Leica SL premature CCD failure

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I suspect but don’t know, that the repair technicians have a list of options to generate the very brief repair reports. For example “ signs of use” for anything not factory mint, “ signs of heavy use” seems to be applied even just where there is noticeable marking on the  lens mount from normal lens fitting.

If a camera body is dented then it has experienced impact to some degree of course. What internal issues that causes must vary.

My M and Summilux 50 ASPH definitely did sustain an impact from a drop a couple of metres onto a stone surface. I have nothing to complain about there and yes covered by insurance. Deliberate damage for an insurance claim would be fraud though.

My S (Typ 007) I have shot a lot (a couple of hundred thousand exposures) while always in studio and cared for, never subject to impact of any kind nor liquid damage. Both of those were reported as well as signs of heavy use. There was slight residue around buttons I was shown. I guess from sticky fingers.. It’s been perfect since that repair a couple of years back at least.

My SL though has never had the slightest issue and I haven’t even cleaned the sensor cover glass after several years in use. Only one lens up until now responsible for that I guess.

Until this thread I don’t recall seeing Forum reports on any sensor issues with it at all.

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

I think this is more likely covering themselves for damage that the customer says that Leica has done, less to get out of warranty issues, unless they really do think there has been impact damage. Leica customers are very fussy, so if there is a scratch on their camera that they did not notice, and then they get the camera back from repair and then notice it, they will get upset. So I think these descriptions cover Leica in that sense. Kind of like getting a rental car and going around it taking photos and describing the condition on the form before you take it out. They do seem very aggressive in describing light wear as being "signs of heavy use", however. I have had the camera described this way numerous times, and never had a warranty denied...quite the opposite, actually. They have fixed things for free even out of warranty if they felt like it was something that should not have failed. 

 

[mich]

To rephrase an old Mick Jackson classic: Don't blame it on the sunshine, don't blame it on the moonlight, blame it on the customer! 🙂

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

On 10/24/2019 at 4:39 PM, 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.

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 .... 

 

On 10/27/2019 at 6:11 AM, michali said:

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.....

 

 

On 10/27/2019 at 1:41 PM, 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.

Inciting a forum member(s) to submit a fraudulent and dishonest insurance claim makes those suggesting same an 'accessory at the fact' ... and if the suggested claim is actually made for the replacement cost of a Leica SL, the total claim value could be up to c.£4K ... hardly pocket money.  

Surprising that the mods allow such posts. I, and others, on this forum, were/are insurance industry professionals ... and are very aware of how 'successful' fraudulent claims push up others' insurance premiums ... and we're also aware of the potential penalties if 'found out'. 

https://www.ripeinsurance.co.uk/valuables/blog/fraudulent-insurance-claims/

^^^ Not much difference between the value of e.g. a Rolex watch and a Leica SL ...

Please refrain from making fraudulent insurance claims ... you might get 'found out' and suffer the consequences ... which could include appearing in court,  being found guilty, and being given a community order which could include 'X' hundred hours of unpaid work (or worse) ... plus the possibly of compromising your career / job / reputation when the case is reported in the media 

dunk 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by dkCambridgeshire

[michali]

Dunk- I think you missed the irony involved, it was  tongue in cheek....

Best,

Mike

[jaapv]

On 10/24/2019 at 7:28 PM, 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.

It can  happen if one uses compressed air instead of a blower bulb for cleaning.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All this is a reminder to me to take the same action when sending in a camera for repair as I take when hiring a car: photograph it all over, and keep as a record of original condition.

[dkCambridgeshire]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It can  happen if one uses compressed air instead of a blower bulb for cleaning.

Blower bulbs are notorious for actually blowing dust onto sensors - unless the types with built-in filters are used. I've watched several sensor cleaning demonstrations at Leica Mayfair where compressed air is used ... perfectly safe if the can is used sensibly and from a distance.

 

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!

 

Leica Mayfair technician David Slater demonstrating Leica camera servicing ... Note can of compressed air used. 

dunk  

[jaapv]

Yes, but only if you know what you are doing. There are plenty of cases of compressed air damaging sensors, either by blasting dust under the filter stack or by depositing irremovable gunk.

[frame-it]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

It can  happen if one uses compressed air instead of a blower bulb for cleaning.

you mean there is actually a gap around the sides of the cover glass ?

[jaapv]

The cover glass is not glued to the sensor. Thus companies like Kolari are able to replace it by another type of filter. 

[bherman01545]

16 hours ago, jaapv said:

It can  happen if one uses compressed air instead of a blower bulb for cleaning.

+1, Jaapv is correct, not to mention that the residue from the propellant is hard to clean off of a sensor. 

[Jeff S]

The Fuji GFX actually has a 9mm gap between the cover glass and sensor plane, which hides dust due to defocusing.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/gfx-technologies-2/

Jeff

[Derrick_CK]

I was had same issue like @Homer Tali

But my SL was just opened box, and in my case, that weird line displayed only when I attached M lens with authentic MtoL adapter.

But in my case, I get that issue 3days after open new box, so I got replaced with new device from dealer.

With this issue, I have no issue with TL lens, but right after I mount M lens, I can easily check the sensor issue.

[RoySmith]

14 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The Fuji GFX actually has a 9mm gap between the cover glass and sensor plane, which hides dust due to defocusing.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/gfx-technologies-2/

Jeff

Wow - 9mm. That is interesting. Good design for minimizing the visibility of dust, but would be bad for many M lenses.

[Tailwagger]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:44 PM, bherman01545 said:

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.

Hence why for my Ms and the soon to arrive SL2, sport RRS grips. A couple of year ago, I slipped on a wet rock at the shore, when down camera in hand, landed on another rock which dinged up the grip on my 240. But outside of knocking the RF out a bit, it saved the camera which after a quick service continues to work perfectly as it enters middle age.