Leica Ends Free Sensor Replacement for M9/Monochrom Bodies

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK, but you know what I mean.  

 

If it was me, I would now only buy an M9 or Monochrom v1 if it had been confirmed to have the original sensor replaced with the new component, or one where the camera's price was reduced by the replacement price of a new sensor.

 

Hence why M9 owners with original sensors are concerned about future depreciation should they wish to sell, or about future sensor replacement.

 

Mark

Well, I am looking at this from a buyer's perspective in my post.

[Advertisement]

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

[MarkP]

I've noticed a few UK dealers stocking M8s at surprisingly high prices recently. In spite of all their known issues they still seem to command much higher prices than might be expected. In terms of depreciation they do so surprisingly slowly.

 

 

Interesting - are these primarily M8.2s?

 

Despite the IR problems the M8 has it's advantages for B&W photography, and is probably still the cheapest way to get into M-mount lens digital photography.

[pgk]

Interesting - are these primarily M8.2s?

 

Despite the IR problems the M8 has it's advantages for B&W photography, and is probably still the cheapest way to get into M-mount lens digital photography.

 

I can only find one now £899 'not in stock' (sold?) and just an M8 by the look of it. Yes, any camera that allows a photographer a 'cheap' (its all relative) way into the digital M system is going to retain a bottom line value. Off at a tangent and FWIW I was told yesterday that Sony has displaced Nikon as the second camera manufacturer in terms of US sales. Times and accepted facts/the status quo change. I think that we've seen that with digital Ms - they are no longer for a lifetime, but are still viable for a good length of time and offer quite low depreciation. I think we need to start getting used to this, as with a lot of other changes which we many not always like but have happened/are happening.

[topoxforddoc]

This thread has prompted me to check my M9. It looks like I might have early sensor corrosion and have emailed Leica Mayfair in London with my camera s/n and this picture - white dot with halo just above the black dust spot.

 

Charlie

 

 

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!

[Borge H]

I checked my M9 from november 2011 with original sensor. I found something which looks like corrosion or what do you experts think? Should I send the camera to Wetzlar? I shoot the picture with a small aperture, f=22.

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!

[Luke_Miller]

Borge - It looks like mine did before replacement for corrosion.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is corrosion.

Send it in for repair now.

[Borge H]

It is corrosion.

Send it in for repair now.

 

 

 

Borge - It looks like mine did before replacement for corrosion.

 

Thanks Luke and Erl! I will follow your advice and contact Leica.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Borge H

[hdmesa]

Yes, they do keep records.

 

Thanks. I was able to confirm with the retailer that the sensor has not been replaced.

[jaapv]

Offer 750 Euro less than you were prepared to pay in the first place.  Should you be able to buy it at that price, have Leica check it before August.

[Jager]

I make a distinction between the normal, sometimes-it-might-be-this, sometimes-it-might-be-that wear and breakage in an item, and those failures emanating from an inherent defect.

 

My M9 developed a curious quirk in the last year where it will no longer automatically identify my 35 Summilux ASPH.  It continues to accurately read all other lenses.  And that 35 Lux is still ably read by my M8, Monochrom, M240, M246, and M10.  So it doesn't seem that it is the lens' fault.

 

Do I consider that fault one Leica should fix for free?  Absolutely not!  My M9 is long out of warranty.  And, in fact, were it tomorrow to experience some sort of hopelessly expensive failure... I'd be disappointed, but I'd shake my, say to myself "man, what a great camera that was," and move on.  No way would I put that on Leica. 

 

But what we are talking about here is an inherent, latent defect included in every M9 ever sold.  One that unfortunately seems to present itself in a high percentage of cases.  Like that carton of milk you bought last week, Leica unknowingly sold, and users unknowingly purchased, a camera that had a pull date.  To me that kind of failure-just-waiting-to-happen is entirely different from the usual luck-of-the-draw reliability we usually expect.  And that I do put on Leica.

 

As for the notion that ancillary repairs included in the sensor replacement ought to be considered a "refurbishment" and thus billed to the customer... I find both disingenuous and cynical.

 

My 2016 BMW R1200GSA motorbike has its stator - a relatively minor part - buried in the bowels of the engine.  If mine failed and BMW came to me and said "we're going to charge you an 'engine refurbishment fee,' I'd laugh at them.

 

I'm guessing a large percentage of M-camera sales are to existing M customers.  The classic case of (nearly) all their eggs in one basket.  What's the old saw about guarding that basket carefully?

Edited May 22, 2017 by Jager

[Hans Berkhout]

What is wrong with an M9 with the new sensor?

 

Will the new sensor work with "old" Lightroom 4 ?

[jaapv]

Why not if it does with the old one? The DNG format has not changed.

[Jeff S]

I make a distinction between the normal, sometimes-it-might-be-this, sometimes-it-might-be-that wear and breakage in an item, and those failures emanating from an inherent defect.

 

My M9 developed a curious quirk in the last year where it will no longer automatically identify my 35 Summilux ASPH. It continues to accurately read all other lenses. And that 35 Lux is still ably read by my M8, Monochrom, M240, M246, and M10. So it doesn't seem that it is the lens' fault.

 

Do I consider that fault one Leica should fix for free? Absolutely not! My M9 is long out of warranty. And, in fact, were it tomorrow to experience some sort of hopelessly expensive failure... I'd be disappointed, but I'd shake my, say to myself "man, what a great camera that was," and move on. No way would I put that on Leica.

 

But what we are talking about here is an inherent, latent defect included in every M9 ever sold. One that unfortunately seems to present itself in a high percentage of cases. Like that carton of milk you bought last week, Leica unknowingly sold, and users unknowingly purchased, a camera that had a pull date. To me that kind of failure-just-waiting-to-happen is entirely different from the usual luck-of-the-draw reliability we usually expect. And that I do put on Leica.

 

As for the notion that ancillary repairs included in the sensor replacement ought to be considered a "refurbishment" and thus billed to the customer... I find both disingenuous and cynical.

 

My 2016 BMW R1200GSA motorbike has its stator - a relatively minor part - buried in the bowels of the engine. If mine failed and BMW came to me and said "we're going to charge you an 'engine refurbishment fee,' I'd laugh at them.

 

I'm guessing a large percentage of M-camera sales are to existing M customers. The classic case of (nearly) all their eggs in one basket. What's the old saw about guarding that basket carefully?

+1 See S lens AF defects.

 

Jeff

[MarkP]

I make a distinction between the normal, sometimes-it-might-be-this, sometimes-it-might-be-that wear and breakage in an item, and those failures emanating from an inherent defect.

 

My M9 developed a curious quirk in the last year where it will no longer automatically identify my 35 Summilux ASPH.  It continues to accurately read all other lenses.  And that 35 Lux is still ably read by my M8, Monochrom, M240, M246, and M10.  So it doesn't seem that it is the lens' fault.

 

Do I consider that fault one Leica should fix for free?  Absolutely not!  My M9 is long out of warranty.  And, in fact, were it tomorrow to experience some sort of hopelessly expensive failure... I'd be disappointed, but I'd shake my, say to myself "man, what a great camera that was," and move on.  No way would I put that on Leica. 

 

But what we are talking about here is an inherent, latent defect included in every M9 ever sold.  One that unfortunately seems to present itself in a high percentage of cases.  Like that carton of milk you bought last week, Leica unknowingly sold, and users unknowingly purchased, a camera that had a pull date.  To me that kind of failure-just-waiting-to-happen is entirely different from the usual luck-of-the-draw reliability we usually expect.  And that I do put on Leica.

 

As for the notion that ancillary repairs included in the sensor replacement ought to be considered a "refurbishment" and thus billed to the customer... I find both disingenuous and cynical.

 

My 2016 BMW R1200GSA motorbike has its stator - a relatively minor part - buried in the bowels of the engine.  If mine failed and BMW came to me and said "we're going to charge you an 'engine refurbishment fee,' I'd laugh at them.

 

I'm guessing a large percentage of M-camera sales are to existing M customers.  The classic case of (nearly) all their eggs in one basket.  What's the old saw about guarding that basket carefully?

 

Thank you.

 

Exactly the point I'd been making earlier. Hence Leica should not dodge their responsibility here, and my suggesting an arbitrary timeframe of their responsibility for 10 years from date of manufacture (or sensor replacement where a first generation sensor was put back into the camera).

[Archiver]

Haven't been on the forums for a while, nor have I checked my emails from Leica.  So it was with great surprise and a little shock that they have announced the cut off date and subsequent price of replacement and service.  Procrastination kept me from sending in my M9 for almost a year, so this has propelled me to do something.  I'm not paying 900+ euros for something that Leica promised would be a free service for the life of the camera.

 

The local repair agent said that Leica owners were calling in droves, like it was the apocalypse.  They also expressed surprise that Leica would retract a previous guarantee that the corroded sensors would be replaced for free for the life of the camera, as it is a manufacturing defect.

 

So now my M9 is awaiting inspection, and after the techs see the spotty awfulness, it will be another 6-8 weeks before it comes back.  At least I won't be shelling out hundreds of euros.

[silverchrome]

I make a distinction between the normal, sometimes-it-might-be-this, sometimes-it-might-be-that wear and breakage in an item, and those failures emanating from an inherent defect.

 

My M9 developed a curious quirk in the last year where it will no longer automatically identify my 35 Summilux ASPH.  It continues to accurately read all other lenses.  And that 35 Lux is still ably read by my M8, Monochrom, M240, M246, and M10.  So it doesn't seem that it is the lens' fault.

 

Do I consider that fault one Leica should fix for free?  Absolutely not!  My M9 is long out of warranty.  And, in fact, were it tomorrow to experience some sort of hopelessly expensive failure... I'd be disappointed, but I'd shake my, say to myself "man, what a great camera that was," and move on.  No way would I put that on Leica. 

 

But what we are talking about here is an inherent, latent defect included in every M9 ever sold.  One that unfortunately seems to present itself in a high percentage of cases.  Like that carton of milk you bought last week, Leica unknowingly sold, and users unknowingly purchased, a camera that had a pull date.  To me that kind of failure-just-waiting-to-happen is entirely different from the usual luck-of-the-draw reliability we usually expect.  And that I do put on Leica.

 

As for the notion that ancillary repairs included in the sensor replacement ought to be considered a "refurbishment" and thus billed to the customer... I find both disingenuous and cynical.

 

My 2016 BMW R1200GSA motorbike has its stator - a relatively minor part - buried in the bowels of the engine.  If mine failed and BMW came to me and said "we're going to charge you an 'engine refurbishment fee,' I'd laugh at them.

 

I'm guessing a large percentage of M-camera sales are to existing M customers.  The classic case of (nearly) all their eggs in one basket.  What's the old saw about guarding that basket carefully?

 

I agree entirely.

 

Well argued and hopefully will put to rest arguments made by those who still claim Leica are acting reasonably.  

 

I doubt it though .

Edited May 23, 2017 by silverchrome

[imants]

My Epson failed to fail

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Luke_Miller]

Perhaps one of the factors behind Leica's change in policy regarding sensor replacement is not so much to save money, but to finish the replacement process.  I'm seeing a lot of posts by those who are just now checking for the corrosion problem.  The August 15 end of free sensor replacement for cameras that have been in service for 5 or more years is prompting owners of those cameras to check for corrosion and send them in while they still can.  I have not seen a post reporting that a 5 year old sensor that has been routinely checked for corrosion has suddenly started to exhibit it, so perhaps if it has not appeared in five years it is unlikely to occur at all.  A poll on another forum showed that a majority of M9, MM, and M-E users had not experienced sensor corrosion.

 

My M9 and MM displayed the corrosion issue within two years of being placed in service.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Luke_Miller

[enboe]

My RD-1 rangefinder went out of vertical alignment and Epson wanted $600 to realign it.  Luckily the M8 came out around that time and I've not looked back.