codocee Posted June 18, 2021 Share #321 Posted June 18, 2021 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 hours ago, ianman said: As previously indicated, post #302: Where’s the results from the M9M owner- his review-Perhaps Marac could reach out to him to post results for us Monochrome owner interested in their experience. Cost? Time without camera, once it’s in their hands Ultimate overall experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 18, 2021 Posted June 18, 2021 Hi codocee, Take a look here Sensor Corrosion Analysis and Fix [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
codocee Posted June 18, 2021 Share #322 Posted June 18, 2021 2 hours ago, ianman said: As previously indicated, post #302: The only thing that the #302 post confirms is he’s sending a M9- exactly what I’ve posted that I’m not interested in Again- MONOCHROME Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted June 19, 2021 Share #323 Posted June 19, 2021 35 minutes ago, codocee said: The only thing that the #302 post confirms is he’s sending a M9- exactly what I’ve posted that I’m not interested in Again- MONOCHROME Please read post 308. End of story. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2021 Share #324 Posted June 19, 2021 10 hours ago, codocee said: He’s sending in a M9, which has already been proven to be repairable. I’m looking for Monochrome repair results, also referred to as a M9M. The same sensor, only no Bayer filter (or rather a blank filter instead of a coloured one). As they are replacing the IR filter and nothing else, it is irrelevant which type of camera it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianman Posted June 19, 2021 Share #325 Posted June 19, 2021 6 hours ago, jaapv said: The same sensor, only no Bayer filter (or rather a blank filter instead of a coloured one). As they are replacing the IR filter and nothing else, it is i®eelevant which type of camera it is. Apparently the adhesive is different and more difficult to remove on the M9 sibling models. But @dllewellynhas posted many times now that they(ACS) have repaired all types of M9 siblings and offered to post the results. Their website describes what they do, we’ve had a customer review... I’m not sure what else they can do tbh. But I do know that if I were them there are some potential customers I would stay well away from. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 19, 2021 Share #326 Posted June 19, 2021 Besides, what has the customer got to lose? He is sending in a camera that has turned into a worthless doorstop and they can resuscitate it. It is hard to see what the purpose of this agonizing is. If the repairs are successful hosanna, if not I'm sure that the only cost will be the shipping. It is not like surgery - you still pay the surgeon, even if you're not cured. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Jefferson Posted June 19, 2021 Share #327 Posted June 19, 2021 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Here's another source from a Taiwanese who can do the fix as well... https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=4116794648341362&set=a.218004811553718 Edited June 19, 2021 by Casey Jefferson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 19, 2021 Share #328 Posted June 19, 2021 I've seen results from cameras with replaced cover glass that suggests the calibration between the left and right half of the sensor changes after the repair. As the firmware in the camera cannot be modified to accommodate the change, it could be an issue. I asked the owner to take images of a grey card, bracketing from -2ev to +2ev. One camera showed an almost 10% non-uniformity, which is absolutely huge. The change is different for different ISO settings, probably due to the analog amplifiers used in the camera. I am posting results of shooting the 18% grey card, 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313260-sensor-corrosion-analysis-and-fix-merged/?do=findComment&comment=4223137'>More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 19, 2021 Share #329 Posted June 19, 2021 (edited) A slice across the images, at ISO 160. Drift is from lighting on the grey card. The steep drop off in the middle of the image shows the issue. 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! Edited June 19, 2021 by BrianS Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313260-sensor-corrosion-analysis-and-fix-merged/?do=findComment&comment=4223150'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2021 Share #330 Posted June 20, 2021 8 hours ago, BrianS said: I've seen results from cameras with replaced cover glass that suggests the calibration between the left and right half of the sensor changes after the repair. As the firmware in the camera cannot be modified to accommodate the change, it could be an issue. I asked the owner to take images of a grey card, bracketing from -2ev to +2ev. One camera showed an almost 10% non-uniformity, which is absolutely huge. The change is different for different ISO settings, probably due to the analog amplifiers used in the camera. I am posting results of shooting the 18% grey card, 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! It is hard to imagine how this could be a result of replacing the cover glass, as this phenomenon is caused by an imbalance between the two ADCs on. the motherboard. The only explanation is that the problem was already present before the repair, but unnoticed. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 20, 2021 Share #331 Posted June 20, 2021 (edited) The images from the same camera before the repair do not show this imbalance- I have those images. A 10% imbalance is huge, and is obvious. I don't know the process used to remove the cover glass, and I do not know the optical properties of the glass used to replace it. What I have- the results of the camera before and after the repair. Regardless of which service is used to repair the camera: I would ask for the terms of the repair up front, is this a best effort with no guarantee of performance, or is the performance of the camera guaranteed after the repair. I would also ask that any member here that has an M9, M9P, or M Monochrom repaired post some images to this forum. Edited June 20, 2021 by BrianS 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2021 Share #332 Posted June 21, 2021 23 hours ago, BrianS said: The images from the same camera before the repair do not show this imbalance- I have those images. A 10% imbalance is huge, and is obvious. I don't know the process used to remove the cover glass, and I do not know the optical properties of the glass used to replace it. What I have- the results of the camera before and after the repair. Regardless of which service is used to repair the camera: I would ask for the terms of the repair up front, is this a best effort with no guarantee of performance, or is the performance of the camera guaranteed after the repair. I would also ask that any member here that has an M9, M9P, or M Monochrom repaired post some images to this forum. It is technically impossible for the two be linked - The corrosion repair is the mechanical replacement of the front cover glass, the centerfold issue ( well known, and not only on Leica) is a problem/imbalance in the electronics of the motherboard behind the sensor. So even if you had some kind of guarantee, this would not be covered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 21, 2021 Share #333 Posted June 21, 2021 (edited) According to the KAF-18500 Data Sheet, the max storage temperature of the CCD is 70C. If the sensor is heated past that mark- damage will occur. Without having the details of the process used to remove the glass: it is silly to announce that it is impossible for the process to damage the sensor, or cause some damage to the components of the board to cause this problem. If the process were so simple and impossible to cause damage- I think Leica would have just replaced the cover glass of the CCD rather than replacing the entire CCD and processing board. Work with these things (imaging detectors) for 40 years- you learn nothing is impossible when it comes to things going wrong. The problem was in two cameras that I have seen so far. Two for Two. The imbalance was noticeable- and was not in the TWO cameras before the repair. As stated- anyone having their cameras serviced, please post some results here. Edited June 21, 2021 by BrianS 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 21, 2021 Share #334 Posted June 21, 2021 1 minute ago, BrianS said: If the process were so simple and impossible to cause damage - I think Leica would have just replaced the cover glass of the CCD rather than replacing the entire CCD and processing board. It may simply not be economic for Leica to do so. They may find that their cost in technician's time is too high and that it is a cheaper solution to allow a reduced price on a new camera for customers with corroded sensor glass. Repairs of this magnitude, which the manufacturer would have to carry out to as new specifications on an older camera which has a reduced value, may not be seen as viable by the manufacturer, but are still viable when carried out at the customer's risk by a smaller company ad to viable tolerances. The manufacturer would also have to offer a warranty which may not be valid, as re-repairing a sensor cover glass might be considered an unacceptable scenario. I don't think that any manufacturer would see this sort of repair as acceptable given the lack of spare parts (sensors) myself and I'm being objective, and not defending Leica. I have 2 x M9s both with replaced sensors. If one fails I will try to find someone to repair it because I like the cameras, but I don't expect Leica to do so at this stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 21, 2021 Share #335 Posted June 21, 2021 Leica chose to replace the sensors and board rather than just the cover glass. The parts alone were more than the labor being charged by the third-party repair services. As more people post results of the cameras repaired by the different third-party repair services, M9, M9P, and M Monochrom, then members here will be able to make better informed decisions of where to send the cameras. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2021 Share #336 Posted June 21, 2021 That is correct. Because they bought them as one unit as t is not very practical to resolder the thin sensor connectors to the board. Nor does any repair separate the two Replacing the cover class is no more than removing te adhesive and glueing a new glass in. You are still far from the sensor, with Bayer filter and microlenses in between. The electronics play no role at all. I repeat: centrefold issues have nothing to do with repair of a corroded IR filter glass. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 21, 2021 Share #337 Posted June 21, 2021 (edited) I repeat: these two cameras worked properly before sending in for repair and showed the centerline issue after coming back from the repair. Without knowing the details of the process to remove the cement from the M9P and M Monochrom, impossible to say what may or may not have caused this damage. Kolari has stated that the cover glass is attached differently on the M9P and M Monochrom, and they do not service those cameras. So the process is different for the M9P and M Monochrom. I know the process used for the M9 cover glass, and was given an explanation as to why it will not work on the M9P and M Monochrom. If anyone else has before/after pictures from the camera, feel free to post. If anyone runs into the centerline issue after having the camera repaired, send me a PM. I was writing non-uniformity correction software 40 years ago and it has been days since I worked on it last. Edited June 21, 2021 by BrianS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 21, 2021 Share #338 Posted June 21, 2021 If the process involves removing the CCD from the circuit board to replace the cover glass then it is possible that re-attaching it to the circuit board changes the voltage being read out of the chip. The CCD outputs an analog signal, any change to the impedance will cause calibration issues. If the impedance changes, it is likely that the change will be different across the analog readouts. Most cameras have an easily removed cover glass. It is often in a "Boot" above the sensor. The M9 is different. The cover glass of the M9P and M Monochrom is cemented into place in a fashion making it difficult to remove. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 21, 2021 Share #339 Posted June 21, 2021 Yes but the sensor will not be removed from the motherboard. It is virtually impossible to reconnect. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianS Posted June 21, 2021 Share #340 Posted June 21, 2021 (edited) I don't know the details of the procedure of the repair. I do know the left and right side of the CCD were balanced before the repair, and they are out of balance now. My Hardware Engineer would have no problem removing the CCD from the board and put if back, it's a big part without many leads. They do far more complex board modifications for my custom designs all the time. Such a repair is going to be a "Best-Effort, pay for the labor and parts used, without guarantee of success". The alternative is having a paperweight. Be aware that the camera may come back working, but will show issues like the ones I posted. If anyone does send a camera in, and has an issue with the left/right imbalance as shown here: send me a PM. We'll take a look. C 16-BITS. BIGVALUE= 0 WRITE( *, *) 'APPLY NUC CORRECTION ' IF( SLOPE .GE. 1.0) THEN DO 10 J= 1, ROWS DO 10 I= 1, COLUMNS/ 2 X= FLOAT( IMAGE( I, J)) Y= X* SLOPE+ INTERCEPT BIGVALUE= INT( Y+ 0.5) IF( BIGVALUE .LT. 0) BIGVALUE= 0 IF( BIGVALUE .GT. 16383) BIGVALUE= 16383 IMAGE( I, J)= VALUE( 1) 10 CONTINUE ELSE DO 20 J= 1, ROWS DO 20 I= COLUMNS/ 2+ 1, COLUMNS Y= FLOAT( IMAGE( I, J)) X= ( Y- INTERCEPT)/ SLOPE BIGVALUE= INT( X+ 0.5) IF( BIGVALUE .LT. 0) BIGVALUE= 0 IF( BIGVALUE .GT. 16383) BIGVALUE= 16383 IMAGE( I, J)= VALUE( 1) 20 CONTINUE END IF WRITE( *, *) ' FINISHED NUC_FIX' One camera had a difference of less than 2%, but was still very noticeable in the images made with it. The error is "mostly" linear. The slope and intercept computation requires the bracketed grey card exposures. This was fun. 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! Edited June 22, 2021 by BrianS Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313260-sensor-corrosion-analysis-and-fix-merged/?do=findComment&comment=4224170'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now