M9 Known Issue with Battery Detection No Longer Covered by Leica (RIP CCD M-Systems)

[mrxclxst]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This issue affects all Leica M9's sooner or later. There is a component inside the camera that corrodes over time and prevents the device from detecting the charge level of the battery. The camera thinks the battery has low level charge and will turn off by itself. In 2011, Leica sent out a letter that they would fix this free of charge since there were a rising number of cases. 

Well, it's 2022, and my M9 finally showed symptoms of not being able to stay on due to battery levels being low. I tried multiple batteries -- I have four that I tested. Charged all of them to full capacity and it still didn't work. So, I brought the camera over to Leica SF, and sent it off for service. I came to find out that Leica no longer fixes any camera with any sign of corrosion - period. Full stop. A component known to be defective is now NTBF.

The alternative they gave me is a lackluster upgrade path to a new M system camera with a trade-in discount. This is so disappointing - specially for a brand that prides themselves in their heritage and backwards compatibility of their lenses. But none of that matters if they don't continue to support legacy camera systems. Anyway... thousands of dollars down the drain today. Going to search for a third-party company that can do the repair.

I suppose besides being a rant post, treat this as a PSA if you're looking into purchasing an M9 in the used market. Maybe stay away.

[Advertisement]

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

[mrxclxst]

This is Leica's official statement back in 2011: (The source link no longer works. They've taken it down)
 

Quote

 

Leica Camera has recently become aware of an issue being experienced by owners of the M9 in regard to the battery. The issue occurs when an M9 battery is fully charged and inserted into the camera. After a very short time, long before the normal drain period, the camera incorrectly shows a “battery low” message. This may happen every time the camera is used or only periodically.

Leica engineers have identified the source of the malfunction. It is caused by an electronic component that needs to be replaced. Once the component is replaced, the defect is remedied. There have been 15 cases of this problem, which is equal to 0.05% of the total units sold.

If you encounter this issue, please make sure that you are using original Leica batteries and send your camera to your local representative for repair. We will put a high priority on these repairs and fix them free of charge. We apologize for any inconvenience this issue has or may cause.

Source: http://en.leica-camera.com/news/news/1/8263.html

 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by mrxclxst

[qrede]

“This issue affects all Leica M9's sooner or later.“

I guess, on a long enough timeline, the failure rate of any M9 part is 100%. 
But how do you know this?

[mrxclxst]

11 hours ago, qrede said:

“This issue affects all Leica M9's sooner or later.“

I guess, on a long enough timeline, the failure rate of any M9 part is 100%. 
But how do you know this?

@qrede - It's near certainty considering the issue has to do with corrosion. (separate issue from the also very susceptible sensor corroding) - It seems they misjudged the application of conformal coating (or lack thereof) on their electronics. At the time when they offered repairs, they used to replace entire circuit boards / PCBs. 

Unless your camera is secured within a humidity stabilized + temperature controlled compartment, logically, it's only a matter of time before it eventually fails. I'm wondering though, if later serial numbers received circuit boards that have conformal coating treatments. At this point, it's doubtful in lieu of the same battery issue still, not as frequently but regularly, coming up. -- And speaking with Leica, they don't hide the fact that they're very well aware this issue exists. They just decided it's better for their business to get people to upgrade to newer models. This is understandable from a business standpoint being that the camera model is nearing its 14th year since release. It's just unfortunate for the growing population who are now dealing with a potentially bricked M9. I'm going to miss the look and color science of their 35mm CCD.

I'm pretty sure a skilled electrics technician could save the boards inside the camera. It's not any different from any other computer/electronics PCBs. Although finding a technician capable of that who also has the ability to maneuver through the mechanical makeup of the camera is the tricky bit.

Luckily I may have found a company up to the task. I won't be leaving their name here until I feel it's safe to recommend. They've quoted me $700 to save the camera. (This is a rough estimate not including any potential hardware they may need to replace like resistors, chips, etc.) We shall see.

Edited September 11, 2022 by mrxclxst

[69xchange]

Keep us updated

[pippy]

On 9/9/2022 at 9:35 PM, mrxclxst said:

This issue affects all Leica M9's sooner or later...

As someone who uses an M Monochrom this thread is of some interest to me. Could you please explain how you know that this issue will affect "all M9's sooner or later..."?

According to the official statement from Leica which you quoted;

"There have been 15 cases of this problem, which is equal to 0.05% of the total units sold."

Adding yours to the total we arrive at the figure of 16.

There are no publicly posted production figures which give total numbers for the years 2009 and 2011-2012 but adding up the production figures which have been posted (c. 180,000) the number of cameras so afflicted seems absolutely tiny. Prior to reading the OP this phenomenon was something which I'd never once seen raised even although, since 2014, I've owned examples of M9 / M9-P and the MM.

As Leica became aware of the defectt part-way through 2011 and could remedy any cameras which were affected with a redesigned part it would seem to be likely that all cameras produced subsequently were equipped with the updated part. As mentioned there are no accurate figures posted for 2011 but of the figures which are known the total equates to 110,000 units.

Philip.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, pippy said:

As Leica became aware of the defectt part-way through 2011 and could remedy any cameras which were affected with a redesigned part it would seem to be likely that all cameras produced subsequently were equipped with the updated part.

And if it was every camera then all cameras with updated sensors have probably had this component replaced when the sensor was replaced. IF that is, all cameras were likely to be affected.

[pippy]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

And if it was every camera then all cameras with updated sensors have probably had this component replaced when the sensor was replaced. IF that is, all cameras were likely to be affected.

Yes.

If Leica's '15......0.05%' figures can be trusted then Leica were already aware of the issue before production had reached 30,000 bodies so the vast majority of M9 production (which total figure is likely to be around 230,000 units) should never have even the slight possibility of this issue cropping-up.

Doesn't help those owners whose cameras might have failed after the replacement was no longer available, of course, but perhaps it helps to puts things in a slightly clearer perspective in terms of possible future 'failure-percentage' for people who currently own an M9.

Philip.

EDIT : having just had a google for posts where M9 owners mention this being an issue with their cameras there are, perhaps surprisingly all things considered, only a small number of hits which come up - and none of them appears to have been posted after 2011 which is when Leica could fit the updated part at the manufacturing stage - so it really does seem to have been a problem encountered by a very few owners all of whom owned early examples.

It would be interesting to know whether the camera owned by the OP dates to this early period in the production-run of the M9 series.

Edited September 11, 2022 by pippy

[a.noctilux]

Thanks Philip.

As Monochrom user myself, I would not be afraid of this "new to me" possible failure.

Hoping I'm not unlucky enough to have one of those 0.05% 😜.

[pippy]

33 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

Thanks Philip.

As Monochrom user myself, I would not be afraid of this "new to me" possible failure.

Hoping I'm not unlucky enough to have one of those 0.05% 😜.

If it really was only the pre-#30,000 cameras which might be prone to failure, Arnaud, and if total production was around 230,000 units then the failure rate expressed as a percentage is closer to being 0.00625%. As my own MM is serial number 4351xxx it dates from very near the end of production in 2012 so, happily for me, I will be able to sleep soundly.

Philip.

[Topsy]

4 hours ago, pippy said:

If it really was only the pre-#30,000 cameras which might be prone to failure, Arnaud, and if total production was around 230,000 units then the failure rate expressed as a percentage is closer to being 0.00625%. As my own MM is serial number 4351xxx it dates from very near the end of production in 2012 so, happily for me, I will be able to sleep soundly.

Philip.

My 3 M9s are all 38****** not sure where that leaves me.

[pippy]

59 minutes ago, Topsy said:

My 3 M9s are all 38****** not sure where that leaves me.

I don't know where that leaves you either. No idea.

According to this Leica-Wiki web page when the M9 was introduced in 2009 the first serial number mentioned (here) is 3484275 but there is no serial number allocated nor production total quoted for end-of-year. The serial numbers for the following year (2010), however, are listed as being 3803931 to 3842870 with a production total of 38,940 units;

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/M9

If we are going to accept these production figures then clearly the first 30,000 units sold - which is where all the known failures have been recorded - were manufactured before end-of-year 2010. These cameras, let's not overlook, are all now nearly twelve years old. No digital camera manufacturer guarantees their products for such a length of time.

It is, I write again, regrettable that some M9 cameras have succumbed to this fault but the reality is that perhaps only 16 cameras have failed out of a production total of perhaps 230,000 cameras all of which are now well out of warranty.

If my MM fails tomorrow there's absolutely nothing I would have to complain about. It is an old camera and the majority of old, electronics-filled cameras do eventually fail. Such Is Life.

Philip.

Edited September 11, 2022 by pippy

[TomB_tx]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

These cameras, let's not overlook, are all now nearly twelve years old. No digital camera manufacturer guarantees their products for such a length of time.

I agree - I expect electronic devices to last at least 5 years, and anything beyond that is a bonus. I couldn't believe it when Leica replaced the sensor for free when my M9 was 7 years old and out of warranty - and it's still going strong now.

I developed industrial field electronic test equipment, and keeping it in production for 10 years meant redesigning circuits several times as components became obsolete and unavailable. I've been retired for 13 years now, and still hear from people searching for repairs. When an instrument uses chips mainly used in consumer electronics the production life is based on how often the major companies redesign models - maybe 3-4 years. Now after the Covid disruptions lead-time on even some common chips is up to 2 years - really causing companies relying on them a lot of grief, as they never expected such a condition. Retirement is good!

[ianman]

14 hours ago, pippy said:

The serial numbers for the following year (2010), however, are listed as being 3803931 to 3842870 with a production total of 38,940 units;

This info is not correct. Mine is from 2009 and the serial is 3810311.

[ianman]

23 hours ago, pgk said:

And if it was every camera then all cameras with updated sensors have probably had this component replaced when the sensor was replaced. IF that is, all cameras were likely to be affected.

Yes indeed. It would be interesting to know if the OPs M9 has the latest sensor or not.

[pippy]

35 minutes ago, ianman said:

This info is not correct. Mine is from 2009 and the serial is 3810311.

Yes, well...

It was info taken from the www hence my caveats of "According to this web-page..." and "If we are going to accept these production figures...".

Still; the general gist of the web info is probably in the ball-park.

Probably...

🙂

Philip.

[ianman]

Sure I know that serial numbers are notoriously bad for keeping diaries but I have thought that 17000-odd difference is a ruddy big ball park.

Not that it matters much. The number of cameras affected was incredibly small in 2011 and I don’t recall ever reading this issue then or since. And as Paul suggested, the potential issue would have gone away for bodies with the latest sensors.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, ianman said:

Sure I know that serial numbers are notoriously bad for keeping diaries but I have thought that 17000-odd difference is a ruddy big ball park. ......

I believe the Old Course of the Royal and Ancient in St. Andrews was mentioned...

Philip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[adan]

Just FYI - my first M9, delivered 8 days after the official introduction on 09/09/09, was number 3803xxx.

It and its younger sister (394xxxx) never had this problem as of 2017, when they were traded for my first M10.

As to the general question of longevity/repairability for digital cameras, they are really just computers (or computer peripherals) with a lens mount.

I hope I might get 10 years out of them. My M9s would probably have gone the distance (with free sensor upgrades) if the M10 had not come along.

I don't expect anything beyond 5 years - the standard depreciation time period over which one can write them off for business tax purposes in the U.S., as 5-year property (computers and peripheral equipment). The IRS accountants and actuaries are pretty good at establishing "functional life."

[charlesphoto99]

My M9 is 3810428 and still works fine (sensor cover glass was replaced by Leica) though rarely used these days due to owning an M10R and M10M. First I've ever heard about this corrosion issue.