Leica Ends Free Sensor Replacement for M9/Monochrom Bodies

[Luke_Miller]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have not heard of the difficulty with Leica NJ. Do they do sensor replacements now?

They replaced my M9 sensor in December 2014 and my MM sensor in June-July-August of 2016.  Some have been pleased with their service (as I was with my M9) and others have been disappointed (as I was with the MM).

[Luke_Miller]

That is a bit like saying "If my car hasn't shown any rust after two years, or five years, it is unlikely that it will ever rust."

 

AFAIK, this is not a question of some specific individual sensors having flawed coating that is not up to spec.

 

Actually I believe it is an issue with some, but not all, sensors.  However, no one outside Leica and TrueSense (the sensor manufacturer) knows for sure. Leica did report it had found the failure mechanism which would be eliminated in the replacement sensor design.  Everything I've read states both the sensor and the cover glass were proven components used without issue in other camera brands.  The suspicion is there was a manufacturing problem with the sensor stack that made some of them prone to corrosion.  Leica's official position is  "relative few" cameras will experience sensor corrosion.  I have no idea how large the "relatively few" population is, but in the on-line surveys I've seen on sensor corrosion the majority of respondents report not experiencing corrosion.

[adan]

Well, the final sensor fix was to totally replace the original M9 cover glass type (as installed on all cameras prior to the discovery of the problem) with a whole different product from Schott on the upgraded sensor.

 

That does not sound to me like simply an intermittent manufacturing problem with the original material (Schott S8612). It sounds like they abandoned that material entirely, as being "not good enough" or problematic in and of itself, for something with inherently more moisture resistance and longevity (Schott BG55). That's a rather drastic change to make if the problem was just "a batch" of poorly-made S8612 cover plates.

 

I don't see any reason to trust any S8612-covered sensor at this point. Does anyone have evidence (not "an impression" or "belief") to counter that?

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247062-ccd-sensor-new-leica-information-about-the-state-of-development/

[hdmesa]

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.

 

 

Thank you and good advice – I could have done this, but I decided to go back to the Q as my first Leica. I'm anxious to get to shooing on a Leica, and I didn't want to have to wait for the M9 to be repaired.

Edited May 24, 2017 by hdmesa

[Luke_Miller]

I don't see any reason to trust any S8612-covered sensor at this point. Does anyone have evidence (not "an impression" or "belief") to counter that?

 

Since no one outside Leica or TrueSense would have that evidence all we have is "impression or belief." I expect one is as valid as another.

[Robert M Poole]

As far as Leica are aware my old M9, which I no longer have, is still registered in my name. I have had NO communication from Leica regarding this announcement - I can't be the only one in that situation.

 

I had no communication either about the M9 registered to me..but it has the corrosion-free sensor - maybe that is the reason why..

I have the corrosion free sensor and got the email.

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, the final sensor fix was to totally replace the original M9 cover glass type (as installed on all cameras prior to the discovery of the problem) with a whole different product from Schott on the upgraded sensor.

 

That does not sound to me like simply an intermittent manufacturing problem with the original material (Schott S8612). It sounds like they abandoned that material entirely, as being "not good enough" or problematic in and of itself, for something with inherently more moisture resistance and longevity (Schott BG55). That's a rather drastic change to make if the problem was just "a batch" of poorly-made S8612 cover plates.

 

I don't see any reason to trust any S8612-covered sensor at this point. Does anyone have evidence (not "an impression" or "belief") to counter that?

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/247062-ccd-sensor-new-leica-information-about-the-state-of-development/

 

 

I'm with Andy on this.

 

The fact we have is that Leica (and/or Truesense) accepted (reluctantly) that the issue was not restricted to one batch of sensors, but potentially every M9 based CCD sensor.  We do know this - the replacement policy applies to all these sensors (including the M-E).  We all know that Leica (more likely Truesense, under some deal) developed a new sensor for all corrosion affected cameras, which was used from October (?) 2015.  How and why the original sensors get corrosion is less clear.  Leica has told me on more than one occasion to clean my Monochrom using sensor swabs and isopropanol, so I don't think it's wet cleaning per se.  Besides, you can't seriously tell photographers they can't clean the oil and crap thrown up by the shutter off their sensors - that's just not realistic.

 

It's also worth remembering that if this was any other product (car?) there would be a general recall.  For a while, Leica was routinely replacing sensors (they did with my M9 when I had to send it back for an unrelated problem, and it still got corrosion after that).  So this corrosion only policy is somewhat less than what is more generally done in other industries.  We can debate whether or not Leica or Truesense could afford this till the cows come home - the truth seems to be that Leica is hoping that some sensors won't corrode or that as many owners as possible just won't notice - you do have to go looking for it ...

 

From what we actually know, the original M9 CCD sensor is a ticking time bomb, and there is no assurance at all that any particular sensor from any batch released at any time from 9 September 2009 to whenever the M-E cameras ceased production will not be affected.  This is what Leica's replacement policy effectively says.  My own replacement sensor still corroded.

 

I've always suspected that with the revised replacement policy is Leica saying - fix your M9 now.  If there's no corrosion, any repairs on cameras more than 5 years old after August this year will be at your cost.  We'll fix cameras less than 5 years old, but everyone else, after August, you pay.  That seems to me to be a pretty clear statement that a Leica M digital camera is warranted for inherent defect for 5 years.  To a point, I can live with that (reluctantly), provided I can still repair the cameras (at my cost) for as long as I want to.

 

From a Common Law perspective (I can say this with some authority), the limitation period under contract is 6 years from the time the cause of action arose, or in the case of inherent defect, became apparent.  That's the starting point (that would mean till 2020).  Leica's 2014 commitment rather modified that position.  I appreciate that this is purely academic, but understanding the law (in at least part of the World) does inform these discussions.

 

Cheers

John

Edited May 24, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Denys]

I had no communication either about the M9 registered to me..but it has the corrosion-free sensor - maybe that is the reason why..

I have the corrosion free sensor and got the email.

www.robertpoolephotography.com

 

Oh well - that theory is debunked.. ..maybe it's because I'm a Gemini? :-o

[Robert M Poole]

I have the corrosion free sensor and got the email.

www.robertpoolephotography.com

 

Oh well - that theory is debunked.. ..maybe it's because I'm a Gemini? :-o

 

www.robertpoolephotography.com

[adan]

Since no one outside Leica or TrueSense would have that evidence all we have is "impression or belief." I expect one is as valid as another.

 

To be brief (which means blunt - but I mean no disrespect for you thereby) - when it comes to an engineering failure (which is what the sensor corrosion is), one has facts and evidence - or one doesn't. There isn't any "in between" room for impressions, guesses, assumptions, beliefs and such. It's better to leave a question unanswered than to try to come up with an answer based on "non-evidence."

 

That may just be a character flaw of mine , from growing up in a family of engineers (my dad and 3 uncles), and being a sometime-pilot who still takes a deep interest in aviation engineering, crash investigations and such.

[Luke_Miller]

To be brief (which means blunt - but I mean no disrespect for you thereby)

 

I've noticed that you tend to speak frankly.  No disrespect taken.

[Luke_Miller]

...... - when it comes to an engineering failure (which is what the sensor corrosion is), one has facts and evidence - or one doesn't. There isn't any "in between" room for impressions, guesses, assumptions, beliefs and such. It's better to leave a question unanswered than to try to come up with an answer based on "non-evidence."

 

While I totally agree (coming from a systems engineering background) in this particular instance the question begs an answer.  Those who own an M9, MM, or M-E with the original sensor and no signs of corrosion are faced with the quandary of what to do going forward.  Their posts suggest they are searching for an answer to the question "If I have not yet experienced the corrosion issue, how likely am I to experience it in the future?"  How they answer that question and the decisions they make going forward depend on whether they believe (without hard evidence in either case) Leica, or do they believe those stating their sensors will all suffer corrosion at some point.

 

I am particularly sympathetic to this group of Leica owners since I think they may end up being the biggest losers in the sensor corrosion debacle.  The internet, like water seeking the lowest level, tends to give credence to the worst case.  So the loudest voices are stating the engineering failure affects all of the sensors in question. And, true or not, this becomes the new reality.  So I worry that the bodies that Leica delivered whose sensors did not corrode will, ironically, eventually become the most-devalued once free sensor replacement ends.

 

So do owners with corrosion free original sensors dump them on the used market before August 15? And if they do will they have to discount (compared to a body with the replacement sensor) the selling price by the sensor replacement cost?  Do they hold on to them while budgeting for the cost of sensor replacement after August 15?   Or do they believe Leica and quit worrying about it?

 

To me it is a subject worth discussing even if there is no hard evidence available.  There is a fair amount of anecdotal information that tends to support Leica's statement and less in support of all sensors will eventually corrode. As an engineer I made decisions based on empirical data. - In life that is often not an option.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Luke_Miller

[adan]

Good post.

 

As to the "strategy" for any given FF CCD M owner, ultimately that ends up as a guess as to the statistics involved. And as we know, judging probabilities is one of the things human intuition is especially bad at - otherwise commercial gambling would end overnight (the House ALWAYS wins, eventually ).

 

I'm theorizing an approximately straight-line increase of sensor failures over time (based on the admittedly "circumstantial evidence" that Leica/Truesense decided to abandon the original cover glass type). But - which may never reach 100% within the lifetime of anyone on this forum.

 

I'm guessing you forsee a curve that eventually "flat-lines" in the future - no more (or almost no more) failures after a certain number of years.

 

Either of those would be consistent with Leica's suggestion that it will occur in only a small number of cameras - it just depends on how many years into the future we are willing to graph the line.

 

We could both be wrong, and it will really be a geometric progression - low incidence, suddenly skyrocketing to 100% at 21.23 years or some such. (But probably not).

 

Ooops - the family calls.

[Denys]

Oh well - that theory is debunked.. ..maybe it's because I'm a Gemini? :-o

www.robertpoolephotography.com

 

Haha - love it! Actually I lied: I'm not a Gemini..I'm a Pyrex (I was a test-tube baby) :-)

[IkarusJohn]

If your CCD based camera is less than 5 years old, the free replacement still applies (for the moment). So, if your camera is more than 5 years old and develops corrosion after August, then you have to make a contribution to the cost of sensor replacement. While hard to justify, the World is not going to end. If you enjoy the CCD based cameras, you can still use them.

 

I place zero credence in the "small numbers of cameras affected" comment. How on earth does Leica know this? If they know the cause with any certainty, then they could (1) tell us how to avoid corrosion, or (2) proactively recall tat small number likely to be affected. That statement provides false hope.

 

I'm keeping my Monochrom. I dislike this change in policy, but living with the risk that I might have to pay for a further future sensor replacement is still a cheaper option than upgrading the camera. Granted, I will have the new sensor, but I am relying on Leica to continue to have replacement sensors available for the foreseeable future (see M8 LCD coffee stain issue for comparison).

[Frase]

How long is the warranty for the new sensor?

[pico]

Thanks to this tread with picture examples of corrosion, my evil twin brother has developed an action for Photoshop that places corrosion marks on their images so their pictures have that Stubborn Veteran Leica M9 user look.  Why, even film users can be poseurs.

.

[IkarusJohn]

How long is the warranty for the new sensor?

Good question.

[-Lss-]

As a registered user I received an email from Leica advising of  the new policy.  As broadly as the corrosion issue has been reported I imagine most M9, MM, M-E users are aware of it. And if their body is registered with Leica they most likely received the same notice I did.

While Leica is generally very good towards 2nd-hand buyers, it is not possible to register a product if (any of) the previous owner(s) still appears as the owner in Leica's books. The buyer of a 2nd-hand camera/lens may not be able to track down the registered owner and is in any case then relying on the good will of said person to cancel their registration at Leica. I know this, because this is my situation with one Leica item. There may therefore actually be many owners who have no idea about the policy change.

 

But as unhappy as I am with the situation I'm not sure what more can be reasonably expected of Leica.  I doubt that users of all the later model cameras are happy to experience slower repair times due to the CCD sensor replacement program.  So getting all the bodies in and the corroded sensors replaced helps everyone.

Most people, at least around where I live, like transparency and equal treatment. Leica was not transparent about the deadline in their original communication, based on which people have made buying decisions and agreed on prices that may now appear incorrect. The market information was simply wrong. This is Leica's arbitrary decision. It is also, to a large extent, a random event for the owner if and when their camera experiences sensor corrosion. Some owners get a free replacement (I hear some have had two), while others are expected to pay. This is also Leica's arbitrary decision.

 

This was not handled well, plain and simple.

 

Getting corroded sensors definitely helps. That we can agree on.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotografr]

I bought a first version Monochrom as soon as it became available. When the corrosion issue became known, I traded it in on purchase of a new M 240 because I wanted to avoid the time and hassle of replacing the sensor. I immediately missed having the MM because I loved its capabilities. Then Leica made the official announcement that they would replace the defective sensors whether the camera was still in warranty or not. ON THAT BASIS, I repurchased a nearly new MM, which almost immediately developed the corrosion. It is now at the New Jersey facility in the queue for sensor replacement. I don't see how Leica can legally change this policy when many people, like me, purchased cameras under the promise that sensors developing the corrosion problem AT ANY FUTURE TIME would have the defective sensors replaced at no charge. That was Stephan Daniel's word. If my camera had developed the corrosion after the August deadline and Leica tried to charge me for the repair, I would immediately file suit. I'll be amazed if this doesn't become a legal problem for Leica in the very near future.

Edited May 26, 2017 by fotografr