Leica M9 FF-CCD corrosion on sensors

[jaapv]

🙄

It's called "product liability insurance."

Let's hope they have it then, although it would bring yet another guest to the party.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

Let's hope they have it then, although it would bring yet another guest to the party.

Any company producing products for public consumption should have this insurance. If not, well, they're idiots - at the very least, gambling with the company and additional monetary damages at stake. IANAL, but it may be a requirement to have, by law.

 

[Vobluda]

And what is the purpose of existence of such a company if they sell junk and make idiots of their customers?
In this case Leica is liable party as they are accepting warranty repairs directly.

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...

 

[Calzone]

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.

Jack,

I agree that there are some possible solutions to ovecome a design flaw/defect, and that it will be an expensive problem to solve if Leica wants good customer relations. How Leica handles this matter has a profound effect on their reputation.

At this point my Monochrom has proven to be a very valuable tool, and it is painful that so far there is no replacement (although there is a rumored MM-240 that I hope might be true). A thoughtful long-term solution is required, and replacing sensors as a disposable commodity to me is a "Spackle Job." For me it is either fix the problem/design flaw (not indefinately replace sensors) or give a generous trade in towards a replacement camera.

I have already responded to the MM-240 rumor and canceled some debt to buy the rumored MM-240. I had intended on keeping my Monochrom and was just going to buy a MM-240 as a new camera, but a lot now depends on how Leica handles this matter. BTW I have learned that rumors here on RFF tend to be true.

Cal

 

[MCTuomey]

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.

+1 hoping here that talented engineers are working on the replacement sensor

 

[Jack Sparrow]

I agree that there are some possible solutions to ovecome a design flaw/defect, and that it will be an expensive problem to solve if Leica wants good customer relations. How Leica handles this matter has a profound effect on their reputation.

At this point my Monochrom has proven to be a very valuable tool, and it is painful that so far there is no replacement (although there is a rumored MM-240 that I hope might be true). A thoughtful long-term solution is required, and replacing sensors as a disposable commodity to me is a "Spackle Job." For me it is either fix the problem/design flaw (not indefinately replace sensors) or give a generous trade in towards a replacement camera.

I have already responded to the MM-240 rumor and canceled some debt to buy the rumored MM-240. I had intended on keeping my Monochrom and was just going to buy a MM-240 as a new camera, but a lot now depends on how Leica handles this matter. BTW I have learned that rumors here on RFF tend to be true.

Agreed. My own M9/MM have been excellent, as I suspect they'll (likely) continue to be. In the end, Leica will surely make this good one way or the other. It's in all of our best interests.

There's definitely an "MM-240" in development. 😉

 

[jszokoli]

I'm not sure that product lability comes into play here, see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability

While this seem to be a defect, the products warranty is really the issue, and Leica seem to be going beyond it written warranty almost without exception.

While it seem generally accepted here that this issue affects all MP, ME, and MM I don't see where that has been confirmed. Certainly not by Leica.

I would say that Leica's position of charging premium prices for their product puts them in a much better position to take care of this issue. Another small manufacturer running on thin margins could be hurt very badly by an issue like this.

Overall if you have ever been involved with product design you will have some sympathy for Leica, They are a small company with there sights set high...

Joe

 

[jaapv]

And what is the purpose of existence of such a company if they sell junk and make idiots of their customers?
In this case Leica is liable party as they are accepting warranty repairs directly.

Legally they are not, as your contract of purchase was with your dealer.
For the same reason Leica is the one to approach the supplier of the sensors legally. The dealer could hold Leica liable in his turn. The only case you could pursue Leica directly would be if the corrosion occurred after a sensor replacement by the factory.
But this all is irrelevant right now as Leica is the one who has to corrrect the situation in an acceptable manner.
I know for a fact that they are working on this as hard as they can (obviously) and that we can expect something before long.
What and if it will be acceptable is still hidden.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

Legally they are not, as your contract of purchase was with your dealer...

A general camera reseller is one thing - but a Leica store or boutique presents a different scenario.

 

[jaapv]

True to a certain extent - but even then Leica UK or Leica USA or Schmidt trading are separate entities.
For instance if Wetzlar has to do a Passport repair for an UK customer, they will bill Leica UK.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

This story gets more bizarre by the day... Apparently it's the fault of the glue, causing the corrosion and not the cover glass per se.

 

[jaapv]

(My mistake re Solms, although hard to keep track of the company locations.)

So just to be clear, is it your opinion that a Leica purchased in the USA, has a warranty if it is sent to Germany by any buyer, even if the buyer is a US citizen living in the US?

Or only if the buyer of the US sold camera, is European living in Europe?

Long story short -- do all cameras receive warranty repair if sent to Germany?

Yes, all cameras irrespective of place of sale or person buying. As long as you have proof of the date of original purchase, of course, and even if not, Leica will consult the factory records for the date the camera was shipped. (goes for all gear of course.)

 

[willie_901]

Interesting. If the glue is responsible for the defect, then the replacement sensor assemblies should be robust by simply changing to a more appropriate glue. After all, many other brands must use a similar glue process and delamination is rare.

 

[dcsang]

From the "La Vida Leica" site:

We also heard from a trusted source what the real source of the problem is... Remember the issue of the M9 sensor cover glass cracking early on for a large number of people? Apparently that problem - and the one that exists now - are one in the same (sort of). That is the optical glue that binds the cover glass to the sensor. To fix the cracking problem, the glue was changed - but apparently created other problems... Namely, corrosion of the cover glass.

As we understand it, the original glue was too rigid; the sensor behind it and the (thin) cover glass in front of it - had different thermal expansion characteristics - thus causing the cracking. We assume the new glue was more flexible.

So on one hand, this is looking more like the fault of Kodak, Truesense Imaging or On Semiconductor (rather than Leica) depending on where on the timeline these events fall. This would give Leica some extra leverage in a fix for the situation; putting the onus on the manufacturer of the sensor stack. Of course, the other side to this scenario is that Leica has known about this problem since the early days of the M9 (read: all along).

At this point... I don't know who or what to believe any more and will wait for Leica to actually come forth and say.... well... anything.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Pioneer]

From the "La Vida Leica" site:


At this point... I don't know who or what to believe any more and will wait for Leica to actually come forth and say.... well... anything.

Cheers,
Dave

At this point I have to agree. I have read through the LUG thread and this one and really don't feel like reading through another. So far I have read a lot of internet hyperbole, and while there does seem to be a bit of a problem, I just can't tell how widespread it really is. So, I will focus on my own cameras.

I tested my Monochrom and it appears to be OK at this point. There was a bit of dust that was easily removed with the blower. It may develop the fault at some point in the future but I have no way of knowing until it happens.

My 4 year old M9 arrived at Leica NJ for a normal cleaning a few days ago but I haven't heard the diagnosis yet. So, to the best of my knowledge that camera is fine as well. No sense in borrowing trouble before it arrives. If a sensor problem is found then I'll address the issue with Leica then.

I hope that we get some definitive information from Leica at some point in the near future. Until that time I will just have to keep checking my cameras.

 

[uhoh7]

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

TY so much for that link. Brian shows current alternatives to the problem cover glass, right down to the part numbers.

I'm lucky to be in a very dry climate. It does sound as though, while the issue develops slowly, it may be inevitable over time.

It's far from clear, however that a solution is not possible.

replacing cover glass/filters has been done for years and numerous labs do it today on all the current FF sensors....though I have not heard about it being done with a Leica. 5D, A7 etc maxmax does today.

 

[jaapv]

Hmmmm. I’m the one who originally proposed the glue theory for the cracking sensors and it was never confirmed. Nor did anybody ever mention any remedy other than narrowing the manufacturing tolerances.
I would take this LaVida idea with more than a pinch of salt.The glue is on the back of the glass, the coating on the front, and it does not start at the edges, where one would expect it if the glue caused it.
Rather unlikely.

 

[EdwardKaraa]

I agree that blaming the glue for sensor delamination makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[noimmunity]

The only solution that could restore confidence is to allow two options: 1) free sensor replacement for the life of the body; 2) exchange of all bodies with the sensor affected to be replaced at dealer cost for an M240 minus dealer cost of original body.

Leica should also take this as an opportunity to release a real introductory model, i.e., one that is priced around $3500 with limiting criteria such as no EVF, only 1/2 to 2/3 pixel count of flagship model (yet higher ISO capability to also entice flagship owners' purchase), etc.

 

[jaapv]

I agree that blaming the glue for sensor delamination makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, the content of that site has a certain tabloid style flavour anyway.