Emile de Leon
Well-known
I forget the details right now..something about an irritating blackout after shot I saw on a M240 review vid yesterday..something I wouldn't want to live with..for 7K..
Fraser
Well-known
If I drop my camera my insurance pays for a new one I wouldn't expect Leica to get involved.
The fact that its a digital camera has nothing to do with how long it should last, anything that costs £5000 should last a reasonable amount of time and why not a lifetime ?
I'm typing this on a 2010 imac which has a lot more electronics in it than a Leica M9 is used everyday and I have no reason to think its going to stop working or be unrepairable anytime soon for a economical price.
Corran
Well-known
Fraser, a new camera is not the same thing as repairing the M9. That's what I'm getting at - parts and repair. Maybe you don't want a newer model. Anyway, your Mac is only 7 years old. Do you think it'll be working in 2030, or 2040? Digital cameras, computers, and most anything made today is not lifetime purchases.
willie_901
Veteran
The cameras were not defective when they were sold. We will never know if Leica continued to sell M9s after they knew the IR filter film presented an unavoidable problem.
It was known during the design stage the IR filter film would react with water and could delaminate.
Remember:
- Leica the M8 did not have an IR filter and that didn't work out well.
- The M mount lens register severely limits the sensor cover glass thickness. IR filter films used by other brands was not an option.
- Leica had to use the thinnest possible IR filter film that would efficiently block IR light. Film thickness is one way to increase filter effectiveness. The other way is to use a less common (i.e. more expensive) film-dye formulation. Leica did not want the M9 to be criticized for even low levels of IR contamination. Leica had to find a thin, effective, available and economically acceptable IR filter film. They did. Unfortunately it happened to degrade when exposed to water vapor .
- The spec sheet for the IR filter film used in the original M9 cover glass clearly states the film reacts with water.
This situation was researched and explained years ago in another forum.
The age of the sensor assemblies is relevant.
Even the smallest breech of the sensor cover glass layers (not the glass itself) can allow water vapor to reach the IR filter layer. Perhaps the breech occurred from wet cleaning, or thermal expansion and shrinkage, or maybe there was otherwise trivial damage during assembly. So, even when owners take extreme care to avoid humid conditions, the problem can eventually appear. At the same time I have read anecdotal reports of IR filter film delamination that appeared rather soon (compared to 8 years) after the camera was bought.
Finally, I am unaware of any other sensor assembly with this problem. Maybe very few digital cameras are used for 8 years, Maybe the users aren't sophisticated enough to notice delamination artifacts. But many of those cameras were used in humid climates and many had sensors that were repeatedly wet cleaned. Some were used by professional sports photographers (humidity and sophisticated users).
I am unaware of any evidence this M9 problem is not unique was not caused by design decisions with known consequences.
The new M9 IR filter layer film is thin, efficient and chemically inert to water vapor.
raid
Dad Photographer
Interesting discussions here. I just completed packing up my M9 for its trip to NJ. The deadline is August, so I am not waiting for more inspiration on this issue.
Huss
Veteran
You mean when using Live View? It does have a delay, but I don't think that is an issue as it is still completely useable. For me, especially in the Leica world, an issue is something that effects reliability.
Leica Ms are bought to be used primarily as optical RF cameras. That's the whole point. Live View is a bonus that I pretty much use to check focus accuracy with new lenses. In actual use, the rf is much quicker than any camera's manual Live View implementation. I've tried mf Live View with Sonys, Fujis, Olympus, even the Leica SL. And while they all work, using the M's rf is much quicker and does not distract from the composition.
So, what's the issue w/ the M10's iso dial?
raid
Dad Photographer
I just got back from the UPS store. My M9 should be soon mailed to NJ.
Fraser
Well-known
Maybe lifetime is asking too much but I would think its quite reasonable for a camera that cost £5000 to last 12ish years maybe even 15 but from the purchase date not the release date.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Kind of depends on how old you are when you purchase them, don't you think? I am getting up there, so for me a Leica, film or digital, would probably be a lifetime purchase.
You young fellas probably have a different perspective.Corran
Well-known
Yes I am 31 so lifetime is a long time (hopefully!).
But today one could repair Oskar's original Leica, making parts if needed. Kind of neat to be able to do that, and keep on shooting.
But today one could repair Oskar's original Leica, making parts if needed. Kind of neat to be able to do that, and keep on shooting.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
The moisture sensitivity of the IR filter glass used was known. For that reason it is normally sandwiched with another glass layer. Unfortunately it is the most effective optical glass for making thin IR filters.
However, for the well known reasons this would make it too thick for the M9. So the choice was made to use a moisture-proof coating. Unfortunately microporosities in the coating during production can, over time, admit moisture to the glass causing corrosion.
BTW, the M8 had an IR filter, but as it was only 0.5 mm it only filtered 50% IR, but it was the sandwich. The M9 needed a full-frame filter that was more effective so the choice was made for a 0.8 mm filter with coating. The M9 filter is 80% effective. It still has noticeable IR contamination ( as has the M240 filtering at 70%), and most likely the M10 as well. In critical situations these cameras still need an IR filter.
willie_901
Veteran
Thanks for the detailed information. I was unaware the M8 had an IR filter layer.
I am aware the M9 had weak IR contamination. But I never saw M9 color images that were as affected as M8 images could be.
FWIW, my D200 also displayed modest IR contamination. I discovered this shooting amateur running event gigs. Images of some runners would render with very red knees compared nearby runners in the same scene. I assumed this was caused by IR from hotter knees. Having some background in anti-inflammatory pharmaceutical R&D, I speculated the IR was due to heat from increased blood flow and, or inflammation.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
If you are interested in this kind of thing: this is an old post from LUF:
Mudman
Well-known
I'm sad to see this. I had been hoping to save up and purchase a M9 to replace my M8 later this year. Guess I'll keep saving and go for a used M240 in a couple of years.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
And what is wrong with an M9 with a new type sensor?
raid
Dad Photographer
I agree with Jaap here. The M9 is a wonderful (older) camera, and with a new sensor, it may last another 3-5 years. Maybe more, but why more. Get then another better camera.
Huss
Veteran
That is a very low life expectancy. And what is a 'better' camera? This is the last of the Leica CCD cameras. The 'better' (more reliable, better shutter, more features, more pixels etc) M240 is already out - and outdated now by the M10.
So 'better' cameras are already available, and 'cheap' used too.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Hmm.. Outdated? It is still in the Leica catalogue for those who want its advantages over the M10 and find the features of the M10 less interesting. In basic functionality and image quality, there is little between the two.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I would expect anything past 2022. Mine will only be retired if it breaks down irrepairibly.
Huss
Veteran
I agree with you, but it is outdated in marketing speak with the M10 now in the line up.
As much as everyone has been touting the M10, I have not seen any differences in image quality, I did not notice any difference in shutter sound, and the VF size difference was not of any significance to me. You still cannot see the 28mm frame line while wearing glasses.
Battery life is worse.
It is smaller.