Leica M9 Corrosion with New Sensor

[Arrow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, ianman said:

Should there be?

At least something alike in terms of: designed to withstand over 300000 actuations, working for decades without jamming and ....... no sensor issues. As simply, as that 

Edited November 23, 2019 by Arrow

[escimo]

In fact, there seems to be no ease of use inside the maintenance/service (hidden) menu to expose the serial numberof the sensor unit (CCD) without in-deep knowledge of the firmeware. LC's CS/CC does. Maybe this person, I suppose: https://alexhude.github.io/2019/01/24/hacking-leica-m240.html

In my opinion the sensor S/N is (also) printed somewhere on the sensor unit inside the body and could be hidden inside the firmware as well. ASM setup (~ Access Setup Menu, Address Service Mode - I don't know) Bit 0 .. 15 (16 in sum).
On the day the M9 returned the installed firmware version was 1.204, the (non-public) private version for M9's with a changed sensor unit.

@ianman

Hardware ID's:
CCD ID: 15
CCD Board ID: 2
Control Brd ID: 2
M16C ID: 0

Exchange program from last change in 2018
https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/Global/2018/CCD-sensors-of-the-Leica-M9-M9-P-M-Monochrom-and-M-E-camera-models

PS: I was looking onto the sensor, with the help of a flashlight and my eyes and could see some dust on the sensor in the correlating (mirrored) area. So doesn't look like "the problem". Also the the images differing from 2015 and 2019. All fine, only have to clean the sensor soon.

Edited November 23, 2019 by escimo

[Advertisement]

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

[pedaes]

59 minutes ago, escimo said:

On the day the M9 returned the installed firmware version was 1.204, the (non-public) private version for M9's with a changed sensor unit

Never heard of this. Latest  M9 firmware is 1.2.10. This was loaded by Wetzlar with 'new new' sensor. This version is available to download off Leica website (and other sources).

[james.liam]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Should there be?

2 hours ago, Arrow said:

There is no upgrade option to an M3 mentioned.

 

Time machine trip back to 1959. No Berlin Wall.

Edited November 23, 2019 by james.liam

[escimo]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb pedaes:

Never heard of this. Latest  M9 firmware is 1.2.10. This was loaded by Wetzlar with 'new new' sensor. This version is available to download off Leica website (and other sources).

Now you have heard about it

BTW: latest firmware for M9 should be 1.216 - at least on my M9
https://us.leica-camera.com/content/download/146758/2483371/version/1/file/m9-1_216.upd

 

[ianman]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

Never heard of this. Latest  M9 firmware is 1.2.10. This was loaded by Wetzlar with 'new new' sensor. This version is available to download off Leica website (and other sources).

It would depend when your sensor was changed. There was a period during which a version of the firmware which was not available for download was loaded into the camera during the sensor change process. This was before a newer and public version which included the 28mm Summaron was released. I can't remember the version numbers.

[iwctoys]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Here we go again...  Have you done your search before posting? It was covered many times.

In 2015 Leica was using same "corrosive" sensors as replacement. My M-E was made in 2015, it "corroded" in 2017.

Only recently they figured out what was going on, kept free sensor change for couple of years and more recently cowardly changed it for the price of FF digital camera. 

Let me say this once again. sensor do not corrode. There has never been one example outside of Leica to sensor corroding. Not Canon Nikon Fuji Pentax NEVER. Wild guess but i think Leica took bad IR filters off replaced them.

[TomB_tx]

As I recall Leica always explained it was the sensor cover glass / IR filter that had the problem. But the sensor assembly was provided complete by a 3rd party, so Leica required them to provide complete replacements.

[dot-me-not]

As best I can tell from the images of and from affected sensors, there was not so much a corrosion issue but a delamination issue, with the adhesive holding the IR filter in place failing. It's a case of bad glue, and so who would have been to blame for that?

Edited November 24, 2019 by dot-me-not

[Arrow]

1 hour ago, dot-me-not said:

As best I can tell from the images of and from affected sensors, there was not so much a corrosion issue but a delamination issue, with the adhesive holding the IR filter in place failing. It's a case of bad glue, and so who would have been to blame for that?

Surely not the user .... in no way.

Delamination can be caused by corrosion. I looked it up and corrosion can be more generally be defined as the gradual destruction of one element by the effect of other agents present. Corrosion is the cause, delimitation the effect in this case.

However, did Leica ever provide samples of how sensor corrosion looks like, so that the customer knows what to look for? Corrosion is a pretty unspecific term, indeed. Delaminations caused by corrosion + sample images would have been clearer. 

The cause of the corrosion is not known. It can be air getting underneath the glass through micro cracks, can be some electrochemical reaction .... 

Since corrosion is a gradual process, contingent upon some reaction, that can happen at any time, it is hard to digest that only the sensors, that showed the defect first were exchanged for free in the replacement lottery. Lots of sensors may be unaffected, so far, and show the defect later ... 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Arrow

[silverchrome]

8 hours ago, iwctoys said:

Here we go again...  Have you done your search before posting? It was covered many times.

In 2015 Leica was using same "corrosive" sensors as replacement. My M-E was made in 2015, it "corroded" in 2017.

Only recently they figured out what was going on, kept free sensor change for couple of years and more recently cowardly changed it for the price of FF digital camera. 

Let me say this once again. sensor do not corrode. There has never been one example outside of Leica to sensor corroding. Not Canon Nikon Fuji Pentax NEVER. Wild guess but i think Leica took bad IR filters off replaced them.

Why don't we just call the sensors "faulty" instead?

 

It seems pointless to keep going on and on about sensors not being able to "corrode" when it is clear that this word was chosen because many people can relate to corrosion and its effects.  

 

Consider also that Leica and many of the users on this forum are not native English speakers.

 

 

 

 

[jaapv]

Maybe because the cover glass does corrode and the sensor itself is not faulty? If you have a corroded sensor converted to IR there is nothing wrong with such a camera, for instance.

And just to be precise, although it has been explained many times: Leica RF cameras need very thin IR filters for a thin filter stack to get the best results from the lenses.
Leica went from APS-H to FF with the M9, making the need more pressing, despite tweaking the microlenses. The thinnest possible filter was from a glass type that is prone to corrode. The normal specification was to laminate the glass with a non-corroding type, but that process was still too thick.
So Kodak developed a special anti-corrosive coating for Leica to replace the laminate. In actual use it turned out that microporosities in this coating or minuscule mechanical damage could unexpectedly cause initial micro-corrosion, which over time would spread, delaminating the coating. Whether this was due to the design or the production process is a matter of speculation.

It took a few years after the problem was identified to develop a different IR filter of the required thickness.

[ianman]

5 hours ago, Arrow said:

However, did Leica ever provide samples of how sensor corrosion looks like, so that the customer knows what to look for?

Yes. And I posted them here.

[ianman]

1 hour ago, silverchrome said:

It seems pointless to keep going on and on about sensors not being able to "corrode" when it is clear that this word was chosen because many people can relate to corrosion and its effects.

Exactly. All this was discussed over and over again right here on the LUF. A quick search would provide all the information needed to understand the issue, and to realise that, as you rightly mention, the term "corroded sensor" was used for ease.

[jaapv]

That is a bit different as well. A digital camera has an economic life span of 10 years. For five years Leica repaired for free, after five years they apply "new for old" of 50%. Defensible, but not very customer-friendly.
The communication of this policy was atrocious, however.

But why didn't you send your cameras in during the last few "free" months after the announcement?

[jaapv]

Welcome to the new age, Paul. It is by no means unique to Leica. For instance Nikon, who were forced by a class action to admit a sensor issue - and insisted on a legal NDA as part of the settlement. Other industries have plenty of similar examples as well..

[pedaes]

32 minutes ago, paulmac said:

Absolutely fair point but the M9 issue was not something caused by "fair wear and tear" but was a design flaw that was inbuilt into the camera from new. It was as a ticking time bomb and affected or will affect a great many of the original sensor M9's. 

My cameras cost me an average of £3000-£5000 each and that's an awful lot of money to have spent on a camera that came with an inbuilt fault.

I absolutely accept that it wasn't Leica's fault and that these things happen - it's not the end of the world!. It was unforeseen and I'm sure that Leica were devastated by this failure.

As you say though it was VERY poor the way that they handled the issue - firstly denying it and then reneging on their stated policy of fixing it for free.

I originally saw it as a non issue and something that would be fixed anyway so "why bother" Leica would sort it and stand by their customers.

That's all I am upset about, the going back on their word and taking heed of the accountants who no doubt came up with some formula that said "Yes there will be hassle and a loss of faith but there will be new customers buying future products so no lasting damage".

I always thought Leica were a company who above all else were concerned to make the very best and would always stand by their products.

 

Although we will all agree it could have been handled better,  in fairness I think they gave notice the 'free' replacement was ending and there was a window to register your camera.

Must be a quite news day for this topic to be reserrected!

Edited November 24, 2019 by pedaes

[ianman]

15 minutes ago, paulmac said:

Maybe if I just had the one camera but FIVE all with corrosion is a lot of money to payout!

But not during the first years! Many of us paid nothing to have the sensors replaced and get a free CLA during the process. They even collected the camera from home for free!

As Keith wrote, we all agree that communication was rubbish but the date of the end of the free replacement period was well known and talked about on the LUF well before it arrived.

I agree with you though, there should not have been a time limit. The old sensor can develop the problem any any time. 5, 10, 15 years down the line, it's still a design fault that should be repaired for free.

Like you and everyone I was annoyed and frustrated that it took so long for the work to be done. I was without mine for about 5 months and from what I've seen that could be considered a short wait. But I only have one.. having five, you could have sent them in one by one and not have to wait at all to have access to one. Did all 5 develop this issue?

20 minutes ago, paulmac said:

As I said though, I just clone out the areas and to be fair I can't think of any digital image that doesn't need some work on it either clone/heal to get rid of dust or in this case blobs from the sensor corrosion and so not an issue other than the devaluing of the camera.

The problem you might have though is that the corrosion spots get worse over time.

Re cleaning... I have a few dust spots from time to time but I don't have any software to remove them. I use Iridient developer which doesn't have such tools. Strangely with the old sensor dust issue were terrible. It collected so much dust it became known as the Dyson here. But with the new sensor, as I wrote above, I hardly ever have an dust issues. And I live in a very dusty place and don't take much care when changing the lens outside or in. I wonder if the old sensor IR layer somehow attracted dust.

[pedaes]

1 hour ago, paulmac said:

Maybe if I just had the one camera but FIVE all with corrosion is a lot of money to payout!

The point I was trying to make Paul is you could have registered all your cameras and then it would have cost you nothing. Water under bridge now I know, and agree with your practical solution. It is not ownerous with relatively light 'amateur' use!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[TomB_tx]

I’ve been using Leicas since 1968 as an amateur (engineer by profession) - probably more typical of the average Leica owner than professional photographers. I still have and use all the Leicas I’ve bought in that time. The M9 was the first digital camera I really liked. After 7 years of good service, and hearing about the coming end of the free replacement program, I carefully tested and thought I saw the first signs of the corrosion problem. This was, of course, long after the warranty (covering defects) had expired, yet Leica replaced the sensor and returned the camera in as-new condition for free. That’s much more than a reasonable person should expect.