Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

 

Has Leica only known about this for 24 hours? I'm very pleased they responded so quickly!

[dkCambridgeshire]

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.

 

And don't forget the firmware … for both the MM and the M9/ME.

 

And once the upgrade is available - EVERYONE will expect it - regardless of whether or not their watches shows signs of the dreaded sensor lurgy.

 

dunk

[Advertisement]

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

[k-hawinkler]

And don't forget the firmware … for both the MM and the M9/ME.

 

And once the upgrade is available - EVERYONE will expect it - regardless of whether or not their watches shows signs of the dreaded sensor lurgy.

 

dunk

 

 

Maybe eventually. However, if the new configuration should be lesser performing one might stick with what one has as long as the dreaded delamination doesn't develop and one is assured that in that case Leica will replace the defective part under the recently announced policy. Don't you think so?

[jaapv]

Has Leica only known about this for 24 hours? I'm very pleased they responded so quickly!

Ehhh... Where did I say that? I was talking about overblown expectations from users....

[wattsy]

Maybe eventually. However, if the new configuration should be lesser performing one might stick with what one has as long as the dreaded delamination doesn't develop and one is assured that in that case Leica will replace the defective part under the recently announced policy. Don't you think so?

 

 

No. There will be a clamour for the new sensor which is one of the reasons I think Leica will soon realise they ought to offer more compelling upgrade offers to transition as many users as possibly to the M240 rather than spend time and money revisiting the M9 sensor.

[Kwesi]

No. There will be a clamour for the new sensor which is one of the reasons I think Leica will soon realise they ought to offer more compelling upgrade offers to transition as many users as possibly to the M240 rather than spend time and money revisiting the M9 sensor.

 

Any word on current upgrade offers from Leica?

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

English may only be my first language, but your reference to 24 hours is clearly dismissive and misleading - Leica has known of this issue for months if not years (I had a delaminated sensor replaced in 2011).

 

So, they have known about it for a considerable period. Where does 24 hours come in? I may have missed it, but no one here has said they expect their cameras to be fixed in 24 hours, unless you're just reducing the annoyance of some here to the absurd to ridicule their position?

 

I must be missing something you're saying Jaap, as you seem to be the only one mentioning 24 hours.

[IkarusJohn]

No. There will be a clamour for the new sensor which is one of the reasons I think Leica will soon realise they ought to offer more compelling upgrade offers to transition as many users as possibly to the M240 rather than spend time and money revisiting the M9 sensor.

 

Actually, this is what I fear. I don't want an M(240), and I doubt the upgrade offer will be made on other cameras - it will be a lower cost (for Leica) runout on the end of run M(240). They won't want any new offering discounted.

 

So, I think I'll stick with the M9 and rely on the sensor replacement - I have to concede this makes me nervous. I don't believe for a second (much less than 24 hours, Jaap) that Leica will expend any effort finding a solution to this problem. They will release an M(240) version of the Monochrom, discontinue the M-E and pass the sensor problem back to the supplier (Truesense), assuming of course that they still have that ability. Leica has no interest (and a very poor track record) in maintaining upgrades for discontinued products (M8 LCD, firmware upgrades for the M9 etc). Trueness won't have any interest in finding a solution if it doesn't have an ongoing relationship with Leica for sensor supplies - Leica has its own source now with CMOSIS. As many have said here, despite the "Leica for life" inducements expressly made by Leica, these are disposable electronic products with very limited supported usable life (considering the price).

 

I don't mean to sound cynical, I'm just pointing out that there is a huge disconnect between Leica's history, values and ethos, and how they have managed their digital offerings - the quality, supply chain-management and workmanship of the digital components and firmware simply doesn't match the work the Leica does itself (shutters, bodies, rangefinders, optics). If it wants to retain its loyal followers and its position in the market, it needs to get on top of this.

 

I would still buy future Leica products, but I did not buy either my M9 or my Monochrom to sell on or to throw in the bin after 10 years (less than that for M8 owners). I bought it expecting I would be able to continue to get it serviced (at my cost after the warrant expired) for as long as I want to use it. That is what Leica offered.

 

As an aside, Leica was unable to repair my 1960 Elmar 135/4 - I received a statement this week from CS that "all lenses made before 1963 and/or serial number 2.3xx.xxx can no longer be serviced"; not sure why that is, but that's 50 years ago. Can't really complain about that. Conversely, the M8 repair policy looks remarkably different. I'm holding my breath for a similar statement about M9 sensors (despite the 10 year from discontinuing the Monochrom and M-E, which are still in the catalogue).

 

Cheers

John

[DigitalHeMan]

English may only be my first language, but your reference to 24 hours is clearly dismissive and misleading - Leica has known of this issue for months if not years (I had a delaminated sensor replaced in 2011).

 

So, they have known about it for a considerable period. Where does 24 hours come in? I may have missed it, but no one here has said they expect their cameras to be fixed in 24 hours, unless you're just reducing the annoyance of some here to the absurd to ridicule their position?

 

I must be missing something you're saying Jaap, as you seem to be the only one mentioning 24 hours.

 

 

I think you need to read it in context as in 'Rome wasn't built in a day', meaning it's not a problem Leica are going to be able to solve overnight....

[jaapv]

English may only be my first language, but your reference to 24 hours is clearly dismissive and misleading - Leica has known of this issue for months if not years (I had a delaminated sensor replaced in 2011).

 

So, they have known about it for a considerable period. Where does 24 hours come in? I may have missed it, but no one here has said they expect their cameras to be fixed in 24 hours, unless you're just reducing the annoyance of some here to the absurd to ridicule their position?

 

I must be missing something you're saying Jaap, as you seem to be the only one mentioning 24 hours.

I think you may be reading things that are not there. Being a first language; I'm not sure that is a recommendation...Joseph Conrad was Polish iirc...

However, language has little to do with it, I see it more as a breakdown of logic. Just read it as an analog of "Rome was not built in one day" I assume it took quite a while to get planning permission .

edit : Sorry Simon, I see you used the same example...

Edited December 16, 2014 by jaapv

[IkarusJohn]

I do understand that, but I read your comment as dismissive. My apologies if that was not your intention (hence my first language reference - credit to your fluency in English).

 

However, as this issue has actually been around for some years, the Rome wasn't built in a day metaphor is not relevant. Leica has actually been aware of this issue and sitting on it for much longer than a day. What seems to have stimulated Stefan Daniel's praiseworthy re-write of Leica's initially less than impressive response (and it is praiseworthy) was loud pressure from this forum. I find that unseemly.

 

In my profession, hard work, honesty and integrity are everything; if you lose your reputation, you are sunk. I don't see Leica as being any different as it was it's reputation and its relationship with loyal customers which kept it afloat during those dark years before the M9. Responding properly, reluctantly and only after considerable pressure (including a signed letter on the German forum) is less than what Leica should have done - they got there in the end, but using your analogy, Rome would have been built eventually, but Romulus and Remus would have been long dead ...

[DigitalHeMan]

I do understand that, but I read your comment as dismissive. My apologies if that was not your intention (hence my first language reference - credit to your fluency in English).

 

 

 

However, as this issue has actually been around for some years, the Rome wasn't built in a day metaphor is not relevant. Leica has actually been aware of this issue and sitting on it for much longer than a day. What seems to have stimulated Stefan Daniel's praiseworthy re-write of Leica's initially less than impressive response (and it is praiseworthy) was loud pressure from this forum. I find that unseemly.

 

 

 

In my profession, hard work, honesty and integrity are everything; if you lose your reputation, you are sunk. I don't see Leica as being any different as it was it's reputation and its relationship with loyal customers which kept it afloat during those dark years before the M9. Responding properly reluctantly and only after considerable pressure (including a signed letter on the German forum) is less than what Leica should have done - they got there in the end, but using your analogy, Rome would have been built eventually, but Romulus and Remus would have been long dead ...

 

 

I think you're reading things too literally. You might want to check http://www.quora.com/How-many-days-did-it-take-to-build-Rome

[IkarusJohn]

Come on Simon - Jaap referred to 24 hours in response to justified concern. Even taking into account the Rome allusion (oblique as it was), the only reason for Jaap to make the comment was to suggest that those complaining were being unreasonable.

 

That comment by Jaap was dismissive of genuine concern (by which I mean disrespectful) and inaccurate. Let's not get too carried away with Roman mythology - I didn't raise it. I take it we can challenge the perception of others?

 

Just remember that there seem to be plenty of examples of Leica charging for sensor replacement when they were aware of the issue - mine was replaced without charge years ago, for exactly this problem.

[mmradman]

Let's keep Roman metaphors out of this thread.

 

What is current situation?

Sooner or later most or significant number of M9/MM cameras would develop delimitation. As Leica made pledge that faulty sensors would be replaced free of charge regardless of the age of the camera thousands of sensors would need replacing. Manufacturer pledge would be valid for set number of years (seven or eight i think) after the discontinuation of ME & MM cameras, again thousands of sensor to stock. Any deviation from this could damage reputation beyond repair and shiny new premises in Wetzlar could be hosting some other business in couple years of time. For Leica it would not be economical to replace faulty sensors for M9/MM for ever so pragmatic solution is required.

 

How to fix this mess?

Every adversity is potentially profitable opportunity - if handled correctly. Solution that would satisfy client base and keep Leica's service bill bearable is to find fix for faulty sensor that works for number of years in keeping with industry standards for similar components - minimum 10 to 15 years before failure. Source replacement of the existing cover glass and test before offering replacement sensor to clients. Here is the best part; possible opportunity for which Leica would be entitled to charge is to tweak (improve) the whole sensor motherboard assembly and offer enhanced upgrade - this would be first in the industry and people would be talking in a positive way for a very long time. In event that M9/MM future can be secured biggest problem would be sourcing batteries 10 years from now. Good reviews would help to increase sales of current and future models.

 

p.s. If Leica is reading this and find ideas sound and workable and decide to implement i will happily take my commission in kind, new M body would do fine, thank you.

[jaapv]

Sorry John you are talking nonsense. You are ascribing motives that did not even cross my mind. I am saying Leica will not solve this in a day and that is all despite everything you attempt to read into it. And you are forgetting my own MM is languishing in Wetzlar with the measles...

Edited December 16, 2014 by jaapv

[plasticman]

Sorry John you are talking nonsense. You are ascribing motives that did not even cross my mind. I am saying Leica will not solve this in a day and that is all despite everything you attempt to read into it. And you are forgetting my own MM is languishing in Wetzlar with the measles...

 

I think what John is saying is crystal clear: Leica have had more than "a day" to fix the problem (and he doesn't mean 'this week' either).

You seem to be implying that the clock started ticking when the Internet storm forced a change in policy, whereas it amazes some of us that the company didn't appear to think it was a priority to find and fix the problem sometime over the last three or so years, as the fault gradually manifested itself in more and more cameras.

[jaapv]

And to me it is crystal clear that Leica only realized that this was a systematic problem instead of an incidental one a short while ago. This is borne out by the fact that the number of cameras coming in was not large enough to trigger an alarm. And when it was noticed (probably when that silly cleaning e-mail was sent) that caused quite a bit of confusion (see the initial post by Leica) with the top management making a clear decision in the end. Like it or not, the end result is that an acceptable solution is in place and that a permanent solution is being sought.

Now we can only wait whether a technical remedy can be found. It is clearly in everybody's interest. But it will take time, as I pointed out.

Attacking my post for imagined slights cannot change the course of events. It is totally beyond me how somebody can read " it will take more than 24 hours [to rectify]" as "they have only known for 24 hours" which is obvious balderdash, as it conflicts with the course of events in this same thread...

 

Of course with perfect hindsight somebody might have twigged that something was wrong a long time ago. But nobody did...

Edited December 16, 2014 by jaapv

[IkarusJohn]

Just for clarification, I checked back through my emails, and my sensor delamination (which was probably one of the first) was in November 2011. If you search back through the forum, I think I posted an image showing the skin disease texture on the sensor (like eczema)- no one really knew what it was at that time, and Leica simply replaced the sensor.

 

It may be clear to you, Jaap, that Leica only realised that this was "a systemic problem ... a short while ago" but I don't really think that is plausible. It is far more consistent with the other issues Leica has struck since it ventured into digital M cameras that it rather hoped the problem would just go away until it was forced to act, and then forced to act more reasonably.

 

I'd be astonished if Leica was that disconnected with digital technology that it didn't monitor defects in its products as they were submitted, and if they didn't identify a trend long before forum members did the same thing and start posting here - that is very unlikely.

[jaapv]

Actually my sources claim the number of delaminating sensors was very small (at least the number of owners noticing it). In that light I cannot find it surprising that they thought the solution was simply replacing - until somebody noticed there was a pattern, obviously.

I would like to point out that Sony never upgraded the sensor they sold to Leica and Panasonic for the Digilux 2 etc, they simply replaced - sometimes three times. Nikon had to be forced into doing something about the D600 sensors by lawsuits and I am sure there are more examples. So it seems this policy is not unknown in the industry.

Actually, in this light, Leica appears to be on the side of the angels..

If they had silently continued their free replacement policy, I doubt whether anybody would have noticed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[erl]

Ah! Remember the days when, if you got a crook film, you just dumped it and put a new film in, yourself.

 

Since my M9 is in 'hospital' with 'it ', I shall go and air my M6 and M7 over the coming season and try an assortment of 'sensors'.