Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[Don Morley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having bought my Leica's two at a time ever since my first pair of 3F's way back in 1954 this has all come as a hell of a shock, and given my two M9's are also less than four years old, never had their sensors cleaned or got wet and have lived throughout in the not overly (or often!) humid UK I have to ask how can Leica let this happen, and or wreck there own reputation via not owning up to having bought and then inflicted these dodgy sensors on we innocent customers?

 

I have though just received the horrendous repair estimate from Wetzlar, which also adds insult to injury via telling me I have not only got to spend a veritable fortune to get my camera repaired, but by the way, they want an extra 200 Euros if I want the repair done quickly- Ugh!

 

The saddest thing for me though is I can no longer support these charlatans, so whilst I will of course have to pay the repair bill if only to get the camera back so as I hopefully can sell it, BUT that then will be it for me as I will never ever spend as much as one penny with Leica again.

 

Anyway good luck to the rest of you, and as I also intend taking this up with the UK's Trading Standards Office as I feel Leica's actions in so charging we customers might well prove to be illegal under the UK's 'Sale Of Goods' act please do feel free to contact me f you too fancy joining in. Don Morley

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul J]

Leica recommend I upgrade my defective M9 to a Type 240 with an "attractive trade-in" of £1500-2500 depending on model, condition, actuations, wether I have the box or not, wether I want it or not. That is an additional £3000 on a camera I bought only 3 years ago for £5000, to get a camera which has no guarantee of suffering some sort of doom that the last two/the only two, M Digitals have.

 

My other option is to wait 6 months for a replacement sensor, that could or likely will, at some point suffer the same fate? This would be the second time I have had to wait for such a replacement in the 3 years I have owned the camera.

 

This is not attractive in the slightest, Leica. Worst still, I could not bring myself to sell this camera to some poor unsuspecting soul. Please note the Nikon D600 which has been guaranteed part replacement in perpetuity for dust on sensor issues or replaced with a similar model. Also please note that 6 month waiting period for a professional tool is completely unworkable.

 

Nikon to fix all D600 sensor dust and oil problems for free | Digital Trends

 

"However, if a number of multiple granular black spots are still noticeable in images captured with a D600 upon which the above service has been performed several times, Nikon will replace it with a new D600 or an equivalent model]"

 

Nikon Settles D600 Class Action Lawsuit by Offering D600 Owners Free D610s

 

"As a result of your involvement in the Nikon D600 camera lawsuit, Nikon has offered to immediately provide you with a new D610 camera in exchange for settling your individual claim."

[jaapv]

But it did take a lawsuit.... We'll surely see some of those here, so things may move in the same direction.

Edited December 1, 2014 by jaapv

[Firefly]

Ask for a straight swop for a M-A, it should at least have long term reliability. I did wonder if there would be difficulties with digital M's as Leica's last a lifetime or more as the blurb went, cheers Rob

[jevidon]

I spoke to Leica, New Jersey this morning since my M9 is there for upgrade to M9-P specs and sensor replacement.

 

The replacement sensors are on order from Germany and are not currently in stock. They promise it will be a few weeks.

 

I talked to them about the statement from a Mr. Viau to wit: "..Should you be considering an upgrade to a Leica M or M-P (Type 240), Customer Care will make you an attractive offer as a part of our goodwill arrangement...."

 

I was told that the memo got out before it was approved by Leica management and it is under consideration only. A decision will be forthcoming concerning the details of the 'offer' within a few weeks and will probably involve a replacement of the M9 plus a cash difference in some amount.

 

Unless someone has better information in writing, it appears that at the present time,

no firm offer to trade up to a type 240 exists.

[wlaidlaw]

But it did take a lawsuit.... We'll surely see some of those here, so things may move in the same direction.

 

My suggestion to all awaiting repairs or exchange is to hold on. I suspect the offer will be considerably improved from Leica, as letters from lawyers start to arrive. My personal desire would be to exchange my M9 if its sensor dies again, for an M7, as I already have an M240.

 

Wilson

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alright gentlement here's what I cannot fathom: why would Leica not order the sensor manufacturer to find out why the coatings delaminate, and fix the issue for subsequent batches? I mean, when there is a recall on a defective part for a car, customers expect the replacement to be re-engineered to not have the problem, and in all the cases I've heard of, it has been. Even if the car in question is several model years old and discontinued. This has nothing to do with whether it takes a lawsuit to provide impetus for the recall. Or whether a 3rd party manufactured the faulty part. True, Leica has a core of tolerant followers, but they have realized that core is ageing and dwindling, and in recent years they have been trying to gain new customers. The way they are handling this seems tailored to that loyal core only, and destined to piss off the new following Leica has been culling. Just MHO.

[jevidon]

Alright gentlement here's what I cannot fathom: why would Leica not order the sensor manufacturer to find out why the coatings delaminate, and fix the issue for subsequent batches? I mean, when there is a recall on a defective part for a car, customers expect the replacement to be re-engineered to not have the problem, and in all the cases I've heard of, it has been. Even if the car in question is several model years old and discontinued. This has nothing to do with whether it takes a lawsuit to provide impetus for the recall. Or whether a 3rd party manufactured the faulty part. True, Leica has a core of tolerant followers, but they have realized that core is ageing and dwindling, and in recent years they have been trying to gain new customers. The way they are handling this seems tailored to that loyal core only, and destined to piss off the new following Leica has been culling. Just MHO.

 

I believe the sensor was manufactured by Eastman Kodak, now in bankruptcy. If so, I believe that EK is in no position under the Federal bankruptcy court to commit to anything without commencement of litigation and then only under bankruptcy court approval.

[bocaburger]

I believe the sensor was manufactured by Eastman Kodak, now in bankruptcy. If so, I believe that EK is in no position under the Federal bankruptcy court to commit to anything without commencement of litigation and then only under bankruptcy court approval.

 

It has been mentioned numerous times on here that Kodak's sensor business was sold to an ongoing firm (and IIRC re-sold to another?). The point is, Leica is getting new (but apparently not improved) sensors manufactured from somewhere currently.

[Lenshacker]

The Kodak sensor Division was sold as "Truesense", to an equity firm and is now part on On Semiconductor, as mentioned before.

 

This is the announcement:

 

http://www.truesenseimaging.com/news-and-events/67-on-semiconductor-completes-acquisition-of-truesense-imaging-inc

 

The IR cover glass is manufactured by Schott. A change in the type of cover glass to be much more resilient to humidity will "possibly" mean going back to the IR contamination issues of the M8. Up until a few months ago, the KAF-18500 was made exclusively for Leica. I suspect the manufacturer could be approached to change out the cover glass, if Leica wished.

 

Also- On Semiconductor acquired Cypruss imaging, which several years ago bought FillFactory. Ex-Fillfactory engineers set up CMOSIS. "it's a small, small world"...

 

http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/content.do?id=16822

Edited December 1, 2014 by Lenshacker

[bocaburger]

 

The IR cover glass is manufactured by Schott. A change in the type of cover glass to be much more resilient to humidity will "possibly" mean going back to the IR contamination issues of the M8.

 

It seems like the problem is in the process used to adhere the IR coating (or is it the AR coating, it hasn't been made clear) to the cover glass, not the glass itself. Idk if it is a true lamination, or vapor deposition, or what. But I'm not supposed to need to know this. Leica and their subcontractors are. I really fail to see how and why in this age of enormous technical know-how, these specialist manufacturers can't figure out what's causing this problem, and fix it, so Leica can replace sensors with new ones that won't delaminate. I understand the issue with the M8 LCD, the parts were out of manufacture and a new batch was uneconomical. But these sensors are still being made!

 

Offering customers a discounted upgrade to cover their lack of control over components...2 out of 3 three total models they've had to do this with so far...is a gallant gesture but it doesn't do much to instill confidence in Leica's expertise to produce high-priced digital cameras.

Edited December 1, 2014 by bocaburger

[jdlaing]

The Kodak sensor Division was sold as "Truesense", to an equity firm and is now part on On Semiconductor, as mentioned before.

 

This is the announcement:

 

ON Semiconductor Completes Acquisition of Truesense Imaging, Inc. - Truesense Imaging, Inc.

 

The IR cover glass is manufactured by Schott. A change in the type of cover glass to be much more resilient to humidity will "possibly" mean going back to the IR contamination issues of the M8. Up until a few months ago, the KAF-18500 was made exclusively for Leica. I suspect the manufacturer could be approached to change out the cover glass, if Leica wished.

 

Also- On Semiconductor acquired Cypruss imaging, which several years ago bought FillFactory. Ex-Fillfactory engineers set up CMOSIS. "it's a small, small world"...

 

ON Semiconductor: Acquisition of the Image Sensor Division from Cypress Semiconductor

 

I believe the cover glass is Manufactured by Ohara.

[M-Mount]

Anybody asked On Semiconductor what they recommend?

[Lenshacker]

I believe the cover glass is Manufactured by Ohara.

 

The Data Sheet for the KAF-18500 states that the cover glass is Schott S8612, specifications controlled by Schott North America. I did not see a mention of Ohara in the longsheet. See page 28 of the KAF-18500 datasheet, link in previous posts. I think at this point, it's best to sit back and wait for more from Leica and ON about minimizing the problem, and longer term solutions.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Lenshacker

[Luke_Miller]

I think at this point, it's best to sit back and wait for more from Leica and ON about minimizing the problem, and longer term solutions.

 

I agree. Just checked my M9 and MM and no de-lamination at this juncture. I am prepared to accept Leica's statement that the problem affects only a small percentage of sensors. If they believed otherwise a re-design to correct it would have occurred. Leica appears to also be of the view that some of the failures are user related - resulting from improper cleaning methods. Perhaps Leica's view of the cause and scope of this problem will change as more users become aware of it and examine their sensors. In any event I expect they will stand behind their product and do right by us. Systemic issues that were poorly handled by both Canon and Nikon show how quickly reputations can be damaged.

[Edward Louis Marit]

Mine appeared exactly as JAAP described - a line that looked like a scratch but in examination was a row of bubbles. Mine is an MM and it only took 3 weeks, perhaps they have more of those in stock.

[Don Morley]

I agree. Just checked my M9 and MM and no de-lamination at this juncture. I am prepared to accept Leica's statement that the problem affects only a small percentage of sensors. If they believed otherwise a re-design to correct it would have occurred. Leica appears to also be of the view that some of the failures are user related - resulting from improper cleaning methods. Perhaps Leica's view of the cause and scope of this problem will change as more users become aware of it and examine their sensors. In any event I expect they will stand behind their product and do right by us. Systemic issues that were poorly handled by both Canon and Nikon show how quickly reputations can be damaged.

 

And Pigs might Fly! Don Morley

[Don Morley]

I agree. Just checked my M9 and MM and no de-lamination at this juncture. I am prepared to accept Leica's statement that the problem affects only a small percentage of sensors. If they believed otherwise a re-design to correct it would have occurred. Leica appears to also be of the view that some of the failures are user related - resulting from improper cleaning methods. Perhaps Leica's view of the cause and scope of this problem will change as more users become aware of it and examine their sensors. In any event I expect they will stand behind their product and do right by us. Systemic issues that were poorly handled by both Canon and Nikon show how quickly reputations can be damaged.

 

When did they say 'Only a small percentage'? Have I missed something? And how small is small? Enough for them to risk their entire reputation on? Certainly thats is the way it seems to me. I.E. the way it works is Leica charges the poor customer for its mistakes, keeps all of the money, and bye the way offers a low price trade in for the next potentially dodgy product and of course makes a profit on that as well! Sorry but do I look that stupid? (Actually please don't answer that). Don Morley .

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[CalArts 99]

But it did take a lawsuit.... We'll surely see some of those here, so things may move in the same direction.

 

Just for the record, the sensor cleaning for life and/or a free exchange by Nikon was separate of the lawsuit. Nikon addressed the issue for owners before the class action suit was ever finalized, and the immediate exchange for a new D610 was for only those who signed up with the class action suit. Although yes, they were obviously aware of the class action suit which no doubt had an affect on their decision for those consumers not signed up.

 

fwiw, in my case, I never signed up (and never had an oil spot issue with my D600.) But I did send the camera in to Nikon for the free shutter replacement and sensor cleaning anyway. The turn around time was 7 business days and they paid for shipping both ways. And since I now had sensor cleaning for life, I sent the camera back in later again for cleaning (the D600 does seem to get a dusty sensor fairly quickly compared to the other models.) Nikon offered me a D610 as a replacement.

 

(And in respect to cleaning the sensor: I wet cleaned it numerous times using methanol and sometimes aggressively (to get out the streaks from the swabs left, etc..) Whatever Nikon (Sony) uses for cover glass, it's pretty tough. And the first time I sent it in for the free shutter replacement service, it looked pretty bad with streaks from cleaning. But Nikon said nothing to me about it, and cleaned it perfectly.)

[Luke_Miller]

When did they say 'Only a small percentage'?

 

If you wade through the entire thread you can find a couple of statements by a Leica representative that I used as the basis for my comment. Since Leica has positioned itself as a premium brand it has (in my opinion) little choice but to "do right" by its customers. Since it cannot compete on price, it must compete on reputation. Just my "two cents."