Leica M9 FF-CCD corrosion on sensors

The Leica boutiques all over the world are full with digital Ms in front of X-Mas. Can we expect an official statement before the arrival of Santa Claus and Rudy the Red Dot reindeer? :)
 
Benjamin,

The evidence right now is the parts Kodak supplies are not the problem.

The problem is either the Schott IR filter and its protective coating or the protective coating on the cover glass. Since the M9s' Schott IR filter's spec sheet states the filter is susceptible to humidity damage, the IR filter and, or its protective coating is believed to cause most of the degradation problems addressed by Leica's new replacement/repair policy.

The Schott filter is extremely thin and efficient. It's not clear there is an alternative filter available. This is why, at the moment, some people think the replacement sensors' filters have the same susceptibility to humidity.
 
willie_901 said:
The Schott filter is extremely thin and efficient. It's not clear there is an alternative filter available. This is why, at the moment, some people think the replacement sensors' filters have the same susceptibility to humidity.
Click to expand...

Brian Sweeney thinks there is a solution. See these posts:

http://www.leicaplace.com/showthread.php?t=735&page=3&p=7502#post7502
http://www.leicaplace.com/showthread.php?t=735&page=3&p=7503#post7503

Maybe Leica is working on a permanent solution. I'd be surprised if they weren't.

-Thomas
 
willie_901 said:
Benjamin,

The evidence right now is the parts Kodak supplies are not the problem.

The problem is either the Schott IR filter and its protective coating or the protective coating on the cover glass. Since the M9s' Schott IR filter's spec sheet states the filter is susceptible to humidity damage, the IR filter and, or its protective coating is believed to cause most of the degradation problems addressed by Leica's new replacement/repair policy.

The Schott filter is extremely thin and efficient. It's not clear there is an alternative filter available. This is why, at the moment, some people think the replacement sensors' filters have the same susceptibility to humidity.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification. Hope a permanent fix is possible . . .FWIW, I live in Vermont, which is not a particularly high humidity area. Or put another way, if central Vermont is humid enough to cause a problem, it is hard to imagine a US location that won't have the issue. That said, it is odd to chose a component with that sort of weakness for world-wide sale. Bizarre.

Ben
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Thanks for that clarification. Hope a permanent fix is possible . . .FWIW, I live in Vermont, which is not a particularly high humidity area. Or put another way, if central Vermont is humid enough to cause a problem, it is hard to imagine a US location that won't have the issue. That said, it is odd to chose a component with that sort of weakness for world-wide sale. Bizarre.

Ben
Click to expand...

Your assuming anyone gave it any thought at all.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ummm.. Kodak sold off the sensor business long ago to Truesense, who have sold it on in their turn fairly recently. Where the liability went in this chain is unknown.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
Thanks for that clarification. Hope a permanent fix is possible . . .FWIW, I live in Vermont, which is not a particularly high humidity area. Or put another way, if central Vermont is humid enough to cause a problem, it is hard to imagine a US location that won't have the issue. That said, it is odd to chose a component with that sort of weakness for world-wide sale. Bizarre.

Ben
Click to expand...

What I've noticed is that my Hong Kong friends' M9s do seem to break down with alarming frequency...The place is moist enough that I need plastic ziplocs to wrap my camera when doing street shooting and indoor shopping in the same day.

Anyways, I'm just glad that I never pressed the trigger on an M9. On the one hand, I have a few grand set aside for what Leica will bring out next September. On the other, I'm not too optimistic about the availability of new M cameras...
 
jaapv said:
Ummm.. Kodak sold off the sensor business long ago to Truesense, who have sold it on in their turn fairly recently. Where the liability went in this chain is unknown.
Click to expand...

I understand your "ummm" to mean that any git should have known this. I suppose you are right. Apologies. Feeling a bit prickly tonight. Sounds like most of my assumptions are incorrect. Happens all the time. Difficult to get out the front door sometimes. Really. OK. Forget what I said. I guess we'll all just wait and see what happens.
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I understand your "ummm" to mean that any git should have known this. I suppose you are right. Apologies. Feeling a bit prickly tonight. Sounds like most of my assumptions are incorrect. Happens all the time. Difficult to get out the front door sometimes. Really. OK. Forget what I said. I guess we'll all just wait and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Well, everybody is between a rock and a hard place. Leica needs to protect its reputation, but has a limit to the amount of money they can pump into this one. The two shareholders (ACM and Blackstone) cannot afford to let a profitable and growing company go down the drain because of an one-off problem, ACM Projektentwicklug ( the probable owner of the two factories) cannot afford to lose the tenant to two spanking-new facilities that are wholly unsuitable for any other purpose, the customers cannot afford to lose the producer of an unique system, the the possibility to pass the whole mess unto the parts supplier is doubtful for a number of reasons...
There must be a solution/compromise somewhere that is being sought as we write.
Let's see what this week brings.
 
Compromise?!
I though we have laws around here in EU regarding the consumers protection.
Who cares about the shareholders, the EU legal entity has brought product to the market and it has design flaw.
They have to repair or disappear from the market if they cant.

jaapv said:
Well, everybody is between a rock and a hard place. Leica needs to protect its reputation, but has a limit to the amount of money they can pump into this one. The two shareholders (ACM and Blackstone) cannot afford to let a profitable and growing company go down the drain because of an one-off problem, ACM Projektentwicklug ( the probable owner of the two factories) cannot afford to lose the tenant to two spanking-new facilities that are wholly unsuitable for any other purpose, the customers cannot afford to lose the producer of an unique system, the the possibility to pass the whole mess unto the parts supplier is doubtful for a number of reasons...
There must be a solution/compromise somewhere that is being sought as we write.
Let's see what this week brings.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like there could be up to 80,000 cameras potentially affected out there. :eek:

Vobluda said:
Compromise?!
I though we have laws around here in EU regarding the consumers protection.
Who cares about the shareholders, the EU legal entity has brought product to the market and it has design flaw.
They have to repair or disappear from the market if they cant.
Click to expand...

Would have to agree. While "compromise" is good, and surely what will happen... The shareholders are the least of the worries. If this isn't handled well, the bad publicity and ill-will towards the company will ensure its demise just as surely as replacing every camera might. Besides, this is what insurance is for.
 
Last edited:
photomoof said:
Which is not to imply that I don't use plenty of digital. But when I want to ride my bicycle I don't put a motor on it.



Not very helpful, what are you saying warranty-wise?

Leica involvement in new stores and Leica NJ is certainly not all that transparent -- not sure I would call Leica in NJ just an "importer." The financial reporters like Bloomberg may have it wrong, but they seem to believe Solms is heavily involved.
Click to expand...

Leica USA have a "first user" policy, but as that is illegal in Europe Leica Wetzlar (if Bloomberg says Solms they are not very knowlegeable) will extend guaranty on the camera during the original period of use, without considering ownership. So at worst one would have to send the camera to Germany.
 
Jack Sparrow said:
Sounds like there could be up to 80,000 cameras potentially affected out there. :eek:



Would have to agree. While "compromise" is good, and surely what will happen... The shareholders are the least of the worries. If this isn't handled well, the bad publicity and ill-will towards the company will ensure it's demise just as surely as replacing every camera might. Besides, this is what insurance is for.
Click to expand...
What insurance? Are you suggesting they should set fire to the factory?
 
Vobluda said:
Compromise?!
I though we have laws around here in EU regarding the consumers protection.
Who cares about the shareholders, the EU legal entity has brought product to the market and it has design flaw.
They have to repair or disappear from the market if they cant.
Click to expand...
And what will happen to the cameras we all have if they disappear? And to the rangefinder style of photography? The customers have a stake here as well, I should think.
And Leica is not the liable party, according to EU-based customer law, the dealer who sold you the camera is...
 
As far as the IR filter on the Monochrom sensor I found that I get about a half zone wider histogram using the Heliopan filters that are marked "Digital" over the same Heliopan filters that are not specifically marked. This year I confirmed my hypothesis that the Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have an additional IR filtering and UV filtering.

Anyways my research and controlled experiments suggest that the Leica IR filter is not that efficient and my tests indicate that additional IR filtering via use of Heliopan filters marked "Digital" improves IQ.

At home I have a Heliopan booklet that I got at the PhotoPlusExpo that states in writing that their filters marked "Digital" offer additional filtering in both the IR and UV frequencies.

I did a lot of testing and no longer use B+W filters on my Monochrom because I found that Heliopan offered better/wider histograms. Clipping was curbed and more controlled also by utilizing Heliopan filters over the B+W filters. Early on I found the use of a light yellow filter mitigates, reduces and in some cases totally eliminates clipping by getting rid of excess light that otherwise would overwhelm my sensor. Also at Luminous Landscape M.R. reports that he was told by Leica engineers that the Monochrom responds well to a light yellow filter and that a yellow filter should be used if one wants a Panchromatic response from the sensor. Then I took note of comparing Heliopan filters in a controlled experiment comparing Heliopan filters marked "Digital" against ones that were not and discovered further improvement.

My research, data and experience indicates that the built in Leica IR filter has some performance limits and can be improved upon. Because I am a clever guy I found a work around. Maybe a thicker higher performance IR filter is the solution, and from my experience this would also offer a performance benefit. This could be the answer/solution to the design defect. Leica are you listening?

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Maybe a thicker higher performance IR filter is the solution, and from my experience this would also offer a performance benefit. This could be the answer/solution to the design defect. Leica are you listening?

Cal
Click to expand...

Regrettably the thickness of the filter stack has a profound effect on performance of the lenses. Replacing the suspect filter with a same thickness but uncoated one should work, then requiring the M8 filters you never got around to selling :D

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
 
ChrisLivsey said:
Regrettably the thickness of the filter stack has a profound effect on performance of the lenses. Replacing the suspect filter with a same thickness but uncoated one should work, then requiring the M8 filters you never got around to selling :D

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter
Click to expand...

Chris,

You point is well taken. In a way I'm saying the same thing because I use an external filter anyways to get optimum performance, but it seems that Leica created a design weakness that has turned into a design flaw.

BTW the performance I get from my Monochrom is impressive, but I had to learn how to tweak the light on my own to find the "sweet spot" of the sensor. Hopefully Leica can engineer a good solution.

Cal
 
They have few choices... Get a manufacturer onboard to make a fixed sensor (Kodak -> Truesense -> On) and replace them, either through recall or when sent in for service... Or offer a reasonable discount on a current M. The problems are, the M-E is still in production, as is the M Monochrom - and there's no replacement for the latter - yet. No matter how you look at it, this will be an expensive problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom