My M9 has the infamous Corroded Sensor

[kkdanamatt]

I need advice from you Leica experts.
My beloved steel-gray M9 now has that *&%$+# sensor.
The body is truly in mint condition, as if that now matters at all.
I don't want to repair it and it can't be sold as-is, so Leica has offered me a trade-in on either a new M10, Q2, or an SL-2.

The Q2 deal is the best deal, IMHO.....$3,696.50, and probably the easiest to resell.
I already have a Q, so I would like to sell this brand new, sealed in the box, Q2.
Does anyone have another suggestion on how I can get anything of real value out of my dead M9?
At this point, I don't need or want another Leica M, Q, or SL.
Thanks for your thoughts.....

 

[KismetSky]

A non-corroding sensor M9 is going for 2300-2700 and a Kolari fix is $1k. You could try to sell the corroded M9 at a discount with that in mind or have it fixed yourself prior to selling.

If you’re set on trade-in, I agree the Q2 is the best option for price and resale.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

If you have 6-bit coded M lenses, you should consider getting another digital M or an SL (with the Leica L-M adapter). Your 6-bit coded M lenses will be corrected and represented in the EXIF data. I'd probably get rid of the M9 "as-is" before spending money on it in order to sell it - which would most likely represent a wash.

I see the Qs as glorified P&S cameras, but that's just me.

 

[JeffS7444]

You can sell that M9 with a clear conscience if you make sure to describe it as a parts/as-is unit. Your camera likely still has considerable market value, and $1500 is not out of the question for a unit which is otherwise in mint condition.

OTOH, unless you are an authorized Leica dealer, you are on ethical thin ice if you attempt to resell the replacement camera as "New", as any warranties are likely non-transferable. That's assuming that it isn't a demo or refurbished unit to begin with.

 

[boojum]

I'd send it to Jadon at Reddotrepair and get the sensor fixed. The M9 sensor has good color. For $1K you are back in the game.

 

[james.liam]

I'd send it to Jadon at Reddotrepair and get the sensor fixed. The M9 sensor has good color. For $1K you are back in the game.

…and for another grand you can get a used M10.

 

[Darthfeeble]

Show me an M10 for $2k please. Everywhere I look they are at least twice that.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I recently traded mine for a SL2-S. No regrets. If you want to sell whatever Leica you trade it in for, have a look at eBay's 'sold' listings to see what you can expect to get. Cheers, OtL

 

[boojum]

…and for another grand you can get a used M10.

The point of the M9, for me, is the sensor. I have been assured that a CMOS can be made to look like a CCD. As for another $1K getting an M10 (https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=leica+m10&_sacat=31388&_sop=15) I am sending you out shopping for me.

 

[Beemermark]

The OP states "At this point, I don't need or want another Leica M, Q, or SL.". In that case sell it as is and exit the Leica mystique.

 

[james.liam]

Show me an M10 for $2k please. Everywhere I look they are at least twice that.

An M9 in great shape and a bad sensor will sell for somewhere in the range of ~$1500-1800 depending on the type ("P" or not) and rarity if a special edition. A new sensor stack at Kolari is $1000 and Maxmax, $1500 so for another $1000-1300 on top of that, you can have an M10 (used). That was my math.

 

[willie_901]

The point of the M9, for me, is the sensor. I have been assured that a CMOS can be made to look like a CCD.

If the M9's rendered images aesthetics are your first priority, you should get the M9 sensor replaced. I assume at this date the replacement is a genuine Leica part but some other version of the Kodak CCD sensor.

A CCD and a CMOS photo-diode array create the exact same thing, a spatial array of electrical charges that are converted into a spatial array of DC voltages. Electrical charge and DC voltage are precisely identical regardless of how they are created (CCD vs CMOS). But the color-filter array assemblies' frequency responses can be very different. The optical properties of the micro-lens assemblies can be very different. The IR filter properties and thickness of the sensor cover glass can be very different as well. Leica optimized the in-camera JPEG rendering software for how those components affect the spatial array of in-camera raw numbers. Similarly M9 DNG files are rendered using third-party proprietary demosaicking algorithms optimized for the original M9 sensor.

I think it is reasonable to assume acceptable rendering parameters for DNG files from M10 or M9 non-Leica replacement sensor assemblies can be found to match the rendering you enjoy with your M9. I'k not sure that's so for in-camera JPEGs.

An optimist would assume the companies who offer replacement M9 sensors had access to the technical details and specifications Kodak and, or Platinum Equity used to manufacture Leica's replacement M9 sensor assemblies. It's possible these third-party sensor assemblies are identical to the those Leica used during the replacement campaign.

Maxmax offers a several solutions for M9 sensor replacement including a monochrome sensor. I have no idea how well their solutions work out, how well in-camera JPEG rendering compares to original M9 sensor JPEG rendering or how much effort is required (if any) to effectively simulate original M9 sensor DNG rendering to your satisfaction.

 

[boojum]

If the M9's rendered images aesthetics are your first priority, you should get the M9 sensor replaced. I assume at this date the replacement is a genuine Leica part but some other version of the Kodak CCD sensor.

A CCD and a CMOS photo-diode array create the exact same thing, a spatial array of electrical charges that are converted into a spatial array of DC voltages. Electrical charge and DC voltage are precisely identical regardless of how they are created (CCD vs CMOS). But the color-filter array assemblies' frequency responses can be very different. The optical properties of the micro-lens assemblies can be very different. The IR filter properties and thickness of the sensor cover glass can be very different as well. Leica optimized the in-camera JPEG rendering software for how those components affect the spatial array of in-camera raw numbers. Similarly M9 DNG files are rendered using third-party proprietary demosaicking algorithms optimized for the original M9 sensor.

I think it is reasonable to assume acceptable rendering parameters for DNG files from M10 or M9 non-Leica replacement sensor assemblies can be found to match the rendering you enjoy with your M9. I'k not sure that's so for in-camera JPEGs.

An optimist would assume the companies who offer replacement M9 sensors had access to the technical details and specifications Kodak and, or Platinum Equity used to manufacture Leica's replacement M9 sensor assemblies. It's possible these third-party sensor assemblies are identical to the those Leica used during the replacement campaign.

Maxmax offers a several solutions for M9 sensor replacement including a monochrome sensor. I have no idea how well their solutions work out, how well in-camera JPEG rendering compares to original M9 sensor JPEG rendering or how much effort is required (if any) to effectively simulate original M9 sensor DNG rendering to your satisfaction.

I think I may have misled you. My M9 is working just fine with a factory sensor repair and board replacement. It is my camera of choice in the Leica stable of an M8.2, M9, and M240(2). The new Pixii may dislodge the M9. The Pixii with its APS-C CMOS is a contender, especially with the older lenses. But I favor the older lenses on the M9, too. It's my skills that need improving not my gear. YMMV

 

[Sonnar Brian]

No one is making full-frame CCDs anymore. Dalsa discontinued production of their line, and Onsemi has shutdown CCD production. Onsemi acquired Truesense, which was the Kodak CCD spinoff. Dalsa was the last company to bring out a new full-frame CCD, a 32MPixel CCD available in color and monochrome. All Gone.

The third-party repair shops replace the cover glass of the CCD. Some tried to get their hands on the CCDs turned in with the bad glass, but got nowhere with that.

But.... I can still get a KAF-1603 CCD replacement for my Kodak DCS200. Thirty years old, and places still stock the sensor. Probably cannot get the IR version, Kodak did not make many. I have the first one.

 

[Beemermark]

But.... I can still get a KAF-1603 CCD replacement for my Kodak DCS200. Thirty years old, and places still stock the sensor. Probably cannot get the IR version, Kodak did not make many. I have the first one.

I'm guessing at $10K for the DCS200 along with the 1.5 MP sensor in 1992 not that many were sold. So probably thousands of sensors left on the repair shelf that were never used. That's my story and I'm sticking to it -🙂

 

[Sonnar Brian]

That particular CCD had a lot of use in Astrophotography. The saturation count on it was double that of the M8 and triple the M9. The original was the KAF-1600, but the KAF-1603 was a drop in replacement.

It was $12,400 for the IR version- required a special run for the sensor. The regular DCS200m and DCS200c were $8500.