Leica M9 FF-CCD corrosion on sensors

Mike, I'm not quite sure what it is your advocating here, I understand you think Leica owners naïve if they think the product should be reliable despite the purchase cost, but does that mean that if their £5000+ camera develops a major flaw after a few years they should just accept it as a quirk of owning Leica?
SeriouslyI would like to know what you think, what should someone with a four year old M9 with a problem sensor do about it. What's your advice?
 
MCTuomey said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with reliability? Form factor and seamless integration with great lenses. This sounds like excuses.

If leica can't produce a reliable and quality product they should stay out of the market. Basically they charged everyone $6000+ to beta test their product.

I also believe leica put the cheapest components possible in it. Exames, LCD, buffer, shutter and CCD. The camera just wasn't ready for prime time.

I used my M9 only a few times on assignments. After several serious issues I lost confidence in it. As a matter of fact I never carried it on assignment without one of my Nikons as backup. As a long time professional I can tell you clients get very upset if you're fumbling with equipment that's not working and they're paying models and me for a shoot.

Leica billed the M9 as professional and that's one reason we expect 100% reliability just as we do nikon or canon. I'm aware there's nothing 100% reliable but every manufacturer that's worth anything strives for that number. There's an entire industry on achieving this goal.
 
This is much like a Porsche or Ferrari having to have the motor replaced every few months whether the car has been driven or not just because of humidity. Ok the motor is replaced free for now but three years from now you have to start paying and each time you car has to be in the shop for 3, 4 or more months. Both Porsche and Ferrari are hand built and relatively small companies. I've never owned a Ferrari but have owned a Porsche and the car is very reliable. I'm planning the purchase of another one but I can tell you I will never buy another new Leica product and I'm a nearly five decade user of Leica.
 
Considering it's only been eight years since Leica entered the digital market with intent this doesn't seem so surprising to me. Compared to Canon and Nikon they are still on a learning curve IMO.

What makes it so abominable for the customer is the new purchase price of the camera. It creates an attitude that nothing that costs this much should have these types of issues but when you're talking about Leica it's a little hard to apply that thinking because every thing they make costs an arm and a leg.

That said ... I'm glad I didn't buy an M9!
 
Keith said:
Considering it's only been eight years since Leica entered the digital market with intent this doesn't seem so surprising to me. Compared to Canon and Nikon they are still on a learning curve IMO.

What makes it so abominable for the customer is the new purchase price of the camera. It creates an attitude that nothing that costs this much should have these types of issues but when you're talking about Leica it's a little hard to apply that thinking because every thing they make costs an arm and a leg.

That said ... I'm glad I didn't buy an M9!
Click to expand...

Kodak, Nikon and Canon pioneered much of the technology especially Kodak. Kodak did it first and the others took the technogy and improved on it. Sure Nikon and Canon have been in it about 15 years but leica had the advantage of all the tech development prior to their getting into digital. Leica basically had to figure what components to put together and how to pack it in the box. Sure they had to deal with short back focus and micro lenses but they didn't pioneer the technogy.

Remember the 14C, 14N Kodak FF camera and the replacement. This mess put Kodak out of the DSLR business. Customers took all the BS they could handle and abandon Kodak.
 
And lets not forget that this is the company that released a six thousand dollar camera in 2006 with some serious issues ... how did they miss that IR problem?

But they sent us all some nice accessory filters to cover their gaff!

Don't get me wrong ... I don't want to come across as a basher but few companies would have got away with this!
 
Keith said:
And lets not forget that this is the company that released a six thousand dollar camera in 2006 with some serious issues ... how did they miss that IR problem?

But they sent us all some nice accessory filters to cover their gaff!

Don't get me wrong ... I don't want to come across as a basher but few companies would have got away with this!
Click to expand...

I think I made the same statement.

We've all been beta testing for Leica at our expense.
 
Keith said:
And lets not forget that this is the company that released a six thousand dollar camera in 2006 with some serious issues ... how did they miss that IR problem?

But they sent us all some nice accessory filters to cover their gaff!

Don't get me wrong ... I don't want to come across as a basher but few companies would have got away with this!
Click to expand...

I really don't think any of us want to come across as bashers. I think the majority hope that Leica can come up with a workable solution. I still enjoy their cameras. I just received an M-A and have enjoyed working with their M9 for quite some time now. To be honest, it is the only time that working with digital actually felt much the same as working with film. And my Monochrom feels even nicer to work with.

But it is frustrating beyond belief to learn that the digital you have truly come to enjoy has a huge manufacturing defect that destroys the usefulness of the camera entirely. We would like to hope that the problem only effects a small batch of cameras but it seems that isn't so.

However, I intend to sit tight for now and see how this works out. I will continue to work with my MM and wait for the diagnosis on my M9. I had actually been considering trading my M9 in on the M240 this upcoming year but goodness only knows what traps are waiting in that camera. I think I'll just sit tight with the problems I know.
 
Maybe I'll join Pioneer and order an MA. But before then I am going to enjoy the heck out of my M9 and Monochrom. Total sensor-related costs to me so far in owning and heavily using these two cameras for close on 20,000 shots in three years? Nothing. Costs in acquiring other systems like Fuji X-Pro/OM-D/Nikon D3/Sony, all very good and all very serious considerations if not taking on the M9: nothing. And the lens acquisition costs for those systems: nothing. Need for new M mount lenses in the time I've had the M9/Monochrom: zero. Yes, the high street punter with pointy shoes and a gold lighter has been conned if he buys a digital Leica. But for me it is still the miracle it was in September 09. And I have no complaints.
 
In the professional world 20,000 frames in 3 years is pretty much a new camera with a Nikon or Canon and should be with the M9. I shoot commercially and shoot digital with the same conservative approach as I did film. In the first year of owning my D800 I put close to that on it. I also had two other Digital bodies and put thousands of frames on them. My 6 year old 1DsII had close to 250,000 frames on it and it never saw a repairman. If the M9 can't handle this kind of use its not very durable.

If Leica had been held to the same standards as Nikon and Canon by the consumer this outcry would have happened years sooner.
 
x-ray said:
If Leica had been held to the same standards as Nikon and Canon by the consumer this outcry would have happened years sooner.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Just who is this consumer you identify that would hold Leica to the same standards as Canikon? Such a consumer, presumably under no other compulsion than his or her own desire and choice, bought a Leica. I did. Others did. You did. We are the consumers, the standard holders, x-ray, not some generalized abstraction. And if you believe there should have a standard applied, and we are the standard bearers, what happened? Apparently we decided not to apply a Canon or Nikon-like standard and just kept buying & shooting Leica, for the most part. There were plenty of early indications of design and production issues with the M8 and M9, yet, despite the indications, we as a group continued to use and buy them. My own view is that Leica's product held such promise and pleasure in use that no one felt that Canikon standards were relevant. Our decisions to buy were not as rational as they needed to be. We lowered the bar collectively. We drank the Kool-Aid willingly.

No one compelled anyone to do so. It is a free market, meaning no one at Leica or anywhere else forced me or you or anyone to buy in the face of information that suggested there might be problems with the M9/MM series. No one held the proverbial gun to anyone's head. The one action that would have forced Leica to change its practices - refusing to buy - did not apparently occur in any significant way.

Perhaps we are on the cusp of a significant reduction in the number of people willing to buy Leica digital M's as a result of this latest wave of M9/MM issues. If so, it is less likely there will be continuing resources within Leica to make current M9/MM owners whole with regard to needed repairs, potentially a downward spiral especially if consumer reluctance extends to the M240.

So, Leica has what is most likely a rather short period of time to develop and execute a strategy that will cause a sufficient number of its existing customers to remain loyal and its new customers to press the buy button, if the sensor spot issue is as big as it may seem to be today. If Leica doesn't do so, it may have to mimic Zeiss and in the future make only lenses and scopes, leaving behind cameras. It'll be a poorer photographic world if such a scenario comes to pass, I expect. Let's hope Leica and its loyalists and enthusiasts cooperate patiently and find satisfaction.
 
Of cousre the thing that attracts us to the Leica M in the first place is it's size and usability compared to say ... a D4. The Leica is like going camping in a tent with your back pack ... the Nikon is the Winnebago option! :D

Jokes aside it is worth noting that Leica will replace the sensor free of charge within three years of a new purchase and the new sensor effectively starts that three year period again. I really don't see that they can do any more than this at this stage. I would image the CCD sensor will now be toast and all future designs will be something other.
 
x-ray said:
Leica billed the M9 as professional and that's one reason we expect 100% reliabity just as we do nikon or canon. I'm aware there's noyhing 100% reliable but every manufacturer that's worth anything strive for that number.
Click to expand...
To put this into perspective on a personal level, I have had problems with all Canon cameras that I have owned or used extensively. Granted, they are not all pro-series cameras but some are. They are at a 100% failure rate so far for me, so Canon surely achieved the number. :D

As you say, there is no such thing as 100% reliable. Leica obviously have a major technical issue here for which there appears to be no easy solution. It must be a bit of PR nightmare, but they seem to be handling it pretty well (as per the announced list of replacement costs and so on, not so much the way it was announced in some forum thread). We'll see how the policy works in practice.

This certainly affects the price at which I would now consider any of the M9 derivative models, but they are not completely out of the picture. Sadly, the new M is out of my reach. That is clearly now my preference for M8 upgrade.
 
I sold my M-E thinking that I would get a used M9 later down the road.
The M9 sensor issue closes the book for me on that one.

I'm shooting film in Nepal and India right now.
Considering whether or not I want to buy a scanner and developing gear--all the things that I sold a few years ago.

For digital "base ISO", I did a comparison with the M9 and decided I prefer the output of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras.

I still haven't found anything that helps me see quite like the RF-VF, but it's not the end of photography.

End of my interest in digital Leica.
 
I think the sensor replacement is a good interim stopgap, but I fail to see how that solves anything in the longer term. For example, if I decide to sell the camera does that warranty go with it, or is the new owner totally on the hook for future sensor replacements?

I think, as Cal has already mentioned, I would just continue updating sensors for as long as a supply exists.
 
Leica factory guaranty is always on the camera, not on the owner. It is only some importer’s that are not.
 
A year ago, my M9 began exhibiting odd-dustlike spots along the upper edge of my pictures. It looked like a set of several hundred spots. Problem was, they were always visible on any patch of sky . . . which was to say often in outdoor shots. I had never cleaned the sensor on this camera. In fact, I try not to touch any of the sensors on any of my digital cameras. I tried canned air. No dice. I went into a photo shop in Paris, where I was traveling when the problem asserted itself and used a compressor. You know how the story goes. I tried pads with PEC cleaning fluid. Also no dice. Finally, I bit the bullet and sent the camera to Leica NJ. To my surprise, they replaced the sensor at no charge. I had the camera back within a month and it has functioned well since.

Reading this (lengthy) thread, it helps make sense of what happened. And it is a tough spot for all of us. There is obviously a flaw in Kodak's manufacturing process, or in the product design, but Kodak is in bankruptcy and there is no help for Leica there. I would guess (on very little information) that replacing sensors for the life of the body is not a feasible option for Leica. It might be the right thing to do. In fact, if they have produced a defective product, they might be required to do so. But if I were an executive at a small company like Leica, I would probably see whether I could get away with a non-Company killing option first to address the problem. I am also assuming that unless you want to go back to square one and re-write all the firmware, you can't replace the current chip with a CMOS chip from the the current camera. So they are doing the best they can.

I have been an avid photographer for the last 30 years or so, and my M9 is easily the most expensive piece of equipment I ever purchased. More expensive than a Sinar F1, more expensive than a new Nikon F4, more expensive than a Zone VI 8x10 field camera with a new Nikon 300mm W lens (whoo, that one made me sweat), more expensive than any Hasse1blad (which, admittedly, I bought used). No question that it is disappointing to read that this incredibly specialized and expensive piece of equipment has a flaw like this, and that there is no easy fix. I plan on using mine until the "wheels come off" -- I really like the files it produces. At that time I will look about me and see what the options are.
 
well put, ben

it's a big disappointment, to say the least. i thought i was buying digital leica bodies eyes wide open, buying a product that gave me images i liked but admiitedly had operating flaws i judged acceptable. never imagined anything like what appears to be systemic, repetitive, high percentage sensor failure. leica's management and resources will be truly challenged to find a fair solution.

the most direct path for leica is to take public responsibility for the issue, find a fit replacement for the defective Kodak sensor, and plan and execute a recall campaign to replace as many of the defectives as is needed to satisfy its customers. and do this at a cost that does not bring down their financial house. less direct and not as satisfying, leica can continue to replace actively failing sensors with new kodak sensors (that have latent failure rates of course) over a lengthy term and also offer discounts for those wanting to move on to the CMOS M's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom