Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[Firefly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The problem is, we love using these flawed rangefinders. When my M9 was away for sensor change, I swore not to use Leica again, and bought a Sony A7. Then I realized my M mount lenses don't work well, so I bought Sony AF lenses, then I realized I hated AF, so I sold the A7 and bought a M(240). However, if Leica charged me for the sensor, I am not sure if I would have been as forgiving.

 

The thing is my friend you are an existing user who had his camera repaired for free, do you see an existing A7 user, or any other system for that matter wanting to cross over to this? cheers Rob

[M9reno]

The problem is, we love using these flawed rangefinders. When my M9 was away for sensor change, I swore not to use Leica again, and bought a Sony A7. Then I realized my M mount lenses don't work well, so I bought Sony AF lenses, then I realized I hated AF, so I sold the A7 and bought a M(240). However, if Leica charged me for the sensor, I am not sure if I would have been as forgiving.

 

Well, the mistake there might have been to switch to Sony, and not to the obvious alternative: FILM Leicas.

[dante]

Dante, I agree with everything in your post. Except for your point about the M240. Yes, no documented problems for now, but it will also eventually become an older camera, and then we will see...! By the way, I, too, have toyed with the idea of a Monochrom. It would be silly to continue to do so.

 

I'm sure that the M 240 will have some rough edge. No free lunches with these things.

 

If you had a failure in the 5th year of using your M9 (which is about now for the first units), it's not like the camera would not have had a productive life until the glass failure. The real outrage is that there is any significant likelihood of its happening sooner. You don't hear about this with other brands. Granted, they aren't on the road as long as many Leicas, but there are thousands of times as many in circulation. Five years is a good reference point because that's the typical depreciation period in the U.S.

 

With the Monochrom, you're starting out with an expensive camera that will use used less. It also has seriously old electronics in it - so if you bought a new one today, and it fails five years from now, you'd pay big to repair something with electronics that are 9 years old (and by design more like 13 years old, since it's all really M8-vintage).

 

Dante

[Guest]

Someone pointed me to post #137 on page 7 — I would not otherwise have read a thread with the title "Strange white spots on M9 sensor?" When I did read that post, my reaction was, "is this guy "demadit" really from Leica and is this is really an official statement on policy by Leica on the delimitation issue of the M9/M-E/MM"? Maybe some of you know for a fact that "demedit" is a Leica executive, but my immediate reaction was that this could be a spoof or a prank. Over the weekend, I wrote the following e-mail to Andrea Frankl, Jakon Eberhard and Birgitta Mielke, i.e., the Leica staff whose e-mail address I had:

Not sure to whom to send this e-mail.

 

On the Leica Users Forum(LUF) there is a posting that is written as if it comes from Leica Camera AG and is the Company’s policy. The posting in question deals with "corrosion effects on the cover glass of the CCD sensor in Leica M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M-E cameras” and states, "Please be aware that a contact-free cleaning of the sensor is essential in preventing the issue”. You can see the posting here:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/307974-strange-white-spots-m9-sensor-7.html#post2825494

 

As you can read in subsequent comments by LUF members, these statements could have a serious negative effect on the sale of Leica digital cameras. Someone has copied the posting to the Range Finder Forum (RFF), where it also has elicited very negative reactions:

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145845

 

The poster uses the LUF forum name of “demadit” and signs himself as “JJ with Leica-camera”. In another LUF post he signs himself as "JJ Viau, Leica Camera AG, responsible for internet marketing”

 

I find it strange that Leica Camera should communicate policy on such a matter in this haphazard manner, rather than in an official Company statement or press release. Therefore, I wonder whether the above posting is really from someone at Leica, and find it hard to believe that a serious company would communicate in such an unprofessional manner on a major issue.

 

If the post is fraudulent or does not represent the policy of Leica Camera, the Company should state so in the two threads on LUF and RFF. It would also be good to state Leica Camera policy on reading and on posting to camera forums.

Having now read the postings here that were written after I sent my e-mail, I can only say that I continue to find it mind boggling that Leica Camera AG is handling this matter in this way, assuming that "demadit" indeed is a Leica staff member and that this indeed is intended by the Company to be an official statement. If all this is real, it looks like 'amateur hour".

 

Incidentally, my M9-P sensor had delimitation about a year after purchase. Somewhat uneasy for the prospects for my M-M.

[edwardkaraa]

The thing is my friend you are an existing user who had his camera repaired for free, do you see an existing A7 user, or any other system for that matter wanting to cross over to this? cheers Rob

 

Haha, definitely not! As I said, if the repair wasn't done for free, I wouldn't be posting on this forum today.

[edwardkaraa]

Well, the mistake there might have been to switch to Sony, and not to the obvious alternative: FILM Leicas.

 

Been there, done that! I shot Leica M6 for several years, but cost wise, I could have bought 2 M240s and the time I spent cloning out scratches makes the sensor bubbles look like a welcome compromise

[Steve Ash]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Someone pointed me to post #137 on page 7 — I would not otherwise have read a thread with the title "Strange white spots on M9 sensor?" When I did read that post, my reaction was, "is this guy "demadit" really from Leica and is this is really an official statement on policy by Leica on the delimitation issue of the M9/M-E/MM"? Maybe some of you know for a fact that "demedit" is a Leica executive, but my immediate reaction was that this could be a spoof or a prank. Over the weekend, I wrote the following e-mail to Andrea Frankl, Jakon Eberhard and Birgitta Mielke, i.e., the Leica staff whose e-mail address I had:Having now read the postings here that were written after I sent my e-mail, I can only say that I continue to find it mind boggling that Leica Camera AG is handling this matter in this way, assuming that "demadit" indeed is a Leica staff member and that this indeed is intended by the Company to be an official statement. If all this is real, it looks like 'amateur hour".

 

 

 

Most of us are happy to see Leica staff commenting on this forum. This does not make it into an official company statement. The only amateurish issue I see is your unreflected, emotional reply.

[Ario Arioldi]

Most of us are happy to see Leica staff commenting on this forum. This does not make it into an official company statement. .

Actually the way he wrote looks like an official company statement, IMHO

 

"Based on this thread, we feel the need to clarifying a couple of things about the sensor marks issue......

 

^JJ with Leica-camera"

Edited November 24, 2014 by Ario Arioldi

[jaapv]

Someone pointed me to post #137 on page 7 — I would not otherwise have read a thread with the title "Strange white spots on M9 sensor?" When I did read that post, my reaction was, "is this guy "demadit" really from Leica and is this is really an official statement on policy by Leica on the delimitation issue of the M9/M-E/MM"? Maybe some of you know for a fact that "demedit" is a Leica executive, but my immediate reaction was that this could be a spoof or a prank. Over the weekend, I wrote the following e-mail to Andrea Frankl, Jakon Eberhard and Birgitta Mielke, i.e., the Leica staff whose e-mail address I had:Having now read the postings here that were written after I sent my e-mail, I can only say that I continue to find it mind boggling that Leica Camera AG is handling this matter in this way, assuming that "demadit" indeed is a Leica staff member and that this indeed is intended by the Company to be a

n official statement. If all this is real, it looks like 'amateur hour".

 

Incidentally, my M9-P sensor had delimitation about a year after purchase. Somewhat uneasy for the prospects for my M-M.

I can assure you that Mr Viau is a ranking Leica official and has the authority to speak for Leica.

[M9reno]

Been there, done that! I shot Leica M6 for several years, but cost wise, I could have bought 2 M240s and the time I spent cloning out scratches makes the sensor bubbles look like a welcome compromise

 

The difference is that the negative scratches are of your own making!

[edwardkaraa]

The difference is that the negative scratches are of your own making!

 

Not mine I assure you. It was the lab's.

[M9reno]

Ah, yes (sorry - I assumed you developed your own, but I've had labs scratch my color negatives, too). Anyway, the M9 will probably be my last digital Leica, delamination or not, and the question is whether finally to go for that Jobo CPP3.

[gyoung]

Actually the main time consuming issue with film is 'dust on the sensor'

 

:-)

 

Gerry

[wattsy]

Actually the main time consuming issue with film is 'dust on the sensor'

 

Not necessarily but, in any case, dust spotting a scan is far less time consuming than waiting 3 months to get your M9 (or, in my case, Monochrom) camera back from Germany. This "corrosion" business is a real blow for both customers and Leica and I'm not sure the current policy of replacing defective sensors (very slowly) with the same sensor is the way to address it. What a mess it looks like turning out to be.

[andybarton]

I was considering maybe buying a second hand M9 in the spring.

 

I most certainly will not be doing so now.

[plasticman]

I was testing a secondhand black M9-P in the camera store which is (unfortunately for me) located next to my new office. The dark winter months are hard on film use, and I thought the price was more than reasonable considering the small amount I'd use it. Read this thread the day after (while still contemplating, thank goodness).

 

Whole thing reminds me of the epic M8 coffee-stain thread, where I felt the main emphasis was on reassuring M9 users that everything was hunky dory...

[jaapv]

Not necessarily but, in any case, dust spotting a scan is far less time consuming than waiting 3 months to get your M9 (or, in my case, Monochrom) camera back from Germany. This "corrosion" business is a real blow for both customers and Leica and I'm not sure the current policy of replacing defective sensors (very slowly) with the same sensor is the way to address it. What a mess it looks like turning out to be.

A rock and a hard place, it seems.

They wanted to bring out a full-frame rangefinder and the only suitable coverglass is sensitive to humidity - and now the boomerang is returning in the form of delamination on a large number of cameras.

To be charitable, the maker of the glass is touting it for camera sensors...

My problem is that the customer is expected to pay part of the price for an unfortunate design decision.

[Guest]

Most of us are happy to see Leica staff commenting on this forum. This does not make it into an official company statement. The only amateurish issue I see is your unreflected, emotional reply.

The issue is not about "scaring off" Leica from participating in this or other photo forums; nor is is about emotionalism, as you — shall I say "emotionally"? — are suggesting.

 

The issue is whether the corrosion, or delamination, problem is a design fault or a quality control fault: in either case the policy stated in post #137 is inadequate and inappropriate. Also, a problem that can affect all M9-type cameras should not be addressed by Leica Camera AG in the middle of a thread on one photo forum, but in some form of communication to the owners of the cameras, as there could be a strong case for a recall, depending on the legal situation on this matter.

Edited November 24, 2014 by not_a_hero

[wattsy]

The issue is whether the corrosion, or delamination, problem is a design fault or a quality control fault: in either case the policy stated in post #137 is inadequate and inappropriate. Also, a problem that can affect all M9-type cameras should not be addressed by Leica Camera AG in the middle of a thread on one photo forum, but in some form of communication to the owners of the cameras, as there could be a strong case for a recall, depending on the legal situation on this matter.

 

Yes, I agree. Dropping in on the middle of an old (though ongoing) thread isn't the way to explain the problem and the new policy, though I guess doing it quietly like this lessens the chance of the inevitable shitstorm that is only now gaining traction.

 

As far as a general recall goes, I'm not sure Leica is in a position to handle it. It seems they are already struggling to handle the current policy of replacing sensors on a case by case basis.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I am not sure a full recall of all M9 and MM cameras would be possible. In any case it would be a severe financial blow, not to mention reputation damage. I think on a per-case basis is more practicable, however I think that the present policy is inspired by a fear for a Tsunami of cameras. It does explain the previous ridiculous communication about not cleaning the sensors, though.