Leica M9 Corrosion with New Sensor

[ianman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, TomB_tx said:

That’s much more than a reasonable person should expect.

It's good that you and many others took the opportunity to take advantage of the free replacement program.

But I don't agree that it's more than anyone should expect. Due to the nature of the problem it's the least a reasonable person should expect. The free replacement scheme should not have been time limited. What if after 7 years of use, you saw no signs of corrosion but they had appeared a month after the end of the free replacement program and you had to pay to get the poorly designed snesor replaced. Would you still think it's reasonable?

Edited November 24, 2019 by ianman

[jdlaing]

37 minutes ago, ianman said:

It's good that you and many others took the opportunity to take advantage of the free replacement program.

But I don't agree that it's more than anyone should expect. Due to the nature of the problem it's the least a reasonable person should expect. The free replacement scheme should not have been time limited. What if after 7 years of use, you saw no signs of corrosion but they had appeared a month after the end of the free replacement program and you had to pay to get the poorly designed snesor replaced. Would you still think it's reasonable?

I have to respectfully disagree here. A warranty  is for manufacturer defects. The sensor corrosion is a manufacturer defect. Leica, in those days had a warranty three times longer than others. In addition to that they added another two years as a good faith effort. I think that was fair.

Try going to any other manufacturer several years after a warranty expires and get a free replacement.

[ianman]

1 hour ago, jdlaing said:

have to respectfully disagree here. A warranty  is for manufacturer defects. The sensor corrosion is a manufacturer defect.

In that case they should have offered a free replacement to each and every M9 (and siblings) whether the sensor showed signs of corrosion or not. The thing is, this was a known defect and it was also known that even if a particular camera was unaffected, it could be affected at any time in the future. The fact that it's a pretty major component of the camera should be considered. Unlike Paul, I would not be happy to just clean up the mess using software. Mine was pretty bad, unusable tbh.

IMHO the right thing to do would have been to write to every registered owner and to offer a free replacement whenever the fault occurred, irrespective of warranty period.

[jdlaing]

Too much of an ask. It was t a known defect until all of the M9’s were already sold. 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

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.

Well, the point that could be made would be that you had seven fault-free years out of ten (accepted lifespan of a high-end digital camera) That was a bonus, which Leica ended. The present replacement cost is still half  the real cost. It would have been wise of Leica to make that clear from the beginning, instead of dropping a bombshell three months before the first cameras reached the five-year cutoff date. Incredibly bad communication (mis)management.

My grandmother taught me to be up front if I wanted people to understand my motivation.

[ianman]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Incredibly bad communication (mis)management.

On the other hand within a few posts we have multi million dollar class action demands and suggesting that a note to every owner explaning the issue and offering a free upgrade whenever the issue occurs is too much... within such a wide spectrum I can easily imagine that it's quite difficult to manage and make everyone happy.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One doesn't need to make everybody happy, one needs to be straight and transparant.

[ianman]

Well yes, precisely. If they had been straight and transparent, everybody would have been happy.  That is the middle way I have been advocating.

[Arrow]

Maybe, they were hoping the number of eventually affected sensors will stay limited over the years. Instead it seems to be an avalanche of newly affected sensors popping up one after another. I expect Leica digital cameras to last and work for a long time without causing undesired extra costs to keep them running. What I understand now is, five years might be the limit. 🥶

I think there are still plenty of Leica customers, having this long time sustainability and usability aspect in mind when they buy Leica products. 

Well, Leica does a pretty good job, otherwise. However, this sensor issue, and how it is dealt with, leaves an unpleasant sentiment. It is perfectly fine to pay for maintenance or exchange parts when the necessity is caused during use. This sensor thing is a different story, as was pointed out in other forum member´s posts. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Arrow

[iwctoys]

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.

Des that mean that Apple is not responsible for their phones. Apple does not make there phones Foxconn does.

[dot-me-not]

I wonder if the IR filter can be removed from an affected sensor with a solvent like acetone? If it is an adhesive issue -- de-lamination -- and not corrosion, strictly speaking, maybe there's a do-it-yourself fix. Perhaps an M9 can be made into a higher-functioning M8?  I'll see myself out . . . 

[jaapv]

Rather unlikely. What you could do is to have the IR filter removed by a specialized firm to turn it into an IR camera (which you could use as a normal one with a 486 filter, I guess)

[AceVentura1986]

29 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Rather unlikely. What you could do is to have the IR filter removed by a specialized firm to turn it into an IR camera (which you could use as a normal one with a 486 filter, I guess)

That would certainly be interesting too. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by AceVentura1986

[Giacomo.B]

In these days after more than a year in the "land of the sun" still someone, building disinformation among fans, continues to say that there would be cases of corrosion even with the new sensors, and that Leica would no longer replace the same even under payment. I think people should live it peacefully thinking that:

1) In Asia where M9 and M8 are widespread there is no one who has EVER encountered any problems

2) At least in Italy M9, M9P and ME type 220 have become increasingly rare to find on sale on the second-hand market, who owns it holds it tight because it recognizes its undisputed qualities.

I think anyone who says that new sensors have problems doesn't recognize dirt from corrosion problems.

[tappan]

I am just seeing this now.
My sensor (or IR filter or whatever) WAS  corroded.
It was replaced with  a sensor (code15), in 2017. I have had no problems with my replacement.sensor  inside my M9-P
Mark

[M9reno]

4 hours ago, tappan said:

I am just seeing this now.
My sensor (or IR filter or whatever) WAS  corroded.
It was replaced with  a sensor (code15), in 2017. I have had no problems with my replacement.sensor  inside my M9-P
Mark

So, what happened?  Did you have your corroded sensor replaced again?  Was it still under warranty?

[ianman]

5 hours ago, M9reno said:

So, what happened?  Did you have your corroded sensor replaced again?  Was it still under warranty?

Why would it need to be replaced again? My understanding is that the sensor was corroded and changed once. Mark wrote "I have had no problems with my replacement.sensor".

[M9reno]

2 hours ago, ianman said:

Why would it need to be replaced again? My understanding is that the sensor was corroded and changed once. Mark wrote "I have had no problems with my replacement.sensor".

Sorry - completely crossed wires, if that's the case.  I understood that his code 15 sensor "WAS" corroded, he had it replaced, and since then has had no problem.  In part it was the assertive "WAS" that led me to that interpretation, since we have otherwise assumed (and I am happy to continue to assume) that corrosion of the code 15 sensor was extremely unlikely.  Maybe he could clarify?

[tappan]

15 hours ago, M9reno said:

So, what happened?  Did you have your corroded sensor replaced again?  Was it still under warranty?

Hello.
I  Have had no issues with  the new sensor. The first one was corroded and Leica replaced it with the newer type.

Mark

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[View From Space]

I just received my Leica M9 Mono body back from Leica after paying for sensor replacement. I will do some shooting over the next few days to compare with shots with original sensor. I did have corrosion issues on my original sensor.

Does anyone have any links to specifications for the current M9 replacement sensor that Leica currently installs? I can’t find an details on what specs are for the new sensor Leica installed into my M9 Mono.

Thanks!