Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[daure]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

because not all cameras are used under the same circumstances, and it may well be that there is a variation between batches of glass.

 

So, the CS answer have to be completed with :

Yet...

[jaapv]

Their Crystal Ball is presently in the CS of the Crystal Ball factory, awaiting the delivery of spare parts...

[M9reno]

...and affected by unaccountable veiling flare.

[k-hawinkler]

Jaap,

 

Are you now the official Leica spokesperson?

[M-Mount]

A solution against moisture could be to insert a silica gel paper pad into the base plate.

[jaapv]

Jaap,

 

Are you now the official Leica spokesperson?

 

Not at all - I am an unhappy customer who thinks this could be resolved differently.

 

But I do consider myself to be an expert on Crystal Balls.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I personally just think that Leica has been very unlucky with some issues that are basically not its own fault, and pertaining to the fact it was faced with the very difficult feat of adapting RF lenses to FF digital sensors. The fact still remains no other camera can use these lenses to their full potential. Not being apologetic, just understanding.

[k-hawinkler]

I personally just think that Leica has been very unlucky with some issues that are basically not its own fault, and pertaining to the fact it was faced with the very difficult feat of adapting RF lenses to FF digital sensors. The fact still remains no other camera can use these lenses to their full potential. Not being apologetic, just understanding.

 

Well, that seems true for certain lenses but not others.

For example the WATE works equally well on my M9 and A7R.

[bocaburger]

Every day I get happier about my reluctant decision to get an M240 and sell the M9. Ironically not because I'm discovering the M240 is a significantly better imaging device, just seemingly and hopefully less prone to catastrophic component failure (thus far).

[edwardkaraa]

Well, that seems true for certain lenses but not others.

For example the WATE works equally well on my M9 and A7R.

 

Note that I said full potential. Most lenses simply work very badly, but some seem to work ok, though not as good as on a M body, especially at wide apertures and in the frame periphery.

[k-hawinkler]

Note that I said full potential. Most lenses simply work very badly, but some seem to work ok, though not as good as on a M body, especially at wide apertures and in the frame periphery.

 

That's not my experience with the WATE though.

It seems to perform equally well on my M9 and A7R.

 

Of course you are correct that some Leica lenses perform much better on an M than on something else. I am not sure I would agree with "most lenses" either.

[edwardkaraa]

Every day I get happier about my reluctant decision to get an M240 and sell the M9. Ironically not because I'm discovering the M240 is a significantly better imaging device, just seemingly and hopefully less prone to catastrophic component failure (thus far).

 

I think the M240 is the first "mature" digital M in the sense that it has no significant flaws affecting its basic RF functions. Of course, there are the LV related lockups and the low resolution EVF, but if used strictly as a RF, it works flawlessly. Even without the delamination problems, the M9 still got the breaking sensor cover, card incompatibilities, sporadic lockups that require the removal of battery, loud whirring shutter noise, slow image review and low resolution LCD... should I continue?

[edwardkaraa]

That's not my experience with the WATE though.

It seems to perform equally well on my M9 and A7R.

 

Of course you are correct that some Leica lenses perform much better on an M than on something else. I am not sure I would agree with "most lenses" either.

 

I have no reason to doubt your finding that the WATE works equally well on both systems, but how many other lenses work as well? If you make 2 lists, one with lenses that work and one with lenses that don't you will get one very short list and one very long

 

Also it seems that "ok" is a very subjective concept. Some people are happy with a less than optimal performance while others aren't with anything not as good as on a Leica M, especially considering the lens prices.

 

It is noteworthy that Sony is having trouble with the design of its own lenses due to the thick sensor cover. None of the Sony wides performs well in the image periphery, including the Zeiss 35/2.8.

[bocaburger]

I think the M240 is the first "mature" digital M in the sense that it has no significant flaws affecting its basic RF functions. Of course, there are the LV related lockups and the low resolution EVF, but if used strictly as a RF, it works flawlessly. Even without the delamination problems, the M9 still got the breaking sensor cover, card incompatibilities, sporadic lockups that require the removal of battery, loud whirring shutter noise, slow image review and low resolution LCD... should I continue?

 

True, but it's only the sensor cracking and delamination that threaten to render the camera useless and mandate a (usually protracted) trip to the shop.

[pico]

This thread is breaking my heart. So much angst and negativity. I am going to use the M9 until it goes belly-up, if it does.

 

Think I will shift attention to the S Leicas.

[Malvolio]

After reading this thread on Monday, I bit the bullet and traded my M9 for a new M240 at a changeover price that was attractive. Another two years of ownership would have potentially led to these issues, with the resultant drop in price. Not going to risk it. Might have been knee jerk but the M9 was only just out of warranty and seemed like the right time anyway.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Malvolio

[david strachan]

I feel so sorry for Leica. A venerable business for so long...and another bad financial hit.

 

Dave S

[M-Mount]

After reading this thread on Monday, I bit the bullet and traded my M9 for a new M240 at a changeover price that was attractive. Another two years of ownership would have potentially led to these issues, with the resultant drop in price. Not going to risk it. Might have been knee jerk but the M9 was only just out of warranty and seemed like the right time anyway.

 

In 2-3 years the price drop of used M240s could be equal with the M9 repair costs. And sure this this probability is greater than corrosion occur on your M9.

I never sell my M9, is still a great camera.

Edited November 26, 2014 by M-Mount

[bocaburger]

True but it doesn't make sense to me to pay for repairs to an M9 that would bring it's cost even with an M240. I know people who have 12-15 yr old water cooled Porsches that have paid well in excess of the cars' current monetary value to have the engines replaced (and it's highly unlikely they will ever appreciate as the air-cooled models have done). Those people say they don't care, they love the cars and want to keep it forever. Personally I won't do that. If my engine goes, I'll sell it as a rolling chassis to someone who wants to build a racer, and put the money into a newer car. Everyone is different in their thinking, there is no right or wrong.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

"• In the case of damage as a result of corrosion, the sensor will be replaced free of charge up to three years following the date of purchase. Leica Camera AG will cover the full costs of replacement, amounting to 1,800 euros plus applicable VAT."

 

So, wouldn't it be sensible to ensure your sensor does get corroded before three years is up, or if you don't think 600 Euro is too much go for the four or five year option on the list? Leica will have to give a warranty on repairs, so coming up to the anniversary of the warranty keep recycling the camera from fridge to radiator or whatever it takes. Buy two and overlap the repair cycle then you won't be without one.

 

But the whole statement is riddled with vagueness. Three years from the purchase by whom? The original owner or just when the camera was first sold? What about Leica Dealers who offer warranties of their own, have they considered what this could mean for them, selling goods with known potential problems, and how would they deal with repairs?

 

I can't really believe this statement has come from Leica as it doesn't seem like it's consequences have been thought through at a higher management level, but their track record for lack of clarity and delay in putting the record straight is also well known. But as it stands if the statement is really as it appears it should be easily possible to knock over 1000 Euro off the price of an M9 right now whether it has corrosion or not, and with only a 600 Euro repair fee that would probably have to include a full CLA, plus a warranty, well what's not to like?

 

(If in doubt I was being a bit facetious with a couple of ideas here, but then again.........)

 

Steve

Edited November 26, 2014 by 250swb