Old 11-22-2014   #41
xleic
Registered User
 
xleic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
The sensors are made in usa
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #42
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
A german member of the LUF found out that Leica changed last Friday on their official website the recommendations for sensor cleaning. I guess that he made screen shots to be able to document what Leica recommended before this case of sensor defects became official.
This mess will create a lot of trouble. Look at ebay - how many M9 will be sold without any statements about this situation which is an old one. Since 2013 the sensor problem exists. As common with Leica under the surface……. Remember the exploding M8 shutters.

How about dealers with stock of new M-E and 2. hand M9/MM?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #43
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by xleic View Post
Are you sure?
Yes, that is confirmed.
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #44
xleic
Registered User
 
xleic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Could this affect the value of the limited editions too?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #45
xleic
Registered User
 
xleic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
Yes, that is confirmed.
any link available?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #46
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by xleic View Post
The corrosion only starts after wet cleaning. Anybody else has nothing to fear.
I'm afraid that is not true. I think it is Leica's way to put at least part of the blame on users. Corrosion starts as soon as the coatings are applied, but it might take 3 months to 1 year to start showing as bubbles on the sensor, mistakenly thought to be oil drops by users. This will happen whether you wet clean or not. Aggressive cleaning to remove the unremovable drops will cause them to detach quicker, but that is not the origin of the problem.
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #47
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by xleic View Post
any link available?
Many users accounts on LUF, but I am too lazy to look them up
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #48
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
partly copied from the Truesense data- and handling sheet:

about cleaning this type of sensor:

Handling
It is important to never touch the cover glass with fingers or anything other than lens cleaning paper with solvent. Any mechanical contact can scratch the cover glass.
Finger grease can etch optical coatings, causing permanent damage. Gloves used during handling should be static- dissipative and powder-free. Truesense Imaging recommends a static-dissipative nitrile glove such as Ansell 93-401/402, or equivalent. Most Latex gloves have powder that can be a source of particles that contaminate the glass. Also, most gloves do not dissipate static charges, and can actually create static charges that could damage the sensor.
1. Blow off the surface of the glass with a compressed gas source. The source should not produce a net charge, and may be ionized. The gas should be dry, and may be nitrogen or air.
Caution
Compressed gas canisters should not be used. The fluid and coldness may affect the cover glass, and the gas may cause ESD events.
This operation should remove large particulates that would scratch the surface during the wiping operation. Blow as close to parallel to the glass as possible to push contaminates off the glass. Gas pressure normally incident (perpendicular to the glass surface) will act to drive contaminates into the glass, not off of the glass. This step assumes that the surfaces near the imager are also clean, so that the operation does not blow contaminates onto the glass from other places. If the sensor is mounted in a recessed surface, it may be advisable to skip this step.
Image Sensor Handling Best Practices


"2. Inspect.
Use a 7x to 10x magnifier and a good light, such as an illuminator for a microscope. If the only contaminants are particles, the previous step may be adequate to clean the glass. If the glass is now clean, skip the remaining steps.
3. Fold a lens cleaning paper to the appropriate size.
Use lens-cleaning paper (Truesense Imaging lens cleaning paper catalog # 154 6027 or equivalent) that is specifically for use on high quality optics. The paper may already be folded and mounted on a stick to form a swab. Folded paper may be secured with hemostats so that contamination from fingers is not dissolved in the solvent.
If using lens paper and hemostats, fold the wipe until one dimension is the same as the width of the cover glass. If using preformed swabs, the width of the swab should be the same as the cover glass. If the folded paper is too narrow, it will not clean the entire glass surface. If it is too wide, it can collect contaminants from the package surface or a camera surface, which can accidentally be transferred to the glass. Be sure not to touch the cleaning edge of the paper before use.
4. Wet the entire paper with solvent.
Truesense Imaging uses 200-proof ethyl alcohol.
Caution
Acetone is strongly discouraged because it attacks the resin that attaches the cover glass to the package. Methanol is not used by Truesense Imaging due to its potential toxicity and poorer cleaning properties.
The solvent should not be allowed to collect moisture, and is best if used from a standard chemistry squeeze bottle. The quantity should be enough to ensure that the paper is wet, but too much solvent will leave streaks during cleaning. Shake the paper before use to removed excess solvent. Not enough solvent will result in the paper rubbing directly on the cover glass surface without the lubrication of the solvent. This can result in scratches to the surface. Some companies offer pre-wetted paper in a sealed packet.
5. Wipe the surface once and then discard the cleaning paper.
Make sure that the paper does not contact any surface other than the cover glass, including the image sensor package or the camera. Single use of the wipe is important, because contaminants collected by the wipe will be transferred back to the glass if the wipe is used more than once. There will usually be a short trail of the solvent directly behind the paper as it wipes.
6. Inspect.
If the surface is not clean, repeat the wiping steps. If a contaminant is not removed in two or three wipes, it is possible that there is permanent damage to the cover glass. If more than one wipe is necessary, always wipe in the same direction.
Image Sensor Handling Best Practices"
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #49
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 75
Posts: 385
My heart goes out to the owners of these cameras. I was looking at a 240 recently that a store was using as a demo. To think now as I watched various lenses taken out of the case and put on this body to show the clients; and now I wonder if they had to clear off the sensor? I'm sure glad I stopped to read about this now???? I'm not buying now, and the bottom line with Leica is going to feel it too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #50
V-12
Registered User
 
V-12 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by oltimer View Post
My heart goes out to the owners of these cameras. I was looking at a 240 recently that a store was using as a demo. To think now as I watched various lenses taken out of the case and put on this body to show the clients; and now I wonder if they had to clear off the sensor? I'm sure glad I stopped to read about this now???? I'm not buying now, and the bottom line with Leica is going to feel it too.
Again, perspective is everything and your pity is misplaced. The nugget of information you are missing is that it doesn't affect the M240, so there is no reason not to go and buy it. And it only affects a few M9's, so the majority of people will have no need to worry.

The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own. And they are the vocal minority who probably flit from camera system to camera system all the time anyway and have no depth of experience as to what is normal and reliable and what is an aberration or glitch. If for instance I had owned Nikon's continuously for forty years I would probably have had my fair share of lemons, and maybe I'm just lucky, but other than one minor failure my Leica's have been super reliable and tough, including the M9.

V
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #51
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 43
Posts: 18,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own.
If Leica has commented on it and has a plan, it is not being whipped up out of proportion by anyone. The problem is that it was a $7000-8000 camera with these issues (and in some cases is still being sold at those prices not even including special edition cameras). Please name another camera is this price category with similar issues. Leica, for many, satisfy its users emotionally as well as practically. Emotionally since they are such beautiful objects and the only digital rangefinder still being made. This generally ends up with its users using them a lot longer than most digital cameras (e.g. M8 still being used now when similarly priced DSLRs from 2005 are not as much).
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #52
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
Again, perspective is everything and your pity is misplaced. The nugget of information you are missing is that it doesn't affect the M240, so there is no reason not to go and buy it. And it only affects a few M9's, so the majority of people will have no need to worry.

The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own. And they are the vocal minority who probably flit from camera system to camera system all the time anyway and have no depth of experience as to what is normal and reliable and what is an aberration or glitch. If for instance I had owned Nikon's continuously for forty years I would probably have had my fair share of lemons, and maybe I'm just lucky, but other than one minor failure my Leica's have been super reliable and tough, including the M9.

V
I love it when someone who doesn't even own that camera makes remarks like this about the users

For your information, this problem affects EVERY camera body that has the Kodak sensor. It's not some or a few, it is every piece ever manufactured. Normally you do a recall for such thing.
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #53
Vobluda
Registered User
 
Vobluda is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Age: 42
Posts: 830
And dont forget how has Nikon approched D600 sensor/shutter issue!

Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
Again, perspective is everything and your pity is misplaced. The nugget of information you are missing is that it doesn't affect the M240, so there is no reason not to go and buy it. And it only affects a few M9's, so the majority of people will have no need to worry.

The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own. And they are the vocal minority who probably flit from camera system to camera system all the time anyway and have no depth of experience as to what is normal and reliable and what is an aberration or glitch. If for instance I had owned Nikon's continuously for forty years I would probably have had my fair share of lemons, and maybe I'm just lucky, but other than one minor failure my Leica's have been super reliable and tough, including the M9.

V
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #54
oltimer
Registered User
 
oltimer is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 75
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
Again, perspective is everything and your pity is misplaced. The nugget of information you are missing is that it doesn't affect the M240, so there is no reason not to go and buy it. And it only affects a few M9's, so the majority of people will have no need to worry.

The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own. And they are the vocal minority who probably flit from camera system to camera system all the time anyway and have no depth of experience as to what is normal and reliable and what is an aberration or glitch. If for instance I had owned Nikon's continuously for forty years I would probably have had my fair share of lemons, and maybe I'm just lucky, but other than one minor failure my Leica's have been super reliable and tough, including the M9.

V
I appreciate where your coming from on my comment. I'm up there, and my 1st M3 was purchased in '66. Several Leica's latter I'm cautious now even if I get a sniff of info. The 240 is still a lot higher in Europe than in Canada and a great buy here, and yes I was also mulling over a used M9. Nothing will change my thoughts now till I see how this unfolds in the world market and how Leica will have too respond differently than they already have. Again thank you for your comments.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #55
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
Bloomberg released in 2009 a statement from Kodak/Leica:

here a part which might explain the roots of problems:

"With over 18-million pixels, the KODAK KAF-18500 Image Sensor enables a new
level of image quality and performance for M-series customers. With an image
capture area that matches the size of traditional 35mm film, M-series lenses
can now be used without the imposition of artificial image cropping. Matching
this larger image capture area with the Rangefinder’s unique optical design
required a redesign of both the sensor’s pixel and microlens configuration
compared to the sensor used in the M8 camera, which Kodak was able to achieve
without compromising on Leica’s stringent image quality requirements. In
addition, the sensor incorporates a new IR-absorbing cover glass
as well as a
new red color pigment for improved color fidelity and improved image quality."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #56
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 30
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by oltimer View Post
My heart goes out to the owners of these cameras. I was looking at a 240 recently that a store was using as a demo. To think now as I watched various lenses taken out of the case and put on this body to show the clients; and now I wonder if they had to clear off the sensor? I'm sure glad I stopped to read about this now???? I'm not buying now, and the bottom line with Leica is going to feel it too.
The M is a CMOS camera and should not have these problems. Lens switching does increase the likelihood of dust, but that can be removed fairly painlessly.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #57
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
On the Eclipse homepage there is a certain guarantee which covers the usage of their cleaning components in case of sensor damage by wet cleaning. We learn that CCD sensors are not allowed to be cleaned with just one version. So get a new sensor, send the old one to Eclipse together with the small purchase bill of the cleaning set and take a new bag of pop corn. Look what Leica and Eclipse will tell each other and to you…...

http://photosol.com/swab-sizes/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #58
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 68
Posts: 3,890
Kodak sensors have been used in several digital systems. My Hasselblad digital back had a Kodak ccd. Hasselblad sent ewipes with the back to clean the sensor which is basically a pecpad saturated with eclipse solution. I've never heard of any issues with sensors in Hasselblad backs.

It's just a guess but I suspect the sensor in the M9 has different coatings than others.

I find it interesting my M9 sensor had problems and I never cleaned it and I purchased it new. I believe it's inherent in that model of sensor.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #59
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
 
semi-ambivalent is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: DenCo, USA
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverbullet View Post
from my point of view it's a clever strategy from Leica to shift the responsibility to the customer who has no chance to argue against the now 'wrong' cleaning methods.
Maybe protection from ham-fisted photographers who obsess over that perfectly clean sensor rather than learning how to clean things up in PP. Or a finance-based control mechanism that ramps up the customer cost inversely to the remaining supply of a sensor Leica can no longer source. This is digital; this is how it will work for the foreseeable future. Unless you discover how to build 24MP sensors in your shed.

Film is not immune; Early IIIs and Ms have increasing value for their parts even if they don't function as cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if, plotted against their respective "sensor" technology's age, their respective decay rates weren't almost identical.

If you want a camera for life get an MP, or, even better, a couple M3s.

s-a
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #60
CameraQuest
Head Bartender
 
CameraQuest is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: over the hills from Malibu
Posts: 5,367
I've read conflicting reports. Is anyone sure whether or not this problem affects the M8 and M8.2 ?

Stephen
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #61
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
I've read conflicting reports. Is anyone sure whether or not this problem affects the M8 and M8.2 ?

Stephen
out of my memory during the introduction of the M9, it was communicated that the wider surface of the full frame sensor of the M9 with an even flatter angle occurred for the light and that the current glass cover of the M8 was to thick. Therefore the very thin tailor-made glass with it's delicate coating had to be used. But as we know certain lenses as the 15mm VC produce red edges when monochrome objects as snow or gray skies are photographed.

CCDs from Habla f.e. and others have the common cover glass because the lenses are all a retrofocal design with a not so delicate angle of light.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #62
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
it could be possible that very thin metallic particles from the shutter on the surface react with the coating under conditions where humidity acts as a transfer medium between the coating and the particles itself…….only guesswork because we aren't Kodak, TrueSense or Schott…..
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #63
Mark Schretlen
mostly harmless
 
Mark Schretlen is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Okanagan - British Columbia
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraQuest View Post
I've read conflicting reports. Is anyone sure whether or not this problem affects the M8 and M8.2 ?

Stephen
My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that the M8 and M8.2 are not affected. Dante Stella's theory is this: One of the "improvements" of the M9 was the addition of infrared-cut filter to the sensor stack (Schott S-8612). It is the humidity/moisture vulnerability of this layer that is the likely starting point of the corrosion/pitting problems.
__________________
-- Mark --
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #64
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 30
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverbullet View Post
out of my memory during the introduction of the M9, it was communicated that the wider surface of the full frame sensor of the M9 with an even flatter angle occurred for the light and that the current glass cover of the M8 was to thick. Therefore the very thin tailor-made glass with it's delicate coating had to be used. But as we know certain lenses as the 15mm VC produce red edges when monochrome objects as snow or gray skies are photographed.

CCDs from Habla f.e. and others have the common cover glass because the lenses are all a retrofocal design with a not so delicate angle of light.
CCDs do have regular cover glass, but the red edges still exist with wide lenses, especially when fitting LF lenses to MF backs. In fact this was so much of an issue that Phase One built in a red corner correction tool into the very first version of Capture One...

Anyways, I think what's causing the issue is the IR filtration glass and not the cover. Or are these merged together for the M9?
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #65
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by YYV_146 View Post
CCDs do have regular cover glass, but the red edges still exist with wide lenses, especially when fitting LF lenses to MF backs. In fact this was so much of an issue that Phase One built in a red corner correction tool into the very first version of Capture One...

Anyways, I think what's causing the issue is the IR filtration glass and not the cover. Or are these merged together for the M9?
out of my above post with the statement of TrueSense and Leica:

In
addition, the sensor incorporates a new IR-absorbing cover glass as well as a
new red color pigment for improved color fidelity and improved image quality."
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #66
V-12
Registered User
 
V-12 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa View Post
I love it when someone who doesn't even own that camera makes remarks like this about the users

For your information, this problem affects EVERY camera body that has the Kodak sensor. It's not some or a few, it is every piece ever manufactured. Normally you do a recall for such thing.
It only affects a few Kodak sensors because only a few will be cleaned by inexperienced owners, the majority will be cleaned by experienced owners or Leica themselves.

But yours is a common mistake in not looking at the broader picture. The Leica M9 was the first digital camera for some people, or at least they only had a P&S before it. Many Leica users had been hanging on with their film camera's before the M9 because they wanted full format so their lenses worked as they wanted, a 28mm Summicron would still have the same coverage for example. So unlike say a Canon or Nikon forum where sensor cleaning topics were old hat because everybody already did it on a regular basis the Leica forums were inundated with the most basic questions about dust and how to clean it. Indeed many people didn't even know they were looking at the affects of dust on their pictures. So do you expect if not a rash of accidents from nervous owners being pulled one way and the other by 'cleaning is easy' and 'send it to Leica' messages? And Leica didn't help with their advice, 'take it to your nearest dealer for a free clean', doesn't do much good if you aren't near a nearest dealer.

So the M9 was essentially a camera for digital newbies for many current Leica owners, not to mention the new adopters wanting the 'Leica ethos' in an easy digital form (with film being 'dead'). And of course they arrive and want it to be just like their Canon and Nikon, 'I need this', 'why doesn't it do that', so they get the worm in their brain that the spent all this money and what do they get for it, no buffer to speak of, manual focusing, and when they discover they have no patience to learn to focus off it goes to Leica for adjustment because it is wrong, not themselves.

And then you have the Leica owners who already have a good set of lenses and other film cameras, and they got over the 'investment' aspect of ownership many years before the M9, they'd seen glitches before, they'd even owned other FF digital cameras before, and the price of an M9 was far less than two or three of their lenses. Dare I say that this changes ones perspective? Instead of sweating about perceived problems and the expense they can instead see the value in the M9, how good it was/is, and what it could do for their photography.

Now I can't put myself into another group of owners just to share your anxiety, to wallow in worries about why I can't get along with rangefinder focusing or engage in the fantasy Leica are trying to screw me, but I can see where other people are coming from and why they may think one thing and not another. From some of the previous posts this is a trait of understanding that has clearly been distorted by listening to the wrong people, having individual bad experiences, or just having a big mouth and don't even own a Leica. But they are all listening to prejudices and they need to take a step back. There have been well over 100,000 Leica M9's made, so, where are the 100,000 complaints?

V
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #67
xleic
Registered User
 
xleic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
It only affects a few Kodak sensors because only a few will be cleaned by inexperienced owners or dickheads....there have been well over 100,000 Leica M9's made...
Wow 100,000? How did you know?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #68
Vobluda
Registered User
 
Vobluda is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Age: 42
Posts: 830
From some interview with Leica - they have planed 14k M9s but produced them 30k.
My estimate is including other iterations like M9-P, MM and M-E that this sensor has been used in about 50k cameras at max.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xleic View Post
Wow 100,000? How did you know?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #69
Matthew Runkel
Registered User
 
Matthew Runkel's Avatar
 
Matthew Runkel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 227
V-12, what made you think this sensor defect has much, or anything, to do with incompetent cleaning? If the problem results from operator incompetence, then it's really quite something for Leica to be subsidizing all these sensor replacements.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #70
ian_watts
Ian Watts
 
ian_watts is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Runkel View Post
V-12, what made you think this sensor defect has much, or anything, to do with incompetent cleaning?
It doesn't. My Monochrom has developed a corrosion defect and the first appearance of the defect (when I go back and look at my files) occurred prior to the camera sensor being cleaned (which was only ever done by Leica themselves).

If this problem was caused by "incompetent cleaning" (as opposed to possibly being exacerbated by it) then it would be a widespread problem within the industry. It isn't and is a problem peculiar to this type of full frame sensor that Leica are using in the M9 class of cameras. Whether the cover glass is intrinsically too delicate for normal contact cleaning (a design fault) or whether it hasn't been manufactured to the required standard (a production or QC fault), this sensor has ultimately been shown to be unfit for the purpose intended and Leica need to address this in an appropriate manner. I'm not sure the current policy is appropriate.
__________________
Tumblr // Flickr // Instagram // ianwatts.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #71
xleic
Registered User
 
xleic is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 26
Do you think there will be a new statement to clarify these questions?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #72
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,424
Judging by the way this is developing I think that they need to and rather quickly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #73
VertovSvilova
Registered User
 
VertovSvilova's Avatar
 
VertovSvilova is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
Again, perspective is everything and your pity is misplaced. The nugget of information you are missing is that it doesn't affect the M240, so there is no reason not to go and buy it. And it only affects a few M9's, so the majority of people will have no need to worry.

The whole situation is being whipped up out of proportion by individuals who have had a bad experience (and that is possible with any camera system) or don't even have a vested interest, they just like to bad mouth any camera that isn't their own. And they are the vocal minority who probably flit from camera system to camera system all the time anyway and have no depth of experience as to what is normal and reliable and what is an aberration or glitch. If for instance I had owned Nikon's continuously for forty years I would probably have had my fair share of lemons, and maybe I'm just lucky, but other than one minor failure my Leica's have been super reliable and tough, including the M9.

V
Unfortunately for manufacturers, any reaction by consumers doesn't have to be correct to cause damage. It's what manufacturers fear most when something does go wrong; i.e., how will the consumer respond. 'Damage control' isn't easy (and especially in the age of the interwebs.) Look at the "I'm not going to buy a digital Leica now!" responses already out there based on personal assumptions and perceptions. And sure, while it may be based on a very limited knowledge of the 'reality' of the situation.....that doesn't matter.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #74
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 66
Posts: 3,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by VertovSvilova View Post
'Damage control' isn't easy (and especially in the age of the interwebs.)
Which was why is wasn`t sensible to drop the bombshell into an old thread on the LUF forum instead of issuing a full and properly considered statement.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #75
VertovSvilova
Registered User
 
VertovSvilova's Avatar
 
VertovSvilova is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Which was why is wasn`t sensible to drop the bombshell into an old thread on the LUF forum instead of issuing a full and properly considered statement.
I agree. Leica could probably use some lessons in 'sensible' marketing and press statements. imho, it seems that there's often way too much mythology entangled in their ad copy and not enough reality. And yeah, to drop in on a forum discussion to state a company's new policy towards a defect without even formally discussing the problem is pretty weird. Luckily they no longer have any public stockholders (although I wonder what Blackstone thinks.)

And yes, I'm a Leica owner and have been for a long, long time. Users can be (and should be) critical of the products they use. Hey, I always want to see improvements in the products I use.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #76
yossarian123
Sam I Am
 
yossarian123's Avatar
 
yossarian123 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Chicago
Age: 40
Posts: 902
There's been 3 pages of reaction here (and an equal amount on LUF) - has anyone called Leica themselves to get a confirmation? I'm sure their repair dept would know by now if there's been a change to the official policy.

Honestly, if the camera can just sit there and the sensor will basically rot then that's unacceptable. I have both an M9 and MM and my long term plan was to keep both for as long as possible. This news if true would definitely change those plans.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #77
YYV_146
Registered User
 
YYV_146's Avatar
 
YYV_146 is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Durham, NC
Age: 30
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-12 View Post
So unlike say a Canon or Nikon forum where sensor cleaning topics were old hat because everybody already did it on a regular basis the Leica forums were inundated with the most basic questions about dust and how to clean it. Indeed many people didn't even know they were looking at the affects of dust on their pictures. So *** do you expect if not a rash of accidents from nervous owners being pulled one way and the other by 'cleaning is easy' and 'send it to Leica' messages? And Leica didn't help with their advice, 'take it to your nearest dealer for a free clean', doesn't do much good if you aren't near a nearest dealer.

So the M9 was essentially a camera for digital newbies for many current Leica owners, not to mention the new adopters wanting the 'Leica ethos' in an easy digital form (with film being 'dead'). And of course they arrive and want it to be just like their Canon and Nikon, 'I need this', 'why doesn't it do that', so they get the worm in their brain that the spent all this money and what do they get for it, no buffer to speak of, manual focusing, and when they discover they have no patience to learn to focus off it goes to Leica for adjustment because it is wrong, not themselves.
If it is a sensor cleaning issue, why is Leica quoting this insane price for replacing the entire sensor? A sensor cover glass repair should not run over $300. In fact, even for the entire sensor assembly 1,800 euros sounds like extortion - how much are FF mirrorless bodies these days?

Anecdotal evidence about complaints? I know a dozen or so M9 owners. So far more than half of them had to have their camera go back to Leica for one reason or another. Cracked sensor cover glass, dead pixel lines, frequent card corruptions and delamination. One poor guy's M9 spend half its life in Solmes, as in four repairs with a total down time of 19 months. Don't know about you, but it's enough reason for me never to touch one of those.

If Leica wants to be responsible, it should take these cameras off users' hands. Offer a reasonable trade-in either towards a issue-free M-E/M type 240 or a film M. I think they've made it clear that this issue has and will not be completely resolved on future cameras, and not even on new sensors.
__________________
Victor is too lazy for DSLRs

Sony A7rII Kolari mod

Noctilux ASPH, 35lux FLE, 50 APO ASPH, 75 APO cron, 21lux, Sony/Minolta 135mm STF

500px

Last edited by jsrockit : 11-24-2014 at 08:07. Reason: Quote edited for language
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #78
Vince Lupo
Registered User
 
Vince Lupo's Avatar
 
Vince Lupo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA; Toronto, Ont, Canada
Posts: 4,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by yossarian123 View Post
There's been 3 pages of reaction here (and an equal amount on LUF) - has anyone called Leica themselves to get a confirmation? I'm sure their repair dept would know by now if there's been a change to the official policy.
I just got off the phone with Mark in the technical support department at Leica NJ. He didn't know anything about the online frenzy that was going on, so I read some of it to him. He said that he had heard of some sensors having issues, but only ones that have been exposed to extremely humid conditions for an extended period of time. I asked him about 'wet' cleaning of sensors by owners themselves, and he personally didn't recommend it. He said that what can often happen is that residue gets stuck in the corners and stays there. I told him that I own a Monochrom, live in Baltimore (humid in the summertime, but I don't think it's the type and duration of humidity they're talking about), and only use a Rocket-type blower to clean dust off the sensor. Anything like a smudge or something that requires more extensive cleaning, I send to Leica. He said that if I keep doing what I'm doing, then I have nothing to worry about.

I did ask him about someone from Leica (he did not know JJ Viau) posting information on a forum, rather than in an 'official' capacity on the Leica website, and he said that he was going to look into it. I gave him the info for both the LUF thread and for this thread here. As far as he was aware, there was nothing 'official' from Leica regarding this issue. So it may possibly be internet overreaction, but don't quote me on that!

Personally, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing and not worry about it. Leica has been pretty responsive to any issues that I've had with my Monochrom (admittedly, it has had some, but fingers crossed it's fine now), so I'm just going to carry on and keep taking photos.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #79
silverbullet
Registered User
 
silverbullet's Avatar
 
silverbullet is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 249
https://de.linkedin.com/in/jjviau
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #80
EdwardKaraa
Registered User
 
EdwardKaraa's Avatar
 
EdwardKaraa is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bangkok
Age: 48
Posts: 697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince Lupo View Post
I just got off the phone with Mark in the technical support department at Leica NJ. He didn't know anything about the online frenzy that was going on, so I read some of it to him. He said that he had heard of some sensors having issues, but only ones that have been exposed to extremely humid conditions for an extended period of time.
"I have never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski." Bill Clinton

Yeah, I have vaguely heard about a couple of sensors having issues but only in the swamps of Florida and Louisiana. Nothing on firm earth. You have nothing to worry about.
__________________
M240 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/1.5 50/2 85/2
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:59.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.