Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I shoot my lux on my M-E wide open so I never see these dust/delamination issues 
Mackinaw
Think Different
I don't know about that. The discussion on the L-Forum has been pretty inclusive (both good and bad comments). Plus you have the benefit that a Leica representative is contributing to the discussion on the L-Forum, something that is not happening here.
The discussion on both forums has been very enlightening. I've learned a lot.
Jim B.
NeeZee
Well-known
My bet is Lomo will eventually sell all these corroded sensor Leicas as "the digital equivalent of expired film". Going to be a steal at only 15000$ a piece...
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
My interpretation of this statement is that there is nothing inherently wrong with wet cleaning, but Leica believes that corrosion may begin in places where the sensor's surface has been damaged by cleaning done wrong, done in a non-dust-free environment, etc.
Does that seem like an accurate interpretation?
V-12
Well-known
So, as I said all along, wetting cleaning with common sense is OK, and the panic has been exaggerated by an inept first statement from Leica that assumed nobody has any common sense. The unfortunate people are those in humid zones that may have no choice, but again, corrosion is not inevitable, only possible.
V
V
willie_901
Veteran
Except atmospheric humidity will eventually take a toll. Of course the rate of degradation depends on many variables and in my view it is impossible to say more than that.
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, especially if the IR filter is on the top surface of the filter cover glass. The IR filter is sealed using a coating during production to minimize humidity degradation. Disrupting the protective coating likely speeds up the ill-affects of humidity.
What is not clear to me is if the IR filter coating simply minimizes the degradation rate. Would cameras with long-term use in high-humidity environments be more susceptible to this issue? Scott sells two types of filters, weak filters stable to humidity and stronger filters that are affected by humidity. I don't know if Schott's humidity data is for coated or uncoated filters.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I agree that there's good info there and plenty of healthy criticism. Maybe Sumolux didn't read through the thread very carefully. Hey, we all know it's part of human nature to promote the product one prefers to use while trying to ignore anything negative about it (which can also be exhibited on this forum, too.) It's what people do to make themselves feel better about their choices in life and not get anxious about any of the negative aspects. But it appears there are plenty of Leica owners (and moderators) who can be very critical of the brand on that particular Leica forum. One of the most vocal cheerleaders of all things Leica and who is also a moderator, pretty much expressed their anger and frustration with Leica in that thread.
silverbullet
Well-known
What about fresh customers which don't have the advantage of a cosy internet forum with all the informations collected from all over the world? People will buy new M-Es or MMs and run blindly into the trap. I understand that Leica wants to protect dealers with stock but priority should be customers.
uhoh7
Veteran
Oh yes, the Leica MM is just a terrible trap. That's what I hear all the time from people who are shooting the H out of it.
Somebody needs to tell Mel Gibson about this. :bang:
Newflash: life is risky. Get on a motorcycle you may die. Sugar is bad and artificial sweeteners are worse. Your Leica sensor may develop an issue. Oh!
silverbullet
Well-known
sorry, but this is nonsense. You buy a Leica motorbike brand-new and nobody including Leica informs you about a weak nut of the crossbar. No recall from the factory and you feel the warm summer breeze in your hair, but suddenly…..
The longer Leica hesitates to make a general recall of new MM and M-E the more they may get under pressure from the legal aspect.
BTW: Your photograph is fine, the light, your expression - but - the skin tone of your face compare to the skin tone of your hands demonstrates the difficult adjustments of color rendition of M8/9 CCds….
btgc
Veteran
To me sensor sounds more like engine than nut
Except motorbike engine is rather 1/3 of whole vehicle while sensor (assy with shutter) of non-fixed lens camera is rather 2/3 of whole package.
Except motorbike engine is rather 1/3 of whole vehicle while sensor (assy with shutter) of non-fixed lens camera is rather 2/3 of whole package.
silverbullet
Well-known
To me sensor sounds more like engine than nut
Except motorbike engine is rather 1/3 of whole vehicle while sensor (assy with shutter) of non-fixed lens camera is rather 2/3 of whole package.
we could discuss about the falling off strap lugs from the M240, but this is a different subject...
Vobluda
Well-known
Two of the first three M240 sold in my country were affected with this
we could discuss about the falling off strap lugs from the M240, but this is a different subject...
x-ray
Veteran
What I find interesting is Kodak CCDs have been used in many cameras but I've never heard of any other problems other than the one Leica uses. Hasselblad digital backs and Pentax medium format digital are two I'm familiar with. Also canon used a CCD in the 1D as did Nikon in the D1, D1x and I believe the D2x. Kodak used their own CCD in their pro cameras too and I've never heard of any of the problems like cracked sensors or corrosion.
As to humidity contributing to the problem, my new M9 had the sensor replaces within a very short time of buying it and it was never set cleaned.
willie_901
Veteran
The Kodak product is most likely irrelevant. Kodak does not manufacture the sensor cover glass. Kodak had nothing to do with the IR filter.
At this point in time issue seems to be related to the Schott IR filter, and it's coating, used on the cover glass. The Schott filter is known to be damaged by humidity so a protective coating is required to eliminate or minimize delimitation. This extremely thin, efficient IR filter does not appear to be used on any other consumer level camera because other cameras do not require an ultra-thin IR filter. This IR filter may be used in other photographic or technical applications where the filter glass is easily replaced.
Your sensor's issue must have been unrelated to the micro-bubble delimitation defect starting to appear in older bodies.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
It is interesting that "the suede" member on FM forum who is a optical scientist and one of the founders of the old photodo website, has mentioned several times, and way before this issue became public, that the M9 uses a very cheap sensor glass cover and filter stack. He was wondering why Leica decided to go cheap on this one as there are way more efficient thin IR filters available for more money.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I bought my M9 new from an authorized Leica dealer and it already showed 5-10 delamination bubbles that I mistook for oil spots. They multiplied to around 100 in less than a year. I think it is irrelevant if the sensor has been cleaned by the user, ambient humidity at which the camera has been stored well before it is actually sold may kickstart the corrosion. The filter is exposed to ambient humidity as soon as the protective cover is removed and the sensor installed in the camera body.
Highway 61
Revisited
Looks like Leica didn't want their reputation to go weird because of the M8 UV-IR filters thing and that they decided in a hurry that the M9 (which was probably on the working bench since the day the M8 hit the shelves) wouldn't need UV-IR filters on the lenses. As a result they probably had to go a quick route of some sort to have the Kodak sensor covered with a Schott IR filter, without any time left to test the IR filter endurance over time, while they absolutely needed an extremely thin IR filter over the sensor so that the lenses performances didn't get affected by it.
Marketing trap, plus some remaining technical difficulties to get a 24x36 sensor in a mirrorless body with no crazy chromatic aberrations everywhere. Would somebody mention Canon and Nikon as an answer to my post, I would reply that the lens to sensor plane distance in a DSLR still allows the manufacturers to have way less problems of that kind.
The only very viable solution to fix the sick M9s and M9-Ps on the long term would probably to fit new sensors without the Schott IR filters in them, and to ask the customers to take their old UV-IR filters off their drawers, and to stack them on their lenses once and again.
Marketing trap, plus some remaining technical difficulties to get a 24x36 sensor in a mirrorless body with no crazy chromatic aberrations everywhere. Would somebody mention Canon and Nikon as an answer to my post, I would reply that the lens to sensor plane distance in a DSLR still allows the manufacturers to have way less problems of that kind.
The only very viable solution to fix the sick M9s and M9-Ps on the long term would probably to fit new sensors without the Schott IR filters in them, and to ask the customers to take their old UV-IR filters off their drawers, and to stack them on their lenses once and again.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Excellent points!
We have only to see what the not too thick (1.5mm) glass cover of the Sony A7 does to RF glass. The M9's is just 0.8mm which looks like the maximum thickness that can be used with RF glass with minimal astigmatism in the corners. But as mentioned in my earlier post, Leica presumably had the choice of better quality more expensive 0.8mm glass but opted not to use it, at least according to the poster I mentioned.