Leica M9 FF-CCD corrosion on sensors

[ian_watts]

Like every other digital camera, it should be expected to be upgraded every 3 years, and up to 6 years if one can live with an almost obsolete performance. The M9 was already obsolete 5 years old technology even at its launch, it's quite amazing Leica still manage to sell yet another version 5 years later.

I'm not sure if you are just trying to ruffle a few feathers but this is a ludicrous exaggeration. If we leave the reliability issue aside for the moment, the M9 sensor (combined with Leica's excellent optics) at base ISO produces results that stand comparison with anything sold today in a 35mm format camera. Far from "almost", there is nothing remotely obsolete about the performance of the M9.

 

[Pioneer]

At least the Japanese manufacturers seem to remember what QC means in most cases. I am really beginning to wonder about Leica. Lack of Quality Control and high prices was what killed their competition (Zeiss Ikon) back in the 60s and 70s. If the powers that be at Leica don't remember that lesson they may want to review their history. They do seem intent on heading down that same path.

You can only blame the supplier if you fix the problem because in the end it is your problem as well.

 

[gb hill]

Just wondering if the Epson DRF ever experienced any problems with users?

 

[froyd]

Why did I buy my M-E in the first place? Because it was the only digital camera on the market that was as close to a film camera made. I wanted an optical VF specifically designed for MF lenses, I wanted as few features as possible (which should increase reliability), and I wanted a simple interface. Leica is the only one who offers that.

And that's why you should have paid the $5500 (as you did)... the idea of reliability is an expectation you brought to the product, but not part of the feature set.

I think with the digital Ms, money gets you, access to a technology no one else offers, quality materials (unfortunately not a synonym for reliability), brand appeal.

 

[Pioneer]

And that's why you should have paid the $5500 (as you did)... the idea of reliability is an expectation you brought to the product, but not part of the feature set.

I think with the digital Ms, money gets you, access to a technology no one else offers, quality materials (unfortunately not a synonym for reliability), brand appeal.

Like I said, if Leica has in fact become a purveyor of high priced, yet highly unreliable, digital equipment, banking on their past reputation for reliability, then they will not last very long. Even the very rich are not in the habit of spending good money on things that lose their worth quickly.

I believe that how they handle this issue will be very important for their future. They have sold a LOT of M9s, M9Ps, M-Es and Monochromes. If the sensors in all those cameras turn out to be defective then they have a very big problem.

 

[Huss]

Like I said, if Leica has in fact become a purveyor of high priced, yet highly unreliable, digital equipment, banking on their past reputation for reliability, then they will not last very long. Even the very rich are not in the habit of spending good money on things that lose their worth quickly.

I can tell you right now, if I knew that it would be broken in 9 months time, and would take 4 months to fix, no way no how would I have bought it.

If I was a future Leica buyer and found threads like this in my research, no way no how would I be a buyer. I don't care how nice it is to fondle.

 

[Calzone]

No matter what Leica claims, no one should expect a digital M to last for a lifetime. Like every other digital camera, it should be expected to be upgraded every 3 years, and up to 6 years if one can live with an almost obsolete performance. The M9 was already obsolete 5 years old technology even at its launch, it's quite amazing Leica still manage to sell yet another version 5 years later.

Ed,

I think I paid a premium price to buy my Leica Monochrom about two years ago. My expectation was and is that I expected to get at least 5 years of use out of my Monochrom, not the usual 3 year cycle of a DSLR. I figured also if I got 6 years of trouble free use, and if my Monochrom suddenly died and was unrepairable that I got my money's worth. I don't think my expectations really are much different than yours, except perhaps I have a slightly more optimistic view, and I never intend to upgrade in three years like you suggest.

I find the Monochrom suits me well, and if it becomes obsolete due to a new upgraded Monochrom M-body, I would simply buy the new camera and keep my MM. I think the Monochrom is what it is, and for me it will never be obsolete. I intend on shooting my MM untill it dies or can't be repaired.

I'm actually hoping that Leica comes out with a MM-240, and I welcome the possibility of a new monochrome camera that might have a bigger buffer and a new sensor.

I performed one wet cleaning inadvertently using all the cleaning supplies that Leica uses and recomends over the almosty two years of Monochrom ownership. The only other cleaning needed or required uses either the filtered blower ball made by Visible Dust, or on occassion the need of the use of an Arctic Butterfly to nudge a stubborn spec of dust. So far no signs of corrosion, and this is with the close inspection provided by the Visible Dust illuminated magnifier.

I use my Monochrom a lot and the body has some wear to the point where the covering is worn smooth in an area from my fingertips due to a grip. Some nickel plating is brassing through the black anodize, and in many ways likewise this camera has become part of me. It would be sure a loss if it ever dies or if it can't be replaced. I could see me using my Monochrom for a very long time...

For me buying another camera is a different story.

Cal

 

[VertovSvilova]

No matter what Leica claims, no one should expect a digital M to last for a lifetime. Like every other digital camera, it should be expected to be upgraded every 3 years, and up to 6 years if one can live with an almost obsolete performance. The M9 was already obsolete 5 years old technology even at its launch, it's quite amazing Leica still manage to sell yet another version 5 years later.

Obsolete performance?

I'm curious as to where the actual photograph itself is positioned in such a world. There's way too much emphasis on the devices themselves and how easily and so perfectly they can replicate the world in front of us into a flawless series of zeros and ones.

I'm still way more captivated by the decades old photographs of photographers like Robert Frank or Josef Koudelka with their crappy obsolete tools than I am from most of what I see today with all this 'cutting edge' technology.

It's really not the cameras that are the problem....

 

[MCTuomey]

I bought a Monochrom after owning an M9 for a couple years that had its sensor replaced and also had the "dead battery" repair. So, while I couldn't anticipate the present corrosion issue, I had no illusion that the MM would be especially reliable or without problems. If my MM needs work, then so be it. As long as I can afford it, and I continue to like the output, I'll do what it takes to keep it functioning, just like the M9.

 

[porktaco]

so does everyone remember all the marketing done around the M9 launch? not the leica copy but rather all the magazine / blog pieces (most of which were guided, to some extent, by leica). what i remember most was a lot of: "AT LAST, my forever digital camera, i think i might never buy another."

now, ok, we all know things break, and we all know bloggers are not always geniuses, but my point is that the positioning of the M9 at launch was as a lifetime tool. i think we all knew that the moving parts in a digital rangefinder were fragile under certain circumstances. i don't think anyone dropped 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 thousand dollars and thought "gee whiz, i'm probably going to have to replace a sensor in 3 years."

in fact, the AMAZING AWESOME PERFECT MIRACULOUS SENSOR FINALLY WORTHY OF LEICA was kind of a key selling point. again, i don't think anyone really thought that in a few years, it would have to be replaced.

 

[MCTuomey]

No, Adam, in my experience anyway, I didn't think my new M9's sensor would have to be replaced in a few years. On the other hand, I didn't drink the kool-aid kudos about transcendent Leica goodness. Stuff breaks. When it happened I felt bad, got over it, got the camera fixed, and kept shooting. Fixing stuff is just part of the deal. I've had lenses repaired, cameras repaired, lighting equipment die, tripod heads get funky, you name it. Is any brand immune from failure modes?

I didn't buy Leica for its reliability, anymore than any other manufacturer, I bought it because it is, in my judgment, the best platform for some of the lenses I own. I do feel the reverse: that Leica equipment is actually more demanding and fussy than my other gear, so I guess I've managed expectations well relative to sensor failures, motherboard crap-outs, and everything else.

I've had sensor problems on two Canon cameras in the past 5-6 years, by the way, the only other digital bodies with which I have a fair amount of experience. One was fixed under warranty, one I paid for myself. One CCD, the other CMOS sensors, series 1 bodies. Cover glass delamination, both times. Not unique to Leica that's for sure.

.... mine needed a new sensor after 9 months of careful use with zero sensor cleaning. I had to wait 3-4 months for that.
I do feel that if I am dropping $5500 on a product, I should expect and receive one of the highest quality and reliability. I do not think I am asking much considering the lack of feature set compared to Japanese cameras. There is far less there, so there should be far less to go wrong.
We should stop making excuses for Leica being a small company etc as that is why they charge their huge prices. It's not as if they are a small company AND are asking Japanese camera money.

Why did I buy my M-E in the first place? Because it was the only digital camera on the market that was as close to a film camera made. I wanted an optical VF specifically designed for MF lenses, I wanted as few features as possible (which should increase reliability), and I wanted a simple interface. Leica is the only one who offers that. They should have kept the mechanics in-house, but outsourced the electronics to someone who knows what they are doing. There is a reason Nikon uses Sony sensors.

Well, all I can say is that, if you want a niche, one-of-a-kind product like what you described, be prepared to pay for it, including the premium service necessary to keep it working. Any other attitude is naive. Buy a premium mechanical watch, be prepared to service it expensively every 2-3 years. Buy a premium, high performance automobile, same. You want lesser entry and maintenance costs? Then buy that Nikon with the Sony sensor, sell your nice M glass, and enjoy the savings. Easy. Or buy an alpha-series Sony body, adapt your M glass to it, enjoy the EVF experience, and watch your corners go to pieces and point light sources turn to blobs at least some of the time. Or shoot film with mechanical cameras where, yes, reliability is more assured because the technology is, well, low, less expensive, and more stable.

C'mon, do you really believe the blog pundits like Overgaard and Leica's own silly propaganda? It's all marketing (read: pretty lies). Realistically, digital M bodies represent a specialty entry in a limited market, this optical finder-based, full frame, sexy, small platform for your tiny powerhouse M lenses. It's gonna cost me, I knew that going in. And it hasn't disappointed me, either its repairs or the fine photographs it helps me make despite my shortcomings. I expected it.

Enough, sorry.

 

[x-ray]

Too bad ol Popcorn Sutton is gone. He could of made a version much more potent than kerosene. Speak of the "Still Photograph"😀

it would have run on 120 proof corn whiskey. 😊

I'm pleased to say the book is still selling like crazy. We have a new distributor and sales are great. Also not a single photo in it was shot with a digital Leica. All but two shot were film and most shot with my MP's although some were 5x7 and 6x6 film.

Long live film!

Interesting little tidbit here, I have struck a deal with the East Tennessee Historical Society to preserve around 100,000 historic images I d shot since the 50's. It's subjects like Popcorn Sutton and two other moonshiners, Cocke fights, cross burnings, serpent handling in churches and the like. They've setup a special collection to house and preserve my negs. They're to be used for educational purposes and for public study. The funny thing is most archives will only accept film photography not digital. This is one of the big reasons I continue to shoot B&W film and not digital for the documentary work.

 

[MCTuomey]

Big congrats, X-Ray. A tremendous capstone to your years of work and dedication.

 

[newsgrunt]

...I think this idea of needing to upgrade every 5 minutes is hogwash.

absolutely, that there should be a time frame to upgrade is simply ridiculous.

 

[newsgrunt]

I was this close >< to buying an M-P but when the Cdn dollar tanked and word about the M9 etc got out, spending that much $$ didn't make sense anymore. I'm probably going to get another a la carte MP instead as I KNOW it will last as long as I'm able to put film in the chamber.

 

[Huss]

No, Adam, in my experience anyway, I didn't think my new M9's sensor would have to be replaced in a few years. On the other hand, I didn't drink the kool-aid kudos about transcendent Leica goodness. Stuff breaks. When it happened I felt bad, got over it, got the camera fixed, and kept shooting. Fixing stuff is just part of the deal. I've had lenses repaired, cameras repaired, lighting equipment die, tripod heads get funky, you name it. Is any brand immune from failure modes?

I didn't buy Leica for its reliability, anymore than any other manufacturer, I bought it because it is, in my judgment, the best platform for some of the lenses I own. I do feel the reverse: that Leica equipment is actually more demanding and fussy than my other gear, so I guess I've managed expectations well relative to sensor failures, motherboard crap-outs, and everything else.

I've had sensor problems on two Canon cameras in the past 5-6 years, by the way, the only other digital bodies with which I have a fair amount of experience. One was fixed under warranty, one I paid for myself. One CCD, the other CMOS sensors, series 1 bodies. Cover glass delamination, both times. Not unique to Leica that's for sure.



Well, all I can say is that, if you want a niche, one-of-a-kind product like what you described, be prepared to pay for it, including the premium service necessary to keep it working. Any other attitude is naive. Buy a premium mechanical watch, be prepared to service it expensively every 2-3 years. Buy a premium, high performance automobile, same. You want lesser entry and maintenance costs? Then buy that Nikon with the Sony sensor, sell your nice M glass, and enjoy the savings. Easy. Or buy an alpha-series Sony body, adapt your M glass to it, enjoy the EVF experience, and watch your corners go to pieces and point light sources turn to blobs at least some of the time. Or shoot film with mechanical cameras where, yes, reliability is more assured because the technology is, well, low, less expensive, and more stable.

C'mon, do you really believe the blog pundits like Overgaard and Leica's own silly propaganda? It's all marketing (read: pretty lies). Realistically, digital M bodies represent a specialty entry in a limited market, this optical finder-based, full frame, sexy, small platform for your tiny powerhouse M lenses. It's gonna cost me, I knew that going in. And it hasn't disappointed me, either its repairs or the fine photographs it helps me make despite my shortcomings. I expected it.

Enough, sorry.

What u are missing is not a service issue, but a dead in the water issue, that took 4 months to repair.
You think anyone else with one of those other luxury items you mention would stand for that? You think Bentley owners would accept their cars stranding them after 9 months of use and having to wait 4 months for the repair? Without being offered a loaner in the meantime?
No.

I don't think of my Leica as a luxury item. I think of it as my photographic tool that needs to serve its purpose.

 

[x-ray]

What u are missing is not a service issue, but a dead in the water issue, that took 4 months to repair.
You think anyone else with one of those other luxury items you mention would stand for that? You think Bentley owners would accept their cars stranding them after 9 months of use and having to wait 4 months for the repair? Without being offered a loaner in the meantime?
No.

I don't think of my Leica as a luxury item. I think of it as my photographic tool that needs to serve its purpose.

I totally agree plus part of the issue is repeat repairs for the same issues. The M9 has had more than one issue too. In my case my M9 was in the shop close to 27 weeks total.

I disagree with the person you quoted. Why should we not expect the same reliability out of Leica that we do Nikon or Canon. Premium goods don't have to be delicate. My Rolex didn't need regular repairs and my Porsche hardly saw the shop till I had 145,000 miles on it and then it was minor.

 

[VertovSvilova]

Buy a premium mechanical watch, be prepared to service it expensively every 2-3 years. Buy a premium, high performance automobile, same.

This isn't about maintenance and service. It's about a failing component due to human error. Log on to any Porsche, BMW, or Mercedes forum and read that while everyone clearly understands and accepts higher maintenance and service costs, they get SUPER pissed when something fails due to poor design and engineering errors.

 

[trisberg]

True enough Fred. I was going to type that Leica promotes its cameras (M system specifically) as being reliable but, you know, in looking over the Leica website, I couldn't find much in the way that they claim the system is, at all, reliable.

Maybe not anymore, but this is from their M9 brochure:

So, at some point they thought this camera would be around for decades. I'm afraid to check my sensor after 3 1/2 years.

-Thomas

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I'm not sure if you are just trying to ruffle a few feathers but this is a ludicrous exaggeration. If we leave the reliability issue aside for the moment, the M9 sensor (combined with Leica's excellent optics) at base ISO produces results that stand comparison with anything sold today in a 35mm format camera. Far from "almost", there is nothing remotely obsolete about the performance of the M9.

Well, the M8 is even better than the M9 at base iso. But did you consider the unusable high iso above 640? The banding? The shutter sound? The card issues? The 2001 LCD screen? The processor that needs 5 seconds to show a preview or to write one file? The cracking sensor glass? The lock ups? The sluggish response?