Sensor Corrosion Analysis and Fix [Merged]

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Huh? The cover glass was sealed but it turned out that Kodak’s production process left porosities and  Leica never recommended that “people don’t get their cameras fixed.” What nonsense. They fixed for free for over five years and at a reduced price after that. They are now unable to source replacement sensors, that is all. Nor did you explain the flaw - that has been common knowledge on the forum for nearly a decade...

For large files use Dropbox. 

[dllewellyn]

From Leica Antonio DiBenedetto selected quote: While ***.*** and other 3^rd party repair centers advertise their own service solutions for repairing corroded M9 sensors, Leica Camera has not pursued this option and must strongly discourage customers from having their cameras repaired this way

 

[Advertisement]

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

[CptSlevin]

15 hours ago, dllewellyn said:

From Leica Antonio DiBenedetto selected quote: While ***.*** and other 3^rd party repair centers advertise their own service solutions for repairing corroded M9 sensors, Leica Camera has not pursued this option and must strongly discourage customers from having their cameras repaired this way

 

And what do they suggest?
Do they provide any service regarding the issue?
Nope, none, zero

[jaapv]

On 6/28/2021 at 5:15 PM, dllewellyn said:

From Leica Antonio DiBenedetto selected quote: While ***.*** and other 3^rd party repair centers advertise their own service solutions for repairing corroded M9 sensors, Leica Camera has not pursued this option and must strongly discourage customers from having their cameras repaired this way

 

Yes, at present. I can fully understand Leica disavowing third-party repairs that disturb the integrity of their sensor and that they have no control over. No repairer has worked with Leica to earn their endorsement. I have no idea who Mr. DiBenedetto might be. 

[dllewellyn]

Antonio Di Benedetto

  3rd degree connection3rd

Product Specialist at Leica Camera Inc.

New York City Metropolitan Area 

Product Specialist and on-camera host with an extensive history in the photography industry. Expert product knowledge utilized in marketing efforts, product launches, brand trainings, and media relations. Creative in writing/editing for corporate press releases, memos, official Leica Blog and generating photographic content for Leica Camera USA social channels.

Product Specialist

Company Name

Leica Camera Inc. | North America

Dates EmployedOct 2014 – Present

Employment Duration6 yrs 9 mos

• Resident product expert with wide-ranging responsibilities from PR to technical writing, content creation, live hosting, internal training, and more.
• Creator & Lead Host of “Leica Tech Talk” YouTube Live show
• Write and edit copy for press releases, website texts, promotional content, and contribute to the official Leica Blog.
• On-air interviewer, technical producer, and/or moderator for #StayHomeWithLeica & #LeicaConversations online programs, with pro athletes, celebrities, and renowned photographers.

[jaapv]

Any such official opinion would have to come from somebody in Wetzlar, not from the USA  subsidiary. Leica USA is not Leica Camera, they are a subsidiary company.
However, I can understand their not endorsing this type of third-party modification, if only for liability reasons. Leica has always replaced sensor/motherboard units, never repaired them. Nor has any other camera maker, AFAIK. No responsible company would advise their customers otherwise without making sure that this is a viable solution  

Businesswise it would have been better not to draw attention to this in a forum and to have contacted Leica Germany to discuss your solution. 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, CptSlevin said:

And what do they suggest?
Do they provide any service regarding the issue?
Nope, none, zero

Correct; that has finished. For all other parts the camera is still fully serviced. It is not unreasonable, a sensor replacement would cost in the order of 2500 $, so there is no economic basis. They suggest that they trade the camera in for  a decent price.

[chengnv]

On 6/17/2021 at 2:26 AM, criolf said:

I've order this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/274365625004?hash=item3fe17732ac:g:iywAAOSw3nNevRL0

I'll follow the Bilibili video and attempt to dyi my M9P when it arrives (few weeks).

I'll revert with details/results.

Hello @criolf. I have a Leica M-E that has sensor corrosion. Do you know if this glass will fit? I will attempt to fix by myself as well. Cheers from Brazil!
 

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!

[jaapv]

0,9  mm thickness will probably give you some corner degradadation with wide angle lenses. I have no idea about the exact size but it should be in the order of 24x36 mm or slightly larger. This one appears to be quite oversized. Maybe you''ll be able to trim it.

[chengnv]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

0,9  mm thickness will probably give you some corner degradadation with wide angle lenses. I have no idea about the exact size but it should be in the order of 24x36 mm or slightly larger. This one appears to be quite oversized. Maybe you''ll be able to trim it.

yeah I noticed some corner degradation from Criolf's pictures as well. Do you know where can I buy the Schott BG60 glass? 

[jaapv]

No, sorry. For the M9 you need 0.7 mm thickness.

[criolf]

@chengnv - all M9 have the same size sensor, so it will certainly fit. Regarding the thickness I see that opinions varies, but looking at the condition of your glass, you have nothing to loose....

[tele_player]

(deleted post)

Edited July 29, 2021 by tele_player

[Jarekjj]

33 minutes ago, tele_player said:

(deleted post)

?

[chengnv]

1 hour ago, criolf said:

@chengnv - all M9 have the same size sensor, so it will certainly fit. Regarding the thickness I see that opinions varies, but looking at the condition of your glass, you have nothing to loose....

You is right. I have nothing to loose hehehe. Will order that glass and ask a friend to change it for me. Thank you.

[Marac]

UPDATE - M9 

STATUS - FIXED

COMPANY ACS Norfolk UK

Just had a call from ACS regarding my M9. The camera has been repaired and will be with me tomorrow (Friday) I am to offer a review to them directly & I will be sharing my findings here with you also. From the conversation I had with them, the camera is producing clean good images, I may find upon pixel peeping 1 or 2 dead pixels, I am not bothered about that at all because I do not pixel peep at all.

Interesting things I will be looking at is comparing the repair with a friends M9 who had the new sensor from Leica, is there any difference? the Leica fix needed new FW but the new FW will not run with the old sensor. What changed? we shall see. I will also be comparing it to images I have taken with it BEFORE it was sent to repair & also with images taken on my previous M9 that had a new sensor fitted.

Very excited. I will be updating this thread when I test the camera with my honest, humble opinion and how it behaves in a real world shooting sceario. I will not be looking for tiny dust spots or dead pixels but if I notice anything that would affect normal shooting then I will be pointing it out.

I wonder if Leica would still remap the sensor if needed.... Hmmmm

[kristyansen]

Hi Marac - great news! Would you know what type of glass and thickness was used for the repair? 

Re: dead pixels: I had 1-2 dead pixels with my M9 camera without having any repair on it (even before corrosion appeared) - I think it is a normal phenomenon, I would not link it to the repair. And if the dead pixels create a vertical line on pictures, Leica service can ‘remap’ the pixels. This is a sensor issue which remains a part supplied by Leica so I would expect this service to be offered. 

Kind regards,

Cristian 

[Marac]

All I know for sure is that it was Sony glass they used and that it is slightly thicker.

I don't mind a couple of dead pixels unless, as you say, it produces the line but I'm not expecting that to be honest, they would never release the camera if it had any problems, if anything, they are extra extra fussy themselves.

[IkarusJohn]

On 6/27/2021 at 2:58 PM, dllewellyn said:

Well, I can send down-sampled pics, but don't think the forum will allow RAW.  I find it interesting that many think Leica & Co. made no error with the 100,000+ cameras that were made without sealing the ICF/Coverglass.  Leica is recommending that people not get their cameras fixed.  And lots of people think that Leica didn't make any mistake.  Amazing.  And people get angry that I have explained the flaw and offered a fix.

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 …

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[IkarusJohn]

I meant to add - thanks @dllewellyn and @BrianS for your contributions to this thread.  I understand the issue much better now, thank you.  I traded my M9 and had the new replacement sensor installed in my Monochrom at no cost, and count myself lucky.