Platinum RF
Well-known
haha
not true, really, my 2006 Dell D820 is still in working condition with a window 7 OS
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Sorry. But I only mentioned it because it parallels the Leica issue almost exactly and shows the difference in responses to these issues by two different companies. The M9 is older than the 2011 MacBook Pros. Do you honestly think a $3500 17" custom built MacBook Pro should be a doorstop in three years?
All digital cameras are eventual doorstops, too. I don't quite get your immediate dismissal of my post.....
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
To be fair to Leica (I know.. I know... even I sometimes cringe when I type that...) most of the big problems that Leica have had (if not all the problems that Leica have had) with the digital M's (M8, M9, M-M, M-E) have been due to the sensors used.
From the word "go" I didn't think those Kodak sensors were going to be any good and, so far, to me (my opinion only) I was correct. They should have gone another route but "could have/should have" doesn't fix this issue now or in the recent past.
Good on Leica for doing what they can to correct this issue.
Cheers,
Dave
x-ray
Veteran
I completely agree and was about to post the same. This corrosion problem Cracked sensors and several other problems have been around quite a while. It was no surprise to Leica this was a huge problem. Don't be naieve, Leica is doing this because they're facing a class action suit. Most companies would have done exactly the same problem. A recent action against Chevy from ignition system flaws resting in several deaths, Porsche and the intermediate shaft bearing failure and class action suit are examples.
Would leica do this again, if they thought they could get away with it, yes they would. Their only goal is to make a product as cheaply as possible and sell it at the highest price. Resution a like this cost them millions of euros.
Sorry no trust here and no future new Leica purchases.
I'm happy for all the current owners if leica does in fact come up with a redesigned sensor. Now what about all of us that spent hUndreds of dollars shipping our defective cameras to Leica. I spent close to $500 in postage and insurance before selling my M9.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
YAY & Double Yay !!
Kwesi
Well-known
So who's got your trust now?
Your rant sounds a bit naive. I hear that you feel burned. But if you think that only Leica is capable of that...
nobbylon
Veteran
In my case the last new digital camera I bought was a Nikon D700 when they first released it. I've had zero issues so far after nearly 6 years. NONE.
I've had a s/h D3 in this time also. ZERO issues. Add to that, film Nikons going back to Nikkormats, F's, F2's, 3's, 4 and 5 plus FM series and eventually and currently an F6. Issues? NONE.
I'm a really patient person despite what some others may believe but when I hear some of the supportive c@@@ for Leica digital written here and elsewhere I despair. Even when asked to part with more cash to solve issues that really shouldn't be there I too often hear people defending this company. If they got it right in the first place instead of cutting corners for profit then these issues wouldn't creep out of the woodwork!
I've had an M9 and I thank my luck that I got rid of it before something, anything, everything or nothing went wrong with it.
jtullar
Established
How does this work for second hand users in US? Will they still fix the problem? Or do you need to be an original owner?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Based on everything I've sen so far, Leica will honour this on the camera regardless of who is the owner BUT, obviously, contact Leica to be sure.
Cheers,
Dave
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Like the Nikon D600 (profitably made in Thailand) debacle?
I agree that Leica no doubt assessed the issue in respect to the legal ramifications. But they did react and reacted pretty quickly. For Nikon, they dragged their feet until they faced direct legal actions from the Chinese government and a US class action suit.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Like the Nikon D600 (profitably made in Thailand) debacle?
I agree that Leica no doubt assessed the issue in respect to the legal ramifications. But they did react and reacted pretty quickly. For Nikon, they dragged their feet until they faced direct legal actions from the Chinese government and a US class action suit.
I'm still trying to figure out if this is, actually, "quick". I mean, I'm not complaining that they reacted but I wonder if they actually did this only as mounting screams were heard online - can anyone confirm if this issue is not the same issue that some M9 owners have been complaining about "all along"?
Cheers,
Dave
nobbylon
Veteran
Like the Nikon D600 (profitably made in Thailand) debacle?
I agree that Leica no doubt assessed the issue in respect to the legal ramifications. But they did react and reacted pretty quickly. For Nikon, they dragged their feet until they faced direct legal actions from the Chinese government and a US class action suit.
Lets not get into a pi@@ing match regarding Leica digital vs Nikon digital reliability as Leica don't have a leg to stand on from day one. I wish they did but they don't and anyone thinking they do is deluding themselves.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Yeah, I'm not sure if 'quick' is correct. I'm guessing that Leica was gathering the bad sensors that were being replaced and looking at them carefully. Although that does take time to assess and try to determine what sort of fault is going on, etc..
I have no horse in this race (I sold my M9 very early on and decided to stick to Japanese made products for digital.) But I just wanted to point out that lately Nikon is cutting corners (and I'm probably as big of a Nikon user as you are.)
MCTuomey
Veteran
Everyone can infer as much as they wish regarding the "true" intent of Leica's management on the theory that no good deed ever goes unpunished in our fashionably cynical world. Since we weren't part of Leica's internal discussions, have no access to notes or minutes of such meetings, haven't interviewed participants or any management team members, or done anything substantive to establish such intent factually , such inferences can't be confused with anything like a fact.
The one fact we have is that Leica has announced publicly they will do the right thing in two ways: first, do their best to find a permanent solution to the sensor problem and provide the solution at Leica's expense to affected customers; second, offer a reasonable upgrade path to those who wish to move to an M240.
Not too shabby and enough to satisfy me for now as an owner of a couple of these sensor-challenged cameras.
The one fact we have is that Leica has announced publicly they will do the right thing in two ways: first, do their best to find a permanent solution to the sensor problem and provide the solution at Leica's expense to affected customers; second, offer a reasonable upgrade path to those who wish to move to an M240.
Not too shabby and enough to satisfy me for now as an owner of a couple of these sensor-challenged cameras.
willie_901
Veteran
Congratulations to all the photographers who expressed concern in the various WWW venues. I hope this episode is noted by other camera companies. The problem hit social media and news aggregators during the past 12 hours.
I appreciate no attorneys will benefit from class action law suits.
It will be interesting to see how Leica handles the logistics for upgrades/updates.
There are cameras with the problem that were never sent in for repair. There are cameras that will eventually require service. There are cameras waiting to be repaired right now. Eventually many of these cameras will end up with revised sensor systems that do not delaminate. Older bodies could end up with three sensors; the original, a replacement identical to the original and eventually the revised, improved sensor system. All of this paid by Leica. This sounds expensive for Leica and inconveneint for those in the replacement queue.
I read there are approximately 40,000 M9 system bodies in the wild. If only 25% of these require sensor replacements, approximately 40 cameras a day would have to be processed for 250 work days to eliminate the problem in one year (50 work weeks per year). Get in line early!
On the other hand, soon it may be possible to pick up M9 body with sensor deamination at an attractive price. The new owner only needs to be patient.
It will be interesting to see how many M9 owners jump to the M240. It will be interesting to see if Leica quickly develops a less expensive, minimalistic M body based on the CMOSIS sensor system in order to increase the upgrade rate. The upgrade option is attractive if new camera production can meet demand.
I appreciate no attorneys will benefit from class action law suits.
It will be interesting to see how Leica handles the logistics for upgrades/updates.
There are cameras with the problem that were never sent in for repair. There are cameras that will eventually require service. There are cameras waiting to be repaired right now. Eventually many of these cameras will end up with revised sensor systems that do not delaminate. Older bodies could end up with three sensors; the original, a replacement identical to the original and eventually the revised, improved sensor system. All of this paid by Leica. This sounds expensive for Leica and inconveneint for those in the replacement queue.
I read there are approximately 40,000 M9 system bodies in the wild. If only 25% of these require sensor replacements, approximately 40 cameras a day would have to be processed for 250 work days to eliminate the problem in one year (50 work weeks per year). Get in line early!
On the other hand, soon it may be possible to pick up M9 body with sensor deamination at an attractive price. The new owner only needs to be patient.
It will be interesting to see how many M9 owners jump to the M240. It will be interesting to see if Leica quickly develops a less expensive, minimalistic M body based on the CMOSIS sensor system in order to increase the upgrade rate. The upgrade option is attractive if new camera production can meet demand.
apostasiometritis
Established
All the above is true, but I suspect that for many it means that Leica is a no go area for digital. Personally, I will not be contemplating a digital Leica for at least another 5 years. £50 banknotes don't grow on trees unfortunately.
Of all this fuss I keep the fact that Leica tried to get away with having the buyer (partially or fully even) pay for the fix.
They are beautiful machines but the current design and engineering ethos in Leica does not instil confidence, irrespective of what other companies do and don't do.
Of all this fuss I keep the fact that Leica tried to get away with having the buyer (partially or fully even) pay for the fix.
They are beautiful machines but the current design and engineering ethos in Leica does not instil confidence, irrespective of what other companies do and don't do.
Michael Markey
Veteran
noimmunity
scratch my niche
This is a solution that should be satisfactory, but I don't see how it could be called "goodwill".
Leica have already demonstrated that the entire digital line before the M240 was simply customer beta-testing. The fact that people were being charged for sensor replacement in the past even while a mountain of growing evidence over a very long time was showing an unusually high defect rate/attrition rate does not sound like "goodwill" to me. To be fair, there were also many stories of sensors on out-of-warranty bodies that were replaced for free, but this exchange, which was often cited as proof of goodwill, was actually simply the minimum that the company should have done.
The terms of the current solution proposed by Leica are vague. What constitutes an "attractive" upgrade option? Is a "permanent solution" to the M9 sensor problem even possible?
I suspect that neither of these will pan out. And the amount of time required for replacement service, which has been an issue in the past, is left simply unaddressed.
My admiration for Leica's ability to propose an entirely vague solution that satisfactorily restores brand image far surpasses my estimation of the "goodwill", not to mention reliability, of the brand.
Leica have already demonstrated that the entire digital line before the M240 was simply customer beta-testing. The fact that people were being charged for sensor replacement in the past even while a mountain of growing evidence over a very long time was showing an unusually high defect rate/attrition rate does not sound like "goodwill" to me. To be fair, there were also many stories of sensors on out-of-warranty bodies that were replaced for free, but this exchange, which was often cited as proof of goodwill, was actually simply the minimum that the company should have done.
The terms of the current solution proposed by Leica are vague. What constitutes an "attractive" upgrade option? Is a "permanent solution" to the M9 sensor problem even possible?
I suspect that neither of these will pan out. And the amount of time required for replacement service, which has been an issue in the past, is left simply unaddressed.
My admiration for Leica's ability to propose an entirely vague solution that satisfactorily restores brand image far surpasses my estimation of the "goodwill", not to mention reliability, of the brand.
Yeah, makes me feel they can back out of it later. However, in the short term this sounds like a good solution. They felt the pressure and responded. Not a bad outcome.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't think you got what I said. Virtually every company will be more than happy to take advantage of customers given the opportunity.