Jump to content

Sensor Corrosion Analysis and Fix [Merged]


rramesh

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, DandA said:

Jason, welcome and thanks for all your posting and information.  You mentioned that Leica got around the underexposure issue by issuing new firmware for those cameras in which they replaced with the latest sensor.  If that's the case, if someone wanted you to replace the coverglass in a M9 that has the latest sensor to obtain your replacement BG40, would they then have to find a way to revert to the firmware revision that was just prior to the latest installed by Leica upon replacing the camera with the latest sensor?

 

Dave (D&A)

 Jadon*

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 448
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, DandA said:

Jason, welcome and thanks for all your posting and information.  You mentioned that Leica got around the underexposure issue by issuing new firmware for those cameras in which they replaced with the latest sensor.  If that's the case, if someone wanted you to replace the coverglass in a M9 that has the latest sensor to obtain your replacement BG40, would they then have to find a way to revert to the firmware revision that was just prior to the latest installed by Leica upon replacing the camera with the latest sensor?

 

Dave (D&A)

Yes according to leicas parts department (just one guy at the moment) leica has to make a slight tweak to the firmware to compensate for the underexposure. I haven’t had the pleasure of repairing an upgraded sensor so I don’t know what would happen. being that mine essentially creates almost a boost in exposure you would surely have to use the exposure comp to bring it down unless it’s possible to send it back to leica to have it changed back. It would be nice to get the firmware from Leica since they aren’t using it anymore but that would just be too convenient haha

best,

Jadon

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DandA said:

Thank you Jason for your reply. I appreciate your diligence and attention to the small details and hope that your endeavors into addressing corroded sensor coverglass is successful and look forward to your future postings as things develop.

Dave (D&A)

His name is Jadon. Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M Monochrom uses the same sensor and cover glass. What works for the M9 should work for the M Monochrom.

 

The KAF-18500 is used in both the M9 and M Monochrom, but the datasheet is available for the color version only. The M Monochrom used the same S8612 cover glass that goes bad, the new probably uses BG-55. Leica obviously did not have to change the color dye used in it, as they did for the M9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

I sent mine To Kolari yesterday. I’ll keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

The BG40 does not have higher transmittance than the s8612, it just has a wider range making the appearance of overexposure. Both the bg40 and the s8612 allow 98% of visual light to pass, the BG40 just covers more colors than the s8612 hence the vibrancy and shadow detail

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BrianS said:

The M Monochrom uses the same sensor and cover glass. What works for the M9 should work for the M Monochrom.

 

The KAF-18500 is used in both the M9 and M Monochrom, but the datasheet is available for the color version only. The M Monochrom used the same S8612 cover glass that goes bad, the new probably uses BG-55. Leica obviously did not have to change the color dye used in it, as they did for the M9.

Leica did struggle with the tonal rendering, which they wanted to resemble Delta.  I know they worked on the correct filter glass and coating even during the beta testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has a monochrome they like to send over I’d like to confirm that. The glue used for the stock filters is already difficult enough to remove and you run a high risk of scratching with any M9, that’s why I try to reduce as much contact as I can with the sensor.

A very sharp blade, steady hands, and a suction cup are the keys to removing the cover glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Owning a monochrome is like playing the stock market. An announcement is made that there is a savior on the horizon for M9/ME/MM owners, restoring the life and value of these cameras.

Then it’s discovered that in fact the MM will not be taking the ride to redemption and again the value of that camera plummets.

To retain my sanity, I think I will elect to continue to use the camera until the files are no longer acceptable, at which point I will either sell it for parts or set it on my shelf as a reminder of what a beautiful pc of design it was, from the exterior anyway.

 

C’est la vie

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

Kolari vision - my experience

I have tried some “low light” iso tests, to be honest with you I really couldn’t tell the difference ? So...if there was a change it’s so subtle that I couldn’t tell...

My approach to “low light”

In situations where the light is less than ideal I put the camera to 1/60 + F(wide open) + ISO 640 ... I then edit the files (DNG) appropriately in post.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, codocee said:

Owning a monochrome is like playing the stock market. An announcement is made that there is a savior on the horizon for M9/ME/MM owners, restoring the life and value of these cameras.

Then it’s discovered that in fact the MM will not be taking the ride to redemption and again the value of that camera plummets.

To retain my sanity, I think I will elect to continue to use the camera until the files are no longer acceptable, at which point I will either sell it for parts or set it on my shelf as a reminder of what a beautiful pc of design it was, from the exterior anyway.

 

C’est la vie

If you ever change your mind, I have an open bench. It won’t cost you anything but your time and shipping, everything else will be covered pro bono. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Leica did struggle with the tonal rendering, which they wanted to resemble Delta.  I know they worked on the correct filter glass and coating even during the beta testing.

The cover glass is the same S8612- I wonder if Leica used a Dye in the Microlens array for the final spectral sensitivity? Then wonder if they changed it for the BG55 cover glass, as they did with the M9. I'm not taking mine apart to find out... I do that with a lot of lenses and some cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...