Sensor Replacement Policy 2017

[cz23]

I suspect that since the CCD sensor in question is not used in current production cameras it is likely a special order item and requires a change in the production process to manufacture. So only available in batches and the batches are produced on an infrequent basis.

Yeah, these must be very small runs for a sensor fabricator.

It does not bode well for the folks with < 5 year old cameras that corrode a year or two or three from now.

John

 

[Huss]

... and it is for free. I can wait.

Knowingly selling cameras with defective sensors, then replacing them and having them out of their owner's hands for months is not exactly 'free'.

 

[Luke_Miller]

It does not bode well for the folks with < 5 year old cameras that corrode a year or two or three from now.

True, and I would add that the biggest losers in the sensor corrosion issue will most likely be those whose sensors didn't experience corrosion. Since many/most believe that all of them will eventually corrode, only those with Leica documented "corrosion proof" sensors will be able to get fair market value at sale time.

 

[DwF]

John and Luke,

I thought that for sure I would be in that group who would find corrosion after the "deadline". So I went back for a third check and really looked. I had been mainly checking the "sky area", the upper part of images where sky was. Of course I was shooting directly into clear sky for the purpose of checking. When I finally found the spots, they appeared on the lower left on the frame and then I found others when I really magnified. I sent the cropped images to Dave at Leica repair, he confirmed and I was quite relieved to have found corrosion!

David

 

[raid]

I never found any signs of corrosion myself, but I sent my M9 to NJ Leica. They affirmed that the sensor was damaged.

 

[Calzone]

John and Luke,

I thought that for sure I would be in that group who would find corrosion after the "deadline". So I went back for a third check and really looked. I had been mainly checking the "sky area", the upper part of images where sky was. Of course I was shooting directly into clear sky for the purpose of checking. When I finally found the spots, they appeared on the lower left on the frame and then I found others when I really magnified. I sent the cropped images to Dave at Leica repair, he confirmed and I was quite relieved to have found corrosion!

David

David,

It is interesting to know that indications of sensor corrosion can be elusive. I have an Epson 7800 and I use Piezography to print up to 20x30's. I learned from printing that even with my EIZO dimmed down to 80 Lux in a darkened room that I could print what I couldn't see on my EIZO because more detail than displayed was in the print.

Also know that the blemishes were small, and even though when visible were always in the same areas (rather small amount of spotting), they didn't always appear. In other words while these artifacts were always in the same place their occurance seemed rather random.

My EIZO only displays a image size that is about a 13x19, but a 20x30 is a lot more magnification. Small defects and artifacts become very evident on large prints. A display is not the best way to detect corrosion.

Cal

 

[cz23]

John and Luke,

I thought that for sure I would be in that group who would find corrosion after the "deadline". So I went back for a third check and really looked. I had been mainly checking the "sky area", the upper part of images where sky was. Of course I was shooting directly into clear sky for the purpose of checking. When I finally found the spots, they appeared on the lower left on the frame and then I found others when I really magnified. I sent the cropped images to Dave at Leica repair, he confirmed and I was quite relieved to have found corrosion!

David

It's likely the first time we have found ourselves actually hoping for a camera defect.

Like most natural phenomena, corrosion is probably well underway before it can be perceived by the human eye and clear sky test. Presumably, Leica uses a scope or some other instrument that is more sophisticated than our eyes.

John

 

[scautez]

Hi, I'm a bit a novice when it comes to understanding the M9 sensor issues, but wanted to clarify that if I purchase an M9 that has had its sensor replaced, would the likelihood be that it wouldn't encounter the sensor corrosion issue in the future? Thanks for any insights 🙂

 

[rfaspen]

scautez. You're in for a bit of difficulty. Others here might chime in.

There were sensor replacements using another old sensor, and then sensor replacements using the new sensor. I have no idea how to really tell which is which other than by date of replacement, and I would use a wide margin for the threshold date. Sensors replaced within the last year are likely safe. Older than that.....others might chime in.

My current understanding is that the older sensor is almost certain to eventually suffer the corrosion problem. If it didn't that would be because the camera was never used and stored in a controlled environment. I personally don't know any M9 owners who have not suffered the corrosion problem (with old sensors). Some of us weren't even sure we had the corrosion before sending the camera to Leica. I could be wrong about the inevitability of corrosion with older sensors. Others might chime in on this...

The problem you're probably going to encounter if you're interested in buying an M9 is that many sellers don't know if they have a new or old sensor, even if it has been replaced. Its not that they are being deceptive, they simply don't know. Leica appears to have been ambiguous in their repair descriptions. That brings me back to date. I would be pretty confident about a camera with repair paperwork within the year. Older than that....Others might chime in...

 

[scautez]

Thanks so much for that insight rfaspen. I currently have an M8 and though it has some peculiarities of its own, I believe it's sensors are pretty stable. So I might just stick with the M8 until maybe the M10s become affordable in a few years 🙂

 

[lemalk]

I have an M-E that had its sensor replaced in the past. It is now at Leica NJ waiting for its second sensor since the first replacement was corroding.

As refasten mentioned, a repair within this current year is a far better bet than any other previous sensor replacement.

 

[dof]

It's likely the first time we have found ourselves actually hoping for a camera defect.

John

So true, John!

Like Raid, I was unable to detect evidence of corrosion on my MM sensor, but sent it in to have Leica confirm regardless. The mechanisms they employ did find corrosion - and so I wait (and wait) for replacement. I was relieved they did - having been spared the time-bomb of an expensive repair or yet another doorstop digital body to add to the pile some time in the future.

 

[willie_901]

Hi, I'm a bit a novice when it comes to understanding the M9 sensor issues, but wanted to clarify that if I purchase an M9 that has had its sensor replaced, would the likelihood be that it wouldn't encounter the sensor corrosion issue in the future? Thanks for any insights 🙂

I will think the likelihood of future corrosion is about the same as every other digital camera – i.e. extremely low.

I suggest the M9 corrosion issue was driven by the physical restrictions of the M mount: the requirement to maintain classic M body aesthetics, achieve efficient IR transmission attenuation with the thinnest possible sensor cover glass and control material costs. In fact, the M8 and original M9 are significant engineering achievements given the mandate to adopt a body thickness as close as possible to film M bodies. Every mm was critical. It is not a coincidence both had issues with IR.

Obviously, the IR filter layer technology issue was solved with the M 240/262 and M10 sensor assemblies. Eventually, it was also corrected for the M9 cameras as well. Leica spent a lot of resources to ensure the new sensor's image aesthetics are similar to the original sensors'.

 

[james.liam]

I never found any signs of corrosion myself, but I sent my M9 to NJ Leica. They affirmed that the sensor was damaged.

Because of the way the cover in bound to sensor, imperceptible rot grows. Best have them look at it. I wonder if any of the original sensors will survive. It sounds like its 'genetics' make rot an eventuality.

 

[lemalk]

I will think the likelihood of future corrosion is about the same as every other digital camera – i.e. extremely low...
Obviously, the IR filter layer technology issue was solved with the M 240/262 and M10 sensor assemblies. Eventually, it was also corrected for the M9 cameras as well...

I wish that was the case, but it seems that the sensor corrosion on these cameras is much like hard drive failure - either it has happened to you, or it will.
I do not think that any M9 or variant can be immune from this issue. I hope that this newest fix does fix the problem once and for all.

I have an M8 that is now going on 10 years. The shutter failed, and was fixed, but the sensor still remains corrosion-free. The camera is still in use without any of the weird quirks of its full-frame sibling. Same thing can be said for other Micro 4/3rds cameras and digital cameras that I own - they continue to work, well into many years of use.

The M-E, as mentioned, is now on its 2nd sensor - and only time will tell if this one will take since there is no guarantee or warranty after this. Leica may think that most owners will just grin and bear it for such an old (at that point) camera if there turn out to be additional issues with the sensors. I sure hope not, though.

 

[Alberti]

I got my MM back after a long wait but the wait was very rewarding.
The camera shines!
Thank you Leica! Greatly appreciated for the service.

 

[Omerhecht]

What to do:
I have an M9 body, which appears to have sensor issues.
Don't ask how i ended up with this after the deadline, but such is life.

I came back to this camera after its been sitting for a "while" ehhm, and notice there is a "water color paper" overlay on background areas. Leica service center said most likely a sensor corrosion issue, and that the camera's sn dates back to 2009, so highly unlikely it would be in the 5 years since new period (for the life of me i cannot find the order details or any paper work on this body), and that the cost would be 1000$ AND - at least end of march before the camera is returned due to the back ordered sensors, and back log of repairs on this problem.

So - whats the best course of action here?
Do i send the camera in and drop the dough? I was living just fine without this body all this time (Hexar RF doing just fine), and not sure spending yet more money on it, which will eventually depreciate as well, as with all digital cameras, is worth the effort.
On the other hand i do not want to get stuck with a brick.

Any and all ideas welcome!

 

[Rob-F]

It would seem reasonable to get it fixed and then decide whether to keep it or sell it. Leica supposedly goes over the whole camera and makes it like new again. You could use it for a while and then see if it means enough to you to keep it. Personally I like the M9 quite a bit!

 

[Huss]

Fix it, sell it. You'll be ahead by about $1500.

(if u have to pay for the repair. You never know, they may extend some good will)

 

[DwF]

The M9 is a keeper! Fix it and use it it well. The dollars spent getting that camera up and running over time will pale compared to the joy of shooting and the images captured.