Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
The Diglux-2 all over again.
Huh? The statement by Leica clearly said all (M) CCD affected sensors would be replaced.
Did I miss something?
HFL
Yes.
The question was is there a list of cameras with defective sensors.
Since the corrosion seems to develop at different rates, and since Leica will not replace sensors without corrosion the list is either all M9 cameras, or a proprietary list of affected cameras returned to Leica.
Bingo, Fred! That is why I have lost any desire for an M9.
Didn't Nikon have recent recalls? How was that handled?
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.
Someone posted that getting a Leica with a damages sensor is better now than having a Leica with a working sensor!
Is it true?
I think this would be true.
A M9 with the original sensor assembly will eventually display the problem The defects are caused by an IR filter that is not resistant to humidity. So getting the replacement over with now rather than later seems attractive.
If the sensor is clearly affected, then you would be in the que for the redesigned sensor assembly. Once your camera is returned you will never have to worry about the corrosion issue. The initial demand for replacements could be high so the turn-around time could be inconvenient. On the other hand, Leica has probably prepared for the initial high-volume of returned cameras. So the replacement process may take the same amount of time now, or a year from now.
There is another reason some people may prefer the original sensor assembly. The fact is the IR filters are different.
Now, you can bet some people will insist images from the original sensor assemblies are far superior to those from replacement assemblies. This is simply human nature.
One of the reasons the release of the new sensor assembly took so long was to get feedback from photographers on this issue. It seems to me Leica did everything they could to minimize or eliminate rendering differences. It seems unlikely to me rendering differences is a practical concern.
The Leica company has instituted a good will policy related to the sensor issue so camera owners are not responsible for the cost of parts and labor. This policy will carry on into the foreseeable future and in fact an announcement was just made this week that a redesigned replacement will be available soon. Not all sensors have exhibited the issue and only those that are confirmed to be affected qualify for a replacement. In the meantime try to avoid prolonged exposure of the camera interior to very high humidity or other forms of moisture.
Anyone know when the M9 sensor problems were first reported on forums?
Four plus years ago?
I'm very happy Leica finally has a M9 replacement sensor,
but it would seem this was not such a high priority with Leica management.
Stephen
The cover glass corrosion problem was first brought to public awareness in late Fall 2014-early Winter 2015. Let's not conflate other, independent problems into a five year long problem story, unless you really just want to grind an axe of general displeasure with Leica.
To the best of my knowledge, cracking and other sensor failure problems were all on relatively early production runs of the M9, and (nearly) all were taken care of by Leica free of charge, to the best of my knowledge. They're independent of the sensor cover glass corrosion issue and have nothing to do with it in any technical sense.
My M9, purchased as a three month old demo with six exposures recorded when I took it out of the box in January 2012, operated flawlessly throughout my ownership. I only noticed the sensor corrosion as "impossible to remove dirt on the sensor" when I was testing f/11 and smaller apertures in mid-January of this year.
G
Few companies would make the fixing of an "older model" a high priority goal.