Manoleica Posted December 9, 2014 Share #861 Posted December 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just received back my 5 years old M9, purchased in October 2009, completely revised and with a new sensor. I had to pay 0 (zero) € for the service.It was sent to Leica two months back when I discovered the white spots we are talking about. Premium Service for a Premium Product.. Expect No Less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Hi Manoleica, Take a look here Strange white spots on M9 sensor?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pieterpronk Posted December 9, 2014 Share #862 Posted December 9, 2014 I have just received back my 5 years old M9, purchased in October 2009, completely revised and with a new sensor. I had to pay 0 (zero) € for the service.It was sent to Leica two months back when I discovered the white spots we are talking about. It would seem unfair if somebody with exactly the same problem were suddenly asked to pay a lot of money for exactly the same thing. Surely all customers deserve the same kind of service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted December 9, 2014 Share #863 Posted December 9, 2014 It would seem unfair if somebody with exactly the same problem were suddenly asked to pay a lot of money for exactly the same thing. Surely all customers deserve the same kind of service. It is unfair, but if you have aProForma invoice you can argue with Wetzlar.. Don't just ACCEPT.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ario Arioldi Posted December 9, 2014 Share #864 Posted December 9, 2014 It would seem unfair if somebody with exactly the same problem were suddenly asked to pay a lot of money for exactly the same thing. Surely all customers deserve the same kind of service. I want to clarify that I do not have any special relationship with Leica or with anybody in Leica, I am just a normal user. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
garysamson Posted December 9, 2014 Share #865 Posted December 9, 2014 Can I suggest that the very first thing they do is make an absolutely clear statement that this issue does not affect the M240, nor the S2/S(006)/S7 products. That sends a strong message that the problem is contained within superseded products (although the MM is still current). There's then no reason to sell lenses and find alternative suppliers. The M-E is still current too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted December 9, 2014 Share #866 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) . Official statement by Mr.Viau. I am sure they didn't imagine anybody would project this problem on the S series.[/quote I'm not projecting the problem onto the S; I'm suggesting that Leica confirms that there is no possibility of the CCD sensor in the S suffering the same issues. The matter will be dead then. Gary Edited December 9, 2014 by Rolo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted December 9, 2014 Share #867 Posted December 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) The M-E is still current too. Certainly is. I missed that. Apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2014 Share #868 Posted December 9, 2014 . Official statement by Mr.Viau. I am sure they didn't imagine anybody would project this problem on the S series. I'm not projecting the problem onto the S; I'm suggesting that Leica confirms that there is no possibility of the CCD sensor in the S suffering the same issues. The matter will be dead then. Gary Fair question, deserves an answer. I just pointed out tha thevS was not even in the picture for this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucerne Posted December 9, 2014 Share #869 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I was in London yesterday and visited a couple of shops, one is an Authorised Dealer and the other an independent specialist. Both denied there being a problem with M9 sensors when the question was put to them, both had s/h M9's for sale cheers Rob I was offered a part-exchange deal on my M9-p against an M240 last week by one of the main leica dealers in london. Fair price as well. My M9-p has warranty remaining, and currently shows no sign of the sensor problem. I didn't complete the deal because I'm a big fan of the M9 and I'm not convinced that all sensors will succumb to the problem. If I'm wrong, leica will compensate but whatever happens, my financial exposure is far less than my outlay two years ago! It's not my responsibility to introduce the idea of a future problem that may actually never occur, during the negotiation. The current market reaction by private individuals is based on fear not fact. Just like the stock market. Keep Cool and Keep Shooting. Edited December 9, 2014 by lucerne Clarity 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted December 9, 2014 Share #870 Posted December 9, 2014 Many thanks. If at all possible the part-exchange price offered would be interesting to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucerne Posted December 9, 2014 Share #871 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Many thanks. If at all possible the part-exchange price offered would be interesting to know. Every dealer marketplace around the world has a different valuation strategy in secondhand transactions. The UK private sector seems to jump on every opportunity to devalue, while Asia doesn't appear to take that approach and secondhand items attract better prices. However, I was offered two-thirds of what I paid in January 2013 by a dealer in the uk and that seems a fair deal to me. I've had great use of the body. Note: in January 2013 leica dealers had reduced the price of certain M9-Ps to clear remaining dealer stock. My package came complete with the usual warranties and passport. Edited December 9, 2014 by lucerne 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted December 9, 2014 Share #872 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I was offered a part-exchange deal on my M9-p against an M240 last week by one of the main leica dealers in london. Fair price as well. My M9-p has warranty remaining, and currently shows no sign of the sensor problem. I didn't complete the deal because I'm a big fan of the M9 and I'm not convinced that all sensors will succumb to the problem. If I'm wrong, leica will compensate but whatever happens, my financial exposure is far less than my outlay two years ago! It's not my responsibility to introduce the idea of a future problem that may actually never occur, during the negotiation. The current market reaction by private individuals is based on fear not fact. Just like the stock market. Keep Cool and Keep Shooting. Could not agree more. I am not interested in a 240. What I'm hearing now, supposedly from sources inside the company, is that the issue is the glue. The story is the glue was at first too brittle, then the re-formulation is prone to "delamination" That word has been used for many decades in the ski industry to describe the failure of glue, so maybe this has some truth to it. At this point the more detailed and clear about the problem Leica is, the faster trust will be restored. I do not doubt there are technicians within Leica who may understand the issue. What is perhaps up in the air is whether we actually get to hear their diagnosis. I agree in general Leica has stood behind the M9 very well. The german thread is full of quips and smart remarks which only make real information harder to find. Equally beside the point, for me, is speculation about selling M9s, bankruptcy of Leica, or how mere mortals could never understand the construction of the M9 sensor. I plan to shoot my M9 for many years to come, and I'm looking for a clear path forward, in light of a genuine issue. Edited December 9, 2014 by uhoh7 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2014 Share #873 Posted December 9, 2014 The glue rumour is not from inside the company, it is from inside LavidaLeica ... It is next to impossible that it has any factual basis. If it were so, the delamination would commence at the edges. Which not. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uhoh7 Posted December 9, 2014 Share #874 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I suppose we should say "cement" "Okay- the cover glass is cemented into place, it can not easily be removed. Soaking the sensor in solvent is required to remove it, and that would very likely destroy the microlens array. So, the KAF-18500 must be revised to use a different cover glass. I already contacted one company for an IR conversion. I've read comments on other forums stating that the coatings are the problem, that the cement used to hold the cover glass in place is the problem, etc. As an engineer- the root of the problem is that the S8612 cover glass corrodes due to humidity. The sensor stack must be thin for the Leica M-Mount lenses. The traditional method of using an AR-coated clear cover glass with the same coefficient of expansion as the sensor itself and using a separate IR absorbing filter between the sensor and the lens is not optimal. Leica/Kodak chose to go with the very efficient S8612 glass and to seal it from humidity. The seal is breaking down, and humidity is getting to the glass. To me- the easiest way to solve this problem is to use glass that is not sensitive to humidity. As an added bonus- the BG-18 has a coefficient of thermal expansion that is lower than S8612, ie closer to the sensor. I do not know the relative strength of this glass compared with S8612, another important factor. One other thought: CCD's and sensors in general heat up as they are used. The glass will expand and contract as a result. The S8612 expands and contracts at a different rate than does the sensor. The problem of the seals breaking down "could be" related to shooting style. Someone that is shooting as fast as possible will produce larger expansion/contraction cycles than someone that uses single-mode, rarely fills the buffer. I worked with digital imagers throughout the 1980s, switched to optical networks in the 90s. We had custom sensors built to our specs, custom glass made to our specs. In the 90s- custom components and boards to our design, "Gallium Arsenide" chips for speed, stamped "prototype". 36 years into it now. Still can't help looking at a problem like this and wanting to task engineers to trade-off between components. "My style" was to read the data sheets, pick some candidates, hand it to one of my engineers and ask if there was a reason why it could not be used, or if they could find one that was better. Sometimes, just had to tell them - "Use this one". In something like the S8612, the warning about corrosion in humid environments should have been enough reason not to use it. Always looking for Murphy's Law to get you wherever possible. The S8612 cover glass seems to be Murphy's Law at work. As best as I can tell, The KAF-18500 is the only sensor in ON's current offering that uses it." Brian Sweeny True Sense Imaging, maker of CCD's for the M-E and M Monochrom, now ON Semiconductor - Page 3 Brian's main camera is M9, and he has no plans to get rid of it, just the opposite. Edited December 9, 2014 by uhoh7 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2014 Share #875 Posted December 9, 2014 Sounds reasonable. Still. Leica engineers must have known about the danger, so there must have been a compelling reason to go this route. Any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 9, 2014 Share #876 Posted December 9, 2014 Sounds reasonable. Still. Leica engineers must have known about the danger, so there must have been a compelling reason to go this route. Any ideas? I am not so certain. How can we know about the dangers Leica engineers knew? They worked with their supplier who could have represented the product at a later date in a manner that disregarded the hard data published here. Add to that the date the supplier posited the so-called hard data. There is also the issue regarding internal agreements which complicate outcomes so that they obviate scientific metrics - such are known as "lawyerese". I have a lot more to say but will wait. It is clear to me that focusing only upon Leica as the responsible party is misplaced. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2014 Share #877 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Well, it sounds reasonable that they had to make a choice between coating and glass. Either that or Shott/Kodak were a bit optimistic in specifying the properties. Edited December 9, 2014 by jaapv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 9, 2014 Share #878 Posted December 9, 2014 Well, it sounds reasonable that they had to make a choice between coating and glass. Not if Leica was misinformed. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted December 9, 2014 Share #879 Posted December 9, 2014 I've been considering for a little while whether to post this or not Well this may be an epidemic..... There seem to be too many M9s around awaiting replacement sensors - fortunately mine is not one of them. I have now been advised by a second camera dealer that they have at least five customers with M9s still waiting after months for replacement sensors, and they have heard that some sixty M9s may be in this situation :eek:. There are also more owners floating around the Forum in a similar situation. Kodak went under and I guess took their sensor patent and production to their grave. Again, this is only what I have been told. I so hope this is not going to be a problem like the M8 LCD screens. So what is the true incidence of M9 sensor failure? Will Leica be able to supply them or have to do an M8 replacement equivalent? Has anyone here had an M9 sensor recently replaced in a reasonable time, or who is still waiting an extended period of time with no advice as to what is happening. My sensor was replaced two months after I sent the M9 to my dealer for a cleaning. The issue was under the glass - it at the time no one was talking about corrosion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 9, 2014 Share #880 Posted December 9, 2014 Not if Leica was misinformed.. Sorry, I edited before I read your post. In that case the chain of liability becomes interesting. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now