Hallstein Posted June 4, 2017 Share #1 Posted June 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have just recently acquired a Leica M9 that has not gotten it's sensor replaced as far as i know. The sensor seems perfectly clean to me, except for a few spots of dust (no white halos, does not look like any of the corrosion pictures). How many M9 cameras are really affected, and how common is the issue? Are we talking 20-30% of cameras, less, or almost all of them? The internet can make people horribly worried about technical issues with products, since we don't really hear from all the owners that has no issue with their camera. No one posts on the internet about "my M9 and me, my camera does not have corrosion issues..." What's your opinion on the issue? If we have clean sensors that have not been replaced, should we be worried? Is this issue really all that common? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Hi Hallstein, Take a look here How common is sensor corrosion, really? And should we be worried?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted June 4, 2017 Share #2 Posted June 4, 2017 It is common, but nobody knows what percentage will be affected. All we have is case reports. If somebody has multiple cameras and all happen to be affected, they will make the Internet claim of "all of them", if somebody has only cameras without the problem he will say "only a few". Only Leica knows for sure, and even they don't know how many cameras with/without corrosion are in the hands of unsuspecting owners. Personally I think that cameras that have not developed corrosion by now are likely(but not certain) to be fine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 4, 2017 Share #3 Posted June 4, 2017 What's your opinion on the issue? If we have clean sensors that have not been replaced, should we be worried? Is this issue really all that common? Only Leica and the sensor manufacturer really know. Despite all the conjecture, worrying and complaining on the internet, nobody else actually has hard facts. I have one with replaced sensor and one without. I'm not unduly worried, but my opinion is not excessively popular amongst some I am sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 4, 2017 Share #4 Posted June 4, 2017 Nobody knows for sure. Just because someone has 4 cameras and all corroded does not mean they all will get it. Perhaps this mythical person lived on a coast where humidity was high or he cleaned them religiously using some wet method or he allowed water to condense by bringing them in from cold to warm house or humid environment in tropics into an air-conditioned hotel. Even Nikons can be damaged from condensation so a Nikon repairman told me. The best way we could find out out is did you buy new, how did you clean it, did it get condensation ever. This becomes statistically difficult because there would be only a small sample size, people are poor witnesses, and the available internet poll has no way to accommodate all the variables. Maybe the problem was confined to only part of production or 3 of 10 randomly. Mine is the last chrome M9P available in USA and has less than 1000 pics. Probably never got condensation. Home is airconditioned so no high humidity. I have cleaned with air, sensor scope and lens pen, and perhaps one time with Eclipse. I bought a Pentax sticky pen and never used it so far. No corrosion so far, but what does this prove? I tend to agree with jaap. My advice is clean with air and lens pen. Keep rear of lens clean and inside of rear lens caps spotless and blow out the inside of camera with shutter closed . My son went two years and I cleaned 2 bits of crud with lens pen so the prevention worked. If you bring a camera in from cold to warm, wrap with towel so it stabilizes slowly , 8 hours. I wrap the whole bag with my parka and quilt and just leave it alone. Lenses can get condensation also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted June 4, 2017 Share #5 Posted June 4, 2017 This is a very legitimate question. I have been very concerned about this myself now that Leica announced a deadline for their free sensor replacement. I have an M9, which I bought right when the M9 was released, and it didn't show any signs of corrosion until the end of last year. Then however, I saw massive areas that were corroded. I also own an MM1, bought two years ago, and I am somewhat concerned that it won't show any corrosion before the 5 year limit is up and then start. I am wondering if frequent wet cleaning the sensor etc. might trigger the corrosion. I don't wet clean my sensors very often, and I wonder whether this contributed to my M9 not showing corrosion for so long. I don't think that pampering your sensor is a viable option. If my sensor needs to be cleaned, I have to clean it. I live in dry California, but if I travel to Germany in the summer, I don't want to worry about the humidity. Leica have acknowledged that there is a component in the glue used for the sensor glass that causes the corrosion, so why do I need to take extra precaution to keep it from being triggered, when a solution is available? I almost wish my MM1 was showing obvious corrosion now, so I could get the sensor replaced. Here is the section from a photograph that made me notice the corrosion on my M9 sensor - you can see the sky transition from clean to corrosion bubbles: 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/273146-how-common-is-sensor-corrosion-really-and-should-we-be-worried/?do=findComment&comment=3288927'>More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 4, 2017 Share #6 Posted June 4, 2017 I agree that it is not worth going out of your way to try and avoid the problem. For what it's worth, I live in normal humidity in the UK, I don't get my cameras wet, and never bother cleaning the sensors of my digital cameras. Despite this my original Monochrom developed corrosion within a couple of years. Ironically, I took my camera in to Leica UK to be wet cleaned for the first time, having assumed that a consistent mark in my photos was dirt or a hair on the sensor and was "accused" of scratching the sensor by the Leica technician. This was just before the corrosion issue became public and everything kicked off but at one point it was suggested that I might have to pay €1800 for a new sensor! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted June 4, 2017 Share #7 Posted June 4, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have the same concerns, my M9 doesn't have the issue. I wish it did however there are options, repair or upgrade. Many years ago there was talk about sensors deteriorating when exposed to higher radiation levels during air travel. Perhaps there's a connection. I haven't heard anything lately about this and it could have been misinformation. Anyone know? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2017 Share #8 Posted June 4, 2017 It's certainly depends on heat and humidity. I know that virtually all M9s and MMs in Thailand suffered sensor corrosion. My MM was struck twice in 18 months and my M9-P once. I kept the cameras in a dry cabinet, but not much you can do about it in a climate where you get condensation all over the camera and lenses when you step out of an air-conditioned car or building into 35°C, high humidity weather. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted June 5, 2017 Share #9 Posted June 5, 2017 To answer this question requires understanding the root cause of the problem cameras. Is there a process parameter in applying the coating that makes each sensor more or less susceptible to corrosion? Or is the design inherently prone to corrosion and those that had water reach the sensor found the issue sooner than everyone else? Or perhaps (most likely imho) both scenarios are true? Either way - the value of the M9 has taken a hit because potential buyers cannot assess the risk of corrosion without data. Accordingly, they will discount their reservation price for this uncertainty Thanks for letting me ramble.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imants Posted June 5, 2017 Share #10 Posted June 5, 2017 People who are worried about their camera generally worry about most things"......for others it is too late to worry when it happens to their camera Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 5, 2017 Share #11 Posted June 5, 2017 To answer this question requires understanding the root cause of the problem cameras. Is there a process parameter in applying the coating that makes each sensor more or less susceptible to corrosion? Or is the design inherently prone to corrosion and those that had water reach the sensor found the issue sooner than everyone else? Or perhaps (most likely imho) both scenarios are true? Either way - the value of the M9 has taken a hit because potential buyers cannot assess the risk of corrosion without data. Accordingly, they will discount their reservation price for this uncertainty Thanks for letting me ramble.... The corrosion happens in the glass of the IR filter, which is not moisture-proof. Unfortunately, it is the most effective filter glass for IR. Normally it is laminated with moisture-resistant optical glass, but that would make the filter too thick for use in an M camera, for the well-known reasons. Other optical glass types suitable for IR filtering would need to be thicker as well. So the IR filter had to be covered in a protective coating. If there is a (micro)porosity in this coating, moisture will attack the glass underneath. Such a porosity can be a minuscule defect in the application of the coating or later mechanical damage. I do not know whether Leica and the sensor maker developed a new coating that has a more resistant and consistent surface, or if they found/developed another glass type for the filter. Or maybe a combination of both. In any case, it is interesting to note that most sensor problems with M cameras have the same root cause: the short heritage register distance of the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 5, 2017 Share #12 Posted June 5, 2017 I have the same concerns, my M9 doesn't have the issue. I wish it did however there are options, repair or upgrade. Many years ago there was talk about sensors deteriorating when exposed to higher radiation levels during air travel. Perhaps there's a connection. I haven't heard anything lately about this and it could have been misinformation. Anyone know? The radiation damage to sensors - any sensor - is caused by Neutrons from cosmic radiation interacting with silicon-containing molecules, damaging the structure of the sensel (often misnamed pixel in this context). This causes dead pixels, hot pixels or, as the sensor is read out in lines, a block in the readout which will show up as a sensor line. This has nothing to do with the corrosion problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted June 5, 2017 Share #13 Posted June 5, 2017 The corrosion happens in the glass of the IR filter, which is not moisture-proof. Unfortunately, it is the most effective filter glass for IR. Normally it is laminated with moisture-resistant optical glass, but that would make the filter too thick for use in an M camera, for the well-known reasons. Other optical glass types suitable for IR filtering would need to be thicker as well. So the IR filter had to be covered in a protective coating. If there is a (micro)porosity in this coating, moisture will attack the glass underneath. Such a porosity can be a minuscule defect in the application of the coating or later mechanical damage. I do not know whether Leica and the sensor maker developed a new coating that has a more resistant and consistent surface, or if they found/developed another glass type for the filter. Or maybe a combination of both. In any case, it is interesting to note that most sensor problems with M cameras have the same root cause: the short heritage register distance of the camera. Is it fair to say that all glass has some level of microporosity? I my experience with csst turbine blades a certain level is tolerated as zero is an impossible goal. However, glass is not a nickel based alloy. Accordingly- if some level of microporosity is always present - eventually all sensors will corrode if exposed to water? Of course, some sensors will be more prone than others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 5, 2017 Share #14 Posted June 5, 2017 It is not the porosity of the glass -if any- that is the issue, it is the defects in the protective coating that allow moisture ingress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 5, 2017 Share #15 Posted June 5, 2017 It is not the porosity of the glass -if any- that is the issue, it is the defects in the protective coating that allow moisture ingress. It's actually where the coating sort of shrinks and a minute opening occurs and exposes the uncoated glass cover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted June 5, 2017 Share #16 Posted June 5, 2017 It is not the porosity of the glass -if any- that is the issue, it is the defects in the protective coating that allow moisture ingress. I wonder if those defects are visible under magnified examination. If so Leica, by examining new original sensors, may have a very good understanding of the percentage that will ultimately fail. And if that is so, possibly the defective sensors were removed from inventory, so cameras whose sensor was replaced with the original design sensor (after the failure mechanism was discovered) may be OK. While I have no idea if any of the above is likely - I just wanted to post an alternative to the "doom and gloom" scenarios. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 5, 2017 Share #17 Posted June 5, 2017 The radiation damage to sensors - any sensor - is caused by Neutrons from cosmic radiation interacting with silicon-containing molecules, damaging the structure of the sensel (often misnamed pixel in this context). This causes dead pixels, hot pixels or, as the sensor is read out in lines, a block in the readout which will show up as a sensor line. This has nothing to do with the corrosion problem. I dug up a rather unique image: A Neutron striking Silicate. A beach in this case, hitting the tops of the ripples in the sand. As you can see it is not surprising that it can damage a sensor. A physicist whom I showed the photograph to told me that the chances of capturing such an event with a normal camera were a magnitude smaller than winning the National Lottery. I would have preferred the latter . 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/273146-how-common-is-sensor-corrosion-really-and-should-we-be-worried/?do=findComment&comment=3289717'>More sharing options...
lm_user Posted June 5, 2017 Share #18 Posted June 5, 2017 Ok. I will bite. I am skeptical- but fail to offer a better explanation..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 5, 2017 Share #19 Posted June 5, 2017 If you mean sensor damage it would be hard to do so, as there are dozens of scientific papers describing the phenomenon. If you mean the photograph, Steve Huff could probably come up with a better explanation, but I'll run with the hypothesis offered by various experts . I'm open to opinions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted June 6, 2017 Share #20 Posted June 6, 2017 i really meant nothing. I really have no better explanation unless this was shot on film. In that case I would guess a scratched emulsion. Based on your comments- i assume digital Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.