Leica ME. Would you take a chance?

[Out to Lunch]

The sensor will fail. They all do.

Is that a fact or merely anecdotal 'evidence'?

 

[willie_901]

Is that a fact or merely anecdotal 'evidence'?

It can not be a fact since the fate of all M9 sensors will only be known in the future.

It is based on plausible reasoning. Plausible reasoning involves using everything we know to assess the probability for a hypothesis (i.e. all M9 IR filter layes will eventually corrode).

Objective information in this case includes:

• What is the root cause of corrosion?
• Is vulnerability to the root cause ubiquitous?

The answers are factual and widely discussed here and elsewhere.

Anecdotal evidence is also relevant. The weight one assigns to the anecdotal evidence is a subjective decision.


Risk (i.e. Will my M9 sensor IR filter film delaminate?) assement is rarely straightforward.

 

[Out to Lunch]

In other words...you don't know if all M9/ME sensors will eventually fail.

Unless I hear from Leica that this is the case, I'll just keep on shooting with my M-E.

Cheers, Peter

 

[raid]

It seems to me that while the sensor can fail at some time point, the effects of sensor corrosion may not be obvious to the user. I sent in my M9 to Leica (NJ) even though I did not see anything strange in the images, and I was informed by Leica that the sensor needs to be replaced. The new sensor supposedly has a much smaller chance of failing.

 

[Huss]

In other words...you don't know if all M9/ME sensors will eventually fail.

Unless I hear from Leica that this is the case, I'll just keep on shooting with my M-E.

Cheers, Peter

I think you are the only one on this site who has not had it fail. Mine failed twice.

As long as you are happy with it. Just don't be surprised when it happens and then you are $1000 in the hole.

 

[willie_901]

In other words...you don't know if all M9/ME sensors will eventually fail.

Unless I hear from Leica that this is the case, I'll just keep on shooting with my M-E.

Cheers, Peter

Exactly!

I don't know if I'll be alive tomorrow either.

What matters is evaluating our objective and subjective knowledge and make the decision deemed most probable – the decision with a balanced risk/reward ratio.

Humans do this constantly. Often our application of everything we know to make a risk-based decisioon seems trivial. Is it safe to cross the street, etc? But the process is no different than more significant decisions.

Also, low probability events happen. Sooner or later someone always wins the lottery even though the odds are worse than 1 out of a hundred million a single number will win. This doesn't mean it's wise to spend your life savings on lottery tickets.

Likewise it is risky, based on everything known about how the delamination process, to assume a M9 IR filter layer won't delaminate during the otherwise useful life of the camera.

 

[willie_901]

It seems to me that while the sensor can fail at some time point, the effects of sensor corrosion may not be obvious to the user. I sent in my M9 to Leica (NJ) even though I did not see anything strange in the images, and I was informed by Leica that the sensor needs to be replaced. The new sensor supposedly has a much smaller chance of failing.

This is an example of very useful prior knowledge. The early stages of delamination were not obvious. Yet delamination was present.

What else do we know?

Delamination is not reversible.

Delamination is evidence water vapor did reach your camera's IR filter film.

Water vapor is ubiquitous.

Would we wager the delamination corrosion would never become obvious?

The new sensor has a very low probability of IR layer delamination because the materials in the IR filter layer do not react with water.