M-E: What is the risk?

[Bike Tourist]

A used M-E is about the closest to affordable for me as any recent digital Leica. I have read some things here and elsewhere highlighting some sensor corrosion problems. I know Leica has promised to replace defective sensors at no cost, but it's unclear if that offer extends to second owners and, to tell the truth, I would not want the concern of shipping and waiting for repairs.

How prevalent is this condition. Is it likely a well cared for M-E would have the problem?

 

[f16sunshine]

I think the biggest risk is you may at some point live without the camera for a long period while Leica replaces the Sensor. They do so Gratis but slowly has been the report.
The M9 and ME share a sensor. A sensor that produces beautiful images in good light.
I checked out your Portfolio link. I don't think you would be limited very often by the M9/ME sensors relatively low iso range. It's a nice camera.

 

[Out to Lunch]

My two cents: a few months ago I bought an M-E in Germany at a sharply reduced price. This gave me the full warranty in case of ''corrosion'' issues. The camera with Leica, Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses gives a special signature in good light. The camera sucks in low light. If and when interested in an alternative signature look without sensor worries, I'd recommend the by now ''antique'' Epson R-D1x which is much cheaper and consistently produces interesting shots. Go for a minty one, best sourced in Japan. Some RFF members, could assist you in finding one. Peter

 

[Lss]

I know Leica has promised to replace defective sensors at no cost, but it's unclear if that offer extends to second owners

It covers all affected cameras.

 

[Bike Tourist]

Thanks for your helpful responses, everybody. I've decided to pass this time 'round.

 

[Jubb Jubb]

A used M-E is about the closest to affordable for me as any recent digital Leica. I have read some things here and elsewhere highlighting some sensor corrosion problems. I know Leica has promised to replace defective sensors at no cost, but it's unclear if that offer extends to second owners and, to tell the truth, I would not want the concern of shipping and waiting for repairs.

How prevalent is this condition. Is it likely a well cared for M-E would have the problem?

I'm the second owner of a Leica M9P and just got my sensor replaced for free.
If it's defective, they need to replace. Doesn't matter what owner number you are. Just don't take the offer to upgrade to the M240 for a ridiculous price.

 

[wwkw]

What is the risk?

Don't worry. They recycle circuit boards in China. No need to worry (unless you have Chinese children).

 

[thompsonks]

If you're still thinking about a second time around:

Yes if it would be for personal enjoyment, no if it would be your principal camera.

I bought one of the last M-Es that dealers were allowed to dispose of at a very low price, in my case $2999. It was called a demo over something like that, but the shutter count was too low for it to have been used beyond factory testing. I'm keeping it because it feels like a 'classic' to me: the digital Leica with the fewest bells and whistles. I like the images from the CCD sensor, and CMOS / live view aren't important on aa RF camera. I have no concerns about sensor corrosion because it'll never be my primary camera.

Still, I'm ambivalent about suggesting it to anyone else. Do we assume you're an experienced film Leica user considering the M-E as an entry into digital? In that case, the body won't cost too much at current prices and you can enjoy your lenses, so it's a pretty good idea.

On the other hand, if it would be your principal camera &/or you might need additional lenses, I wouldn't recommend it. There might come a time when it would have to enter the Leica repair maze, which isn't exactly prompt.

Kirk

 

[Godfrey]

I'm the second owner of a Leica M9P and just got my sensor replaced for free.
If it's defective, they need to replace. Doesn't matter what owner number you are. Just don't take the offer to upgrade to the M240 for a ridiculous price.

I had my M9 for three years. When it was inspected and shown to need a new sensor, I took the upgrade to the M-P typ 240 at the very fair price offered (they gave me well over fair market value for the M9 trade-in). I'm very glad I did so because I find the M-P a far superior camera compared to the M9.

However, there's nothing wrong with an M9 or M-E. Leica will replace the sensor when needed regardless who owns one, first or whatever owner. The new sensor that has been developed will not have the problem either, so it's a one-time fix. The only real cost is the inconvenience of having the work done when it is needed.

G

 

[willie_901]

I think the risk (inconvenience when the inevitable second-generation sensor assembly becomes necessary) is limited.

Right now we don't know what the typical replacement time will be once the situation reaches equilibrium. So it's hard to judge the risk.

Of course it is only human nature that some people will insist the defective sensors rendering is superior to the new unit. Leica appears to have worked hard to minimize rendering differences. So, in my view this is not a risk.

 

[asiafish]

I think the biggest risk is you may at some point live without the camera for a long period while Leica replaces the Sensor. They do so Gratis but slowly has been the report.
The M9 and ME share a sensor. A sensor that produces beautiful images in good light.
I checked out your Portfolio link. I don't think you would be limited very often by the M9/ME sensors relatively low iso range. It's a nice camera.

Its a sensor that produces beautiful images in almost any light, if handled correctly.

Walked around Denver, CO last night with my Leica M-E and my Brian Sweeney Special 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar. I love this combination.

Most shots at ISO 1250 with the lens wide-open at f/1.5, DNG processed only for correct exposure (I usually under-exposed by a stop or two to maintain sufficient shutter speed).

L1000212.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000208.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000196.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000221.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

 

[13Promet]

Its a sensor that produces beautiful images in almost any light, if handled correctly.

Walked around Denver, CO last night with my Leica M-E and my Brian Sweeney Special 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar. I love this combination.

Most shots at ISO 1250 with the lens wide-open at f/1.5, DNG processed only for correct exposure (I usually under-exposed by a stop or two to maintain sufficient shutter speed).

L1000212.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

Honestly speaking, I would not take this shot as an example of good low light performance...
The other ones are good though 🙂

 

[mlu19]

I was very happy to hear about the new sensor replacement by Leica. It is like a free insurance policy for a new camera.

Unless, the sensor somehow gets scratched or the camera circuit board dies of old age. Or, the camera is physically destroyed. But then again, all of the above could happen to any modern cameras.

 

[nightfly]

I bought an M9 used last year and I fell in love with the images it produced. I've never been a fan of digital but having seen a friend's images (who works as a DP in television) I pulled the trigger. I don't know CCD from CMOS from whatever but I knew I like the images.

Camera developed the sensor issue and it spent it's summer vacation at Leica New Jersey from about June through September. Just got it back recently.

Yes, it's a risk but I don't know if there is any other digital camera I'd really like to have. The handling combined with the image quality (and I say this using the broader definition of quality meaning more the look of the image rather than ISO measurements, or lines per inch or whatever) are really unique.

I don't like to do a lot of post processing and much like when I shot film and found the type of film I liked, I can stop worrying about futzing around and shoot and know what I'm going to get without much additional work.

Hopefully with the new sensor I'm good to go. Much like with my M4-P, it ended my GAS and constant searching for THE camera and allowed me to focus on photography rather than gear.

 

[Huss]

The camera sucks in low light.

Not if you get the exposure right.
What sucks is it's useful ISO range, not it's ability to take shots in low light.
I used ISO 1600 as a maximum.
Shot with M-E and 50mm Asph at 1.4 after sunset.

I would have kept my M-E and not moved to an M240 if Leica's announcement that they had a CCD replacement was announced before I sold it.

 

[mlu19]

I can confirm a M9/ME does just fine in low light. Worst case, ISO 640 and push in post if it's needed. I think of it like tr-x pushed to 1600.

 

[Hsg]

When you underexpose with a digital camera, you increase the ISO, because a digital sensor responds to light level by increasing or decreasing its light sensitivity, so when you underexpose the sensor increases its light sensitivity.

With digital, one is forced to underexpose most of the time in order to save the highlights. The brighter highlights the more need to underexpose.

This is why high ISO performance is important in digital cameras, because otherwise you're going to get noise at ISO 100 shots because you underexposed in order to save the highlights.

So, one should always buy the sensor with best high ISO performance in order to be able to underexpose without any fear of noise.

 

[13Promet]

[...] so when you underexpose the sensor increases its light sensitivity.
[...]

Seems more logical the opposite to me...
In order to get more light (overexpose), the camera boosts the sensor analog amplification, increasing noise.
For gathering less light (underexpose) > less sensor amplification > less noise

Am I wrong? 😕

 

[Hsg]

Seems more logical the opposite to me...
In order to get more light (overexpose), the camera boosts the sensor analog amplification, increasing noise.
For gathering less light (underexpose) > less sensor amplification > less noise

Am I wrong? 😕

The sensor responds to light by the only way it can, adjusting its ISO (light sensitivity). if you increase the exposure the sensor lowers its ISO and if you decrease exposure the camera increases ISO.

You might be confidently shooting at ISO100 in sunny daylight hours but if you underexpose in order to save the highlights, the sensor compensates by increasing its light sensitivity.

Our idea of ISO from film era is of a set standard, that is not how it works with digital sensors.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

M-E @ Iso1600

M-E @ Iso1600

M-E, 75 Cron, ISO1600