M9, M9-P new sensors

Huss said:
Leica already reneged on their promise of life time sensor replacement...
Click to expand...

Leica did not state sensor replacement will no longer be possible. Rather, free sensor replacement for all M9s and variants will no longer be provided beyond a certain purchase date (5 years - much longer than typical warranties).

It's still a reversal of the original offer of free replacement for anyone, anytime and finally was motivation for me to send in mine.
 
jaapv said:
Where does this assertion come from? There is no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

It comes from a knowledge of chemistry and common sense.

  • Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water. The reaction products cause optical defects. This is indisputable.
  • The atmosphere contains water vapor. Even in arid climates, water vapor exists at very low levels. In these climates, humans emit water vapor indoors. A very low water vapor level is not a zero level. However, the chemical reactions are low because one of the reactants has a low concentration. This is why the word "later" applies.
  • Then there's physical chemistry. Water molecule clusters in vapor readily disassociate to produce individual water molecules. Water vapor can diffuse through unimaginably small spaces. Any defect larger than a water molecule means water can reach the IR filter film. Diffusion is relentless. At temperatures that sustain life, the energy to drive molecular diffusion is abundant. The paths for diffusion are obvious. Even an otherwise perfect factory cleaning could render the sensor cover glass susceptible to water-vapor diffusion. The same goes for minuscule defects caused by repeated sensor assembly expansion and contraction. The possibility of manufacturing defects exists. The optical properties of the cover glass are not be affected by these minuscule defects. All digital cameras have these defects. But very few sensor assembly cover glass designs use water labile materials.

Some amount of water is always present. Water molecules can reach the IR film embedded in the sensor glass. The IR filter film contains an organic chemical that readily reacts with water. The reaction products produce defects large enough to create optical artifacts.
 
I thake that to mean, that when you see a used M9 advertised as having had the sensor replaced, you should not assume it should be one of the newer corrosion-resistant designs unless the replacement was performed after Leica's annoncement of the improved sensor's availability (2014?).
 
willie_901 said:
It comes from a knowledge of chemistry and common sense.

  • Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water. The reaction products cause optical defects. This is indisputable.
  • The atmosphere contains water vapor. Even in arid climates, water vapor exists at very low levels. In these climates, humans emit water vapor indoors. A very low water vapor level is not a zero level. However, the chemical reactions are low because one of the reactants has a low concentration. This is why the word "later" applies.
  • Then there's physical chemistry. Water molecule clusters in vapor readily disassociate to produce individual water molecules. Water vapor can diffuse through unimaginably small spaces. Any defect larger than a water molecule means water can reach the IR filter film. Diffusion is relentless. At temperatures that sustain life, the energy to drive molecular diffusion is abundant. The paths for diffusion are obvious. Even an otherwise perfect factory cleaning could render the sensor cover glass susceptible to water-vapor diffusion. The same goes for minuscule defects caused by repeated sensor assembly expansion and contraction. The possibility of manufacturing defects exists. The optical properties of the cover glass are not be affected by these minuscule defects. All digital cameras have these defects. But very few sensor assembly cover glass designs use water labile materials.

Some amount of water is always present. Water molecules can reach the IR film embedded in the sensor glass. The IR filter film contains an organic chemical that readily reacts with water. The reaction products produce defects large enough to create optical artifacts.
Click to expand...

I am interested - but confused - by this. Especally the statement "Organic chemistry stipulates organic molecules in the IR film readily react with water." Because that's demonstrably not the case.

All Organic molecules by all means do not readily react with water. Many do; but do oil or other heavy hydrocarbons react with water for instance? In which case, why have they survived in water-rich environments for the last few hundred million years?

Chemisty is complicated and perhaps you're talking about specific organic molecules. In which case please cite your sources.
 
I apologize for the confusion.

I should have written: Organic chemistry stipulates the organic molecules in the original M9 IR film readily react with water.

Unfortunately, the organic chemicals embedded the original M9 IR filter film designed to absorb IR spontaneously react with water. This reactivity is clearly stated in the manufacturers' technical data sheet. The reaction products occupy more volume than the original molecule. This disrupts the film structure. Eventually, the disrupted regions are large enough to create artifacts.

Of course "All Organic molecules by all means do not readily react with water". This is particularly true at normal temperatures and pressures. In fact, there are millions of digital cameras with IR filter layers that do not spontaneously react with water. Many of these have slightly thicker IR filter layers than the original M9 sensor assembly.

The replacement M9 sensor assembly cover glass IR filter layer does not react with water.
 
Amazing Leica can be so advanced in some ways, yet make such mistakes as this. We have members here on this forum who should be working for Leica--in place of some who do work there. Looks like Willie 901 is one of them.
 
Rob-F said:
Looks like Willie 901 is one of them.
Click to expand...

If your comment is authentic, – hindsight is always 20-20. Anyone can be a Monday-morning quarterback.

In my view, there is no reason to believe Leica knew the M9 IR filter layer would be problematic. Product managers are constantly balancing manufacturing costs, speed to market and engineering perfection.

In any case, I am completely unqualified to work for Leica or any other camera company. I worked with chemists and state-of-the art digital scientific instrumentation for about three decades. This experience is somewhat relevant to digital-imaging physics and technologies. Often I was involved in diagnosing unexpected experimental and technical issues. Apparently, I still enjoy the hunt.

I think we overlook the technical and manufacturing excellence required for Leica to manufacture a digital M camera.

As far as I'm concerned Leica's only errors involve the strategies used to manage digital M problems after they became obvious. Today, successful brands must embrace an open proactive approach. The internet means reactive strategies based on concealment are not productive.

The recent issue with the new Leica TL2 and the Visoflex EVF shows Leica has a completely new approach. First, they announced there was a problem before the internet community could discover it. Within two weeks they announced a firmware update that eliminated the problem.
 
My comment was sincere, yes. If you had been told what kind of glue they were using; if Leica had checked with you, we wouldn't be going through this agony.
 
Rob-F said:
My comment was sincere, yes. If you had been told what kind of glue they were using; if Leica had checked with you, we wouldn't be going through this agony.
Click to expand...

This is all kind of like the issue with old Leica lenses that keep fogging up over and over due to the lube used by Leica - although this tends to happen well down the track, not a mere few years out of the box. And it's also reminiscent of Leica somehow not noticing that failure to include an IR filter leads to color change in some images produced by the M8. Or that outgassing from some glue used in top housing of M4P cameras fogs the rangefinder after some years of use.

I recently had an issue with a badly designed water pump in my Audi A5 convertible - near new but predictably out of warranty. A "known issue" to Audi but not one covered by them when it inevitably fails. As is the known issue where a non user serviceable drain (it must be attended to, with some disassembly of parts to get at the guts, at each service) below the windscreen can clog up and cause flooding of water into the car's highly expensive electronics - usually writing the car off.

I wonder what it is with highly clever German engineers who can still fritz up very simple things ruining the user experience for their clients who usually are not bottomless pits of money. At least Leica has tried to stand by their customers I guess.
 
Unless something else will break down in the M9, it should last for a few additional years without problems.
 
willie_901 said:
The new sensor's IR filter film vulnerability to "hot and humid weather" is similar to other brands'. That is: it is not extraordinarily vulnerable.
Click to expand...

This is why I make sure to recharge my canister of silica gel to extract excess humidity away from my cameras and lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom