Leica SL premature CCD failure

[Homer Tali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own a Leica SL that I purchased about 2 years ago, with a number of Leica lenses.

While taking some pictures in low light conditions, I observed some straight faded lines stretching across the top-left quadrant of my pictures. After professionally cleaning the sensor and the camera at a recommended shop by a Leica store, the problem still remained. My camera was inspected at Leica Store in Coral Gables by Josh Lehrer, the store manager. They decided that it need to be send to NJ for repairs. After two weeks time of assessment, and multiple email exchanges the camera was sent to Germany for CCD sensor repairs.

The German office identified that particles had crept-in under the glass cover for the CCD sensor and this was the cause for the observed defects. They blamed possible fall/impact of the camera for the cause and failure.

As the original owner and the only person using the camera I know that this claim is false and that they are putting the blame for a manufacturing/packaging problem of the sensor and the sensor glass cover onto the users. The camera was inspected multiple times before it was decided to be send to Germany, first by the store manager at Leica store, Mr. Josh Lehrer, second by Mark Brady the technical advisor in Leica NJ. There was never a claim or any observation/marking by these Leica employees that the camera some how was subject to an unusual impact.

Many false statements were made along the way in writing and over email exchanges trying to place the blame on me as the user. For example, Ms. Jennine Jacquues, director for customer care in Leica US suggested in her email that Leica US does not repair SL cameras and no one in NJ had touched or made an assessment of my camera. I needed to prove her wrong by forwarding to her an email from Mr. Mark Brady, a technical advisor on her staff as an evidence and contradiction to her claims.

Since I know that I have never dropped or had a hard impact to my camera, paying additional $3,061.00 to Leica for repairs of the sensor make me feel cheated and uncomfortable. There is no guarantee that after paying for the sensor replacement, the particles will not penetrate under the glass cover again soon, the mirrorless cameras are open system design.

I could use some help to really understand whats behind such a failure in Leica SL sensors. I also know the only way to correct Leica misbehavior and abuse of power over consumers is through public investigation and exposure to this problem.

I do understand the other Leica cameras have been recalled for premature sensor erosions and failures after significant public outcry (Latest information concerning the CCD sensors replacement of the Leica M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom and M-E camera models).

[Advertisement]

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

[andybarton]

Strange. The Leica SL has a CMOS sensor not prone to failure. 

[helged]

Of the various Leica bodies/sensors, there are very few reported failures with the SL body and/or sensor. This does not imply that issues may not happen, but in my understanding, the SL system is reliable. When issues occur, Leica at Wetzlar will sort this out. At least based on my experience with Leica gear. And Yes, the SL has served me well, without issues, since Nov 2015.

[frame-it]

So typical that they're blaming the user for impact related damage as reported by many others on this forum

[Stuart Richardson]

I have noticed that whenever I sent my S in for service, they noted "signs of heavy use", while to me the camera looked very well taken care of. I have a feeling if I opened up a camera without using it at all and sent it to them for service, it would say "signs of use". I think it is a liability thing for them, but in this case it is obviously a problem if they are stating that there was an impact when there wasn't one.

[Jeff S]

This should be moved to the SL forum.  

And as others have noted, the SL CMOS sensor (not CCD) durability has not been a subject of concern, unlike with some other Leica models, primarily CCD-based.

That said, I’m quite surprised if the folks at Leica Miami, Josh and/or David Farkas, don’t intervene on your behalf to get this resolved.  They have a great reputation here for customer service; can’t say the same for Leica Service.

Jeff

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/20/2019 at 1:20 PM, Homer Tali said:

Since I know that I have never dropped or had a hard impact to my camera, paying additional $3,061.00 to Leica for repairs of the sensor make me feel cheated and uncomfortable. There is no guarantee that after paying for the sensor replacement, the particles will not penetrate under the glass cover again soon, the mirrorless cameras are open system design.

From my recent wetzlar experience 'signs of heavy use and severe impact damage' appear to be standard remarks applied to any camera that has the slightest sign of being used in any way.

As the labour charge is 150 euros/hr (about $165) it either makes the replacement sensor exorbitantly expensive or the time taken to do the repair excessive. Neither are really acceptable, even for an expensive company like Leica. 

Either way you could get a good second hand one for the cost of repair, so I'd be very tempted to drop it from  a great height onto concrete and claim on my insurance. 

The plastic rubber eyepiece support on my SL finally disintegrated (I had self repaired it once) and it has clearly failed at the 4 screw attachment points as there is very little plastic at these points and it appears to be of the brittle polycarbonate type. It has had no more 'impact damage' than putting it in and out of a padded camera back and I wrote indicating this appeared to be material failure rather than rough handling ..... and that several others have had similar issues. As an allegedly  'Pro' camera it should be robust enough to survive a few knocks anyway. Leica basically ignored this and as the final repair cost was not that extortionate, (for Leica) and it is being sold (for less than your repair cost), I've let the matter drop. 

For $3000 I think I would pursue it further up the food chain and ask for both explanation and justification of their assessments and costs .... 

[ZHNL]

I hope this is another isolated case. My less than 1 year old S007 (still under warranty) was determined impact damage as well. I am the only user and never drop or bump it. Leica also agree it is in mint shape but they claim it is Internal ribbon was bent due to impact though they seems comfortably claim impact must be come from me. My problem is, with rugged build like S or claimed professional tool by Leica, it is unforgivable there is internal ribbon bent with outside in mint condition. Either it is fake or it is not well designed if it is true.   
 

And I have to mention that this camera out of box have sleep mode problem but I never bother to ship it back. Who will? I just remember always turn it off after use.  Leica said they don’t know why it’s sleep current is 20 times higher than spec. They perform reset and fixed it this time. 
 

I send this unit mainly for AF accuracy problem of my 100mm Summicron given I was told just send both in to check and get ripped off from quote of my S0007.  To my surprise,  After whatever they did with my S007, they said replace print board, adjust AF. this become the first S body I handled over past 5 years can reliable focus 100cron now. I handled total 6 S body include 3 loaner. There are so many unknowns to me with this system until know and I am very technical on this as an engineer. 

after long and windy fight with them, I still paid half of cost.  I know it sound fishing but Leica send camera both way 2nd air plus loaner for lens and body, and biggest surprise was they make this S007 the most reliable AF S I ever touched. No, it still will miss focus but most under tough condition with any SLR camera. With well defined target within certain distance, it is finally decent reliable on me. So, in the end, I am quite happy with service this time. 
 

sounds crazy that I am happy under this condition, especially  for customers from any other brand such as Canikony, but I am used to this as a long term Leica customers. I hope this is last time I have to send my S body in. plus there is no alternative for me out there that I like better than S. 

[ZHNL]

BTW, I have nothing but good to say about Jennie and John. They have been very helpful and patient on my behave. I can’t say the same for Leica service in Germany that I have to deal with later because I need/want to know more technical details and detail explanation about behavior of camera and lens. 

[alan.y]

Not quite sure how and at what one can throw the SL to get dust *underneath* the sensor cover glass. Methinks Leica should reward the OP for achieving such a feat.

[ZHNL]

I don't know what is the warranty policy for SL and if OP is the original owner for it and If it is within warranty period, I think OP qualify a free fix as impact doesn't explain the behavior. If it is out of warranty period,  I don't think it is unreasonable for Leica to ask for service charge. Just my opinion.  

[michali]

On 10/24/2019 at 7:50 PM, ZHNL said:

I don't know what is the warranty policy for SL and if OP is the original owner for it and If it is within warranty period, I think OP qualify a free fix as impact doesn't explain the behavior. If it is out of warranty period,  I don't think it is unreasonable for Leica to ask for service charge. Just my opinion.  

Don't get me started, Leica's behaviour is appalling. I've had enough of their bullshit when it comes to repairs for faulty products / manufacturing processes which are not the user's fault. I've been involved in some arm wrestling with them over the past few months regarding a second sensor failure on both my M9 & Monochrome, which were replaced in 2015 and which have both corroded again. 

They're refusing to replace the sensors unless I pay them the equivalent of about $4, 200- for the two cameras. I've gone up the food chain, and they've now offered me a "free" leather covering of my choice for my cameras. It's both insulting and ridiculous. I don't want or need "free" leather coverings; all they need to do is stand by their products and repair the cameras at their cost not the user's.

I'm afraid that Thighslapper's advice is the best, drop the camera and  claim.....

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by michali

[AZN]

On 10/25/2019 at 4:28 AM, alan.y said:

Not quite sure how and at what one can throw the SL to get dust *underneath* the sensor cover glass. Methinks Leica should reward the OP for achieving such a feat.

My SL has 2 spots, right in the middle of the frame.  Under the cover glass - no amount of rubbing or blowing can get rid of them. One of them looks like it's a small hair (it isn't a dot).  

Luckily they are only visible in areas of plain sky, or when using telephoto lens.  Can usually deal with them pretty easily in C1, although the hair can sometimes be a bit tricky.

Now that I have the Sony A7RIV, it doesn't worry me so much.  It's too late in the year to send the SL across the world to be serviced (I'm in Australia).  Will instead send it off in January and assume it will come back in late May...

Edited October 27, 2019 by AZN

[bherman01545]

On 10/24/2019 at 6:15 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I have noticed that whenever I sent my S in for service, they noted "signs of heavy use", while to me the camera looked very well taken care of. I have a feeling if I opened up a camera without using it at all and sent it to them for service, it would say "signs of use". I think it is a liability thing for them, but in this case it is obviously a problem if they are stating that there was an impact when there wasn't one.

Funny that Leica would say that. The SL is designed for heavy, professional use. With that said, there is"use" and there is "abuse". Camera warranties do not cover abuse, but the SL is not designed to be 'body jewelry' either. It is supposedly designed with professionals in mind.  If I can't use my SL heavily, without fear that Leica would not cover me under warranty, I would drop Leica like a hot potato and never look back.

[michali]

16 minutes ago, bherman01545 said:

................. I would drop Leica like a hot potato and never look back.

Fully agree!  

In my case, the only issue is that I've already invested a small fortune over many years in their photographic equipment.

[AlanJW]

7 hours ago, michali said:

I'm afraid that Thighslapper's advice is the best, drop the camera and  claim.....

 

Why drop it.  Get Leica to say in writing in is due to being dropped or other impact, and submit to insurance.  If no insurance, a used SL in good condition can be had for less than the cost of repair.

[Fang]

Now I am worrried since I have detected lots of dust particles especially for landscape photos taken with f11 and above and wide (tried getting rid of them with rocket blower but they are still there - now seeking professional advise on how to get rid of them) .   During my recent trip to Hunza Valley under intense high altitute daylight, I have experience banding of the sky in some of my shots.

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Fang
to clarify further the answer

[adan]

On 10/24/2019 at 9:39 AM, thighslapper said:

From my recent wetzlar experience 'signs of heavy use and severe impact damage' appear to be standard remarks applied to any camera that has the slightest sign of being used in any way.

Now, now - "normal use" for a Leica is supposed to be sitting in a glass case.

(Slightly on a side note, I know my local store now puts little "drop-detectors" on their rental equipment. A tiny transparent tube stuck on the outside. If it experiences G-forces above some level, something in the tube breaks, and the contents turn red.)

https://www.ommas.co.th/impactindicatinglabels.html#ShockWatch-Clip

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[bherman01545]

3 hours ago, AlanJW said:

Why drop it.  Get Leica to say in writing in is due to being dropped or other impact, and submit to insurance.  If no insurance, a used SL in good condition can be had for less than the cost of repair.

I guess that you missed my point, but I agree that if you drop your camera, you should try the insurance route.

The point that I was trying to make was this...

The SL is a "Pro" camera - which by definition, means that it should be used - a lot. Not dropped, but not necessarily babied either. I treat my equipment with care, and tried to do the same when I was shooting professionally, but things still can and will happen. Sometimes, in the heat of the  moment, you have to detach a lens, throw it in the bag (not literally) and grab another lens. Cameras, lenses and accessories can get a bump, a touch mark or display a slight impact. That is reality.

The SL, with its native SL lenses are heavy and can be somewhat of a challenge to control 'in the wild'. I've read all too many times (on several forums) that if someone's SL suffered a slight 'ding' on the corner or had evidence of even the slightest impact, Leica plays the "abuse" card and denies warranty repair. With that being said, Leica has always been fair whenever I've needed to send the camera in for warranty repairs, (which thankfully hasn't been very often) 

Nikon's, Canons and the like have a a partially rubberized and polycarbonate body, which tends to not show wear and tear as easily as an all-metal SL body. If Leica is marketing the SL as a "Pro" body, they can't assume that these cameras aren't being used heavily, and need to be more realistic in their assessment of damage or abuse.

[mich]

These phantom "impacts" seem to be a wide spread phenomenon. Whenever one of my watches was due for service, the cost estimate almost everytime included scratches and the notorious "impact". Same with cameras, not really brand specific.

When I received my brand new M246, the rangefinder was way off. I sent it to Wetzlar, still in mint condition and of course with full warranty. Leica sent a confirmation that mentioned a "scratch on the top plate". No "impact" this time! 😉

When I got the camera back(3 month) it was still in mint condition with no scatches at all and no mention of a repair of the top plate. Must have been a miracle recovery! 🙂

I don't know what's behind this behaviour. Are companies just trying to rip off their customers? Is this just a case of risk management for the future? So if anything happens during repair they can blame it to the customer because it is already "documented" ?

Any future problems with the camera(watch or whatever...) can be blamed on the original "impact" too.

Whatever the reason behind this behaviour is, it is definitely extremely annoying!

 

Insert other media

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by mich