Sensor Replacement Policy 2017

ptpdprinter said:
The question is will anyone buy a used M9/MM/ME, whose sensor has not been replaced, after August, 2017, and if so, what will they be willing to pay for it. The market will speak. I suspect the used price will fall by some percentage of the new sensor replacement cost.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's only sensible to assume so. It's what I would negotiate around were I ever in the market for another one of these cameras.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Leica didn't know, or intend to sell knowingly, cameras with a bad sensor....
G
Click to expand...

The sensor replacement program started in 9/2015. And, as I recall, there was quite a gap between acknowledging the problem and offering the solution. Recall that they were replacing sensors with the original sensor well before the permanent fix was offered.

The M-E was discontinued in 11/2015 and the MM1 was sold until 5/2016. So Leica actually did sell quite a few cameras known to be defective.

I expect for those who bought during that period, the good faith pledge was a big factor in their decision. It certainly was for me.

John
 
It would seem Leica expects a significant number of sensor replacements in the future. I do not think they would take the bad PR hit from the replacement policy reversal if sensor replacements had slowed and expectations were that they would trickle off. Also, when you look at the turn around time for sensor replacement, including time on the waiting list, it seems their service department is inundated.
 
johnwolf said:
...
The M-E was discontinued in 11/2015 and the MM1 was sold until 5/2016. So Leica actually did sell quite a few cameras known to be defective.

I expect for those who bought during that period, the good faith pledge was a big factor in their decision. It certainly was for me.

John
Click to expand...

M-in-E is with S/N from 2015, purchased new in 2016. I was well aware of the free sensor exchange at the time of the purchase. But it was the only new digital M which was priced affordable in my case, any way. Now it is free for another four-five years and if camera will still works after five years and the only problem will be the sensor for 1K$ replacement and full re-haul for free... I'm in.

Who knows what M240 and M10 is going to have to be replaced...
 
Godfrey said:
The Leica M-E was introduced in September 2012, the same month and year that the Leica M9 was discontinued (after three years of production) and the Leica M typ 240 was introduced. The first reports of sensor corrosion problems I can find, reported on M9 bodies, date to late Spring 2014.

I'm sure Leica didn't know about the corrosion problem in 2012. There had been other problems with the sensor earlier in the model's history ... cracks and bad communications lines ... which were judged to be "single point defective" issues by all and sundry. They never amounted to more than a 1% of production warranty issue.

Since there are even now cameras that have not displayed the sensor corrosion problem, I surmise that it is a problem that surfaces after some time and under certain conditions of stress. For example, my M9 was purchased new in January 2012 and took three years to exhibit the problem. I never wet cleaned my camera's sensor either, and it was always kept in my usual manner ... mostly in a 68-75 degree, dry condominium in Silicon Valley. Far as I can tell, the camera was never stressed or subjected to unusually humid environment at all. It functioned perfectly the entire time I owned it, omitting the sensor corrosion issue itself which surfaced very rapidly about November of 2014.

Making the assumption that Leica knew that there was a corrosion problem with these sensors back when the M9 and M-E were being designed (approximately 2007 for the start of M9 development, I imagine) is to accuse them and the sensor supplier of extended fraud and conspiracy to defraud. I doubt you'll find any evidence to base that claim on, and I'm certain that it took Leica and the folks at Kodak who designed and produced the sensor for them by surprise as much as it took users by surprise. And it cost them FAR FAR more than the minor inconvenience of having the camera out of action while a new sensor was installed too.

The whole sensor corrosion issue is an unfortunate incident that has been as well handled by Leica as it is possible to imagine. You suggest a better way to handle what probably cost them a loss of several million dollars cash, a year or so worth of development effort and time, and so much user confidence and satisfaction.

G
Click to expand...

What you are suggesting is that Leica and/or the sensor mfg did not perform any type of product testing before putting it out into the market.
Products normally undergo an intensive battery of tests to see points of failure, and how long to get there. And how to improve the failure rate so that the likelihood of it happening under warranty is minimized..
For my sensor to fail so quickly under the category of corrosion, as well as many others, this suggests that either there was little to no product testing pre market release, or Leica did not think it would be an issue as most Leica owners are not Leica users. The cameras are trinkets.
The gamble that Leica took obviously failed, and the only reason that this initial 'goodwill' offering was introduced was to stave off the possibility of a class action law suit.

To think that Leica has our backs is naive. The offer by them to 'upgrade' the affected users to an M240 was very clever as it keeps them in the fold.
Leica is a business, just like any other. They try to maximize their profits by cost cutting where they can without pushing it too far so it bites them.
In this case it did.

As for only finding out about it in 2014..

A quick google search and I am sure there are numerous other accounts.
Especially since mine failed in 2012, 2 years before Leica was "aware" of this corrosion issue.


https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue

First comment from 2014:
"Three sensor changes in the fours years i have owned a M9....
Leica store in Paris blamed it on me because i use my camera in a tropical environment.....and i was warned that I will have to pay for the next sensor change !!!!"

So he had his first corroded sensor in 2010. The camera was released in 2009. But Leica was "unaware" of this until 2014? Right.

Yes he used it in a tropical climate, but so are digital cameras from other mfgs w/o this issue. And if the tropical climate is an issue Leica would have known it from their pre production testing. Such that it was.
From their testing results, they would have thus known about this failure and would have either :
1. made a change to the sensor or
2. informed owners that their cameras should not be used in humid climates (a non starter from a sales stand point)
3. Kept quiet about it figuring they could deal with it on a case by case basis.

Guess which one history shows they chose?

I am enjoying my M240 when I use it. Perhaps Leica has finally kicked these issues when they moved to the generic CMOS sensor.
 
I have to agree, I think they must of known early on and were taking a bit of a gamble, just like they did with the M8 and IR.
Maybe they should have done a recall but they are a small company.
 
DwF said:
Cal, I share this sentiment as well, and if I hadn't found corrosion now would not have been as happy about it. I also agree that Leica seems to be making every effort for their customer base. This is a tricky one because many of us who own these CCD cameras would have little or no desire to "trade-up"

David
Click to expand...

David,

I would not trade up to a M-246, and I intend on keeping my MM till it dies. I am an old film die hard, I still shoot film, but the Monochrom seems to have been especially designed for me. No frills, simple, and quirky. Other than the sensor corrosion not a problem. I only had two batteries, but a friend gave me his extra M9 battery he had laying around so now I have three.

The vulcanite was worn smooth on right front of my camera because I ended up shooting it a lot. The anodize is worm through along some edges showing silver underneath, and the top plate has a patina of a well loved camera.

The M-246 is a better camera in so many ways, all except one: the M246 seems to have a scooped midrange, while my MM has the mids that resemble medium and large format. For me this is how the MM speaks.

I would love to get a M-246 one day, but the MM has become an important camera to me and out of all digital cameras it is most film like not because of rendering but because it is such a basic camera dispite all the improvements of more modern digital cameras.

As a day trader of camera gear, where I am known to do all kinds of crazy trades; I speculate that the MM will always have a cult following as well as haters, and cameras that have their sensor replacement documentation will enjoy a premium over cameras that do not have sensor replacement or documented sensor replacement.

Also know that there is that 2015 cutoff where the replacement sensors were upgraded to deal with the corrosion problem. For those of us lucky to be in the post 2015 sweet spot with sensor replacement we are in the sweet spot. Now is the time to try and get into that sweet spot.

The only thing that might get me not to want a M-246 in the future BTW is if Leica comes out with a SLM (SL Monochrom) which may or may not happen. My guess if it is going to happen it kinda fits in maybe later this year. Artists can be dillusional I say. LOL. Know that I already own a SL and the gigantic and extra heavy 50 Lux-SL.

Cal
 
Fraser said:
I have to agree, I think they must of known early on and were taking a bit of a gamble, just like they did with the M8 and IR.
Maybe they should have done a recall but they are a small company.
Click to expand...

A recall. Say 50.000 (Probably considerably more) cameras @ a 1300 Euro net sensor each. Not counting labour. That kind of loss would finish the company. Never mind the complete lack of manpower to do the job.
 
Godfrey said:
Nope. But I'm tired of debating this. I disagree with your conjectures. They don't make engineering sense, and Leica is an excellent engineering oriented company.

G
Click to expand...

M8 - purple tones until they realized it needed a proper IR filter
M9 - corroding sensors
M240 - adopted CMOS - no sensor issues AFAIK
 
Calzone said:
John,

If your number is correct there is some "value added" to make a pretty good number.

Cal
Click to expand...

The link above lists the 246 upgrade price as $3,480. B&H sells the 246 at $7550.

If I had the dough and a corroded MM1, I'd consider it. I could really use live view. But no dough and an upgraded MM1. Not that I'm complaining.
John
 
One downside to the MM is that it does not record RGB information and you therefore do not have access to the color adjustments for black and white images in the HSL/Color/B&W menu in Lightroom. You need to use filters in front of the lens as with film. I frequently avail myself of those adjustments when processing monochrome images. Of course, the MM does offer other advantages, so there are trade-offs to consider.
 
jaapv said:
B&W film is just as troublesome...
Click to expand...
With B&W film, you use filters in front of the lens; with digital, you shoot in color, convert to B&W, and use the color adjustments in the HSL/Color/B&W module in Lightroom. With the MM (and scanned B&W film), those adjustments are not operational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Format By 2009, 110 was kaput. Lomography brought it back! Part 2: A selection of fascinating 110 cameras.
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
Timmyjoe
Timmyjoe
silverbullet
  • Sticky
Leica M9 FF-CCD corrosion on sensors
24 25 26
Replies
505
Views
136K
willie_901
willie_901
raid
Leica AG CEO has replied
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
12K
raid
raid
pixelatedscraps
My experience with the Nikon D600 oil sensor problem
2 3
Replies
57
Views
9K
Hibbs
Hibbs
Back
Top Bottom