Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
The Diglux-2 all over again.
raid
Dad Photographer
Leica replaced for some time the defective sensors on the Digilux 2 but not anymore.
willie_901
Veteran
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.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
bolded: Why do you say that? It makes much more sense that Leica simply take each M9 series camera that comes in reporting a problem, inspect it to determine if it is the problem they are warrantying, and fix it if it has the problem.
As I said in another post, they likely have trained their technicians as to what to look for and inspect the sensor with a field microscope.
There's no need for them to keep some "proprietary list of affected cameras" to work from; IMO that would be a complete waste of time and money. I'm sure the corrosion issue can be experienced by anyone with an M9 series camera with the original sensor assembly, given exposure to the environmental factors*and handling that cause the corrosion. Much more sensible and cost effective to just inspect and replace sensors on those cameras that have evidence of the problem, as they surface.
G
willie_901
Veteran
Eventually all camera sensors will be replaced. The only disadvantage is the inconvenience of sending the camera to Leica and waiting for the repair. Once the camera has the new shutter assembly, ownership will not bring more risk than any other Leica digital camera.
Nikon's recent recalls were handled badly. For a long time Nikon denied the D600's shutter design/manufacturing was defective. A majority of cameras would splatter oil droplets on their sensor. To avoid a class action lawsuit, Nikon acknowledged the problem was widespread and replaced all the shutters. The D610 uses a new shutter design.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
No, I agree that this is one of the few cases in which a company actually do something to correct a problem, just given the price of the product, one would expect more (I mean, just as judge looking from the outside, I don't own any of these models, unfortunately).
GLF
willie_901
Veteran
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.
raid
Dad Photographer
I believe that Leica is doing excellent customer service the way they are now handling the sensor issue (when it appears or when it appears as if it is there).
raid
Dad Photographer
colors
colors
I posted this above:
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:
Old sensor 4800 K (-15)
New sensor 5000 K (+2)
b. Camera AWB:
Old Sensor Neon 4150 K (+1) Studio lightning 5050 K (-34)
New sensor Neon 5500 K (-11), Studio lightning 4400 K (+19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
colors
I posted this above:
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:
Old sensor 4800 K (-15)
New sensor 5000 K (+2)
b. Camera AWB:
Old Sensor Neon 4150 K (+1) Studio lightning 5050 K (-34)
New sensor Neon 5500 K (-11), Studio lightning 4400 K (+19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Beemermark
Veteran
I emailed Leica, NJ and got this response (copied verbatim)
Last edited by a moderator:
raid
Dad Photographer
I am unable to see the response by Leica NJ.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thanks. I can now see what you have posted.
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
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
raid
Dad Photographer
Few companies would make the fixing of an "older model" a high priority goal.
Nigel Meaby
Well-known
If you have a "ticking timebomb" problem free, old sensor....perhaps repeated visits with camera to the local sauna? 
raid
Dad Photographer
I live in Florida, so I am already at a "local sauna".
Godfrey
somewhat colored
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
I think you have the dates way off. Winter 2015?
See this thread in October of 2010 - which sounds a lot like sensor corrosion.
Spots on my M9 sensor that aren't dust or oil. . .
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96050
Its great to see the M9 sensor problem solved, but don't forget Leica overlooked those same problems while knowingly selling cameras with potential sensor problems while at the same time developing the M240 family to the marketplace.
In my opinion many Leica customers expected M9 sensor problems to be resolved years ago.
Stephen