Leica has solved the sensor corrosion issue

[squirrel$$$bandit]

OK, I was confusing the addition of the cover glass statement, it is not in the original post.

So the OP says nothing about the definition of "affected cameras," no serial numbers. I would of course assume they are ALL bad, but it I can't make any sense of the statement -- "preventive replacement."

A bad translation? Perhaps Leica means "early" replacement, since there is nothing prophylactic [preventive] that can be done to the sensor to keep it from going bad, other than perhaps not using the camera?

I think it means that all fullframe CCD cameras could eventually be affected, but many won't. The defect only becomes apparent in certain circumstances. The old sensor is expected to work well for most users, but if it doesn't, they will replace it with the new one. They won't all necessarily go bad.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

Is there a list of affected cameras?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/244082-leica-upgrade-program-for-m9-corrosion-of-sensor/

".....full goodwill arrangement offering free replacement of affected CCD sensors. This goodwill arrangement applies regardless of the age of the camera and also covers sensors that have already been replaced in the past. Customers who have already been charged for the replacement of a sensor affected by this problem will receive a refund."

 

[Godfrey]

I guess I don't understand the issues. So they are replacing the sensor cover glass -- not the sensor itself?

I had assumed it was problem with the CCD sensors, not the cover glass.

Count me as totally confused. 😕

I don't know what's confusing you about this, Fred. It's been discussed at length for six months. Here's the sum up:

• The problem as identified is that corrosion of the sensor cover glass can happen to some cameras depending upon environment and use.
• Changing a cover glass is essentially the same thing as changing the sensor assembly, requiring extraordinary care and clean-room environment to do the job correctly.
• Leica has committed to replacing the sensor assembly in all and only affected cameras, regardless of other warranty obligations or ownership, upon their inspection and at their discretion. This commitment covers all M9, M9-P, M-E, and M Monochrom (I) models.
• Up until now, they've been replacing sensor assemblies with the original spec equipment because that was all that was available to do the job. Now they have new, upgraded sensor assemblies (that presumably do not have the identified problem) available for the M9 series cameras, and they will shortly have similar new sensor assemblies available for the M Monochrom (I) model as well.

Basically: If you see what looks like dirt on a Leica M9 series camera sensor that cannot be removed, you send it to Leica, they inspect and evaluate it. If it is just dirt, they clean it. If it's corrosion, they will replace the sensor assembly for you free of charge.

That should be all that's needed for a full understanding.

G

 

[Duane Pandorf]

At the end of Stefan Daniel's letter he included this paragraph which tells me Leica gives a care:

"We are aware that Leica’s reputation for superior quality and endurance was the driving factor for your decision for Leica. We profoundly regret that we have been unable to completely fulfil our promise to you and our own standards from the outset. We are now making every effort to find a permanent and satisfactory technical solution for this problem and hope that our goodwill arrangement is able to rebuild and maintain your trust in the Leica brand!"

 

[Dan]

At the end of Stefan Daniel's letter he included this paragraph which tells me Leica gives a care:

"We are aware that Leica’s reputation for superior quality and endurance was the driving factor for your decision for Leica. We profoundly regret that we have been unable to completely fulfil our promise to you and our own standards from the outset. We are now making every effort to find a permanent and satisfactory technical solution for this problem and hope that our goodwill arrangement is able to rebuild and maintain your trust in the Leica brand!"

Please give a care for your readers and don't post a blue quote.

 

[raid]

What is the source of the info in your original post? It seems incomplete.

It was posted by the administrator for the Leica Forum. The translation from German to English sems accurate to me.
Anthing else can be taken to the CEO as a question.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/

 

[Out to Lunch]

Is there a recognized ''corrosion'' test available online? And if not does anyone would like to share a test that clearly shows whether or not your Leica camera is affected? Thanks for your feedback, Peter

 

[Huss]

In this respect the stupid change of name done by Nikon is actually not so stupid. The D600 possibly has issue, the D610 is the "cured" version. A Typ 240.5 might help...

GLF

The M-E (also M9?) is called the Type 220. The Type 240 is the CMOS 24 mp M.

Anyway, I was skeptical that this would happen and I am happy to be proved wrong. Picking up a used M9/M-E now seems like a good idea.

 

[raid]

I read it at that forum. If you don't trust it, ignore it.

 

[photomoof]

Here is the source: http://en.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leica-News/About-Leica-News/Global/2015/Update-CCD-Sensor

 

[raid]

Someone else at that other forum has done some checking of the new sensor for Leica. If you find this not trustworthy, ignore it. I find it useful.




Translation:

Posted Today, 16:58
Leica has asked me in July to test the modified sensor in practice. I did that. Before installing the new sensor to the old sensor I have a color chart (SpyderCheckr) recorded in overcast daylight, studio flash and (in color quite good) Fluorescent and each creates a color profile in Lightroom. The same I did with the new sensor.

My Conclusion: The old behaves like the new sensor, in particular with respect to the color characteristic. According to Leica (and have) had in mind also did not change much, so that the new sensor provides similar results as the old one.

I've done about 400 photos before release of my observations at Leica and evaluated. Here, too, differences are not noticed me. The images I can not show that I'm on vacation and have no access to the home computer. I'll get it by next week.

According to Leica, there are otherwise no revisions in the Firmware / changes. I asked about the crash in discreet mode. They have previously tried to reproduce the error. But that has not succeeded; it occurs very rarely under non klärbaren conditions. Therefore, you could not remedy.

The following are the slightly modified observations, which I have communicated to mid-August Leica:

I.
The camera smells short time after unpacking.
New firmware 1.204 (instead of 1.202). According to Leica, you can no longer use the old firmware. The internal image number has been preserved.

II.
Colours:

The color profiles show only very small, visually insignificant differences. This applies both to daylight (even though the light was not completely identical with regard to profiling Cloudiness and time of day), as well as neon and fluorescent light. Screenshots of the profiles (Entwicklungspreset in LR) will I hand next week when I get back from vacation.

III.
LR-color temperature:

1.
The new sensor is slightly warmer interpreted by LR namely to 200 K (at a fixed color temperature setting in the camera to cloudy).

In AWB, the values ​​are inconsistent, studio flash significantly colder, Fluorescent significantly warmer.

. A camera Overcast:

Age sensor 4800 K (-15)
New sensor 5000 K (+2)

b. Camera AWB:

Age Sensor Neon 4150 K (+1) Studio lightning 5050 K (-34)
New sensor Neon 5500 K (-11), Studio lightning 4400 K (+19)

. 2
A White Balance on the same gray box a color chart are different color temperatures:

Age Sensor: 4350 K (+5) under fluorescent lighting or 5250 K (-31) at Studiolitz
New sensor: 4700 K (+18) under fluorescent lighting or 5850 K (-10) at Studio Flash

IV.
Speed ​​and contrast:

Sensitivity and contrast are the same as the old sensor, at least the same aperture and shutter speed and the same light (neon light or studio) in the LR6 almost identical brightness values ​​at the same ISO, displayed in white or black on the color chart.

V.
AWB:

The AWB of the new sensor is often a little cool. 400-500 K more would lead to a more pleasant visual impression. Since I rarely use AWB and it did for the test after a long time, I can not say whether there is a difference from the old sensor.

www.ElmarStreyl.de


Posted Today, 16:58
Leica hat mich im Juli gebeten, den geänderten Sensor in der Praxis zu testen. Das habe ich getan. Vor dem Einbau des neuen Sensors habe ich mit dem alten Sensor eine Farbkarte (SpyderCheckr) bei bedecktem Tageslicht, Studioblitzlicht und (farblich recht gutem) Neonlicht aufgenommen und jeweils ein Farbprofil in Lightroom erstellt. Dasselbe habe ich mit dem neuen Sensor gemacht.

Mein Kurzfazit: Der alte verhält sich wie der neue Sensor, insbesondere bezüglich der Farbcharakteristik. Laut Leica mussten (und haben) sie daran auch nicht viel ändern, damit der neue Sensor ähnliche Ergebnisse wie der alte liefert.

Ich habe vor Mitteilung meiner Beobachtungen an Leica ca. 400 Fotos gemacht und ausgewertet. Auch hierbei sind mir Unterschiede nicht aufgefallen. Die Bilder kann ich noch nicht zeigen, da ich im Urlaub bin und keinen Zugriff auf den heimischen Rechner habe. Ich hole es nächste Woche nach.

Laut Leica gibt es ansonsten bei der Firmware keine Überarbeitungen/Änderungen. Ich habe nach den Abstürzen im Diskret-Modus gefragt. Sie haben schon früher versucht, den Fehler zu reproduzieren. Das ist aber nicht gelungen; er tritt sehr selten unter nicht klärbaren Bedingungen auf. Deshalb konnte man keine Abhilfe schaffen.

Das folgende sind die leicht angepassten Beobachtungen, die ich Mitte August Leica mitgeteilt habe:

I.
Die Kamera riecht kurze Zeit nach dem Auspacken.
Neue Firmware 1.204 (anstatt 1.202). Laut Leica kann man die alte Firmware nicht mehr verwenden. Die interne Bildnummer ist erhalten geblieben.

II.
Farben:

Die Farbprofile zeigen nur ganz geringe, visuell unerhebliche Unterschiede. Das gilt sowohl für Tageslicht (obwohl das Licht hinsichtlich Bewölkung und Tageszeit bei Profilerstellung nicht vollständig identisch war), als auch für Neon- und Kunstlicht. Screenshots von den Profilen (Entwicklungspreset in LR) werde ich nächste Woche nachreichen, wenn ich aus dem Urlaub zurück bin.

III.
LR-Farbtemperatur:

1.
Der neue Sensor wird von LR etwas wärmer interpretiert und zwar um 200 K (bei fester Farbtemperatureinstellung in der Kamera auf bewölkt).

Bei AWB sind die Werte uneinheitlich, Studioblitz deutlich kälter, Neonlicht deutlich wärmer.

a. Kamera Bewölkt:

Alter Sensor 4800 K (-15)
Neuer Sensor 5000 K (+2)

b. Kamera AWB:

Alter Sensor Neon 4150 K (+1), Studioblitz 5050 K (-34)
Neuer Sensor Neon 5500 K (-11), Studioblitz 4400 K (+19)

2.
Ein Weißabgleich auf dasselbe Graufeld einer Farbkarte gibt unterschiedliche Farbtemperaturen:

Alter Sensor: 4350 K (+5) bei Neonlicht bzw. 5250 K (-31) bei Studiolitz
Neuer Sensor: 4700 K (+18) bei Neonlicht bzw. 5850 K (-10) bei Studioblitz

IV.
Empfindlichkeit und Kontrast:

Empfindlichkeit und Kontrast sind gleich wie beim alten Sensor, jedenfalls werden bei gleicher ISO, gleicher Blende und Belichtungszeit und gleichem Licht (Neon bzw. Studiolicht) in LR6 die fast identischen Helligkeitswerte bei weiß bzw. schwarz auf der Farbkarte angezeigt.

V.
AWB:

Der AWB des neuen Sensors ist oft ein wenig kühl. 400 - 500 K mehr würden zu einem angenehmeren Bildeindruck führen. Da ich selten AWB benutze und es nach langer Zeit wieder für den Test gemacht habe, kann ich nicht sagen, ob hier ein Unterschied zum alten Sensor ist.

www.ElmarStreyl.de

 

[raid]

And you are keeping the URL secret? 🙂

I see this link:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic...ginnt/?utm_source=luf150901&utm_medium=E-Mail

I have no secrets here.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Thanks for posting this Raid, good news for us M9, M9-P, MM, and M-E owners. I do love the camera, and now it should last for a good long time.

 

[raid]

Someone posted that getting a Leica with a damages sensor is better now than having a Leica with a working sensor!
Is it true?

 

[photomoof]

Someone posted that getting a Leica with a damages sensor is better now than having a Leica with a working sensor!
Is it true?

If Leica will replace it yes, since without a replacement the user is always in the position of wondering when the failure will occur -- or if the user has not noticed the beginning of corrosion.

 

[raid]

But it is important to note that your linked translation is not the same as the one on the Leica company site. Close enough though.

I copied the German writing into Google Translate, and then I posted both here.

 

[Godfrey]

Is there a recognized ''corrosion'' test available online? And if not does anyone would like to share a test that clearly shows whether or not your Leica camera is affected? Thanks for your feedback, Peter

The simple answer is no, and it is irrelevant anyway. Leica examines the sensor and its cover glass, then makes the determination, most likely using a field microscope.

I sent my M9 in for cleaning and inspection when I had several "dirt" particles that did not budge through several cleaning attempts. They just looked like bits of dirt.

Only Leica's inspection qualifies the camera for a new sensor anyway. Don't worry about it until you have dirt on your sensor that you cannot remove. Then send it to Leica for evaluation.

G

 

[photomoof]

The simple answer is no, and it is irrelevant anyway. Leica examines the sensor and its cover glass, then makes the determination, most likely using a field microscope. ...

Only Leica's inspection qualifies the camera for a new sensor anyway. Don't worry about it until you have dirt on your sensor that you cannot remove. Then send it to Leica for evaluation.

G

Really probably the only way Leica could possibly deal with this issue. They certainly could not likely cope with every camera on the list being sent in all at the same time.

"Dirt" that cannot be cleaned seems an obvious reason to send the camera to Leica, no matter what caused it.

 

[raid]

Thank you Godfrey. This is a practical suggestion.

 

[photomoof]

[*]The problem as identified is that corrosion of the sensor cover glass can happen to some cameras depending upon environment and use.
[*]Changing a cover glass is essentially the same thing as changing the sensor assembly, requiring extraordinary care and clean-room environment to do the job correctly.


That should be all that's needed for a full understanding.

G

Got it - there simply was no replacing only the sensor cover glass, it is one assembly.

I did understand they had been replacing sensor assemblies with identical units -- which could again fail. Now they have a complete unit which they believe will not fail.