Strange white spots on M9 sensor?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The poor soul who announced this ....

 

They packed his worldly goods into a spotted handkerchief, tied to a stick over his shoulder and sent him out into the wide world.

 

Wilson

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Firefly]

I don't suppose anyone expected a Digital M to last as long as a fully mechanical or indeed something like an M7, but the idea that it will suffer from sensor failure after such a short time and become uneconomic to repair when it fails again at 7/8 years old probably didn't occur either. Obviously there are those with enough disposable income to carry on regardless but I am thinking what it thought to be a rich mans camera will be turned into a richer mans camera, I cannot see much of a secondhand market for such an item, cheers Rob

[Advertisement]

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

[M9reno]

Well, of course they are. Anyone who bought a digital Leica were deluding themselves if they thought it would have the productive life of a mechanical M. I do think that Leica may have intitially encouraged that sort of thinking with their marketing, but, alas, marketing is just that, marketing. Its up to the consumer to use their common sense, and common sense should have told you that any product built with electronic circuits and computerized components will have a lmited functional life. You don't buy your iPhone thinking you're going to gift it to your grandchildren, right?

 

That's the reality of the digital age.

 

Yes, yes. Common sense is not entirely alien to me, but I still hit my head (unavoidably it seems - as seen on many posts on this form, going back several years) on this point. No one, including me, bought a Leica M9 as a future heirloom. But I certainly did not expect to feel nervous, as I do now (only three years after purchase) about destroying the camera's sensor - and having to pay for a replacement - by corrosion induced apparently by wet-cleaning, however carefully done.

 

From what I gather in this thread, the only sensible way to proceed now is: 1) to take the camera to Leica in London each time the sensor needs cleaning; 2) not to clean the sensor at all; OR 3) continue to clean the sensor at home as before, but take the risk of significant damage and its cost.

 

Pretty absurd, I think, for such an expensive, three-year old, interchangeable-lens camera.

[k-hawinkler]

If your camera or mine develops lepracy it surely doesn't care WHO did the wet cleaning!

So I will continue to do it myself. Luckily wet cleaning is rarely needed after almost 5 years of use.

[leicaphilia]

Yes, yes. Common sense is not entirely alien to me, but I still hit my head (unavoidably it seems - as seen on many posts on this form, going back several years) on this point. No one, including me, bought a Leica M9 as a future heirloom. But I certainly did not expect to feel nervous, as I do now (only three years after purchase) about destroying the camera's sensor - and having to pay for a replacement - by corrosion induced apparently by wet-cleaning, however carefully done.

 

From what I gather in this thread, the only sensible way to proceed now is: 1) to take the camera to Leica in London each time the sensor needs cleaning; 2) not to clean the sensor at all; OR 3) continue to clean the sensor at home as before, but take the risk of significant damage and its cost.

 

Pretty absurd, I think, for such an expensive, three-year old, interchangeable-lens camera.

 

On reflection, my post may have seemed a bit harsh to you. It wasn't meant to be directed at you personally, so my apologies. I do think my points are valid, but I also do think your's are as well. A $6000 digital M should have a shelf life of more than three years. If I had invested in a new M9, i'd expect it to be in good nick in 6-8 years minimum.

[geotrupede]

Cleaning Digital Sensors, Cleaning Digital Cameras - Photographic Solutions, Inc. - Digital & Photographic Cleaning Solutions - Photographic Solutions | Photographic Solutions

eclipse description seems to imply it can be used, swab sizes listed include m9 mm me etc

so what is the true story?

g

[dante]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Based on this thread, we feel the need to clarifying a couple of things about the sensor marks issue you have been experiencing. The issue is linked with corrosion effects on the cover glass of the CCD sensor in Leica M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M-E cameras. They manifest themselves as marks on images captured at smaller apertures (f/5.6-22).

 

Let me guess - it's the Schott BG38, BG39, or S8612 cover glass that when exposed to any kind of moisture starts to degrade and corrode. Corrosion of ionically colored glass is well documented - by Schott itself. Optical and hard coatings tend to seal out a lot of the moisture, but the tiniest pore in the coating will let it in. Not tremendously surprising. Was this because a layer was removed from the filter pack?

 

Please take back to management these three points (which others have made).

 

1. It would be nice if Leica could stock filter cover glass (like other makes do) instead of replacing entire sensor/board assemblies.The latter seems very wasteful, and given the non-contact cleaning warning, no one wants to choose between taking an expensive risk and spending weeks without a camera (which may come back with dust on it again anyway).

 

2. Camera sensors should not self-destruct under what in the digital camera world would be normal use (bulb cleaning fairly frequently with occasional wet cleaning). As others have said, contact cleaning is an unavoidable fact of life.

 

3. Although issues like this don't directly affect me (because I have an M typ 240), this makes me very nervous about buying a current Monochrom, which I hoped to do early next year.

 

Dante

[Ario Arioldi]

Based on this thread, we feel the need to clarifying a couple of things about the sensor marks issue you have been experiencing. The issue is linked with corrosion effects on the cover glass of the CCD sensor in Leica M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M-E cameras. They manifest themselves as marks on images captured at smaller apertures (f/5.6-22). The new Leica M (Type 240) with the CMOS sensor is not affected by this problem. We are truly sorry for the inconvenience encountered and we have set up the following scheme for servicing the sensors of the products affected. Please be aware that a contact-free cleaning of the sensor is essential in preventing the issue.

 

• Customer care will perform sensor cleaning free of charge by prior arrangement.

• 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. This does not apply to sensors damaged by scratching or breakage of the sensor glass.

• In the fourth and fifth year following the date of purchase, sensors damaged by the corrosion effects described will be replaced for a fixed charge of 600 euros plus applicable VAT. Leica Camera AG will cover the remaining costs of 1,200 euros.

• In the sixth and seventh year following the date of purchase, sensor replacement will be offered at a fixed charge of 1,200 euros plus applicable VAT. Leica Camera AG will cover the remaining costs of 600 euros.

• For the eighth and more years following the date of purchase, sensor replacement will be offered at a fixed charge of 1,500 euros plus applicable VAT. Leica Camera AG will cover the remaining costs of 300 euros.

• The prices stated apply for direct shipment of the camera to Leica Customer Care in Wetzlar or the Customer Care department of a national distributor. Additional costs may arise when the camera is sent to Leica through a dealer.

• Mandatory warranty conditions will apply after customers have taken advantage of the extended goodwill arrangement.

• As longer waiting times may otherwise occur, the camera should only be sent to Customer Care after prior arrangement.

•

We will continue watching this thread so you are welcome to react here.

 

^JJ with Leica-camera

Thanks for clarifying but now I think there is some more question to be addressed:

 

-Have the corroding agents been identified?

-Is the corrosion only due to contact cleaning?

-Is there any effective cleaning agent/method which can be safely used?

-And if there is none how Customer Care can perform a proper cleaning without damaging the cover glass?

-If the damage occurs due to the cleaning performed by Customer Care will the above stated policy still be applicable?

-What will happen if a sensor replaced under the above policy gets again damaged by corrosion? Are the sensor used for replacement corrosion free?

Thanks in advance.

Edited November 23, 2014 by Ario Arioldi

[Vobluda]

Leica is becoming more and more ridiculous, having a worldwide monopoly in certain market and treating customers like this. And it is not only service policy but pricing as well.

Time to move this to the European Commission..

[M-Mount]

Let me guess - it's the Schott BG38, BG39, or S8612 cover glass that when exposed to any kind of moisture starts to degrade and corrode. Corrosion of ionically colored glass is well documented - by Schott itself.

 

Where is that documented?

[Michael Markey]

I don't think at that stage they had any idea what they were doing, little understanding of the technology.

 

Gerry

 

 

Agreed but they should have had ... a point now not lost on them, I suspect.

I suggest that the put that spade down before they dig themselves a deeper hole.

[wlaidlaw]

Where is that documented?

 

Given that the sensors for the M8, 9 and MM are made in the USA, I would not be at all surprised if the cover glasses were not Schott but Corning.

 

Wilson

[M-Mount]

Given that the sensors for the M8, 9 and MM are made in the USA, I would not be at all surprised if the cover glasses were not Schott but Corning.

 

Wilson

 

Read the data sheet

[M9reno]

3. Although issues like this don't directly affect me (because I have an M typ 240), this makes me very nervous about buying a current Monochrom, which I hoped to do early next year.

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.

[edwardkaraa]

I am very sure this wet cleaning issue is total BS. I bought my camera new and it started to show the delamination spots just a few weeks later. They might have been there since the beginning but I probably didn't bother to look for them in a new camera.

 

Many people I know had delaminating sensor coatings even though they never cleaned their sensors. By the time the MM came out, many people who bought them where already aware of the M9 problem. I confess to have cleaned mine, but not before I saw many spots, that I thought were dried oil, but turned out to be bubbles in the coatings that no cleaning can remove.

 

I believe that delamination will happen whether you wet clean or not. It's just a matter of time, and probably some humidity.

[geotrupede]

LEICA should really send an email to owners and explain about the issue, openly.

Because if we keep looking around the most incredible theories may start popping out.

 

Here is my incredible absurd set of questions:

 

1)

Check specification of sensor, uses a glass cover from Schott.

http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/KAF-18500-D.PDF

Sensor glass cover: AR coated (S8612)

This sounds like S8612.

 

2)

Check this document:

http://www.phy.davidson.edu/fachome/dmb/RESolGelGlass/manuals/schottglassfilters.pdf

 

"Group 3 Symbol: [!!]

In filter glass types UG5, UG11, BG39, S8612, S8022 and S8023 a change in the glass surface is possible within a few months during normal storage. For this reason, we recommend a protective coating or lamination to a durable filter glass from Group 1 (SCHOTT can do both)."

 

3)

And this document:

http://www.howardglass.com/pdf/s_8612_datasheet.pdf

"[!!]

protective coatings recommended

Long-term changes in the polished

surface are possible"

 

 

Now the question is:

 

Did Leica/Kodak include a protective coating for the sensor filter?

We would hope so....

 

Some users said they never cleaned the sensor and yet corrosion happened.

We know that sensors are cleaned in Leica before going out.

So every sensor is cleaned at some stage....

 

Could it simply be that cleaning and friction can damage this coating and thus expose the S8612 layer? Maybe this protective layer is too delicate?

Or maybe is not applied consistently on all sensors?

 

Sounds like this may be class action matter...

unless it is all about a wrong method for cleaning and the liquid used.

Would be good to know what the problem is for real.

G.

[M-Mount]

It has an protective AR coating on both sides and is glued to the sensor

[geotrupede]

Thanks, yes, but then how comes there is corrosion?

Could it be alcohol damaging the AR coating?

Could it be AR coating not done properly?

Because something must be, given there is an issue.

G

 

PS

more on glass.

checking Kodak sensor specs comes out like the MF ones use always this glass:

http://www.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/download/schott-d-263-t-eco-thin-glass-may-2013-eng.pdf

this particular glass has a 'high chemical resistance'

maybe the old story of M8 not having a filter was for a reason after all...

it could be that this has to be so thin and extreme to result weak to chemicals and cleaning...

Edited November 23, 2014 by geotrupede
added some more info

[andybarton]

Any other companies having similar issues?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[wattsy]

I doubt it.