! Knock on wood!

If it should crap out now, I still think I have gotten my money's worth.

That display I bought together with a dual 2.5 GHZ PPC Power Macintosh.

I used it for 9.5 years, had to replace the graphics card once, and finally I think the power supply went out.

One could still have it repaired - of course not by Apple - but I decided against it as it couldn't run new software/applications.

Also new computers are much more power efficient. Another valid consideration.

Thanks again.

 

My 1986 Apple IIC still works! Bit yellowish now, but still cool

[k-hawinkler]

Thanks Sander, also for your superb images! Thank you.

[rscheffler]

Not necessarily; there are thousands of pro. spec. Canon and Nikon DSLRs from the early noughties in use, all over ten years old, and still giving good service ... and likely to go on working well for more than a few years. I have three such models myself; when my very well used Canon ID MkII was converted for IR use recently it showed no signs of electronic fatigue or of conking out. And recently I bought a 9 year old Nikon D2Hs - 8 fps for 40 consecutive exposures - works perfectly and will probably still be working in five years time.

 

dunk

 

I'm in a similar situation. I still have my original Canon 1D from 2001, a IIN and a couple Mark IIIs. Sure they work, the last time I checked. I also expect my M9 will probably work for another 5-10 years (unless I trade it in against an M240 seeing as how it might now have early signs of sensor spots/corrosion). With the Canons, though, I know they are unserviceable by Canon themselves because they do not support their products beyond 5-7 years after discontinuation. I don't hold this against Canon, perhaps because I got my use out of these cameras and have moved on as newer models became available. Maybe this is just my expectation from a 'consumer electronics' manufacturer. Leica on the other hand, has built their brand around premium products and service and can't so easily sweep longer term equipment reliability problems under the rug.

 

I really appreciate that Leica goes to apparent lengths to maintain service for past products. In this day and age, it seems to be the exception. However, when pertaining to electronics, such support cannot be expected to be indefinite and I believe they should move away from unsustainable lifetime service statements.

[chris_livsey]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the M9 owners (as an M8 owner ) it would be sad if this continued support for the model drained the lifeblood out of Leica with cutbacks in R&D probably the first to go and possible knock on economies to pay for keeping "legacy" (although aware they are current inventory sensors) cameras serviceable at zero cost to their owners. They will have to draw a line somewhere unless they insured the risk, as postulated elsewhere, when the insurers will surely set limits, of course within the policy.

 

All I read is how satisfactory the proposed action is, it is not without cost and risk to Leica longer term, it may not turn out well in the end for a broader range of Leica owners present and future.

[IkarusJohn]

We get reminded often that it is unrealistic to expect any electronic device, let alone a digital camera, to last for the users lifetime. This is undoubtedly true. It unrealistic to expect any piece of equipment to last a lifetime without repair and maintenance.

 

The issue is the commercial decision by manufacturers like Leica and their suppliers to stop supporting their equipment (the M8 LCD is a case in point, and Leica's decision that 10 years following the end of the M-E/MM product sales represents a lifetime). This bothers me a lot.

 

I can buy new parts for old cars and all sorts of things, yet we accept obsolescence in digital products. I have had my 50 year old M3 CLA'd, yet I have given up any thought that my M9 will receive similar care. Yet, if it continues to offer similar quality images for the rest of my life, I'll be very happy. The current sensor is more than enough.

 

The problem is the suppliers stop producing the parts, because Leica stops buying them, because we, as customers, stop buying these products wanting the latest and greatest. Everyone is incentivised to dump the existing camera in favour of the next best thing, so suppliers are continually striving to up the ante.

 

Good economics, good for profit, bad for the environment and completely pointless waste.

 

As the resale of my cameras is effectively in the toilet, I guess I will keep using my M9 and Monochrom for as long as Leica will repair them. I do think we should collectively put pressure on Leica to say that actually 10 years isn't enough, and it needs to put pressure on Truesense.

 

I will (of course) pay to have my camera repaired. The likely replacement cost will justify a reasonably considerable investment - for the same reasons that my M3 continues to operate flawlessly and is such a pleasure to use, future digital M cameras will only really provide marginal improvement over my M9.

 

Why should I not have the option to repair my M9 if I want to?

[k-hawinkler]

We get reminded often that it is unrealistic to expect any electronic device, let alone a digital camera, to last for the users lifetime. This is undoubtedly true. It unrealistic to expect any piece of equipment to last a lifetime without repair and maintenance.

 

The issue is the commercial decision by manufacturers like Leica and their suppliers to stop supporting their equipment (the M8 LCD is a case in point, and Leica's decision that 10 years following the end of the M-E/MM product sales represents a lifetime). This bothers me a lot.

 

I can buy new parts for old cars and all sorts of things, yet we accept obsolescence in digital products. I have had my 50 year old M3 CLA'd, yet I have given up any thought that my M9 will receive similar care. Yet, if it continues to offer similar quality images for the rest of my life, I'll be very happy. The current sensor is more than enough.

 

The problem is the suppliers stop producing the parts, because Leica stops buying them, because we, as customers, stop buying these products wanting the latest and greatest. Everyone is incentivised to dump the existing camera in favour of the next best thing, so suppliers are continually striving to up the ante.

 

Good economics, good for profit, bad for the environment and completely pointless waste.

 

As the resale of my cameras is effectively in the toilet, I guess I will keep using my M9 and Monochrom for as long as Leica will repair them. I do think we should collectively put pressure on Leica to say that actually 10 years isn't enough, and it needs to put pressure on Truesense.

 

I will (of course) pay to have my camera repaired. The likely replacement cost will justify a reasonably considerable investment - for the same reasons that my M3 continues to operate flawlessly and is such a pleasure to use, future digital M cameras will only really provide marginal improvement over my M9.

 

Why should I not have the option to repair my M9 if I want to?

 

Thanks John. Maybe this incident leads to a reassessment of how long a great camera should last.

I bought a pickup truck new in 1989, still have it. It's in excellent repair and still serves the purpose I bought it for. So, that's 25 years. The truck uses computer chips as well. I don't see why a camera couldn't be maintained that long as well, except for planned obsolescence or design mistakes.

Edited December 15, 2014 by k-hawinkler

[mmradman]

Thanks John. Maybe this incident leads to a reassessment of how long a great camera should last.

I bought a pickup truck new in 1989, still have it. It's in excellent repair and still serves the purpose I bought it for. So, that's 25 years. The truck uses computer chips as well. I don't see why a camera couldn't be maintained that long as well, except for planned obsolescence or design mistakes.

 

As long as spares are available providing they are up to spec to start with.

 

Explanation - up to spec part is part without inherent flaws, I.e. Cracking sensor or delaminating glass.

Edited December 15, 2014 by mmradman

[k-hawinkler]

As long as spares are available providing they are up to spec to start with.

 

Explanation - up to spec part is part without inherent flaws, I.e. Cracking sensor or delaminating glass.

 

 

Exactly. Thanks Mladen.

[uhoh7]

I would wager there are literally millions of TVs made in the 70s still in use every day. The whole idea of the M9 is a camera which is exceptional. It is not a throw away item.

 

Many shooters are more than happy with ancient frame by frame sensors also referred to as "film". The M9 is arguably at a similar technical level in terms of what it can produce. Not to say it's the same, but in it's way, it's there.

 

I predict the M9 will be used for generations.

 

The 240? well maybe not so much

[rscheffler]

I don't know how valid it is but lately there has been a fair amount of talk about how RoHS forced a change in the materials used in electronics manufacture, such as the solder used to attach components to PCBs, etc... and how over time these develop 'tin whiskers' that cause electrical shorts.

 

Electronics from the 70s and 80s were simply made differently than now and the above speculation is that pretty much anything since RoHS (2006) won't have the longevity of pre-RoHS components.

[M9reno]

In my opinion the promise of a permanent fix for the M9 is idealistic at best, and dilatory at worst.

 

The only official statement is so vague as to carry no weight as a promise: "We have now identified the problem and are currently concentrating our efforts on finding a permanent technical solution."

 

"We have now identified the problem" implies that Leica had not identified the problem earlier. This, too, seems highly doubtful.

[mmradman]

I don't know how valid it is but lately there has been a fair amount of talk about how RoHS forced a change in the materials used in electronics manufacture, such as the solder used to attach components to PCBs, etc... and how over time these develop 'tin whiskers' that cause electrical shorts.

 

Electronics from the 70s and 80s were simply made differently than now and the above speculation is that pretty much anything since RoHS (2006) won't have the longevity of pre-RoHS components.

 

In power industry in UK protection relays manufactured to current standards are replaced after 15 years of service even if they still work ok. Equipment would be expected to work continuously with maybe one midlife check.

 

 

For professional grade or premium price camera equipment (at least one of the criteria ought to be applicable to Leica) 15 years sounds reasonable.

[jaapv]

Come on, Alfonso, what else could they - what could any company- say?

 

They are working to try and find a solution. We know that the cover glass is crucial to image quality and they have run into difficulties with the glass that seemed to be optimal.

And yes, they have identified the problem. Now. Which means they have investigated the whole process that leads to the delamination, probably in close conjunction with Schott.

Now they have to find a replacement glass, get the production of a possible replacement sensor organised, dertermine number and time scale, etc..

 

That cannot be done within 24 hours.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M9reno]

Jaap, I hope this is the case - but who really knows?

 

To be more positive, if you are right, then I will be happily surprised, which will be good!