M9/P/ME -> post corrosion state - best buy now?

[maitani]

there's has been lots of talk on the corrosion issues, Leica has
been great (and honest) handling the service process (even if it took some time it is solved now..), and Leica keeps fixing them for free..

any impressions from users of the new coated sensors yet? first copys have seem to been have delivered and being around november according to a local leica dealer. the ones before november were apparently switches of the 'old' coated sensor which could corrode, but being replaced for free of course.

is it now ev . the best time to buy/look out for a -> post corrosion sensor M9/P/ME? will prices go up again?

at the actual prices I'm starting to think if I should get back to the M9 camp again, (keeping the M8 of course I'm a big fan of the M8...) miss the fantastic colours and FF out of M9, don't miss the slow writing speeds.

anyway, it's a full manual modern fullframe M camera, compact, quite light, without video ;-)
comes with a common and good enough battery (M8, MM etc.)

appealing to me at least...

 

[ktmrider]

Have an M9 with sensor replaced in January and fighting the urge to get a 240 (can't justify the price difference for the amount of use I would give it). I am happy with the M9 as my only digital as I actually prefer film but digital is so easy to travel with.

I don't see prices changing much in the future except continuing a slow slide downward. All digital cameras go down just because of new technology. Of course, a camera which delivered GREAT results five years ago (look at M9 reviews from 2009 or so) continues to do so. If you can live with the limitations you did a few years ago and do not need the latest wonder with ISO of 1,000,000 or whatever is the newest trend, then no reason to get new camera.

Get an M9 or ME. You won't regret it. As Roger Hicks has said, Leica cameras after the M9 have been more a lateral move then an improvement.

 

[jaapv]

Yes, there has been an extensive report in the German section of LUF. Result -no difference compared to the original sensor, slightly different colour rendering because of the new coating, easily equalized in postprocessing.

There is the 262 now, of course, just as basic as the M9, but based on 240 technology, i.e. quiet shutter, CMOS sensor, improved rangefinder/viewfinder, better LCD, stronger body/tripod mount, better battery life.

 

[maitani]

thanks for the replys the M262 looks interesting to me, and I would like to test one. but it's a little over my pricerange
nice 9-P with new sensor should be able to find in the 3200 - 3800 range.

i rarely go over iso400 on drf cameras, so the ccd sensor should be fine for me,

 

[willie_901]

Yes, there has been an extensive report in the German section of LUF. Result -no difference compared to the original sensor, slightly different colour rendering because of the new coating, easily equalized in postprocessing.

...

Which goes to show there was a reason why it took Leica a while to come up with the replacement sensor assembly. Often one has to decide between speed or accuracy. Leica made the right choice.

 

[photomoof]

there's has been lots of talk on the corrosion issues, Leica has
been great (and honest) handling the service process (even if it took some time it is solved now..), and Leica keeps fixing them for free..

What is the final story, the short version? Will Leica replace any M9 sensor, or is there still the hoop to jump through, of having a "problem?"

Or is this finally a proper, no questions asked recall? Or does one have to have ruined photos to get attention?

Still seems too much trouble to me.

 

[Luke_Miller]

It is not a recall. If your M9/M-E/Monochrom experiences sensor corrosion - Leica will replace it. They will not replace one that does not show corrosion under this program. Leica offers free inspection and cleaning, so if you suspect you have a corrosion problem send it in and it will come back either clean or with a new sensor. Worked for me.

 

[uhoh7]

What is the final story, the short version? Will Leica replace any M9 sensor, or is there still the hoop to jump through, of having a "problem?"

Or is this finally a proper, no questions asked recall? Or does one have to have ruined photos to get attention?

Still seems too much trouble to me.

Having a problem is a Hoop? If you don't have a sensor problem why do you expect it to be replaced? Why would you even want to try? I plan to shoot mine until it has spots I can't clean, then I'll send it in----if that ever happens. I certainly would not send it in before as I own it to use it. 🙂

 

[jaapv]

It is a bit OTT to claim that sensor corrosion is "a camera going bad without warning" The symptoms are one or two dust spots that cannot be removed gradually increasing over the months. There are people using cameras that started showing corrosion over a year ago just because they cannot be bothered to send it in right now. It remains quite usable for a long time, not like it breaks out in measles in the middle of a shoot.

And no, it is not a recall, it is an individual repair when and if needed.

 

[uhoh7]

Using a camera that the manufacturer has a announced is likely to go bad without warning is not something I want to use, if it can be fixed before I have to deal with ruined work.

I have never had spots which required cleaning, since none of my cameras in have been oil spitters.

Do you own a digital interchangeable lens camera? They all need a clean once dust that won't blow off gets on the sensor. Every single digital camera I've owned needs that after 6 months of frequent shooting, sometimes sooner. Spitters? Well maybe, but my M9 goes for very long time, same as Sony A7 for cleaning.

As the Leica Man says, it does not "go bad without warning". It's a long slow process that starts with tiny bits, easy to fix. Ruined work?

I don't think you actually grasp the issue, which is real, of course. And it's a real pain to have to send the camera away.

In dry climates it's very possible a shooter will never see the issue. In humid places, it seems to happen alot. Somebody who uses the camera and pays attention will not be surprised.

The M9 is a very good deal right now. No other digital camera shoots M or LTM lenses better. The 240 has other features, ISO, 24mp, EVF etc, but to my taste and others lenses like the 28 cron or 50 lux are nicer on the M9, often. It loves most of the older lenses also. You don't need to edit much. The MM is the same camera, same sensor, at base. How many complaints do you hear about the MM?

You just want to complain about Leica I guess. That's fine. I only respond as others who would love the camera should get a balanced report.

It is the closest digital thing to a film camera that ever has been made, and most likely ever will be made, and if you enjoy the "look", M9 is a great option right now, today, at around 2200USD. Not only does it handle like a film camera, every one is convinced it IS a film camera. Three times today I got "Oh, Charlie, you are shooting film" They like that. 🙂

This morning 28 cron, no editing:

Florist by unoh7, on Flickr

20 years from now, the M9 will still be used.

 

[Luke_Miller]

Using a camera that the manufacturer has a announced is likely to go bad without warning is not something I want to use, if it can be fixed before I have to deal with ruined work.

Just a data point. My M9 developed dozens of corrosion spots, but they never showed in an image. I had to shoot a clear sky at f22 in order to see them. No lost shots, no ruined work. Leica replaced the sensor. My Monochrom has corrosion as well, but since the new sensor for the Monochrom is not yet available I am waiting to send it in. Again, I have never seen a corrosion spot in an image from my Monochrom unless it was a clear sky shot at f22. No ruined work or even images that needed the spots edited out.

The sensor corrosion issue is real and necessitates a sensor replacement when it occurs, but it does not effect all M9/M-E/Monochroms or come on suddenly and dictate an emergency repair.

 

[jaapv]

Most dust only shows up at small apertures against an even background. The same with initial corrosion. Corrosion is a gradual process which will only have a serious impact on the image at a late stage. At that stage it is not trivial.

 

[ferider]

So, if I buy a used M9 with replaced sensor, how do I know that it received the replacement with the new corrosion-imune coating ? Just wondering. Thanks.

 

[Luke_Miller]

For the M9 it will have firmware version 1.204, which is specific to the re-designed sensor.

 

[willie_901]

What is the final story, the short version? Will Leica replace any M9 sensor, or is there still the hoop to jump through, of having a "problem?"

As recently as 13 months ago the anecdotal evidence supported the "jump-through-hoops" concerns expressed above. Leica's policy was inconsistent and occasionally blamed customers for improper cleaning methods. About 12 months ago Leica announced M9 corrosion repairs would be the customers' responsibility. This triggered a Social Media firestorm that inspired Leica to "Do The Right Thing™".

So now Leica has eliminated the problem and provides a consistent, fair policy regarding M9 sensor corrosion. The only "hoop" is sending the camera back for evaluation and then waiting for the repair. Again, anecdotal evidence suggests this process goes smoothly and proceeds at a reasonable speed.

There are ample examples on-line of images affected by the corrosion. Anyone who bothers to evaluate their f 16 sky or white-wall shots can decide whether or not to send the camera in for evaluation.

 

[uhoh7]

So, if I buy a used M9 with replaced sensor, how do I know that it received the replacement with the new corrosion-imune coating ? Just wondering. Thanks.

As noted the firmware, and usually sellers retain the repair documentation, which at least would give you confirmation of what was done and when. 🙂

If you would be looking at a camera not recently serviced, it might be good to ask for a shot of the sky at f/22 or f/16. And of course you would inspect and test (f/16 sky) the sensor yourself on receipt. The spots are usually visible if you look close with a bright light. But dust looks like corrosion, so even if you see something, it would need a cleaning attempt to see if that's what it really is.

Willie, we are also different. I just don't enjoy owning or repairing problematic equipment. I am the type to just dump the M9. I know, crazy, but I am just used to dead reliable cameras.

There is no such thing as a "dead reliable" digital camera. Spend some time on Canikon forums and you will hear all sorts of stories about all sorts of issues. Every single digital camera I've owned has failed at some point, and every pro video camera I've owned has as well. My A7.mod has not yet, but it has lead a mostly quiet life.

With professional level use comes the risk of failure. Taking a single body to a job is asking for it.

To me the key issues are: what kind of images does it produce and what is it like to use? I don't know if a D810 is more reliable than the M9, I doubt it, but if it is, it's still of little use a my daily shooter: too big. I could use a little fuji, is it more reliable, I doubt it, but even if so, there are all sorts of reasons why I prefer the Leica.

You seem fixated on a single issue, and I'm afraid the real world is complex, and the best decisions usually involve multiple factors.

 

[jaapv]

There has been no recall, so there is no recalled equipment...

 

[jaapv]

Given the number of affected cameras, well under a 1000 out of a production of tens of thousands, the offer of repair in case of necessity appears to be fair enough and needs not confuse any owner, unless he falls into the trap of believing Internet doomsayers.
In fact, given this proportion, developing an improved IR filter was well beyond the call of duty.

 

[uhoh7]

I might be wrong but I think this is the third sensor version. The first one had another issue, (cracking?)but I don't think it was as susceptible to humidity. V2 in heavy use in a humid place seems to have a high likelihood of issue but as stated it's a slow onset.

 

[jaapv]

I think the sensor crack only required a tightening of production tolerances, not a redesign.