Reid Review on M9 sensors

[jevidon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean Reid in his Reid Reviews has an excellent article on the M9 sensor corrosion issue.

 

Reid Reviews is subscription only and it cannot be copied for reading here. But for those of us that are subscribers I recommend that you read it.

 

For those who do not subscribe, he makes an excellent point. Nikon D70 and D80 series had a similar problem which Nikon typically ignored but would grudgingly replace the sensors if the customer made a stink.

 

He does not make reference to the now famous D600 debacle which Nikon only acknowledged and corrected after the Chinese government decided to ban their products.

 

But he does talk about the policy change at Nikon. Nikon has now changed their tune and it's latest design flaw is on the new D750 which has a light flare problem in the area between the rear lens element and the sensor surface. Without prompting, Nikon is making good on all of the cameras affected.

 

Compare that with Leica which, as soon as it realized that the M9 sensor problem was really a sensor cover design problem and not customer cleaning abuse, immediately made good on the issue by announcing free sensor replacements, reimbursement to all who had paid to have it done and a promise to work to resolve the problem permanently. That decision will cost Leica a lot of money, but acknowledging that customers have a right to expect nothing less from a premium company is bound to pay off in future customer loyalty. Loyalty is a two way street; something that the three other big four companies, now excluding Nikon, have yet to learn.

[IkarusJohn]

Not really better informed having read it, I'd have to say ...

[Advertisement]

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

[DwF]

Thank you for sharing the info behind this article.

 

I regularly receive Sean Reid email informing me of his latest article. This is the first one that gave me pause to consider re-ing up on the newsletter. Nothing bad about his newsletter but I haven't felt any pressing need to read about gear because I know what I like and what works for me (these days Fuji)

 

That said, I miss my M9 and find Leica vague in their language regarding sensors and replacement.

 

So my question is:

 

If I buy a used one now (I would register it), am I eligible for a sensor replacement down the road, and at what cost? I recently looked at an M9 that was very clean and I am pretty certain free of any corrosion issue, but even now the investment in an M9 is significant.

[zlatkob]

So my question is:

 

If I buy a used one now (I would register it), am I eligible for a sensor replacement down the road, and at what cost? I recently looked at an M9 that was very clean and I am pretty certain free of any corrosion issue, but even now the investment in an M9 is significant.

 

That's a good question. The M9 can be bought used for around $3k, sometimes with relatively few shutter actuations. That makes it pretty attractive and more affordable than ever. But is a 2nd or 3rd owner assured that Leica will replace the sensor 5-10 years from now, or whenever that corrosion issue shows up?

[wattsy]

But is a 2nd or 3rd owner assured that Leica will replace the sensor 5-10 years from now, or whenever that corrosion issue shows up?

 

Yes, Alfred Schopf has confirmed this, albeit via the recent cross-forum posting "an interview with the CEO" rather an official Leica statement. Whilst this confirms that this is Leica's position and their intention there is no guarantee of course that the sensors will still be available in "5-10" years. Leica's policy appears to be to not stockpile the sensors but to order a batch of sensors as and when they need them.

[jaapv]

Thank you for sharing the info behind this article.

 

I regularly receive Sean Reid email informing me of his latest article. This is the first one that gave me pause to consider re-ing up on the newsletter. Nothing bad about his newsletter but I haven't felt any pressing need to read about gear because I know what I like and what works for me (these days Fuji)

 

That said, I miss my M9 and find Leica vague in their language regarding sensors and replacement.

 

So my question is:

 

If I buy a used one now (I would register it), am I eligible for a sensor replacement down the road, and at what cost? I recently looked at an M9 that was very clean and I am pretty certain free of any corrosion issue, but even now the investment in an M9 is significant.

I fail to see what is vague about the statement. They'll replace the sensor at zero cost or if so desired by the customer, make an offer. This is a company based in Europe. It would not enter their mind to differentiate between first or subsequent owners. Guaranty over here is on the product.

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Compare that with Leica which, as soon as it realized that the M9 sensor problem was really a sensor cover design problem and not customer cleaning abuse, immediately made good on the issue by announcing free sensor replacements, reimbursement to all who had paid to have it done and a promise to work to resolve the problem permanently.

 

Yes, but this isn't what happened. Leica have for some time been aware that there was a problem with sensor corrosion that was not the customer's fault. Faced with an increasing numbers of sensor replacements during the last year or so, Leica started to charge some customers to do the work. This vague position was later (around September 2014) turned into formal policy – Leica would only replace these sensors for free if the camera was less than three years old. Owners of older cameras would be charged on a sliding scale. I know this was the case because the policy was communicated to me by Leica in respect of my Monochrom (and later confirmed in the now well known post made here by a Leica employee). It was only after the subsequent uproar here and elsewhere that Leica had a rethink and introduced their new "goodwill guarantee".

[DwF]

I fail to see what is vague about the statement. They'll replace the sensor at zero cost or if so desired by the customer, make an offer. This is a company based in Europe. It would not enter their mind to differentiate between first or subsequent owners. Guaranty over here is on the product.

 

With all due respect, it strikes me as vague when Leica is not specific with regard to a time limit on this "offer". I know they don't stockpile, as became clear with M8 LCD replacements. While Leica may not differentiate in first or subsequent owners, they sell their cameras here in the states where that distinction is made vis a vis warranties. And we deal with Leica in New Jersey so it really would be helpful to have specific detail. Once again, with the statement they published, I trust if I had a corroded sensor and sent it in now, they'd replace it. I am concerned about 2-4 years from now, because even purchasing an M9 at 3K, that is a significant investment for me.

 

I did read about the trade, and it is very reasonable gesture, but the M9 is the camera that interests me, and I imagine a trade on a replacement would be beyond what I'd want to spend.

 

Thank you all for taking time to respond here.

 

David

[jevidon]

Thank you for sharing the info behind this article.

.......So my question is:

 

If I buy a used one now (I would register it), am I eligible for a sensor replacement down the road, and at what cost? I recently looked at an M9 that was very clean and I am pretty certain free of any corrosion issue, but even now the investment in an M9 is significant.

 

DWF,

 

I bought my M9 used last year. I registered it on line with Leica. I had some problems since it was originally purchased in Milan and I didn't have the original papers with the camera. Between the dealer in CA where I live and LeicaUSA the problem was resolved and my M9 was registered with me as owner.

 

I sent my M9 into Leica in Nov. 2014 for the M9P upgrade and in passing I mentioned that there were spots on the sensor I couldn't get rid of. I asked that they clean the sensor. At the time I was unaware of the M9 corrosion problem.

 

Leica informed me that they were replacing the sensor at no cost in addition to the upgrade and my camera would be delayed until the sensor came in. It was only while I was waiting for my camera to complete the upgrade that I found out about the sensor corrosion issue on this and other forums. I have the camera back and turn around time was delayed only two weeks because of the wait for the new sensor. It looks beautiful and operates better, smoother and quieter than before.

 

I don't know if this answers your question, but Leica knew from their records that I was not the original owner and the sensor was replaced on their initiative without any discussion with me beforehand.

 

Your satisfaction cannot be guaranteed by my experience, but it should give you reason to be optimistic about it. Does this answer your question?

[jevidon]

Yes, but this isn't what happened. Leica have for some time been aware that there was a problem with sensor corrosion that was not the customer's fault. ........

 

Wattsy,

 

What is the source of your information that Leica knew there was a problem with the sensor design and/or manufacturing processes?

 

Certainly, they knew the were getting an unusual number of cameras coming in with damaged sensors. Because the only sensor cleaning solutions on the market that do not leave residue contain methanol, and methanol will eat away the sensor coating, they assumed that the damage was caused by the customer"s cleaning practices That is what the record shows. You can believe what you want. Evil conspiracies and rapacious corporations are all the vogue these days if we can believe the media. And what would the media be without bad guys?

 

In the camera business this has been true in the case of Nikon in the past and no doubt some of the other big players who do not worry about the loss of a customer here and there since they make it up in high sales volume. Leica on the other hand has only a reputation to sell. How else can they expect to sell cameras priced as luxury items and survive for nearly 100 years while doing it?

 

I am willing to believe Leica in this instance that they had a mistaken but good faith belief that the sensors were being damaged by inappropriate cleaning methods. Why am I so willing to believe Leica? Because I was treated fairly and with the utmost courtesy.

Edited January 12, 2015 by jaapv
repair quote

[MarkP]

Not really better informed having read it, I'd have to say ...

 

 

My thoughts exactly with respect to the Leica sensor but I didn't know about the Nikon issue.

[jaapv]

With all due respect, it strikes me as vague when Leica is not specific with regard to a time limit on this "offer". I know they don't stockpile, as became clear with M8 LCD replacements. While Leica may not differentiate in first or subsequent owners, they sell their cameras here in the states where that distinction is made vis a vis warranties. And we deal with Leica in New Jersey so it really would be helpful to have specific detail. Once again, with the statement they published, I trust if I had a corroded sensor and sent it in now, they'd replace it. I am concerned about 2-4 years from now, because even purchasing an M9 at 3K, that is a significant investment for me.

 

I did read about the trade, and it is very reasonable gesture, but the M9 is the camera that interests me, and I imagine a trade on a replacement would be beyond what I'd want to spend.

 

Thank you all for taking time to respond here.

 

David

There is no time limit in Leica's offer. Obviously there is a natural limit in the availability of sensors, that is obvious.

Not being able to predict the future, it cannot be part of such a statement.

 

As Leica''s policy is to have a ten year repairability period after discontinuation of a camera. If that fails, as is sadly (rarely) the case in this day and age they will accomodate the customer in some way.

 

So you are safe for at least ten years after the discontinuation of the ME and Monochrom.

 

The American folklore of shutting second owners out of guaranty does not apply in this case, as Mr. Schopf clearly said. You will always have the option of dealing with Wetzlar directly too

Edited January 12, 2015 by jaapv

[jaapv]

You will always have the option of dealing with Wetzlar directly too

 

I wonder, what would happen, legally speaking, if the owner of a used camera, encountering this strange situation were to demand that Leica USA send the camera to Wetzlar for a (free) repair.

[wattsy]

I am willing to believe Leica in this instance that they had a mistaken but good faith belief that the sensors were being damaged by inappropriate cleaning methods. Why am I so willing to believe Leica? Because I was treated fairly and with the utmost courtesy.

 

Your faith in Leica is touching. As recently as September I was told by a well respected Leica employee in customer care (not a dealer or salesperson) that (and I am quoting almost verbatim) "Leica are cracking down on free sensor replacements" because the problem was getting out of hand and was proving unaffordable. I was told at that point that Leica still didn't fully understand the delamination problem but it is clear from the emailed advice made in early July (the email with the priceless suggestion that you should avoid using apertures smaller than F4*) that wet cleaning was thought to be the catalyst for the problem. It doesn't make any difference whether Leica ('after-the-fact') had determined that wet cleaning was an "inappropriate method" to use with these cameras (that is beside the point entirely), a policy was introduced that sensor replacements for this problem would be chargeable for cameras more than three years old. That policy was later communicated to this forum by a Leica employee. It was only after the furore created in the wake of that information that the company had a rethink and backtracked from that previously stated policy and introduced a new "goodwill guarantee". This change of heart has nothing whatsoever to do with any "mistaken but good faith belief", it was purely a reactive response to the public reception of the previous announcement, a bit of PR management. A U-turn, call it what you like.

 

*"It is better not to stop down any further than f/4, particularly when capturing subjects with homogeneous areas, for example large expanses of sky." This piece of cretinous advice just goes to show how out of touch the company can be from the real world of photographers using the cameras and £3500 lenses to take photos. Utterly priceless.

Edited January 12, 2015 by wattsy

[DwF]

Thank you all gentlemen. Obviously the discussion continues, and clearly for me, it will be whether I can resist picking up another M9, casting some fate to the wind, and just go out shooting!

[jaapv]

Your faith in Leica is touching. As recently as September I was told by a well respected Leica employee in customer care (not a dealer or salesperson) that (and I am quoting almost verbatim) "Leica are cracking down on free sensor replacements" because the problem was getting out of hand and was proving unaffordable. I was told at that point that Leica still didn't fully understand the delamination problem but it is clear from the emailed advice made in early July (the email with the priceless suggestion that you should avoid using apertures smaller than F4*) that wet cleaning was thought to be the catalyst for the problem. It doesn't make any difference whether Leica ('after-the-fact') had determined that wet cleaning was an "inappropriate method" to use with these cameras (that is beside the point entirely), a policy was introduced that sensor replacements for this problem would be chargeable for cameras more than three years old. That policy was later communicated to this forum by a Leica employee. It was only after the furore created in the wake of that information that the company had a rethink and backtracked from that previously stated policy and introduced a new "goodwill guarantee". This change of heart has nothing whatsoever to do with any "mistaken but good faith belief", it was purely a reactive response to the public reception of the previous announcement, a bit of PR management. A U-turn, call it what you like.

 

*"It is better not to stop down any further than f/4, particularly when capturing subjects with homogeneous areas, for example large expanses of sky." This piece of cretinous advice just goes to show how out of touch the company can be from the real world of photographers using the cameras and £3500 lenses to take photos. Utterly priceless.

Well, it is better than to be forced by class actions and governement intervention to grudgingly change a policy on several occasions. At least Leica took just about a week to make this "U-turn" and did so wholeheartedly.

[wattsy]

Well, it is better than to be forced by class actions and governement intervention to grudgingly change a policy on several occasions. At least Leica took just about a week to make this "U-turn" and did so wholeheartedly.

 

I don't disagree and I would go further and say that Leica have a history of often going beyond the words of a guarantee and putting right things that many other companies wouldn't do. However, I think it is important that history isn't rewritten by fans of the company when the facts tell a very different story in this particular case. Jevidon's spin on the story that Leica's decision to reverse the policy of charging was because the company, late in the day, discovered that the delamination problem was a design error and not caused by "inappropriate cleaning methods" is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened and the motivations behind the different decisions.

[Berth]

I have written confirmation from Leica Customer Service, both US and Germany, that they will replace sensors suffering from the corrosion issue for all owners, whether original or buyers of used cameras.

[jaapv]

I don't disagree and I would go further and say that Leica have a history of often going beyond the words of a guarantee and putting right things that many other companies wouldn't do. However, I think it is important that history isn't rewritten by fans of the company when the facts tell a very different story in this particular case. Jevidon's spin on the story that Leica's decision to reverse the policy of charging was because the company, late in the day, discovered that the delamination problem was a design error and not caused by "inappropriate cleaning methods" is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened and the motivations behind the different decisions.

I cannot but agree, having been one of the loudest screamers myself....

I would like to add, though, that the problem apparently seemed marginal at first because of the limited number of affected cameras coming in and the "sensor cleaning mail"was probably written after -and inspired by- alarm bells starting ringing because of rising percentages. That is my impression fwiiw.

Edited January 12, 2015 by jaapv

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[GlennB]

Because the only sensor cleaning solutions on the market that do not leave residue contain methanol, and methanol will eat away the sensor coating, they assumed that the damage was caused by the customer"s cleaning practices .

 

I have not read this about methanol before. Where did you get this information? I would like to read about this.

 

I know this is off topic, but as this was brought up here, I'll go ahead:

 

I believe that Eclipse cleaning fluid is methanol, and the discontinued Eclipse II was a mix of methanol, IPA, and maybe ethanol. Eclipse says the regular Eclipse is safe for all sensors.

 

I am confused; Leica once stated to use IPA (isopropyl alcohol) to clean the M9 sensor, while the current manufacturer ON Semiconductor says to use only pure ethanol to clean the sensor. If I find I have no choice but to do a wet cleaning, which do I use?

Edited January 13, 2015 by GlennB