Leica NJ does not have any CCD now, turnaround time might take longer

[wpm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm amazed that someone can make a reasonable statement or ask a question and the conversation goes off into a completely different direction.

That said, my MMI was sent to N.J. nearly a month ago for a new sensor. Never heard a word from them until I finally called them and had a pleasant chat with whomever

was manning the phones that day. As the OP stated, lack of replacement sensors may increase the wait time. I was quoted 18 to 24 weeks. He laughed knowingly

when I stated that they must be swamped with sensor replacements. It does put a little kink in having my MMI but I have enough other cameras to cover it and it's too

stinking hot in Houston now anyway to get out other than really early. My sympathies to all on the wait list. I feel your pain. 

[TomB_tx]

Leica N.J. Received my M9 yesterday, and this morning sent me a confirmation that it was received and checked in with job number, etc. for test of sensor corrosion. If it needs a sensor I expect a long wait, but I'm pleased they responded quickly and courteously.

[IkarusJohn]

It is a little odd, don't you think, that Leica announces a revised policy which inevitably spurs CCD based camera owners to check their sensors, and then doesn't have enough replacements to cope with the deluge.

[jaapv]

It is. Maybe they did not expect this number. OTOH the supply of sensors has always been stop and go.

[jaapv]

 Possibly for competitive reasons.  I can imagine an advertisement for a Sony A9 "We make our own sensors so you don't have to worry about parts supply in the rare instance of a failure".

Interesting remark. The Sony sensors in the Digilux2 failed - virtually all of them- and Leica had a hell of a fight with Sony to get them replaced for free. In fact, Panasonic only started doing free replacements because Leica did, initially they followed Sony.

[pico]

It is. Maybe they did not expect this number. OTOH the supply of sensors has always been stop and go.

 

Leica did not expect 'this number' points to possibilities: first that you are wrong. How could they not anticipate demand? Another is they had anticipated consequences and they are willing to deal with it dynamically (translates in PR to "make up shit"). Another is because they don't know how to deal with the crisis in their old world model and just let what might happen be so, then they revert again to some archaic company mantra to restart the cycle.

 

Fail.

 

Private conversation in Leica's board, "If there is a failing in the sensor, and given that we have a 400% markup, we can still make money if many fail." Voice from the back of the room, "If they only fail once, but many will fail twice, and given overhead and conservative inflation, you will not make a penny. Best reboot."

[taosantamonica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica N.J. Received my M9 yesterday, and this morning sent me a confirmation that it was received and checked in with job number, etc. for test of sensor corrosion. If it needs a sensor I expect a long wait, but I'm pleased they responded quickly and courteously.

 

I talked to N.J. today to get a mailing label and was told a 24 week wait for my mm1.  i'm inclined to go with the m246 upgrade with it's lowered upgrade price now.  Even with the upgrade price i should get more for a new m246 with warranty than a mm1 with replaced sensor......then i'll wait for the m10m. If it was just the wait i had for my m9p I'd keep the mm1.  

[pico]

Twenty-four weeks. That is about the horizon of my lifetime. So Leica can ...

.

[james.liam]

It is unfortunate this has happened and indeed, the whole run of original sensors may ultimately be defective. Perhaps this is why Leica is now offering broader choices of discounted new cameras, even including the M240 and 262 as options for MM v.1 owners. It may not be ideal nor desirable in light of their prior statements. But perhaps this is the best they can do from a financial standpoint.

[rivi1969]

6 months to get it done is too much. Leica should send the owners some loaners to ease the wait.  

 

Now I understand why M9 cameras with replaced sensors are reaching the same prices than some M240s. Who will buy a used M9 with original sensor even if the seller claims "it works perfectly"? 

[james.liam]

Leica should send the owners some loaners to ease the wait.  

 

If you ask nicely and they have one around, they'll lend it to you. 

 

Now I understand why M9 cameras with replaced sensors are reaching the same prices than some M240s. Who will buy a used M9 with original sensor even if the seller claims "it works perfectly"? 

 

If you're able to land a nice M9 with visible sensor rot for a bargain price and are willing to wait, opportunity knocks if you get it to Leica in time.

[Archiver]

I think a lot of us have been assuming or hoping for a best-case scenario.

 

Leica ought to know how many M9s, M-Es and Monochroms are in circulation, not including those sent back as beyond repair or for trade in.  They would also know how many have already had sensors replaced after getting the upgraded version from Kodak//Truesense.  So they could make an conservative estimate of M9-era cameras that won't be brought in for whatever reason, and make reasonable avenues to having a good percentage of the remaining number ordered.  But this is a perfect-world scenario.

 

If the sensors are produced as small runs, this could be why there's a sensor shortage with such a long delay before more are in stock.  If Leica underestimated the number of M9 era cameras that would be returned for repair, that's another reason.  But they would admit to the first but not the second.  After all, their announcement said something to the effect of reaching nearly all the M9s for repair.

[IkarusJohn]

That's only part of the picture, though, isn't it?

 

IF the sensors are only produced in very small runs, then Leica's announcement suggests that they really did believe (hope?) that there were few remaining affected sensors and they wanted to flush them out.  What they've learned is that it is NOT a few sensors affected, but a far greater number than their ordering policy anticipated.

[jaapv]

Which would very strange in itself, as there must have been a significant number of M9-type cameras coming in for repairs other than corrosion over the last eight years, so it is inconceivable that Leica was unaware of  the percentage of affected sensors.

Having said that, even if only 15% (just an example percentage) of the remaining cameras were affected it would generate thousands of repairs, which is clearly beyond Leica's CS capacity, and possibly beyond the capacity  of the sensor makers.

 

We are only guessing at the reasons behind the delay: Manpower bottleneck? Spare part bottleneck? Ordering error? Capacity problems with the sensor makers? Delay with the manufacturing of the motherboard? Obsolete  machinery for CCD printing? ASML delaying service on their machines to please Zeiss (which they part-own) ? , etc.

 

As we can only guess at the reasons behind the August deadline: Flushing out the rest? An insurance policy running out? The supplier guaranty running out? Pressure from investor-shareholders ? etc. again.

 

We will never know and any post made on the subject will range from speculation to conspiracy theory.

[IkarusJohn]

And yet, you float 15% as a possible number. It could be 85% (a more likely percentage?). Quite why you float a number like that (based on "an example percentage") can only be guessed at.

 

What we do know, though, is that only Leica knows (1) how many CCD based cameras it sold, (2) what the problem is likely to be and its probability, and (3) its supply chain arrangements. Leica changed its replacement policy, resulting in a surge of cameras being repaired it can't handle.

 

These are facts, and they don't reflect well on Leica. No conspiracy theories or "example" facts on my part, Jaap.

[jaapv]

Yes, it can be any percentage as I said in my post ("even if only"). 85% would only worsen the situation but is possible as well. If you can't stand examples, you can insert any number you like. I would say that it is clear to any rational reader that an example number is just...an example number.

 

For the rest you are just rehashing my post and adding your own private bash.

 

If you want to apply a general remark to you own posts, feel free. I didn't...

[IkarusJohn]

Yes, it can be any percentage as I said in my post ("even if only"). 85% would only worsen the situation but is possible as well. If you can't stand examples, you can insert any number you like. ...

 

Not really, as you're creating an expectation that it is "only" 15%.

 

Truth is, we don't know.

 

My post did stop short of speculating as to why or how Leica appears to have got the numbers so wrong ... assuming they did.

 

Bashing or rehashing?  Well, I guess I'm repeating myself (I posted "what we know" elsewhere) for which I apologise for repeating myself.  It's just every time I read one of your explanations of the CCD sensor problem, there just seems to be a flavour of a suggestion that it isn't really as bad as it seems.  I must be misreading them.

 

Bashing?  Not really.  Here's my post:

 

 

And yet, you float 15% as a possible number. It could be 85% (a more likely percentage?). Quite why you float a number like that (based on "an example percentage") can only be guessed at.

 

What we do know, though, is that only Leica knows (1) how many CCD based cameras it sold, (2) what the problem is likely to be and its probability, and (3) its supply chain arrangements. Leica changed its replacement policy, resulting in a surge of cameras being repaired it can't handle.

 

These are facts, and they don't reflect well on Leica. No conspiracy theories or "example" facts on my part, Jaap.

 

I don't really see my observation that it doesn't reflect well on Leica as being "bashing" when repair times of 6 months are floating around.  Your comment is a bit pejorative, don't you think?

 

My estimation is as others have suggested - corrosion of the M9 series CCD sensors is a matter of "when" not "if".  Assuming that the corrosion is moisture based, then if you live somewhere dry you might be lucky - no corrosion?  or just delayed?

 

I guess we'll never know.  But if that's true - [speculation on] Leica's revised policy does look like a cynical cost controlling exercise [speculation off].  I don't think this will go away - my camera is in Wetzlar, with the clock ticking.

 

As a matter of consumer guarantees, I'm not entirely sure that either the revised policy or the wait time for repairs is legally justified.  I would ask for a replacement camera, but I actually want my original one back.

[TomB_tx]

I've had 7 good years of service from my M9 before I sent it in for evaluation. That's a fair life for a heavily used electromechanical consumer device. I'm not upset with Leica's situation. If I get it back with a new sensor at no charge, even if it take 6 months, I still think that is amazing.

As for repair times, I've had at least 3 cameras take over a year at different service techs, and it's likely to be a 3 year wait just to send in my Contax II body.

My M9 is my only digital Leica, but I have film Leicas and other digital cameras to use in the meantime. And maybe my order for an M10 will come in sooner, or maybe not.

But I'm not going to stress out over any of these situations.

[Archiver]

As we can only guess at the reasons behind the August deadline: Flushing out the rest? An insurance policy running out? The supplier guaranty running out? Pressure from investor-shareholders ? etc. again.

 

We will never know and any post made on the subject will range from speculation to conspiracy theory.

Now that you mention it, there's a rumour going around the Dark Web that cameras sensors from the major players are now being made with 'report to home' functions, allowing certain parts of the military-industrial complex to gain valuable data.  There are elements rebelling against this, with Leica being one of the last bastions of resistance.  So they have sourced sensors from smaller companies to avoid having to use these spy-laden sensors, but the supply chain is being interrupted by other parts of the New World Order, under the direction of the Rothschild bloodline.  This would explain why it's become so difficult to get M9 sensors.  I'm sure reptilians are involved, too.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Not really, as you're creating an expectation that it is "only" 15%.

 

You must be following a kind of logic that is quite unique...

 

I'll explain it very simply:

 

"even if it were [insert number] it would be beyond the capacity of Leica's CS " refers to the ability of Leica to handle a given number of cameras, and cannot be construed as giving an indication of the actual number of affected cameras.

 

Maybe this will make it clear:

 

"If 50% of the Netherlands were to be hit by a flood, the country would survive nonetheless"

Am I suggesting that 50% of the Netherlands WILL be hit by a flood? I should hope not...

 

Deliberate misreading or just sloppy?