Leica Upgrade program for M9 ( corrosion of sensor)

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps, but not if there is a significant probability that the problem will develop sooner or later anyway. We have no guarantee that Leica will keep the free replacement system indefinately.

Currently Leica will replce an affected sensor - with the same sensor - but say they are working on a permanent solution - which this is clearly not. So replacing one unaffected sensor with another unaffected sensor makes no sense;).

[Guest]

Perhaps, but not if there is a significant probability that the problem will develop sooner or later anyway. We have no guarantee that Leica will keep the free replacement system indefinately.

 

I think the only thing you can guarantee is that the free replacement will not last forever. My understanding is that in the UK the sale of goods act required that a product should be fit for purpose for 6years and it is the dealers responsibility to honour this if a product is not fit for purpose . If the majority of M9 cameras require a new sensor due to delamination within eg 4/5 year period the camera is not fit for purpose. Many countries prob have similar laws.Personally I am not too stressed about the whole pantomime but I do not see me myself spending anything like the money I have invested with Leica equipment in the past.

BrianP

[michali]

I couldn't agree more Brian.

I'm sitting with 3 affected cameras: MM, M9 & M9P Upgraded -the last one is so bad it's unusable.

 

The fact that Leica say they'll sort it out, does make me more comfortable.

I don't get stressed about these things, but nonetheless I'm still reasonably pissed off, to say the least.

 

I also can't see myself spending the insane amounts I've spent on Leica equipment in the past...

[jaapv]

Currently Leica will replce an affected sensor - with the same sensor - but say they are working on a permanent solution - which this is clearly not. So replacing one unaffected sensor with another unaffected sensor makes no sense;).

 

It does make sense - they have to tide the affected users over.

[otto.f]

Maybe Leica should restrict itself to making lenses and leave the cameradesign to some Asian partner, what Zeiss did. Except for the SL2 and the M3-M7, their camera designs and production were far from flawless or really attractive given their price

[pop]

Maybe Leica should restrict itself to making lenses and leave the cameradesign to some Asian partner, what Zeiss did. Except for the SL2 and the M3-M7, their camera designs and production were far from flawless or really attractive given their price

Not so. The M is immensely attractive. I have yet to see any flawless digital device, no matter its origin.

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M8's magenta cast and the M9's delamination are big unforeseen flaws and for the status of the name Leica quite dramatic

[pop]

And even so, they and the MM have their staunch followers, as have the X, S and Ts.

[Guest]

The M8's magenta cast and the M9's delamination are big unforeseen flaws and for the status of the name Leica quite dramatic

 

Leica where well aware of the magenta problem before the camera was released . The delamination problem is a direct result of Leica having a poor solution to the magenta problem ie the protective cover for the sensor not being of an adequate design.

BrianP

[Lenshacker]

In terms of digital sensor design, Leica and Kodak pushed leading edge to bleeding edge. Offset microlenses, thin sensor stack, IR cover glass. The M8- safe IR cover glass used, not as good at absorbing IR. Easy fix, use an IR cut filter over the lens as was recommended for the Nikon D1 and D2H. Lots of criticism. The M9 uses a different glass, most efficient optically for the job.

 

The problem can be fixed, Leica will make good on it. For those that don't want to stick with the CCD, Leica has offered an alternative. Won't be me. The CCD used in the M9, M-E, and M Monochrom is one of the best on the market and and compares favorably with those available for scientific instruments. Look at the spec sheets. Now if we can talk them into a version that uses clear cover glass, M-Infrared. I'll buy one. Would make a great scope camera.

[Guest]

And even so, they and the MM have their staunch followers, as have the X, S and Ts.

 

Sure the MM has its followers because it's a great camera, but the chances are before the camera is 4 years old it is likely to need a new sensor. Leica have offered a free replacement sensor which could last as long . Not a great solution for a product costing £6000. Many people will be satisfied with the solution but I have put the purchase of an MM on hold for the time being.

BrianP

[jaapv]

The M8's magenta cast and the M9's delamination are big unforeseen flaws and for the status of the name Leica quite dramatic

The magenta cast was not really a flaw, more of a massive misunderstanding of the design. Technically the better place for an IR filter is in front of the lens, not in front of the sensor. The huge outcry against the simple solution is in a way the direct cause of the present delamination issue. Leica could do nothing else than to put an efficient IR blocking filter in front of the M9 sensor, despite the possible humidity problem. And hope for the best - which turned out to be not so good after all....

 

I hope they will put a less efficient, more resilient IR filter in front of the MM sensor, as that won't hurt at all.

As for the M9 I would not be upset to have to use lens filters again. I use them regularly anyway.

 

It is interesting in this context that the CMOSIS sensor of the M240 is less efficient than the M9 at blocking IR.

[bocaburger]

Leica could do nothing else than to put an efficient IR blocking filter in front of the M9 sensor, despite the possible humidity problem

 

I would not infer a causal relationship until and unless there is scientific proof of it. In fact, the M8 has a thinner cover glass, which one would intuitively expect would have a lower modulus of rupture and thus more, not less, propensity to crack, yet it's the M9 sensor that has had a cracking issue. Likewise one would intuitively expect a stronger IR blocking coating to be thicker, and thus more robust. If I were to speculate, it would be that the problems and solutions to both the cracking and delamination problems are in the manfacturing process, not the specifications.

[jaapv]

I would say that the elimination of the lens IR filters must have been a prime target for the design of the M9.

The propensity to delaminate from humidity is in the Schott specification. The glass must be covered by a clear moisture resistant layer, preferably a glass one, which was impossible on the M9, or by another moisture resistant coating. The effectiveness of the latter coating is obviously the problem.

 

Btw, it is by no means a given that a thicker piece of glass is more resistant against cracking. As various factors are involved, it may well be the other way around.

[Guest]

While the issue of delamination is being sorted out for want of a better word has the reccomend action for cleaning changed. Ie should we no longer use a wet clean method or stick to one of the alternatives whenever possible. In the new year I am going to have both my M9 cameras examined by Leica in Mayfair but interestingly the one that has never been wet cleaned ( blower brush, arctic butterfly and pec pads etc) is not showing delam with the stop down and pic of the sky method. Leica may find to the opposite but at least I will then know for certain.

BrianP

[pgk]

Leica could do nothing else than to put an efficient IR blocking filter in front of the M9 sensor, despite the possible humidity problem.

As I have posted before, if it was that simple I would have expected mine to have shown problems which it does not (3 years + ex-demo M9). I have used it in VERY humid conditions and I live close to the wettest area in Wales adjacent to the Snowdonia National Park, well known for its rainy days;). The cleaning procedure specified by Leica suggests water as a culprit too, but obviously this doesn't always cause delamination either.

 

[FWIW I'm taking note of bocaburger's speculation and wonder about the absolute evenness and integrity ('pinholes'?) of the moisture resistant coating - which might explain why some cameras are affected whilst others seem not to be....... . This would also make me consider it best to hold onto an unaffected camera until and if it shows signs of delamination. Pure speculation of course, and regardless, in the absence of any absolute information as to the exact and precise nature of the problem, I'm quite happy to stick with what I've got and worry about a replacement sensor if and when its required.]

[Lenshacker]

I would not infer a causal relationship until and unless there is scientific proof of it. In fact, the M8 has a thinner cover glass, which one would intuitively expect would have a lower modulus of rupture and thus more, not less, propensity to crack, yet it's the M9 sensor that has had a cracking issue. Likewise one would intuitively expect a stronger IR blocking coating to be thicker, and thus more robust. If I were to speculate, it would be that the problems and solutions to both the cracking and delamination problems are in the manfacturing process, not the specifications.

 

The M8 uses a different glass, with a spectral absorption curve similar to the Schott group 1 glass which is more resilient to humidity. This glass does not absorb as much IR due to the curve, and not just thickness. You can read the data sheets. Schott states that the S8612 glass can corrode due to humidity.

 

The M8 uses the KAF-10500 and the M9/M-E/M Monochrome use the KAF-18500. Both data sheets are available on the internet. I started reading these things in the 1980s.

[bocaburger]

The propensity to delaminate from humidity is in the Schott specification. The glass must be covered by a clear moisture resistant layer, preferably a glass one, which was impossible on the M9, or by another moisture resistant coating. The effectiveness of the latter coating is obviously the problem.

 

 

Schott has long held a high reputation as a supplier of high-quality glass blanks to other companies, who then coat them to their own specifications. Like B+W for example. OTOH glass coating is squarely within Leica's long-time ackowledged sphere of expertise. Therefore without saying Leica should have insisted upon developing their own coating/process for the cover glass, to be applied prior to its assembly into the sensors, I believe they can and should be held to that task now. Vs falling back on the easier and cheaper method of using an off-the-shelf design that would once again mandate front lens IR filters. At the very least, the same (perhaps very slightly less efficient) cover glass type/process used in the M240 would be preferable to going back to the M8 contamination levels.

[Lenshacker]

The sensor in the M240 is CMOS, developed by a different company. The data sheets are not available so it is impossible to determine thickness or coefficients of expansion that can be accommodated. Leica did not develop the coating process used for the cover glass, Schott does offer this service for their glass. Kodak/Truesense also had their own process for this.

 

The less efficient/more resilient cover glass would be fine for the M Monochrom. Schott BG-18 looks like a good candidate for the KAF-18500. It is rated as being more resilient to humidity as per the Schott data sheets, and provides sharp cutoff for IR. Peak efficiency in the visible portion of the spectrum is not quite as good as S8612. Leica/ON may select an entirely different glass, or develop a new process. This problem can be fixed, and best to take their time and find a best-possible solution.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[otto.f]

While the issue of delamination is being sorted out for want of a better word has the reccomend action for cleaning changed. Ie should we no longer use a wet clean method or stick to one of the alternatives whenever possible. In the new year I am going to have both my M9 cameras examined by Leica in Mayfair but interestingly the one that has never been wet cleaned ( blower brush, arctic butterfly and pec pads etc) is not showing delam with the stop down and pic of the sky method. Leica may find to the opposite but at least I will then know for certain.

BrianP

 

I never wet clean and have no problems with M9 and MM