Leica discontinues CCD (M9 and Variants) sensor production

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Don Morley said:

Sorry but what other companies? In my experience the cameras and sensors they make are all still working. Don

Isn't there a big difference between "still working" and "repairable" - the latter being the subject of the thread.

I own a still-working 1987 Mac Plus - I am sure it is not repairable, absent cannibalizing some other 1987 Mac Plus.

Of note, I see on a different forum that the top-end Canon 1D mk. IV (introduced 2009, discontinued 2012) was declared to be at the "end of service life" (no longer repairable) by early 2019.

Seven years.

[rivi1969]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the challenge here is that cameras today (by any company) are not like cameras made in the film era. They are fundamentally different things. Modern cameras are electronic devices which are made using parts sourced around the world and are not solely dependent on a single company. Very few companies other than those like Sony and Fuji have the capacity to create them fully on their own. In order to make all the components in house, Leica would have to be a giant manufacturing powerhouse and chip maker. With opto-mechanical cameras, that was more possible to do at a smaller scale. The problem here is not that Leica does not have pride in their products or that they don't want to find a solution. It is that they decided on CCD's, which even in 2009 were an end of life sensor solution for the camera industry (not saying it is bad....they are great, but CMOS had already taken over). Shortly after the cameras came out, Kodak went under and spun off the company. I am not a sensor engineer, so I am not sure how foreseeable the corrosion problem was, but I am sure that had it been known, they would not have chosen the sensor. They have been replacing sensors for at least six years, so there has been a lot of time for people to get the updated sensor. Anyway, I don't want to put this on the customer, but I think Leica has been trying to do as best they could with this.

Regarding the upgrade offer, can you really compare the price you pay to a used model? You would be getting a new one?

As for replacing the innards of an M9 with M10 parts, it is a nice idea, but does not seem workable in practice. Digital cameras have electronics and processors that are mated to an individual sensor and fitted to that exact body. I don't think you can simply replace the M9 electronics with the M10 sensor and be done with it. Even if you could, the most compelling argument for an M9 in 2020 is the CCD...the M10 has a much better viewfinder and shutter, better display, better battery life, it is thinner and so on. The interface is different, so an M10 in an M9 body would need different coding or firmware in order to work with the button layout. All of this work, and how many people would elect to do this, rather than just upgrade to an M10? I suspect very few.

Again, I get that this is a bad situation to be in, and immensely frustrating, but unfortunately it is the state of things. I sympathize, as I had similar problems with my Mamiya 7II, which is a camera that is still widely used and beloved, but has been abandoned completely by its new owner (Phase One). Digital cameras, even expensive ones, simply do not and will not have the lifetime of mechanical only cameras (or those with very simple electronics). Until a local camera repair guy can fabricate a CCD in house as a one-off or populate circuit boards with all the right components in a desktop 3d printer, I don't think it is likely that your grandchildren will be using your M9 (I say this as someone with my grandmother's Leica IIIb).

 

There are people who wants to stick a 42mp full frame sensor inside a Digilux 2 and leave everything else the same lol.

[Advertisement]

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

[rivi1969]

2 hours ago, carbon_dragon said:

Yes that was kind of my point. My 5d is still fully functional too. "Regular" camera manufacturers make pretty long lived cameras and tough ones too, and they do it without $8000 price tags. Granted Leicas are works of art in many ways with hand crafting and fine mechanical precision, and so on. There are certainly Canon Ps and Nikon rangefinders still working too, but MOST Leicas from that period are still functional (or at least a heck of a lot of them). I think Leica takes pride in cameras living longer than their owners and not just one or two but most of them. It's a mindset you can embrace when the camera is all mechanical (much as we embrace it with mechanical watches). But once you add electronics, well you can't make new electronic components once the production line stops. 

What do you do if you're Leica and you take pride in your cameras outliving their owners? Do you give up on that notion and still make cameras that SHOULD last that long but won't because what is inside will fail long before the  outer shell? Or do you do crazy things to keep up the spirit of that long life (like upgrading camera internals)? I expect they will quietly transition to letting those Ms slowly become shelf queens when there are no more electronic parts from the original cameras. 

Correct. If my 15 year-old 5D fails (which by the way works as new, looks as new and it doesn't even have one single dead pixel)  I won't be pissed. It cost me very little money so I can live with that. However, in the case of our friend Ko.Fe. who has a 5-year old M-E that cost him a few grands and might turn into a $6000 paper weight any day, Leica really should do something better than their trade-in scheme with him. I would expect a full camera replacement, like a demo M262 or similar.

[Ko.Fe.]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the challenge here is that cameras today (by any company) are not like cameras made in the film era. They are fundamentally different things. Modern cameras are electronic devices which are made using parts sourced around the world and are not solely dependent on a single company. Very few companies other than those like Sony and Fuji have the capacity to create them fully on their own. In order to make all the components in house, Leica would have to be a giant manufacturing powerhouse and chip maker. With opto-mechanical cameras, that was more possible to do at a smaller scale. The problem here is not that Leica does not have pride in their products or that they don't want to find a solution. It is that they decided on CCD's, which even in 2009 were an end of life sensor solution for the camera industry (not saying it is bad....they are great, but CMOS had already taken over). Shortly after the cameras came out, Kodak went under and spun off the company. I am not a sensor engineer, so I am not sure how foreseeable the corrosion problem was, but I am sure that had it been known, they would not have chosen the sensor. They have been replacing sensors for at least six years, so there has been a lot of time for people to get the updated sensor. Anyway, I don't want to put this on the customer, but I think Leica has been trying to do as best they could with this.

Regarding the upgrade offer, can you really compare the price you pay to a used model? You would be getting a new one?

As for replacing the innards of an M9 with M10 parts, it is a nice idea, but does not seem workable in practice. Digital cameras have electronics and processors that are mated to an individual sensor and fitted to that exact body. I don't think you can simply replace the M9 electronics with the M10 sensor and be done with it. Even if you could, the most compelling argument for an M9 in 2020 is the CCD...the M10 has a much better viewfinder and shutter, better display, better battery life, it is thinner and so on. The interface is different, so an M10 in an M9 body would need different coding or firmware in order to work with the button layout. All of this work, and how many people would elect to do this, rather than just upgrade to an M10? I suspect very few.

Again, I get that this is a bad situation to be in, and immensely frustrating, but unfortunately it is the state of things. I sympathize, as I had similar problems with my Mamiya 7II, which is a camera that is still widely used and beloved, but has been abandoned completely by its new owner (Phase One). Digital cameras, even expensive ones, simply do not and will not have the lifetime of mechanical only cameras (or those with very simple electronics). Until a local camera repair guy can fabricate a CCD in house as a one-off or populate circuit boards with all the right components in a desktop 3d printer, I don't think it is likely that your grandchildren will be using your M9 (I say this as someone with my grandmother's Leica IIIb).

 

I was mentioning the concept of new modular camera. Not retrofit of M10 inwards into M9 body. Sensors are the same in the size, BTW, a.k.a. 35mm. 

Rangefinder with optical frame lines will lasts very long time. It is sensors with processors which doesn't seems to lasts long before upgrade comes and shutters are mechanical parts, which would be great to have as modular and universal. 

Right now I have zero confidence about what happened with M9 series will not happen with M240,  M10 series. And paying 8K for uncertainty product is not something I'm personally into.  

[rivi1969]

1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said:

I was mentioning the concept of new modular camera. Not retrofit of M10 inwards into M9 body. Sensors are the same in the size, BTW, a.k.a. 35mm. 

Rangefinder with optical frame lines will lasts very long time. It is sensors with processors which doesn't seems to lasts long before upgrade comes and shutters are mechanical parts, which would be great to have as modular and universal. 

Right now I have zero confidence about what happened with M9 series will not happen with M240,  M10 series. And paying 8K for uncertainty product is not something I'm personally into.  

Ko.Fe. If there is a guy who can transform a film M3 into a full-frame digital at his basement, I bet camera manufacturers could do that too. However won't be cost-effective for them. Imagine if you buy one body and every 5 years you buy the new module? Won't be good business, they need to sell you the sensor and everything else too.

Edited August 12, 2020 by rivi1969

[Guest BlackBarn]

So  Leica build camera bodies to last a life time....well good to know they have their priorities right and also some have reconciled the possibility they are paying a premium for what would therefore be an over engineered product.

[carbon_dragon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keeping in mind that this is kind of a theoretical discussion on what Leica *could* do rather than what they will do...

Yes, the M9 is a different camera with a different size than the M10, BUT that just makes it an engineering problem. And an easier one than it could be since the M9 is BIGGER than the M10. Yes you'd have to rewrite the firmware to work in the new body. In effect, you'd be creating a new model of the M10, only in the M9 body. They do that a fair bit, so it's not an unfamiliar problem. But it would cost them time and money. I think back in the Leica II/III days they did sometimes upgrade someone's older camera to modern standards if I remember right, so it's not even unprecedented. Yes also it wouldn't be a CCD, but it would function and even be a better camera!

Also this isn't an individual engineering problem either. The same solution would work for any M9 they chose to convert. Furthermore, though theoretically they might eventually be forced to create a design for converting any old M model to the current model, in practice, the M9 has a specific design defect that is Leica's fault (or maybe Kodak's, not sure who made the sensor) and other cameras do not yet have this issue, so again, hard problem, but not as hard as you think. After all, a Leica M9 might be a bit fatter, but the design of the M hasn't really changed much in about 70 years. Heck you could probably convert an M2 to a M10 if you were motivated to do so.

Were Leica to do this (and they're not going to), it would be a gesture of good faith to its dedicated customers who believe in the brand and who Leica wants to continue paying $8K for a body. Granted there are other expensive cameras, but usually they are digital medium format (or another Leica). To be viable, you'd have to charge a "reasonable" fee for the upgrade, like $2K or possibly $3K, not $6K. Remember, Leica has actual humans making (or at least finishing) these cameras, that is part of the Leica mystique. 

They could base their trade-ins on returned and reconditioned cameras and give you a reconditioned camera at a slight discount from what you'd pay for one in good used condition. So a used M10 is going for maybe $5500, so upgrading to the M10 could cost $4000-4500 which would be pretty expensive but you'd feel like you were getting a discount on buying a good used one. Instead they'll charge $6000 for the trade-ins which means that's it's $500 cheaper just to throw the M9 into a drawer and buy a used one from B&H or KEH or Tamarkin (or the Leica Miami store). Just so that they can say they are taking care of their customers. Then eventually when more Leica Ms have issues, they can discontinue them and go on with the Ss, SLs, TLs, CLs, and so on. THOSE cameras, though made by Leica, feel more like regular (well built) cameras which people will not expect crazy long repair capability. 

Plus, they could always institute a system by which the Leica stores with their online stores could just pay you a trade-in fee for an old M9 (or other M) which had failed due to some technical problem that made it unrepairable. And you could then take that trade-in fee and apply it to a camera THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN THEIR STORE. Maybe the M9 is good for a $1000 voucher which then is taken directly off the cost they are currently displaying for an actual physical camera that is in their store now (which would then come with a warranty). Remember, even if the M9 has a corroded sensor, it's still worth something to Leica for spare parts to recondition other units which have other issues. But at least part of that voucher price would be a compensation to the owner who they failed with the faulty sensor design.

So neither the engineering problem of putting the innards of an M10 into a M9 body, NOR the logistics problem of offering customers a good trade-in discount on another similar camera is unsolvable. it just takes the will to take it on and the determination to see their customers right. But that isn't what companies these days would do. Leica would like to pretend it's different, to maintain the mystique of hand craftsmanship and customer service, but it wants to operate like every other modern camera company. Cameras are computers with lenses attached and computers wear out, not in 50 years but 10. Yes some might work for longer, but this is not guaranteed. After a certain point, you're on borrowed time and that applies to the Leica Ms too. We might as well come to terms with that now and  decide what that means to our own buying choices.

Even though I have purchased a M8, M9, and M10, I'm kind of amazed that they still exist, that people would buy (that I would buy) digital Ms when I KNOW that the internals are much more ephemeral than the rugged and beautiful exterior.

[Ko.Fe.]

1 hour ago, rivi1969 said:

Ko.Fe. If there is a guy who can transform a film M3 into a full-frame digital at his basement, I bet camera manufacturers could do that too. However won't be cost-effective for them. Imagine if you buy one body and every 5 years you buy the new module? Won't be good business, they need to sell you the sensor and everything else too.

M3 with A7 sensor it is well documented DIY conversion. Only parts are needed to be purchased. Just like modification of bicycles.

Old 10-speed could be converted to fixie under low budget or new bike could be build on five thousands dollars frame set.

Profit calculation  is not as simple as "lets sell no IBIS, no dust reduction 8K USD cameras because we can".  It works for boutique market.

Broader market could be taken with customers willing to pay for upgrades and flexibility.  More customers is better than few, IMO. 

Leica has it in its history. Upgrading I, II series to III. It was profitable back then.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I agree with you all that it would sure be great if Leica did all these things,  I just don't see how they could do it and run a business...the closest analogy for the CCD failure I can think of is if your car had a known engine fault, and then you try to bring it back to the dealer after 150,000 miles and seven years and ask them for a new free engine. And if they won't give it to you, you expect them to put a newer model engine from another newer model into the car (an engine that they have to source from another company, btw). I drive a car that is a bit similar to the M9 or ME. Wonderful, but a bit of a dinosaur for its time. I would love if, when it eventually dies, I could keep the frame and put in a new more modern engine, a new infotainment system and so on, but it is not going to happen...at least not from the company itself. And cars are easier to modifier and produced in greater numbers than Leicas with more parts sharing, less complicated electronics (at least in some areas) etc. As for the M3 with A7 sensor, are they actually out in the wild? The project was funded in 2014 and the kickstarter seems to have finished in 2019 (still with some updates), so it does not sound like it is something that is as easy to do as to snap the fingers. I am sure the conversion requires at the very least several hours of intricate work.

While I am sure that Leica has a good profit margin, I can't imagine that they can afford to give free or low cost upgrades to people who bought their cameras several years ago in perpetuity. The cameras ARE expensive, but that is not just branding and markup alone. Leica's materials and component cost is higher, and there is a lot more labor (and more expensive labor) put into the cameras, not only because of the hand assembling, but because of the individual QA.The major work for Leica cameras is done in the EU (Germany or Portugal) which has higher wages and more labor requirements than in the countries that are often used for a lot of other makers' cameras. Japan is of course also a high wage country, but the labor costs there are substantially lower than they are in the EU. Then add that many of the factories are now in Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia and China, all of which have much lower labor costs. Leica also have more expensive and labor intensive distribution and sales networks (boutiques vs. amazon, consumer electronics stores and regular camera stores), and so on. At the end of the day you are not paying for the camera, you are paying for the work that was put in to put that camera in your hands. This is just basic Henry Ford style manufacturing 101...automation makes things cheaper. Not necessarily worse, just cheaper! Leica has less automation, higher wages and more expensive components, therefore they are more expensive.

Anyway, I know this was a long post and a bit off the rails from the thread, but maybe someone agrees (or not!).

[adan]

Pop Quiz:

Production of the M9-series CCD sensor has been discontinued by:

1) Leica

2) An independent US sensor supplier, OnSemi.

Pop Quiz 2:

Leica's primary function is to:

1) Be run as a profitable business

2) Be a charity for (often well-heeled) camera owners

Pop Quiz 3:

After the Leica CEO suggested in 2008 that Leica could provide "new sensor upgrades" to its digital cameras, he was:

1) given a raise

2) fired

Hint: https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/leica-camera-sacks-ceo-steven-k-lee-26430

[IkarusJohn]

My VW Passat had a water pump failure well out of warranty - I think it had about 50,000km on the clock.  VW replaced the engine at no charge.  I don’t think the car analogy works, really.

It seems to me that Leica drifted into this problem without too much thought.  There’s a world of difference between a film M camera you can realistically pass on to your children, and one where the film is replaced by a digital sensor - this, to my mind, is where Leica made a huge mistake.  Electronics for most of the last 10 years have been on a steep(ish) development curve, but most of the advances we’ve wanted have plateau’d.  Sure you can now get 40MP in an M camera, but to small marginal gain.  My 18MP Monochrom takes pictures with more resolution than I need.

But when Leica developed the M9, I suspect they were full of the joys of achieving the impossible of getting a full frame sensor into an M body.  But, didn’t their recently removed (at that time) chief executive also say that M digitals would be modular?  The reputational price Leica is now paying is producing life-time RF bodies with digital era write-off electronics.  Andy uses the IRS write-off period for his cameras - I’m pleased I don’t use tax write-off as my replacement cycle for my toys; my 25 year old road bike is still going strong.

We, the customers, have also bought into this false investment - we support hand crafted bodies and RFs with sensors which apparently don’t have the same life expectation.  Virtu cellphone anyone (a dumb product if ever there was one), but is a digital Leica really that different?  I traded my corroded M9 for an M-A for this very reason, but then got sucked into the M10, with the M10-D ...

Leica could have dealt with this in two ways:

(1)  ensured a supply of parts for the LCD (M8) and the sensors for M9 series cameras - while TrueSense might not be able to help any longer, Leica could have insisted on a technology and IP transfer for the sensors if TrueSense could/would no longer supply.  I have done this for other products, and if the quantities stack up, getting another producer to make chips to Leica’s specification can’t be that hard - CCD sensors are still made an used in other applications.

Price?  Well, the trade in price for a dead M9 or Monochrom leaves a lot of headroom for repair cost, if Leica had the will to look at it.  I’m surprised there haven’t been more angry protests on this.  If my Monochrom had a sensor replacement with the first version (ie, just putting the same faulty sensor into the camera), I’d have been ropable - Leica should have done the second replacement for nothing!

(2)  standardised its body shape and size, and the sensor/processor mounting.  This might be more problematic, but the electronics are made to Leica’s specification.  Provided they don’t change that specification, new sensors could relatively easily be fitted to any M digital body.  This is something for Leica to specify to its suppliers (like their microlenses, cover glass etc).  The rangefinder and much else is standardised.  For those naysayers, the M10 started out as a 24MP camera, and has been released as an M10-D without LCD, and M10-M and M10-R with 40MP sensors; all in the same case ...

I’m not saying this should be free, but I think it is clear that Leica can provide different sensor options in the same body.  Provided Leica doesn’t change the physical interface with the camera body, I don’t see any technical reason why Leica could not offer sensor and electronic replacements to all its M10 based cameras ... for a price.

This is in Leica’s control.  For myself, I know my Monochrom will die some time, and Leica won’t help.  But if the sensor or electronics dies in my M10-D, I would like to think that Leica has taken this on board.  I will pay what will be a silly price (compared to a Sony or Fuji or the others) to repair/upgrade my M10-D, because I just can’t bare the idea of throwing it in the bin.  If the 40MP sensor, or whatever succeeds it, is the only thing available, I’ll take that.  But I won’t take being told that no electronic replacement is available 5 or 10 years down the track.  At that point, Leica and I will part company.

[adan]

19 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Andy uses the IRS write-off period for his cameras - I’m pleased I don’t use tax write-off as my replacement cycle for my toys; my 25 year old road bike is still going strong.

Well, I was just quoting the IRS's "life-time" - I generally assume I can get 10 years actual use from pretty much any camera (including Leica digitals), although I may upgrade early if there is a compelling reason. My M9s were in year 8 when the M10 provided compelling reasons (ISO, focusing precision that suddenly made my 135 f/4 (favorite tele) a realistic low-light lens). And I expect the M9s would have easily gone the 10-year-distance if the M10 had not arrived when it did. (And so would the M8s, had not the 24x36 M9 arrived in three years!)

And I assume I can get even longer use if nothing needs service or parts

I'm not sold on the idea that Leica is building their digitals "to last 50 years" anyway. It is fairly obvious Leica uses a lighter-weight chroming, that ages in 4 years about how an M4-2 aged in 10 or more. Nor do I take the brass top and bottom plates to be installed for a uselessly long life - just for a moderately-long comfortable and pleasant life.

I've used plastic or polycarbonate-clad cameras, from Canon AE/AT-1s on (Nikon FA, Contax Aria and RX, Nikon 8008s, Digilux 2, Canon 6D). And they always got nastily creaky and "loose" in just a couple of years, as the plastic distorted or the polycarbonate/metal joints and hinges and screws started to wear on each other, or the battery doors fell off, or the rubber gripping separated.

Yucckk!

I want the Leica outside to last at least as long as the inside. Like the Wonderful One-Hoss Shay (a.k.a The Deacon's Masterpiece). That's how to build things.

"...it went to pieces all at once, —
All at once, and nothing first"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Deacon's_Masterpiece

 

 

[Cobram]

3 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 

We, the customers, have also bought into this false investment - we support hand crafted bodies and RFs with sensors which apparently don’t have the same life expectation.  Virtu cellphone anyone (a dumb product if ever there was one), but is a digital Leica really that different?  I traded my corroded M9 for an M-A for this very reason, but then got sucked into the M10, with the M10-D ...

 

True. I think Leica currently offer luxury marketing and prices but on the other hand too long serivice times, obviously no spare parts etc... like any other mass production goods.

[carbon_dragon]

Again, no Leica isn't going to do any of the things I have suggested so you don't have to convince me it's unlikely or not an economically worthwhile business practice. I wish they would consider the altered trade-in scheme though (just giving you a voucher with a set amount of money for  your M9 spendable for items in Leica's refurbished stock or a Leica store's used stock). Though my M9 has a new sensor and seems to be fine so I don't need one myself for now. 

The future of Leica is in the OTHER cameras Leica makes -- the CL, the TL, the S and so on. And if the customers eventually decide that an M isn't worth the high premium cost for the materials and craftsmanship used to create it, there is always the Q and the new interchangeable lens camera they could make from it. It would even kind of look like an M (the way the Fuji X100V does). But it wouldn't BE one and it wouldn't come with the baggage and mystique the M has. 

If there is any sort of problem here in terms of Leica selling an "expectation" of long life, it's only with the M camera, not any of the others. And it's an expectation that is based on just how successfully Leica has accomplished that goal over the last 70 years (before electronics were around to change the equation).

 

[Jeff S]

If my camera becomes an unrepairable paperweight, my insurance company will cover a replacement, at my designated replacement value.

Jeff

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

 ensured a supply of parts for the LCD (M8) and the sensors for M9 series cameras - while TrueSense might not be able to help any longer, Leica could have insisted on a technology and IP transfer for the sensors if TrueSense could/would no longer supply.  I have done this for other products, and if the quantities stack up, getting another producer to make chips to Leica’s specification can’t be that hard - CCD sensors are still made an used in other applications.

At what prcie? The original sensor cost 1800 Euro net. What would a  special production run of a few hundred sensors cost? So much that it would not make economic sense.... The costs come from Leica's shifted microlens technology (to which Leica as far as I am aware, is the patent holder,) extra pure Bayer filter  specification and thin IR filter. The base sensor is pretty standard. I dont think Leica would need much of technology transfer.

I think there would be  few sensors needed at the expected price.

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, Cobram said:

True. I think Leica currently offer luxury marketing and prices but on the other hand too long serivice times, obviously no spare parts etc... like any other mass production goods.

Not much mass in Leicas production...

[IkarusJohn]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

At what prcie? The original sensor cost 1800 Euro net. What would a  special production run of a few hundred sensors cost? So much that it would not make economic sense.... The costs come from Leica's shifted microlens technology (to which Leica as far as I am aware, is the patent holder,) extra pure Bayer filter  specification and thin IR filter. The base sensor is pretty standard. I dont think Leica would need much of technology transfer.

I think there would be  few sensors needed at the expected price.

Plenty of headroom in Leica’s trade-in offer; please try to remember that this is a Leica problem it has ducked and largely passed on to its customers.  They’ve been very lucky no one has been sufficiently annoyed to test its approach under consumer protection legislation somewhere.

Leica failed specifically in two respects - (1) contracting with suppliers which couldn’t meet the quality expectations of Leica owners (the LCD supplier and Kodak.  Kodak?); and not ensuring continuity of a supply of spares.  The second is a twofold issue, being able to meet its warranty obligations and repair expectations of owners after the warranty expired.

Owners of an M9 based camera (including an M-E or refurbished M9 last year?), have been given one option - spend more than the price of a secondhand M10 on a trade in.  As you can see, not many here are impressed at the price of the offer, considering they’re getting nothing for their M9 based cameras.  I’m quite sure those owners would grumble, but would pay the price of a replacement sensor if it was on offer.  Why wouldn’t they?  It will be cheaper than the not very generous price for a camera they don’t want.

Anyway, it’s history; but I don’t think this was Leica’s finest hour.  It has passed the cost of its cock-up on to the buyers of one of its most successful cameras ever ...

[jaapv]

Yes, well, I would not be happy either if I had a corroding sensor and A. missed the free replacement and B. missed the boat altogether now. Whether this was avoidable I cannot judge, but it is water under the bridge now...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

True; but it is worth noting for future reference.  I hope the M10 series of cameras don’t suffer similar mismanagement.  Do you still use your M9-P?