Jack Sparrow
Well-known
That's not a shutter problem! That's Leica's unique "light leak effect." 
Ugh. Sorry to hear you had an issue either way. Knock on wood, my M9/MM has been trouble-free so far. Though I'm understandably nervous now.
Ugh. Sorry to hear you had an issue either way. Knock on wood, my M9/MM has been trouble-free so far. Though I'm understandably nervous now.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree.
Assuming the IR filter/coating is degraded by humidity and this particular IR filter was required because of it's efficiency and thinness, then most M9 series owners can expect a replacing the sensor assembly at least once. The typical time period between replacements can be estimated from Leica's new M9 sensor replacement price schedule.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
That's not a shutter problem! That's Leica's unique "light leak effect."
Ugh. Sorry to hear you had an issue either way. Knock on wood, my M9/MM has been trouble-free so far. Though I'm understandably nervous now.
It's just a vertical rainbow!
Just keep using it and hope for the best. Fortunately when I called Leica and alerted them to this problem, they were super in terms of customer service. They did even offer me a temporary replacement body, but I told them it wasn't necessary. Had the camera back in less time than they originally stated, paid for shipping both ways too.
Jack Sparrow
Well-known
Thanks, yeah. That's the plan. I think that's all any of us can do until we hear more from Leica. Hopefully it'll all be handled as well as your case was.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Right, the analogies aren't perfect. But you're missing the point. Which is that anyone who's done a bit of research or had some experience with Leica's digital product service would reasonably expect issues to arise and service turnaround significantly less than, say, what a CPS would provide. Anything less is naive. Leica is not Canikon. Different customers, products, marketing, strategy, production capability, capital structure, ownership, etc. Reason would suggest different expectations.
You don't have to think of your Leica as a luxury item. However, Leica's products are priced like luxury items, are/were owned by a luxury lines holding company, and are associated with luxury by most people. If it smells like a rose, it's probably a rose.
Why? Because Leica's M digital camera line is a singular engineering and production exercise, the only FF OVF digital rangefinder with a highly attractive form factor one can buy that mates seamlessly with some of the finest small format lenses ever made, while Canikon's dSLR products are variations on a common base. It's a more challenging exercise for Leica to build and support its cameras in comparison to Canikon. It follows that there will be a greater incidence of operating and service issues.
Right, my analogies aren't perfect and individual experiences vary. I have a friend who owns a Ferrari and it's a nightmare to maintain, for example.
Engineering, design, and production errors happen to all manufacturers. Components fail, whether on space shuttles, cameras, cars, or watches. If you bought a Leica digital M thinking otherwise, you made a mistake, because first the M8 and then the M9 exhibited issues that were well publicized. Caveat emptor. People get pissed when their expectations are misaligned with reality. In this light, indignation over the Leica M sensor issues seems misplaced and irrational to me. Get over it. Get 'em fixed, even if it takes a lot of weeks, even months, to do so.
And if that scenario doesn't appeal to you, sell off your Leica gear. You have options, whether professional or amateur or somewhere in between, very good ones these days indeed. Actually, dropping Leica from your toolset will send the most effective message of all to Leica. Lack of sales, especially the repeat kind, is what Leica's management fears most. Not our whining about reliability and service times, while we continue to buy, use, trade in Leica gear, for pete's sake.
Exactly the sort of expectation reason would suggest is the case for an M9 owner. And Vince's experience on service is a counterpoint to x-ray's experience - our mileage will vary. Again, if a high(er) maintenance camera isn't what you want to buy into, then don't. We have so many options these days, why frustrate oneself and end up whining and wasting time and energy?
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Just slightly off topic: I waited about 3 months for Harry Fleenor to service my Rollie 3.5F; I've waited over six weeks to have Sherry overhaul a M-body (other times were less); I waited about 5 months to get delivery of my Monochrom.
I'm not complaining about needing patience, and I understand in the end that for me it is worth the waiting.
As far as inspection: A friend of mine had his M9 upgraded into a M9P. He noticed a visible smear that looked like an oil mark and sent his now M9P to Leica N.J. for a cleaning. Leica N.J. then informed him that his sensor would be replaced for free.
As far as a vague time line: my friends M9 was bought new and was out of warrantee when afterwards was upgraded into a M9P; the M9P was about a year old before this smear was noticed; the sensor replacement happened about 3-4 months ago; and the wait for the repair was about a month.
The way I check my sensor is via an illuminated loupe magnifier made by visible dust. BTW this magnifier is a great tool for inspecting your sensor for dust/dirt. Any imperfection is clearly visible. Also know that I own a 27 inch Eizo and the only defect I've noticed is dead pixels. Again my Monochrom is almost two years old.
Sorry to hear of people like Vince who had problems with their brand new cameras.
Cal
I'm not complaining about needing patience, and I understand in the end that for me it is worth the waiting.
As far as inspection: A friend of mine had his M9 upgraded into a M9P. He noticed a visible smear that looked like an oil mark and sent his now M9P to Leica N.J. for a cleaning. Leica N.J. then informed him that his sensor would be replaced for free.
As far as a vague time line: my friends M9 was bought new and was out of warrantee when afterwards was upgraded into a M9P; the M9P was about a year old before this smear was noticed; the sensor replacement happened about 3-4 months ago; and the wait for the repair was about a month.
The way I check my sensor is via an illuminated loupe magnifier made by visible dust. BTW this magnifier is a great tool for inspecting your sensor for dust/dirt. Any imperfection is clearly visible. Also know that I own a 27 inch Eizo and the only defect I've noticed is dead pixels. Again my Monochrom is almost two years old.
Sorry to hear of people like Vince who had problems with their brand new cameras.
Cal
MCTuomey
Veteran
.... I just found the camera too fussy for my taste -- the first M8, I was loaned, spit oil all the time (but I just cleaned the sensor with Q tips and Zeiss lens fluid, for months with no dire results).
I have continued to use film in my rangefinder (it's all that fits
I could see a need to own a Leica digital in the future, but now now, for me personally it simply makes no sense, since I do not take the huge number of photos which would justify it over simply film and scanning.
And I am too impatient to wait for a 4 month repair. My current S2 is now over 60 years old and has never been serviced.
a wise and sensible individual assessment, i'd say - film and the gear needed to shoot it are rock solid technologically, to say nothing of the pleasure associated with analog workflow, to state the obvious.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
+1
I still have all my film gear and have continued to still shoot film (135 and 120).
Although the Monochrom is a great tool there's nothing like film and wet printing.
Cal
Pioneer
Veteran
Well spoken Mike.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
You might want to step out of your own clothes for a minute and think about what you have said. You and I know what getting into Leica is about. I sold my M9 early on just before the M240 was announced because I had some issues and suspected Leica still wasn't ready for digital prime time. And so I made choices based on my own experience with Leica (including lenses and film cameras) and my access to information (e.g., forums and colleagues, etc.)
But there happens to be a world out there of people maybe not as smart as MCTuomey, and who don't live on a camera forum, and who make purchasing decisions based on a manufacturer's reputation and on their marketing. This is not uncommon. After all, why do you think companies like Mercedes, BMW, and Leica spend so much on marketing their goods and presenting a particular image as being the 'best' and the highest quality, etc..
Come on, do you really think that there aren't people out there who don't have the time (or even the inclination) to spend their life on the interwebs and on forums researching the realities of these companies and their products? Sorry, but you are being simply too egocentric to position yourself outside of your own skin.I'm close friends with a very well-known graphic designer who owns an big agency that does campaigns for the motion picture and recording industry in Los Angeles. She has hired photographers like Annie Lebovitz, the late Richard Avedon, etc.. She bought a Leica M9 based on the company's history and reputation. Like many, many others in the world she was influenced by Leica's marketing strategy. But you call her ignorant and naive because she doesn't have the time nor the desire to research what she might be "getting into with owning a Leica." Caveat emptor? Please, she doesn't know about the M8 or any of Leica's issues, nor does she have the time to sit on the internet and hang out on forums. She buys in GOOD FAITH based on the company's marketing. And so do a lot of other people in the world.
So while you and I and others here may be too smart for our own britches, there is a world of consumers who buy in good faith when a company has a reputation for making the 'best' and makes a concerted and well-calculated effort to market their goods as such. To call those people naive and basically 'stupid' is pretty arrogant, imho.
MCTuomey
Veteran
I called no one ignorant or stupid. Me, I am far from smart, but am known to persevere at times. After all, I own both an M9 and an MM
. What I said is that expecting reliability typical of, say, Canon or Nikon to be the case for an M9 is naïve. I stand by that observation in view of the facts that are available from a ten-minute internet search, not from excessive amounts of time I or you might waste on the internet or from our own experience. If my statement makes me egocentric or arrogant in your view, I'm sorry you feel that way. If your well-to-do and well-connected friend has the kind of disposable income to purchase luxury goods with no more thought than one would give to buying an espresso, he/she is fortunate. And in my view, still naïve.From Merriam-Webster, definition of naïve: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. Not exactly a condemnation of intelligence, but a somewhat deficient mode of decision-making, I think. At least that's how I meant the term.
Corollary: people who truly trust marketing information for purchase decisions, especially the important ones beyond items like a camera, probably need to develop a more healthy sense of skepticism.
trisberg
Established
I'm not sure I buy this. Why shouldn't we expect the same reliability? Leica might not have the same resources as the bigger companies, but they do charge a lot more to make up for it. Adding to that that they claim 20+ years of functional reliability in their marketing materials. If I were to call anyone naïve it would be Leica management expecting to get away with this in the long run.
I hope for everyone's sake that this issue doesn't affect every single M9/M-E/MM out there and that Leica comes up with a fix that satisfies all loyal customers. Time will tell.
-Thomas
uhoh7
Veteran
The M9 is what it is. There have been huge threads full of outrage since the beginning. So far Leica seems to stand behind the machine pretty well, replacing many out warranty sensors etc.
Of course I've heard a few bad stories about Leica service, but mostly it was just about the time factor.
If someone knows a more stunning digital system than the M9 + M glass, please let us know.
Of course I've heard a few bad stories about Leica service, but mostly it was just about the time factor.
If someone knows a more stunning digital system than the M9 + M glass, please let us know.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Why should you expect the reliability of an M9 not to be comparable to that of typical dSLR? Because Leica's M digital camera line is a singular design, engineering, and production exercise, the only FF OVF digital rangefinder with a highly attractive form factor one can buy that mates seamlessly with some of the finest small format lenses ever made, while Canikon's dSLR products are variations on a common base. It's a more challenging exercise for Leica to build and support its cameras in comparison to Canikon. It follows that there will be a greater incidence of operating and service issues.
If you really believe that solely by paying more, greater satisfaction will or should ensue, you have bought the myth of luxury goods hook, line, and sinker.
Pioneer
Veteran
I am not certain that I fully understand this myself but I believe that we have been told that digital Leica M cameras are cutting edge luxury items. To expect Leica would be continually tracking equipment faults and problems, and updating the camera throughout its lifecycle, is unreasonable. If we bought these cameras with any other expectations then we did so naively, without proper research, and our best option is to accept that our expectations cannot be met, or sell our Leicas and move on.
Unfortunately I suspect there are a lot of owners like myself who are still having a hard time coming to grips with this. Owners who do enjoy using their digital rangefinders and naively (obviously) were under the impression that the company would correct these faults through a normal quality control program as time went along. Instead we now find out that Leica may have continued to sell cameras with these sensor problems, long after the problem became evident.
Forgive me if I sound a bit upset.
Unfortunately I suspect there are a lot of owners like myself who are still having a hard time coming to grips with this. Owners who do enjoy using their digital rangefinders and naively (obviously) were under the impression that the company would correct these faults through a normal quality control program as time went along. Instead we now find out that Leica may have continued to sell cameras with these sensor problems, long after the problem became evident.
Forgive me if I sound a bit upset.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I called no one ignorant or stupid. Me, I am far from smart, but am known to persevere at times. After all, I own both an M9 and an MM
From Merriam-Webster, definition of naïve: deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. Not exactly a condemnation of intelligence, but a somewhat deficient mode of decision-making, I think. At least that's how I meant the term.
Corollary: people who truly trust marketing information for purchase decisions, especially the important ones beyond items like a camera, probably need to develop a more healthy sense of skepticism.
Well, to be clear you're just now saying the same thing you said before. And you are implying a kind of 'stupidity' in a particular area, i.e., one's purchasing decisions. You're blaming a consumer for not being like you. And that's being egocentric. We all will often act egocentrically about things because we rarely step out of our own shoes. The woman is not "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment" but instead she took a company's reputation as true and in good faith. We do it all the time to varying degrees. You and I might buy Leica lenses based on MTF data and our own testing, but some of it also has to do with historical reputation, subjective remarks, and some mythology.
No one trusts marketing solely nor explicitly but these companies have developed reputations not only with good products but with also with a history of marketing that in effect, becomes real and part of defining the product itself. How is it "naive" to think that owning a Leica will not be problematic over owning a Nikon or Canon when Leica markets its products the way it does, has an illustrious history, and is more expensive. Why are you blaming the consumer??? Why does she have to do a "10 minute search on the internet?" And what does her income have to with her hearing about Leica's quality from their marketing and its history within the medium of photography, and her choice to buy the camera based on that? Saying, "if your well-to-do and well-connected friend has the kind of disposable income to purchase luxury goods with no more thought than one would give to buying an espresso, he/she is fortunate" is just slamming her and you know it. Please step back and think about what you're really saying here......
MCTuomey
Veteran
Your friend bought naively, VS, in my opinion. If someone responds only to the mythology and propaganda served by, and limited to, a company's marketing and its enthusiastic shills, then that's their choice and right. It seems rather ineffective and deficient in decision-making to me, i.e. naïve, again just my opinion. My reference equating your friend's Leica purchase to an espresso purchase was vague, sorry. What I was getting at is that the branding of Starbucks is much like that of Leica, in order that the faithful buy their products reflexively and loyally, rather than thoughtfully and critically. And precisely why both Starbucks and Leica advertise and market like champions. Brilliant obfuscation. And you know what, we fall for it all the time. But in my small way I try not to repeat my mistakes.
If in your view that makes me egocentric or insensitive or unable to step out of my shoes - I do have large feet - I won't argue. You can call me what you like. I am arguing for the value of critical thinking and informed choice.
Personally, since I own thousands of dollars of Leica gear, some of which has and will continue to need to be fixed more often and more expensively than my modest Canon gear, I'll pursue Leica vigorously for a fair outcome. That's my own matter, no whining, just a fact that flows from my decision to buy and use Leica products. By the way, my non-Leica using friends think I'm a well-to-do naïve lightweight. They're right.
And that X-T1 is looking awfully attractive right now. Maybe it is time to get out of Leica digital. Digital alternatives have never been better. And film is still around and as beautiful and fun as ever.
If in your view that makes me egocentric or insensitive or unable to step out of my shoes - I do have large feet - I won't argue. You can call me what you like. I am arguing for the value of critical thinking and informed choice.
Personally, since I own thousands of dollars of Leica gear, some of which has and will continue to need to be fixed more often and more expensively than my modest Canon gear, I'll pursue Leica vigorously for a fair outcome. That's my own matter, no whining, just a fact that flows from my decision to buy and use Leica products. By the way, my non-Leica using friends think I'm a well-to-do naïve lightweight. They're right
.And that X-T1 is looking awfully attractive right now. Maybe it is time to get out of Leica digital. Digital alternatives have never been better. And film is still around and as beautiful and fun as ever.
Understood Edward, thanks.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Okay, it might make you feel better about yourself that you will never be influenced by anything outside of exercising your own free will. But I guess that I'm not one that believes that the tears of a stranger are only water, and simply have a lot more empathy for those who might be naive about specific matters that I might have more experience with. I understand why she (and many, many others out there) were influenced by Leica and its long history, and so I can't bring myself to blame her...... and btw, she is an incredible thinker and extremely critical (and very successful in what she does.) It just so happens that she made a decision that to her was sound at the time and based on the information she had at that particular moment in her life. There are many very bright individuals out there who simply put their efforts elsewhere and might just adopt a different mechanism when it comes to purchasing consumer goods.
trisberg
Established
I never said anything about "greater satisfaction". I mentioned the higher price as a way for Leica to spend proportionally more on R&D for a lower volume product compared to Nikon or Canon. Just because I expect reliability from a product based on the manufacturers claims doesn't mean I believe that it's a certainty. A lot of times we base our decisions on trust, which over time can be broken. I really don't think that means that we are naïve. Wishful thinking that this camera would last, maybe. We will adjust, question is, will Leica.
-Thomas
Last edited: