My first Digital SLR is going to be 20 years old soon. It had a zero-defect Kodak KAF-1600 in it when brand new, in 1993. It has picked up 3 hot pixels, out of 1.6million.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Since I'm waiting for the lasagna, I thought I'd dig up more info about this reliability issue. Here's a completely unscientific, biased, possibly incorrect 19 times out of 20 'poll' from 2010 about the M9 reliability issue:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=99109
Back to the lasagna.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=99109
Back to the lasagna.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
So... almost 100x worse than the M9, then...
3x the OP's complaint, on a bit under 1/10 the number of pixels.
Cheers,
R.
Mean Time Between Bad Pixel Occurance about 5 years?
I'm still using the original 80MByte SCSI disk in it. It is not removable.
I'm still using the original 80MByte SCSI disk in it. It is not removable.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
I have a Canon 7d, 5DII, 5D, 30D and a 350. What amazes me is no hot pixels and if there were, well I expect a few. The M9 I have had a few but they went away. The problem I have is that my sensor needs either an extreme cleaning, which I can't accomplish even with wet cleaning or it again needs a new sensor (the first sensor glass separated). I have hundreds of tiny dots on the sensor and can not shoot past 4.5 to maybe 5.6 or they show up, everywhere. I use the M9 in my work because I can see the action as the shutter is released and it distracts less than a a 5DIi or other SLR. People ignore it pretty quick and in visual anthropology that is a good way to have it.
I hope Leica gets some of these problems ironed out soon. Dave of NJ has been helpful but when out shooting you really don't want the gear putting limitations on the results. I do enough of that myself.
I hope Leica gets some of these problems ironed out soon. Dave of NJ has been helpful but when out shooting you really don't want the gear putting limitations on the results. I do enough of that myself.
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Maybe the used market for Kodak KAF-1600 is going to heat up because of this thread! Dang, Brian -- you've ahead of the curve already!
BTW I have a perfectly functional circa-2002 Canon G2. It has a powerful 4 megapixel sensor, with a monstrous 32MB compact flash card! The camera has a hot pixel on the playback screen. I would send it to the Japanese version of Solms, but the postage is worth more than the camera.
BTW I have a perfectly functional circa-2002 Canon G2. It has a powerful 4 megapixel sensor, with a monstrous 32MB compact flash card! The camera has a hot pixel on the playback screen. I would send it to the Japanese version of Solms, but the postage is worth more than the camera.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I know digital sensors get hot pixels. These days there are easy mapping utilities, yes. The price that I paid and that thousands of others have paid begs Leica to correct the issue once an for all. Leica CCD hot pixels aren't just dirty looking gobs. They are usually fully excited to 255 red or green or blue and a thin line of the negative color extends vertically through the pixel from top to bottom of the frame. I know how this progresses, I've had it happen twice so far to my cameras (now three times) and have watched it progressed with others' cameras. The pixel isn't the bad part as much as the line that dissects the image and is very hard to correct.
So part of what I'm hearing is "you bought a Mercedes SLK xxx and now you complain that it's expensive to fix?" or more so "It's an expensive camera made by hand, just put up with the problems."
At the same time I also hear "It cost so much money for a camera that the price alone should be a guarantee of reliability."
What I'm meaning to say is that for the amount that is paid for a Leica M9, a photographer, be they pro or amateur or an 11 year old girl from Perth Amboy shooting with a lensbaby on an adapter, should get outstanding service and some type of faith in the reliability of the product.
Leica cameras have always been pretty reliable until the digital bodies came along. When they strayed into electronic territory too much, too soon, they got bitten in the ass by either bad marketing or bad reliability (some say the CL, R4, R8/9-DMP, M7, M8, M9.) The M film body has "fought in every clime and place" and for the most part they have had few issues. When one purchases a Leica, they aren't just getting a camera to shoot photos of their cats, dogs, brick walls, flowers and grandkids. Many are buying into a legacy of the finest quality photo gear ever made and expect that the marque will hold up to that reputation.
There is a part of me that wants to say "I told you so" to the naysayers and to Leica. I'm part of the next generation of would-be Leica users and they got some money from me for the M9 but I'm not so stupid anymore. I buy used and if I don't get the service that my dollars paid for, I'll be damned if I buy another new piece of Leica gear or ever recommend them to other folks who would be in a position to buy new. At this point I won't at all. Eventually, Leica's biggest group of patrons (generationally speaking) will no longer be here and their kids may or may not want to buy into the brand. At their current level of reliability vs cost a person would have to not care, have too much money and not enough to do with it, or be completely out of their mind in some other way to expect that a current production digital Leica will be a reliable tool.
Really, we shouldn't be putting up with it at all. I won't and I'll keep you all posted on what Leica says and does.
Phil Forrest
So part of what I'm hearing is "you bought a Mercedes SLK xxx and now you complain that it's expensive to fix?" or more so "It's an expensive camera made by hand, just put up with the problems."
At the same time I also hear "It cost so much money for a camera that the price alone should be a guarantee of reliability."
What I'm meaning to say is that for the amount that is paid for a Leica M9, a photographer, be they pro or amateur or an 11 year old girl from Perth Amboy shooting with a lensbaby on an adapter, should get outstanding service and some type of faith in the reliability of the product.
Leica cameras have always been pretty reliable until the digital bodies came along. When they strayed into electronic territory too much, too soon, they got bitten in the ass by either bad marketing or bad reliability (some say the CL, R4, R8/9-DMP, M7, M8, M9.) The M film body has "fought in every clime and place" and for the most part they have had few issues. When one purchases a Leica, they aren't just getting a camera to shoot photos of their cats, dogs, brick walls, flowers and grandkids. Many are buying into a legacy of the finest quality photo gear ever made and expect that the marque will hold up to that reputation.
There is a part of me that wants to say "I told you so" to the naysayers and to Leica. I'm part of the next generation of would-be Leica users and they got some money from me for the M9 but I'm not so stupid anymore. I buy used and if I don't get the service that my dollars paid for, I'll be damned if I buy another new piece of Leica gear or ever recommend them to other folks who would be in a position to buy new. At this point I won't at all. Eventually, Leica's biggest group of patrons (generationally speaking) will no longer be here and their kids may or may not want to buy into the brand. At their current level of reliability vs cost a person would have to not care, have too much money and not enough to do with it, or be completely out of their mind in some other way to expect that a current production digital Leica will be a reliable tool.
Really, we shouldn't be putting up with it at all. I won't and I'll keep you all posted on what Leica says and does.
Phil Forrest
user237428934
User deletion pending
I see. The hotpixels of the 5D2 were just colourful dots and those could easily be removed by the software. This seems to be different and more complicated to get rid of.
gavinlg
Veteran
Phil - I didn't realize this to be the case with the digital M's - this indeed sounds like a very big problem.
Peter Klein
Well-known
Phil: The vertical line that emanates from a hot pixel is not real. The line is not a flaw in the sensor. It is a processing artifact caused by that one hot pixel.
PixelFixer does the exact same thing that Leica's repair does, which is the same thing that Panasonic and Olympus' mapping routines do. They mark the pixel as bad, and tell the camera (or PixelFixer, or the RAW software) to ignore it and interpolate its value based on its neighbors. In most cases, the vertical line disappears.
(Note that there is also a sensor flaw which causes a vertical line to appear smack down the middle of the sensor, and in rare cases an entire column of pixels on a sensor fails. But these are different issues entirely).
Should the M9 have a pixel mapping routine? Sure. I hope they add one. The M8 will never have one, because the firmware space is maxed out.
But the good news is that the M8 and M9's sensors are really no worse than any other. It's just that many other cameras hide hot pixels when you run a firmware routine. With the M8/9, you see them and you have to send the camera to NJ or Solms to map them out, or just run a simple software routine on each folder of RAW files before you process them. It takes less time to do the latter than it does to explain it.
You have a right to be annoyed, and I hope Leica fixes your hot pixels for free. But when another one appears, and it will, don't blame Leica. Blame the universe. Then main cause of hot pixels is cosmic rays hitting the sensor.
My choice is to continue to use my M8 happily, and use PixelFixer until the day that it needs a real repair. At which point I'll ask Leica to map them out along with whatever else is needed.
PixelFixer does the exact same thing that Leica's repair does, which is the same thing that Panasonic and Olympus' mapping routines do. They mark the pixel as bad, and tell the camera (or PixelFixer, or the RAW software) to ignore it and interpolate its value based on its neighbors. In most cases, the vertical line disappears.
(Note that there is also a sensor flaw which causes a vertical line to appear smack down the middle of the sensor, and in rare cases an entire column of pixels on a sensor fails. But these are different issues entirely).
Should the M9 have a pixel mapping routine? Sure. I hope they add one. The M8 will never have one, because the firmware space is maxed out.
But the good news is that the M8 and M9's sensors are really no worse than any other. It's just that many other cameras hide hot pixels when you run a firmware routine. With the M8/9, you see them and you have to send the camera to NJ or Solms to map them out, or just run a simple software routine on each folder of RAW files before you process them. It takes less time to do the latter than it does to explain it.
You have a right to be annoyed, and I hope Leica fixes your hot pixels for free. But when another one appears, and it will, don't blame Leica. Blame the universe. Then main cause of hot pixels is cosmic rays hitting the sensor.
My choice is to continue to use my M8 happily, and use PixelFixer until the day that it needs a real repair. At which point I'll ask Leica to map them out along with whatever else is needed.
Gid
Well-known
Leica = heritage, byword in reliability, hand made by elves, expensive = high expectations. 100% reliability is expensive and unrealistic, but what one can do is to have good systems in place to manage failures - this is where its seems that Leica have fallen down. It is relatively easy to fix - just get some experienced customer service staff and put a priority on fixing problems - set reasonable expectations and meet them. It is interesting that whilst there have been failures with the Fuji X100, most of the posts I've seen have been praising the service and turn around, not dissing the camera, whereas with Leica it seems like you are throwing your camera into a black hole without any confidence about when it will return or if it will be fixed.
ChrisN
Striving
Who makes the sensor used in the M9? Not Leica I guess. A sensor can test 100% when new but develop a few hot pixels over time. Not Leica's fault as no sensor maker can guarantee zero bad pixels for the life of the sensor. So Leica has to work with the sensor maker, and hopefully respond as best they can if problems arise.
One thought: Leica provide Lightroom as part of the package, not just because its handy but also because LR uses Adobe Camera Raw which will process out the hot pixels. Pros wanting ultimate image quality will of course be shooting in RAW)) and if I process with the software provided, LR should take care of any hot pixels. I must confess I've never seen one in the Pentax files I process in Lightroom, and I'm sure the camera can generate a few!
Personally I don't think digital Ms will ever be able to approach the ruggedness and reliability of the old M cameras - digital capture simply means too much to go wrong and if you wanted to build the ultimate reliability camera you wouldn't start with the M concept.
One thought: Leica provide Lightroom as part of the package, not just because its handy but also because LR uses Adobe Camera Raw which will process out the hot pixels. Pros wanting ultimate image quality will of course be shooting in RAW
)) and if I process with the software provided, LR should take care of any hot pixels. I must confess I've never seen one in the Pentax files I process in Lightroom, and I'm sure the camera can generate a few! Personally I don't think digital Ms will ever be able to approach the ruggedness and reliability of the old M cameras - digital capture simply means too much to go wrong and if you wanted to build the ultimate reliability camera you wouldn't start with the M concept.
gavinlg
Veteran
One thought: Leica provide Lightroom as part of the package, not just because its handy but also because LR uses Adobe Camera Raw which will process out the hot pixels. Pros wanting ultimate image quality will of course be shooting in RAW
This bit in particular is spot on, and I think before you go any further, you should tell us if the dead pixel/line still shows in ACR or lightroom from a raw conversion?
The M9 used a Kodak KAF-18500 CCD and the M8 uses a Kodak KAF-10500.
sig
Well-known
This is why FSU cameras is so great, when you buy it you are allowed to both love it and complain! Somewhere between 50$ and the cost of a M9 there is a magic border, if you exceed it you are not allowed to complain, just love.
emraphoto
Veteran
Well, at one point Roger you and I were similar beasts. Sadly my digital Leica experience was not tolerable and after a very long time using them, I said 'bugger them'. In my case it was not only camera reliability. Leica's response (and response time) was completely unacceptable. Combine that with the general consensus that I should feel 'privaleged' that Leica fixed my 1 week old, $5500 dollar, camera and it only took 2.5 months, numerous phone calls and finally a terse email to Leica... Well, you get the point.
I believe it is well established that I spend very little time pixel peeping.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. I don't claim that Leicas are perfect. Nor do I claim that the only reason to reject them is pixel peeping. But for every person with a story like yours, there is another with unreasonable expectations, and there are quite a few who are happy enough using them. It's the extrapolation of 'My experience is the only experience' that I'm against (and of course, I'm not accusing you of that).
Ultimately, it's just a camera, and like any other camera, if it suits you, use it, and if it doesn't, don't. The fact that it's a very expensive camera tends to skew the debate a bit, but ultimately, as I say, that doesn't affect the simple truth that it's just a camera.
Cheers,
R.
emraphoto
Veteran
indeed. might i also add that my experience, the negative aspect, was with Leica as a service provider versus the camera.
pgk
Well-known
Well I'd suggest a phone call should sort this out - I've been very impressed with Leica's responses and speed of repair so far. 7 months clearly means that something must have gone wrong which I'd suggest could be fixed with a 'phone call.
I have to say that I read very, very polarised views of Leica's service ,some of which bear no relationship to my own experience. I wonder, are we all dealing with the same company? Given your situation I'd suggest a few 'phone calls would be worthwhile to straighten everything out.
DrDick
Member
Fortunately the only problem with my M9 is the leatherette is peeling off and in the UK they can't even fix that but have to send it to Solms taking about 4+ weeks. Canon however managed a sensor clean on my 1Dsmk3 in 2 hours while I waited. None of my Canon pro bodies have ever failed me. Why did Leica close their UK service centre at Milton Keynes (Did they think their products never go wrong!) Leatherette aside the M9 is a delight!