I did a direct comparison using my m10p against m9p, here is what I found. {merged}

[Denys]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, JimmyCheng said:

I’ve heard several complaints about their newer generation sensor gets corrupted. Even Leica said “highly unlikely”, so I don’t wanna rule out the slight possibilities.

But yes, in general, the new sensor is pretty safe. 

Interesting. The topic of possible corrosion of second-generation sensor has been mooted since those sensors were fitted. I may have missed something, but my recollections are that; Leica didn’t suggest the chance of corrosion of second-generation as “highly unlikely” - I cannot quote the company, but think it was more “won’t happen”; and there have been zero confirmed cases of corrosion. 

This is an important issue. Not only does it affect Leica’s reputation, it could influence buyers’ choice and the consequential value of ‘second-generation’ M9, M9-P and monochrome bodies. 

It would be useful if you could expand - if you’ve not already done that - upon the “several complaints about their newer generation gets corrupted”.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, pedaes said:

which was manufactured to a revised specification

Well, the revision was not the sensor itself but the IR filter, which might account for a slightly different colour response.

[JimmyCheng]

16 minutes ago, pedaes said:

We need precision here. Are you talking about the later version of the 'new' sensor that was not made by Kodak, or the early replacements when Leica used stock of the original sensor?

I have not seen reports of problems with the later sensor which was manufactured to a revised specification, but there is certainly cases where Leica changed the original sensor a second time.

My own sensor was replaced because of a cracked cover glass, not because of 'corrosion'.

Perhaps another comparison - original Kodak CCD versus later non-Kodak CCD (joke!).

to my understanding, the batches after late 2016/early 2017 with id15/id16 are of newer generation, correct?

I’ve seen ppl who claimed their id 15 sensor got corrosion. I don’t have the post now but I’ve definitely seen several posts(not from this forum)

[pippy]

43 minutes ago, JimmyCheng said:

I’ve heard several complaints about their newer generation sensor gets corrupted...

There have been some folks here who have stated their "second sensor also developed corrosion" but in every case it has proven to be when a 1st. Gen sensor - more accurately the sensor's cover glass - was replaced with another 1st. Gen sensor.

There has never once been a case of a 2nd. Gen sensor developing corrosion; if there had been then it would be posted all over the internet.

Philip.

[JimmyCheng]

11 minutes ago, Denys said:

Interesting. The topic of possible corrosion of second-generation sensor has been mooted since those sensors were fitted. I may have missed something, but my recollections are that; Leica didn’t suggest the chance of corrosion of second-generation as “highly unlikely” - I cannot quote the company, but think it was more “won’t happen”; and there have been zero confirmed cases of corrosion. 

This is an important issue. Not only does it affect Leica’s reputation, it could influence buyers’ choice and the consequential value of ‘second-generation’ M9, M9-P and monochrome bodies. 

It would be useful if you could expand - if you’ve not already done that - upon the “several complaints about their newer generation gets corrupted”.

My m9p has got id15 ccd serviced in 2017. When I purchased this camera, I have sent an email to Leica Tokyo to confirm the elimination of sensor corruption and it’s from them I got the notion that what Leica Germany told them was “highly unlikely”. 

[JimmyCheng]

4 minutes ago, pippy said:

There have been some folks here who have stated their "second sensor also developed corrosion" but in every case it has proven to be when a 1st. Gen sensor - more accurately the sensor's cover glass - was replaced with another 1st. Gen sensor.

There has never once been a case of a 2nd. Gen sensor developing corrosion; if there had been then it would be posted all over the internet.

Philip.

Interesting, but it’s a consensus among Chinese Leica users (which seems to be a more isolated group) that even id15/16 sensors can get corrupted. I will do more research to confirm this. 

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, JimmyCheng said:

can get corrupted

In absolute terms that may be true (I don't know) but the question is - have any?

We also need to remember that any make of camera can develop a problem, and if the M9 is holding up in comparison we are doing ok.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, JimmyCheng said:

Interesting, but it’s a consensus among Chinese Leica users (which seems to be a more isolated group) that even id15/16 sensors can get corrupted. I will do more research to confirm this. 

I don't think that Leica used different sensors for the Chinese market.

[JimmyCheng]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

I don't think that Leica used different sensors for the Chinese market.

That’s not what I meant. But it could be that there are ppl faking id15/16 units (I’ve heard about rumours) through software hacks, so that the cameras can be sold at a higher price. It’s just a possibility, and somehow explains why there’s this consensus. 

[jaapv]

 Nasty but just possible. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thank you for the nice comparison. A few things do come through which are pretty much tell-tale M9 signs...the skin tones are cooler and a bit ruddier, and the DR is shallower. The M10 does look better in this comparison, but as others said, I think part of that is from the jpeg engine. The M9 jpeg engine is not very good. While every test is always a bit subjective, I think it might have been a bit more fair to the M9 if the photos were unprocessed or slightly processed DNG's, for example with the white balance equalized on the same object in frame. That would account for WB variations and take the jpeg engine out of it. I sold my M9 for an M10 years ago because of all the advantages that the camera itself has over the older M9 body, but I do think that the M9 had nicer color in good light. I only shoot DNG with both cameras though, and while a lot can be done to DNG's to make the color how you like it, I think the straight out of camera DNG look (as in what the files look like when they are opened in lightroom or camera raw) is pretty consistently better with the M9. At least to my taste...

 

[Ray Vonn]

On 7/3/2021 at 8:46 PM, JimmyCheng said:

if I do DNG, I can pretty much match the two

Really?? Do tell.  Worthy of a separate thread, but I'd love to see that proven.

[colonel]

M9 colours are "weird", but have an ethereal Kodachrome kind of look. 

I think people mistake this for something "special". It is nice but I much prefer my M10

The M8 was razor sharp in a way I have never seen since, I think due to the very thin filters

Lets filters are good. My old chesnut:

Project: Creating a multispectral camera – Ming Thein | Photographer

 

[Mr.Q]

I had both a M9-P and M10-P for a while, and settled with the M9-P.  I think it's the prettier camera with 3 windows in the front like film M's. I prefer the louder shutter sound and I also like that it boots up quicker. It's a bit lighter too. Could never get used to the ISO dial on the M10.  For what I use the camera for (snapshots during day) the ISO 800 is enough. And lastly, I love the CCD look 😍

[BerndReini]

Everyone talks about how you can match the look of the M9 with modern cameras when you shoot Raw. First of all, why would you pay two, three, four times the money for a newer model M camera and then go through the hassle of making the pictures look like the ones you got with your old camera? And second, in most instances you would never know what the M9 version of any specific picture would have looked like. I'm sticking with my M9, even now that an M11 was just released.