Sensor Corrosion Analysis and Fix [Merged]

[dllewellyn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I really highly doubt there were any coatings on the ICF/sensor coverglass.  Why they didn't apply the standard ICF coating is beyond me.  I have never, since 1997 when I started modifying cameras, *ever* see a camera ICF without coatings.  Leica wrote a letter to PetaPixel saying that the reason I wasn't measuring the coating was that I polished them off.  Nope.  Here is a Leica M9 ICF/coverglass taken off without any processing on the glass.  Notice how the response in the UV goes way down close to 300nm.  That is bare glass.  It would hard to make a coating to even look like that.  Next is an example of a D800 ICF.  Notice the sharp cut at 420nm.  That is because of the coating - not the glass.  

The whole debate is just stupid IMO.  They didn't coat the glass with any sort of vapor deposition coating.  That would have sealed the glass, prevented oxidization (corrosion).  And those sorts of coating are really, really hard to remove.  You have to grind the glass to get it off.

Leica can dance around the facts all the want, but the facts are the facts.  

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!

[Marac]

Camera has arrived.

slightly back focussing bbut it's a simple adjustement. The important thing is that the files look the same as they ever did, so I would say it's a successful operation. Bel;ow is a simple snap out the window taken at f2

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!

[Jarekjj]

7 minutes ago, Marac said:

Camera has arrived.

slightly back focussing bbut it's a simple adjustement. The important thing is that the files look the same as they ever did, so I would say it's a successful operation. Bel;ow is a simple snap out the window taken at f2

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!

Thank you for sharing. This is reassuring. 

What was the cost of the whole operation?

[Marac]

3 hours ago, Jarekjj said:

Thank you for sharing. This is reassuring. 

What was the cost of the whole operation?

There is not a fixed price yet. It was under a grand for mine & aparently it was a PITA to fix  

[ianman]

On 9/10/2021 at 1:45 AM, dllewellyn said:

I really highly doubt there were any coatings on the ICF/sensor coverglass.

Could this explain why the old sensor picked up more dust than a vacuum cleaner? I used to clean a bucket load of dust off the old sensor at least once per week whereas with the new one I’ve needed to remove a few grains once or twice in the last 5 years.

[Monz]

On 9/10/2021 at 4:30 PM, Marac said:

Camera has arrived.

slightly back focussing bbut it's a simple adjustement. The important thing is that the files look the same as they ever did, so I would say it's a successful operation. Bel;ow is a simple snap out the window taken at f2

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!

HI Marac. How long did the repair take? Could you post some pictures at f11/ f16 please? Thanks.

[Marac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, Monz said:

HI Marac. How long did the repair take? Could you post some pictures at f11/ f16 please? Thanks.

The repair took quite a while as it was originally sent to them during lockdown. When I finally got the camera back it was perfect at 90mm (that is the lens I sent with the camera) but when I tried my 50mm it was a bit off on the rangefinder and the 35mm was even further off so I have had to send it back to them along with my 50mm for a few adjustments. The glass used was slightly thicker and the sensor had been shimmed back, we believe this could be reason why the rangefinder is out so they are going to source some glass that is the same thickness as the original. Failing that I have asked them to convert the M9 to IR or even to instal a Quartz filter to give the best of ALL worlds.. I will be sure to update you all when we get the camera back.

[jaapv]

On 9/10/2021 at 1:17 AM, IkarusJohn said:

An interesting question I’ve been pondering, Dan.  The. Issue of liability has been raised by others in different threads.  A few pages back, Jaap also asked the question of responsibility - Schott, Kodak/Truesense, or Leica?  It’s the sort of question lawyers enjoy (sorry).

The simple supply chain is Leica specifies what they need, Kodak/Trusense prices it and comes up with a full specification, Schott supplies the glass to the required spec.  Leica then assembles, tests and sells the camera.  It is important to keep all these links in mind.

The loser (claimant) is the buyer - simple warranty/consumer protection claim.  Note - limited liability under terms and conditions probably wouldn’t save Leica from liability, as the whole point of consumer protection laws is to stop the vendors from avoiding liability.  There are implied warranties of fitness for purpose, durability, merchantability etc - any claimant would need to check their consumer protection legislation (which typically applies to the domicile of the buyer).  I don’t actually think that there can be any doubt over Leica’s liability for this where the camera owner is concerned - the adequacy of their rectification is another issue altogether.

The interesting issue is, who was actually liable for the cock-up?

Let’s assume the following:

(1) Schott supplied the cover glass from its catalogue, along with recommendations, data sheets and warnings about the potential for oxidation, and even the need to protect the glass with some sort of covering

(2) Leica specified the sensor from Kodak/Truesense’s catalogue, with a thin cover glass to deal with the issue of incidence at the edges and corners when using wide angle lenses

(3) Kodak/Truesense just did as they were told, and ordered the cover glass from Schott, and applied minimal coatings on the glass as requested by Leica.

That scenario leaves aside Dan’s suggestion that someone inside Kodak dropped the ball, and no one noticed (which is also highly likely); I’m just choosing the more complex scenario.  This might explain Leica’s eventual and understandable response, once they got their heads out of the sand.  The most likely scenario is that Leica went back to Kodak/Truesense and probably Schott and said - this is a problem which costs us all, and we are confident we have legal redress, but that only makes lawyers rich.  Let’s come up with a workable solution.

The likely solution is that Schott wants to protect its reputation and relationship with Leica - new cover glass comes at a discount.  Kodak/Truesense also wishes to avoid further problems, so makes new sensors, with new cover glass with proper coatings, at cost or a significant discount.  Leica agrees to pay a heavily reduced price for new sensors.  No one wants this to go on forever, and certainly not for every M9 ever sold, so they come up with a number and a time frame for replacement to limit those numbers.  Schott, Kodak & Leica happy.  Now, what about the customers.

Well, initially, Leica has an “Oh, shit” moment and tries to pretend it isn’t happening and the problem will go away - lots of cameras not used that much, lots of amateurs not on this forum and the majority are not pixel peepers anyway.  Here we get to the “minority of affected cameras” I think Jaap has referred to elsewhere.  The problem doesn’t go away, so Leica replaces the sensors with its stock of original sensors (not the best idea), while it works on a resolution with Schott and Truesense.  Then it comes clean and offers free replacement of affected cameras with new sensors (tough luck for those who got the first replacements with the old sensors).  Then that offer is time restricted, after which there is a price.  Then, ultimately, there are no replacement sensors.  Leica continues with an “upgrade” programme (for M240 cameras only), at cost.  Huge sigh of relief at Wetzlar, and life moves on.  They hope.

A lot of supposition, but in broad terms, what Leica was saying publicly and what it actually offered is consistent with that scenario; and with similar deals I have mediated over the 20 or so years of commercial disputes.

How does that leave the buyers?  Leaving limitation issues aside, the cost of replacing the camera wouldn’t really go too far for most legal fees.  But, I suspect it would have been ripe for a class action.  These are funded by insurance companies (they take about 30% of any winnings), and are generally done on an “opt-out”  basis so the insurers can be confident they get their percentage of the entire liability payment.

So, returning to the original question - who was liable?

There is a frequent assumption that liability runs with causation - the last person to touch it is responsible.  Well, not entirely.  This is a question we come up with a lot in the construction industry - was the fault design or workmanship, and who is responsible for design and specification errors?

An interesting UK Supreme Court decision a few years ago clarifies this issue in ways which might surprise some.  In the case of MT Højgaard A/S v E.On Climate & Renewables, E.On specified foundations for wind turbines in the Firth of Solway.  MT Højgaard delivered and installed the foundations - two failed.  The contract required a life of 20 years, and the cost of repair ran into hundreds of millions of pounds.  The contract was “design and construct”, however it was found that E.On’s documentation, the “Employer’s Requirements”, contained a 10 fold calculation error in the sheer strength of the foundation anchors.  Notwithstanding that the error was E.On’s, the Supreme Court held that MT Højgaard held the design expertise, and was therefore liable.  

The core point of this and other judgments like it is liability for design rests with the party with the specialised knowledge of design, and it takes express wording and clear intention to shift liability for design.  Leica is not a sensor designer.  I’m sure it would be more complicated, but you can draw your own conclusions.

Generally sweeping generalisations are generally wrong …

A bit late in reacting. I think that the reason there was no class action was that there is no such thing in German law - and if you look at German (sales) contracts they always specify German law - and the specific court too.

https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/class-actions-germany

[jdlaing]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

A bit late in reacting. I think that the reason there was no class action was that there is no such thing in German law - and if you look at German (sales) contracts they always specify German law - and the specific court too.

https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/class-actions-germany

In addition to that I believe the warranty states repair or replace. Leica did that. They did it for quite a long term outside the warranty as well if I remember correctly.

.

[TomB_tx]

4 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

In addition to that I believe the warranty states repair or replace. Leica did that. They did it for quite a long term outside the warranty as well if I remember correctly.

.

Yes - mine was replaced for free after 7 years of use. Leica's replacement program was very generous and unexpected.

[jdlaing]

1 hour ago, TomB_tx said:

Yes - mine was replaced for free after 7 years of use. Leica's replacement program was very generous and unexpected.

I agree. Other makers wouldn’t have gone that far.

[Monz]

3 hours ago, Marac said:

The repair took quite a while as it was originally sent to them during lockdown. When I finally got the camera back it was perfect at 90mm (that is the lens I sent with the camera) but when I tried my 50mm it was a bit off on the rangefinder and the 35mm was even further off so I have had to send it back to them along with my 50mm for a few adjustments. The glass used was slightly thicker and the sensor had been shimmed back, we believe this could be reason why the rangefinder is out so they are going to source some glass that is the same thickness as the original. Failing that I have asked them to convert the M9 to IR or even to instal a Quartz filter to give the best of ALL worlds.. I will be sure to update you all when we get the camera back.

Thanks Marac. Just spoke to someone at ACS. They are trying to source glass of the right thickness in the next few weeks to hopefully get a more robust outcome. The quartz filter sound interesting... could you elaborate please?

[Marac]

37 minutes ago, Monz said:

Thanks Marac. Just spoke to someone at ACS. They are trying to source glass of the right thickness in the next few weeks to hopefully get a more robust outcome. The quartz filter sound interesting... could you elaborate please?

The Quartz filter would allow all light types to pass so, if you wanted to shoot in IR you would need an R72 filter on your lens and this would give you normal shooting speed, if you wanted normal colour then use an IR block filter etc etc. I have never used a camera fitted with this type of filter before but as you say, sounds interesting and a lot better than a Leica M9 Brick.

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

A bit late in reacting. I think that the reason there was no class action was that there is no such thing in German law - and if you look at German (sales) contracts they always specify German law - and the specific court too.

https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/class-actions-germany

I doubt it even got as far as anyone reading the contract, or considering jurisdiction and conflict of laws rules before even starting down a class action consideration.  The reason it has never been raised, I suspect, is the numbers involved to get a funder interested, and most Leica owners will have been more interested in just getting the problem fixed.

What may be written in a contract isn’t always the end of the matter - I’ve been writing and reviewing them for almost 40 years …

[Ian Tan]

Hi there! I was wondering, is it possible that the sensor glass would cause the sensor to output a black image and would this still be repairable via the sensor glass swap? Thank you so much! 

[dllewellyn]

That sounds like a failed sensor.  I have also seen 1/2 black images where 1/2 the sensor has died or been killed by someone removing the coverglass and breaking some of the gold bonding wires.  With a bad coverglass, you get a full image but with distortion.

[Ian Tan]

20 minutes ago, dllewellyn said:

That sounds like a failed sensor.  I have also seen 1/2 black images where 1/2 the sensor has died or been killed by someone removing the coverglass and breaking some of the gold bonding wires.  With a bad coverglass, you get a full image but with distortion.

Hey! Thanks for the response. I don’t think the glass has ever been replaced though - would this mean that the sensor is permanently damaged and will not work after a new sensor glass is in its place? 

[dllewellyn]

I once bought a camera from a guy in Argentina that I thought only had sensor corrosion.  Then when I opened the camera, I saw that someone had tried to change the coverglass and broke some of the gold bonding wires on one side resulting in a 1/2 black image because the sensor is basically two image sensors that have been stitched together.  Of course the seller denied knowing about this so it was a loss for me.  I have also seen cameras sold by other repair shops on eBay with the same issue with the comment 'there might be sensor damage' when they know darn well the sensor is damaged.

A black image could indicate a failed sensor or perhaps some other failed component like the main PCB, shutter, etc.  It's probably worth sending it into Leica to see what their diagnosis is.

[Ian Tan]

Thanks for your response. I actually haven’t bought it yet, it’s only $450, I’m not sure I should take the risk. What are your thoughts? Probably not right 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Marac]

2 hours ago, Ian Tan said:

Thanks for your response. I actually haven’t bought it yet, it’s only $450, I’m not sure I should take the risk. What are your thoughts? Probably not right 

Definitely not. It's a brick.