Leica Ends Free Sensor Replacement for M9/Monochrom Bodies

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No electronic device will last that long ...

Some do well (in proper museum ) : http://www.hpmuseum.net/display_item.php?hw=149

[Go Figure]

I am a bit puzzled about the M8 "green reflection"(green blob in Leica speak) issue you mention. It was solved by a firmware update and hardware fix in Januari 2007, together with the "Scotty Beam Me Up" banding.

Live view is not possible with CCD, as soon as Leica went CMos they had live view...

 

we all know now that Leica Philosophy is subject to change - we are learning it right now ... the hard way!

LV was just an idea I pitched to them ... 

... anyway this M8 was upgraded to 1/4000 shutter and fw 2.024 

maybe you can make some sense to this -thxri

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!

[jaapv]

I see flare/reflections, possibly from an IR cut filter, caused by including an extremely bright light source in the image.

[IkarusJohn]

I'm not sure where the idea of a generaal recall resulting in Leica collapsing comes from.

 

Leica had already effectively opened that possiblity with it's 2014 commitment - they just spread the exposure. More critically the idea of collapse assumes that Leica has no rights against their suppliers.

 

Too much supposition used to support shakey theories.

 

What we know is, the cameras have a defect which exposes them to corrosion, Leica is responsible for this (as between itself and its customers), I have no doubt that the sensor supplier is bearing some of the pain (Leica has not really managed its supply chain at all well if it is carrying the entire cost), and Leica is now changing the rules (probably with very little legal justification).

 

This looks like nothing more than a sly move on Leica's part to avoid its obligations. It may save money, but the reputational damage is hard to quantify. I'm sure they've done the sums on how many potentially affected cameras there are out there, and they're betting that the owners of those cameras are not critical to their future business.

Edited May 18, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

Simple sum: 90.000 x 1800 Euro....

[ianman]

Simple sum: 90.000 x 1800 Euro....

 

It was 1300 euro a couple of pages ago... terrible inflation !! 

 

oh and it's a multiplication, not a sum   

Edited May 18, 2017 by ianman

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I did, and it is indeed a bit of a cockup, especially in the light of the claimed professional level of the cameras. But I got the impression the problems had been solved or are being solved right now.

But early adopters get screwed...

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/index.php?app=core&module=global&section=reputation&do=add_rating&app_rate=forums&type=pid&type_id=3250724&rating=1&secure_key=576a285671efc936faf6d259ab22c880&post_return=3250724

 

And if most of the problems were solved, then why establish a limit of 5 years from original purchase?

 

Stupid bean counters, or general lack of critical thinking and customer service.

 

Jeff

Edited May 18, 2017 by Jeff S

[jaapv]

It was 1300 euro a couple of pages ago... terrible inflation !! 

 

oh and it's a multiplication, not a sum   

Not that much inflation. 1300 plus a rather conservative estimated 500 labour and overhead.

 

 

 

sum

[suhm]

    Synonyms

    Examples

    Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com

noun

1.

the aggregate of two or more numbers, magnitudes, quantities, or particulars as determined by or as if by the mathematical process of addition:

The sum of 6 and 8 is 14.

2.

a particular aggregate or total, especially with reference to money:

The expenses came to an enormous sum.

3.

an indefinite amount or quantity, especially of money:

to lend small sums.

4.

a series of numbers or quantities to be added up.

5.

an arithmetical problem to be solved, or such a problem worked out and having the various steps shown.

6.

the full amount, or the whole.

7.

the substance or gist of a matter, comprehensively or broadly viewed or expressed:

the sum of his opinions.

[IkarusJohn]

Hold on, it was 928 Euro for labour more than a few pages ago ...

 

Guess work on the number of cameras sold, guess work on the cost of the sensor (though probably not far off, but still guess work) and an assumption that the sensor supplier is not wearing some of the pain.

 

But yes, simple.

[adan]

On life expectancy: US tax code rates "computers and peripherals" as "5-year property." That is, they assume such property will need replacing every 5 years, and thus can be written off (depreciated) over that time period. That is the category I've always used for cameras - and even more so for the "computers with lenses" we call "digital cameras." If you want a little more leeway, anything not otherwise assigned a "class life" is rated at 7 years - which is about how long my M9 ran before developing (probably) its first hint of sensor corrosion (dry climate), and about when I replaced it anyway with the M10.

 

At the extreme end of optimism, I hope for 10 years, if needed (no suitable replacement becomes available).

_______________________

 

On Mr. Ebert's "junk" - Yeah, well, when I was coming up in the 70s and early 80s, it was assumed "Leitz" + "electrical" = "disaster." They were a optical and clockwork-mechanical company, who didn't even get around to a hot-shoe until 10 years after everyone else. "Photographers," according to more than one of my college instructors, "use Nikons. Leicas are for lawyers and dentists." Of course, I kept my eye on the Leica photographers at Magnum, and kept my own counsel.

 

The M4-2 winder was exhibit A - but then, try to buy a "German-made" M2/3/4/5 with any winder at all (except for special one-offs). BTW the M4-2 winder was designed by Leitz Canada, which was about 80% German-staffed, especially at the level of design. "Made in Abroad" is a phony distinction, in that case.

 

The M5, CL and Leicaflexes were mostly designed by former Zeiss camera engineers, who came over to Leitz when Zeiss gave up on the Contaflex/Contax lines. They were elegant, ultra-precise designs, but like the ultra-precision Tiger tanks of WW2, elegant engineering doesn't necessarily hold up under battlefield conditions. Sometimes real "junk," with a lot less precision, but a lot more leeway in the specs, holds up better. Viz. the Sherman tank, or the Nikon F (whose film-cocking lever wobbled around like a drunk skunk, fresh from the factory, but could survive any amount of knocks and dents).

 

My Nikon Fs were sloppy as heck - but never, ever, needed a trip to the shop in 15+ years.

 

As to the "reversed" speed dial on the M6ttl - that was correcting a "legacy mistake" Leica had failed to address in the original M6 (or if you prefer, in the original M3) - you had to turn the dial LEFT when the metering arrow pointed RIGHT. Aperture-ring direction for more exposure ≠ shutter-dial direction for more exposure.

 

As to what a dealer told you about Leica's situation in 2004 (correct - they were failing financially) and an M8 list (incorrect, as it turned out) - what an independent dealer says is not Leica's responsibility.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with your overall point - Leitz/Leica has had to go through several steep learning curves since 1960, and has not always managed to keep up.

 

But since 2001, I just love looking through a window instead of at a screen, so I live with it.

Edited May 18, 2017 by adan

[jaapv]

Hold on, it was 928 Euro for labour more than a few pages ago ...

 

Guess work on the number of cameras sold, guess work on the cost of the sensor (though probably not far off, but still guess work) and an assumption that the sensor supplier is not wearing some of the pain.

 

But yes, simple.

Indeed guesses (except for the cost of the sensor, that is a known amount), but it doesn't change the argument. And the sensor supplier contributing? After a number of changes of ownership, including a (near)bankruptcy? And yes, labour and overhead is probably a lot more.

[pico]

I wonder if my M9's (two of them going on three) with sensor faults will be noticed by any editor: I fix them automatically in batch or on a case basis.

 

Would our esteemed publisher, and photographer, adan, know or object?

This is a Real World inquiry.

 

.

Edited May 18, 2017 by pico

[Go Figure]

Here from my personal history with sensor swaps:

 

Camera model  Kodak DCS SLR/n

 

if you will a comparable scenario:

 

On January 2 2013 the service center wrote :

"The Low Pass filter is epoxy to the Imager, the only way to replace the filter is to replace the Imager.  The repair cost is $395.00 + return shipping, includes clean and adjust."

 

 

Wondering why people are still speculating why Kodak got out of the camera business

well, they probably never owned a Kodak DCS ... google how much Kodak charged for the upgrade originally ... dyoc -thx

 

 

 

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!

[jdlaing]

On life expectancy: US tax code rates "computers and peripherals" as "5-year property." That is, they assume such property will need replacing every 5 years, and thus can be written off (depreciated) over that time period. That is the category I've always used for cameras - and even more so for the "computers with lenses" we call "digital cameras." If you want a little more leeway, anything not otherwise assigned a "class life" is rated at 7 years - which is about how long my M9 ran before developing (probably) its first hint of sensor corrosion (dry climate), and about when I replaced it anyway with the M10.

 

At the extreme end of optimism, I hope for 10 years, if needed (no suitable replacement becomes available).

_______________________

 

On Mr. Ebert's "junk" - Yeah, well, when I was coming up in the 70s and early 80s, it was assumed "Leitz" + "electrical" = "disaster." They were a optical and clockwork-mechanical company, who didn't even get around to a hot-shoe until 10 years after everyone else. "Photographers," according to more than one of my college instructors, "use Nikons. Leicas are for lawyers and dentists." Of course, I kept my eye on the Leica photographers at Magnum, and kept my own counsel.

 

The M4-2 winder was exhibit A - but then, try to buy a "German-made" M2/3/4/5 with any winder at all (except for special one-offs). BTW the M4-2 winder was designed by Leitz Canada, which was about 80% German-staffed, especially at the level of design. "Made in Abroad" is a phony distinction, in that case.

 

The M5, CL and Leicaflexes were mostly designed by former Zeiss camera engineers, who came over to Leitz when Zeiss gave up on the Contaflex/Contax lines. They were elegant, ultra-precise designs, but like the ultra-precision Tiger tanks of WW2, elegant engineering doesn't necessarily hold up under battlefield conditions. Sometimes real "junk," with a lot less precision, but a lot more leeway in the specs, holds up better. Viz. the Sherman tank, or the Nikon F (whose film-cocking lever wobbled around like a drunk skunk, fresh from the factory, but could survive any amount of knocks and dents).

 

My Nikon Fs were sloppy as heck - but never, ever, needed a trip to the shop in 15+ years.

 

As to the "reversed" speed dial on the M6ttl - that was correcting a "legacy mistake" Leica had failed to address in the original M6 (or if you prefer, in the original M3) - you had to turn the dial LEFT when the metering arrow pointed RIGHT. Aperture-ring direction for more exposure ≠ shutter-dial direction for more exposure.

 

As to what a dealer told you about Leica's situation in 2004 (correct - they were failing financially) and an M8 list (incorrect, as it turned out) - what an independent dealer says is not Leica's responsibility.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with your overall point - Leitz/Leica has had to go through several steep learning curves since 1960, and has not always managed to keep up.

 

But since 2001, I just love looking through a window instead of at a screen, so I live with it.

If only the US Tax Code had anything to do with reality.

[Go Figure]

I wonder if my M9's (two of them going on three) with sensor faults will be noticed by any editor: I fix them automatically in batch or on a case basis.

 

Would our esteemed publisher, and photographer, adan, know or object?

This is a Real World inquiry.

 

.

 

if it progresses like it did with the Kodak DCS SLR/n you might eventually give up on retouching

 

but I have no doubt your editor will still get a crop out of it ...

 

that said I should probably still send this one to Hallmark

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!

[pico]

Here from my personal history with sensor swaps:

 

Camera model  Kodak DCS SLR/n

 

if you will a comparable scenario:

 

On January 2 2013 the service center wrote :

"The Low Pass filter is epoxy to the Imager, the only way to replace the filter is to replace the Imager.  The repair cost is $395.00 + return shipping, includes clean and adjust."

 

Completely irrelevant!

[Ronazle]

In regard to the idea that keeps coming up that electronic equipment has a brief lifespan and that manufacturers cannot support it:

 

First, as I mentioned long ago, my Nikon Coolscan 8000 was falling apart internally. The person i bought it from had literally glued parts together. I sent it to Nikon and they offered to restore it to original condition but would have to charge me 250 USD which included return shipping. Speaks for itself. They obviously are willing to support their product and customer. This happened sometime around 2007. 

 

Second: look at the electronics in undersea coaxial cables with electronic repeaters and equalizers every few miles (some years ago it was every 10 miles for repeaters and every 25 miles for equalizers). I believe all or most undersea cables are maintained, or so they were, by a German firm.

 

Leica really needs to stand by their word. Regards, ron

[erl]

Nikon may have supported their scanners around 2007, but definitely not now!

My Coolscan 8000 is hanging onto dear life by a thread, assisted by a local mechanic at Camera Clinic, but there are no spare part emanating from Nikon. So Nikon gets no votes from me.

 

This is the techy age. Nothing is forever.

[Ecar]

Couldn't Leica just have said:

 

"We believe the bulk of the sensor replacement programme to be behind us. Based on the numbers in our possession, we believe we have parts in stock (or otherwise obtainable from the sensor manufacturer) to perform sensor replacements for about the next 2 years (or whatever duration is reasonable).

During this period, or as long as the sensor supply lasts: i) customers whose cameras are affected by corrosion will continue to benefit from the free sensor replacement programme and ii) customers whose cameras show no signs of sensor corrosion but would like nevertheless their sensors replaced, and a full CLA performed, will be charged XXX€ for this service.

At the end of this period, or when we run out of sensors, customers whose cameras become affected by corrosion will be given a credit of 2,000 EUR (or whatever the full cost of the free sensor replacement is) towards the purchase of new Leica equipment."

 

Does that make sense / sound reasonable?

Edited May 19, 2017 by Ecar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[-Lss-]

With all due respect no commitment is open-ended and its naive to think it is. If you honestly think that Leica should have committed economic suicide by issuing a full recall or undertaking to replace sensors free forever then so be it.

Then why not communicate transparently in the first place? *)

 

If there is no commitment, say so early on in order to provide reasonable information for the customer base. Essentially, Leica first informed the users that their sensors are good forever. Now Leica informs the users the very same sensors are now good for, what, three months. While it may be naive to believe the former, it is cynical to expect the latter. Leica failed communicating to the market and their user base, plain and simple. Anyone who has trust in their communication from here on is every bit as naive as someone who believed the goodwill program would be in place for any significant time.

 

The interesting question is why this change happens now. Why such a short window? What change drove them to this decision?

 

*) Obviously because it's all marketing talk, and one should trust a marketer less than an entertainer. A lesson learned, once again.