jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Err.. it is real glass. In fact, the optimal glass for the application. The problem being that it is a type of glass that can superficially corrode when humid, as is the case with a number of types of optical glass. The standard solution was to cement a second layer of glass over it, but as the M9 needs an extremely thin filter stack the alternative, a sealing coating was chosen.
The coating may either exhibit microscopic porosities in a small number of cases or be damaged mechanically, giving humidity a starting point to delaminate the coating.
The problem now is to find a more stable glass/coating combination that will not degrade the optical performance. That takes time, as testing for corrosion takes time, even in laboratory conditions.
The coating may either exhibit microscopic porosities in a small number of cases or be damaged mechanically, giving humidity a starting point to delaminate the coating.
The problem now is to find a more stable glass/coating combination that will not degrade the optical performance. That takes time, as testing for corrosion takes time, even in laboratory conditions.
Richard G
Veteran
My M9-P's sensor was changed. My MM seems fine. I haven't looked at the sensors or blown air there or anything for months and I am changing lenses regularly. The ones for sale at Red Dot indicate lots of things, maybe, but you just don't learn from those numbers what the denominator is. I'm regularly on RFF and sitting comfortably. There must be a lot of people just using their cameras who may not have even heard about all of this.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
I sent my M9 to Leica (which I bought after selling my M8) in January and they sent me a letter saying that by the end of April will be back. I am waiting. Leica paid for the change and shipping. Since I really like my M9, I will continue to use. I had the sensor problem for more than two years, but it kept going worst. That is when I decided to send it. I knew it was going to be a long time, so I purchased an M8.U, which I really love. I will keep it after I get my M9 back. I trust Leica and will continue to use them. No lens beats Leica. I may not jump to the M240 anytime soon.
NazgulKing
Established
Well, a few things that come to mind.
1. It's the epoxy that degrades. The question is finding an alternative epoxy that doesn't degrade as fast.
2. The material often determines what epoxy is used. Is there another epoxy out there that works just as well?
3. Or is it the epoxy reacts with moisture and corrodes the glass?
On a side note, some Canon DSLRs just turned up a similar sensor/coating issue...
Steveh
Well-known
I'm waiting for my M9 to be collected and shipped to Germany next week. I spoke to them in January and they took my details and told me they would get in touch when they were actually ready to do the work - I was told by the Leica Store Mayfair that replacement sensors are made in batches so they do the replacements in batches as well, and it does look like they're running a 4-5 month wait time. I'm moderately tempted by an M but the Leica upgrade pricing isn't that great so I have passed (plus my wife would kill me....). Customer service have been very good and they send a courier to collect the camera so no real complaints with the process so far.
Pioneer
Veteran
According to Thom Hogan Nikon had some similar problems as well so it is not restricted just to Leica.
I think that believing there will never be a problem no matter how fast technology advances, or how cutting edge our cameras and sensors become, is very naive.
I think that believing there will never be a problem no matter how fast technology advances, or how cutting edge our cameras and sensors become, is very naive.
Huss
Veteran
You wouldn't have to wait 5 months to get your camera back from Nikon.
They recently had an issue with sensor flare on the D750. Turn around time for the fix was max 2 weeks.
EEEEnteristingly, right now Canon has a huge sensor issue with their new EOS Rebel T6s/760D and T6i/750D cameras.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/canon-t6-sensor-issue
They recently had an issue with sensor flare on the D750. Turn around time for the fix was max 2 weeks.
EEEEnteristingly, right now Canon has a huge sensor issue with their new EOS Rebel T6s/760D and T6i/750D cameras.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/04/canon-t6-sensor-issue
ChrisLivsey
Veteran
I suspect the repair teams available to Nikon are on a greater scale than Leica and also we have no idea of the numbers of Nikons returned for that particular repair nor the Leica numbers. That may also change as Nikon for example closes Canada repair centres
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-canada-closing-servic.html
The issue of service costs and turnaround not to mention actual quality are well covered by you friends at Lens Rentals, do it once do it right, or for Nikon build it once build it right, again !
I have a horse in each race BTW Nikon and Leica.
willie_901
Veteran
As best I can tell from reading objective commentary, the cover-glass coating is the culprit.
Either the coating application has thin spots. Or the coating is too fragile (even the most careful handling during manufacturing and/or subsequent cleaning disrupts the coating). Or the coating somehow degades... perhaps due to inevitable thermal expansion and contraction of the cover glass.
Whatever happens with the coating, this alone does not cause artifacts in the images.
The artifacts arise because IR filter itself is not designed to be humidity resistant. Once the IR coating degrades water reacts with the IR filter layer causing visible artifacts. With M cameras the IR filter layer must be as thin as possible, efficient and affordable. Sourcing is not trivial.
Either the coating application has thin spots. Or the coating is too fragile (even the most careful handling during manufacturing and/or subsequent cleaning disrupts the coating). Or the coating somehow degades... perhaps due to inevitable thermal expansion and contraction of the cover glass.
Whatever happens with the coating, this alone does not cause artifacts in the images.
The artifacts arise because IR filter itself is not designed to be humidity resistant. Once the IR coating degrades water reacts with the IR filter layer causing visible artifacts. With M cameras the IR filter layer must be as thin as possible, efficient and affordable. Sourcing is not trivial.
M9reno
Member
My experience is that Wetzlar can send back a corroded camera with a "no corrosion" diagnosis. Just like they can send back a dirty sensor with a "clean sensor" report. Both things happened with my M9, before Leica agreed to a part exchange for an M240. Even then, the corrosion on my M9 was never officially confirmed.
How many affected sensors have been quietly replaced, over several months and years before the corrosion issue surfaced publicly, on cameras sent to Solms/Wetzlar for other service? Any cases of corrosion in many or most of those cameras won't have been officially confirmed, either.
Thus, surveys of corrosion incidence here or anywhere else won't be much good. Not only is the sampling too small, the criteria for positive diagnosis are subjective, and the treatment has not been transparent.
If anyone has remotely reliable numbers on this issue it will be Leica. If the 1% figure stems from them, and if it has any demonstrable basis in reality, it would behoove them to state so unambiguously. Instead, they have kept silent.
The figures they possess are probably too delicate - both in the reputational and legal sense - to publish, and the better course for them may appear to be to let the problem sort itself out in drips and drabs, as digital obsolescence takes its inevitable course and people stop using their M9s for one reason or another, and the furor dies away.
I have always doubted Leica's quest for a permanent solution to this problem. It is a negative view that has coloured my attitude to all of Leica's digital offerings since last year, and will continue to do so. It is admittedly based, faute de mieux, on just instinct, and I would be very happily surprised if one was found. But I personally doubt it will happen.
How many affected sensors have been quietly replaced, over several months and years before the corrosion issue surfaced publicly, on cameras sent to Solms/Wetzlar for other service? Any cases of corrosion in many or most of those cameras won't have been officially confirmed, either.
Thus, surveys of corrosion incidence here or anywhere else won't be much good. Not only is the sampling too small, the criteria for positive diagnosis are subjective, and the treatment has not been transparent.
If anyone has remotely reliable numbers on this issue it will be Leica. If the 1% figure stems from them, and if it has any demonstrable basis in reality, it would behoove them to state so unambiguously. Instead, they have kept silent.
The figures they possess are probably too delicate - both in the reputational and legal sense - to publish, and the better course for them may appear to be to let the problem sort itself out in drips and drabs, as digital obsolescence takes its inevitable course and people stop using their M9s for one reason or another, and the furor dies away.
I have always doubted Leica's quest for a permanent solution to this problem. It is a negative view that has coloured my attitude to all of Leica's digital offerings since last year, and will continue to do so. It is admittedly based, faute de mieux, on just instinct, and I would be very happily surprised if one was found. But I personally doubt it will happen.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It has nothing to do with Epoxy, it is a coating on the glass front side.
willie_901
Veteran
Let's assume the 1% failure rate is accurate.
Then it was completely incitement to announce a M9 sensor replacement policy that shifted the financial burden to the customers. The damage to Leica's brand (image) is not worth cost savings to repair 1% of the cameras.
On the other hand, if the rate started out at ~ 1% and then grew at an alarming rate. Some time in 2014 Leica could have realized every M9 sensor assembly would eventually display the flaw. Then Leica might have decided to end the unofficial, out-of-warranty, free replacement policy. This is obviously a second assumption.
Of course Leica reversed their decision and did the right thing. So what actually happened doesn't matter. In any scenario the brand took a hit.
The true, but unknown, failure rate is proprietary information... as it should be. The same goes for whether or not all sensor assemblies will require replacement. Even whispers by Leica officials to customers with privileged relationships mean little.
Optimistic speculation would be the problem is solved and Leica is simply waiting for the inventory of new sensor assemblies to meet the projected demand. This way people would not be without their cameras for extended periods of time. Leica owners would praise the quick turn-around time... which reinforces brand dynamics that benefit Leica.
Before long some people would claim the new sensor assemblies render better than the old assemblies. The Leica film-era brand leverage would not just be maintained. It would be reinforced.
Then it was completely incitement to announce a M9 sensor replacement policy that shifted the financial burden to the customers. The damage to Leica's brand (image) is not worth cost savings to repair 1% of the cameras.
On the other hand, if the rate started out at ~ 1% and then grew at an alarming rate. Some time in 2014 Leica could have realized every M9 sensor assembly would eventually display the flaw. Then Leica might have decided to end the unofficial, out-of-warranty, free replacement policy. This is obviously a second assumption.
Of course Leica reversed their decision and did the right thing. So what actually happened doesn't matter. In any scenario the brand took a hit.
The true, but unknown, failure rate is proprietary information... as it should be. The same goes for whether or not all sensor assemblies will require replacement. Even whispers by Leica officials to customers with privileged relationships mean little.
Optimistic speculation would be the problem is solved and Leica is simply waiting for the inventory of new sensor assemblies to meet the projected demand. This way people would not be without their cameras for extended periods of time. Leica owners would praise the quick turn-around time... which reinforces brand dynamics that benefit Leica.
Before long some people would claim the new sensor assemblies render better than the old assemblies. The Leica film-era brand leverage would not just be maintained. It would be reinforced.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
We don't have any data to go on and yet we are all arguing about it.
FWIW, I doubt if Leica have all the figures although I guess they have a less vague idea of what's happening but won't know until the saga is over and done with, imo.
Worse still, now this is on the www people will look at it and quote our guesses as facts and it will end up like the FED/Zorki issues; only the FED/Zorki issues have more to do with the owners of the cameras and the history of them.
It's a pity Leica don't come in and tell us what they know, suitably arranged so they don't give too much away to the competition.
Regards, David
PS My guess is that they are replacing them so that the cameras can go on being used whilst they sort out the long term solution. I'll wish them luck with that.
We don't have any data to go on and yet we are all arguing about it.
FWIW, I doubt if Leica have all the figures although I guess they have a less vague idea of what's happening but won't know until the saga is over and done with, imo.
Worse still, now this is on the www people will look at it and quote our guesses as facts and it will end up like the FED/Zorki issues; only the FED/Zorki issues have more to do with the owners of the cameras and the history of them.
It's a pity Leica don't come in and tell us what they know, suitably arranged so they don't give too much away to the competition.
Regards, David
PS My guess is that they are replacing them so that the cameras can go on being used whilst they sort out the long term solution. I'll wish them luck with that.
willie_901
Veteran
Since Leica knows how many M9s were purchased, and they know how many were sent in for repair, what makes you suspect they don't "have all the figures"?
I agree they may have not completed all the R&D required to solve the problem for once and for all.
I agree they may have not completed all the R&D required to solve the problem for once and for all.
brbo
Well-known
So Leica has 1% failure rate and they are ordering replacement sensors in batches.
Someone needs to tell that manager to order batches of more than 3 sensors at a time.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
They only have the figures up to today.
I don't think for one moment that they have contacted every owner and got an answer from each one. Even if they had more may fail tomorrow and so on and so forth...
Regards, David
Personally Leica's official story on the cause of M9 sensor corrosion makes no sense to me,
as many M9 users have posted zero problems -- while others seem to have nothing but problems or even repeated problems.
Possibly there are other contributing factors - including but not limited to
QC of components
QC of installation and assembly
unannounced spec chances by component manufacturers
Stephen
as many M9 users have posted zero problems -- while others seem to have nothing but problems or even repeated problems.
Possibly there are other contributing factors - including but not limited to
QC of components
QC of installation and assembly
unannounced spec chances by component manufacturers
Stephen
NazgulKing
Established
This will be the first time when I have heard of AR coating or any kind of coating on any front surface degrading under normal use. Are you sure it is not between the front glass and the sensor itself? Also, I had the same issue with my M9 before I sold it long ago and the corrosion was certainly beneath the glass surface.
Vobluda
Well-known
I took mine M9-P when it had spots on the pictures to local official Canon service and they have show me the sensor under magnifier they use when cleaning sensors.
Corrosion was on the first layer surface and it looked like many many small holes.
Corrosion was on the first layer surface and it looked like many many small holes.
jonoslack
Member
As I understand it, it's a known 'possibility' with the glass type (which was also used by Kodak on the SLR/n (apparently . . without trouble). I certainly also understand that the problem is on the front of the cover glass (not between the layers.
I'm quite certain that Leica are looking for a solution - why would they not? Added to which, someone at Wetzlar who I know well and trust absolutely told me so. To that end, my MM and M9 , which both seem to have the issue (but not so that it really affects the image quality), are waiting to see if there's a permanent solution.