Daniel Smith wrote:
If turnaround time is more than a week with Leica paying shipping both ways - they are once again screwing their customers.
Are you one, or are you just presuming to speak for them?
I am a Leica customer, and I am pleased and relieved at hearing Leica's announcement. As someone who has direct experience with Leica NJ, and understands that this latest round of sensor replacement may take months, I don't feel I've been screwed at all. I feel generally that Leica listened well and responded fairly at this time.
By the way, how is Leica paying shipping both ways "screwing their customers" (not that Leica ever said they would do so, afaik)?
So I had the sensor to my M-E replaced this January 2014.
Today I checked it for 'corrosion'. Shot it into the sky at f16.
Yup, amongst the regular dust spots, there was one corrosion spot. The tell tale semi transparent ring around the darker center.
The new sensor lasted less than a year before it corroded. I live in dry Southern California.
It was never wet cleaned.
It took 4 months for the last repair.
I'm going to keep using it until it gets much worse, because I'm not going to send it in until the new sensor design is available.
Desmolicious wrote:
So I had the sensor to my M-E replaced this January 2014.
Today I checked it for 'corrosion'. Shot it into the sky at f16.
Yup, amongst the regular dust spots, there was one corrosion spot. The tell tale semi transparent ring around the darker center.
The new sensor lasted less than a year before it corroded. I live in dry Southern California.
It was never wet cleaned.
It took 4 months for the last repair.
I'm going to keep using it until it gets much worse, because I'm not going to send it in until the new sensor design is available.
That would be the most sensible thing to do. Even if no long term solution is found, Leica will replace the sensor anytime there is corrosion. It would be better to wait until the spots get too many to clone out, probably every 2-3 years in your climate.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
By the way, how is Leica paying shipping both ways "screwing their customers" (not that Leica ever said they would do so, afaik)?
The dealership that I bought mine from - Samy's in Los Angeles (Fairfax) wanted to charge me shipping, even though the camera was still under warranty. I refused and they have lost my business. The reason I bought it from them was that I naively expected that they would take care of me in a time of need.
The Leica store that I then took it to took care of everything for free, and were much more courteous. (The camera was the same price there, but that location had not yet opened when I made the initial purchase).
Katie, that doesn't look like corrosion to me. It looks like a cleaning mark. However to be sure do not attempt to clean it by yourself. Send it to Leica for cleaning and if they find that it's corrosion they will replace the sensor for free.
Desmolicious wrote:
The dealership that I bought mine from - Samy's in Los Angeles (Fairfax) wanted to charge me shipping, even though the camera was still under warranty. I refused and they have lost my business. The reason I bought it from them was that I naively expected that they would take care of me in a time of need.
The Leica store that I then took it to took care of everything for free, and were much more courteous. (The camera was the same price there, but that location had not yet opened when I made the initial purchase).
Going to a Leica Store is a good idea, if it's an option. In my dealings with Leica NJ, if the item is still under warranty, they will supply a shipping label and cover the cost of shipping. Not sure how it will work with the sensor problem/replacement...
Katie - sorry to see you're having some problems. That looks a lot more annoying to deal with than a few random spots. Ouch!
In any event, hopefully Leica will come up with a new cover glass solution soon - or there won't be one... Effectively drawing a line in the sand for us all.
I checked my M9 and it seems clean. Still need to verify the MM, but I don't think there will be any issue there either, hopefully.
DoubleNegative wrote:
Not so quick to comment anymore now, are we?
About what?
We know the problem.
If we have it we deal with it.
Leica will replace the sensor in the short run, and have new cover glass in the long run.
Every once in awhile somebody discovers their sensor "has it"
I feel for them, but this not ebola.
Meanwhile many many of us love and enjoy the M9 every single day.
Nonwithstanding your ominous silliness.
If there are users who don't see any advantage in the M9 over other cameras, I certainly would not blame them for switching. But I don't see any camera I like better. Leica doesn't care it's second hand. They will replace the sensor if I need it. I'm pretty happy about that.
As for fixing the issue, of course they will. Nothing silly or ominous about that. However, if they don't find a "permanent solution" then in the end, it's just buying you time.
As for fixing the issue, of course they will. Nothing silly or ominous about that. However, if they don't find a "permanent solution" then in the end, it's just buying you time.
Sorry to break it to you, but your time on this planet is finite too.
When you have breakfast you're just "buying time".
DoubleNegative wrote:
Of course. Doesn't bother me any, as I don't expect digital cameras to last nearly as long as film cameras, certainly.
It'll affect those seeking to resell and "collectors" mostly. Which quite frankly, isn't my problem. I use my cameras to the death.
So all "the sky is falling" talk is only for the benefit of others.
The M9 will outlast most if not all digital cameras in use today, I'd wager. Meaning there will be people shooting it and loving it 15 years from now, at the very least. Much longer I'd bet.
"if Leica can fix the problem.." Really? You think it's that impossible? You might want to read up, if that's the case.
Be condescending and smug all you want. It's a problem. And unless Leica finds a permanent solution before they give up on it, when the sensors run out - it's the end of the road.
Who cares what Brian posts about the matter? If Leica doesn't implement any of it, it's useless info. I never said it was impossible - just that Leica will not spend an inordinate amount of time working on a solution. And that's straight from Alfred Schopf.
uhoh7 wrote:
The Leica CEO told Raid on the phone the other day they will have a new cover glass on the sensor before too long. Then we can all get new ones eventually.
Or else the M9 will become the "M5" of digital M's...or is that already the M8?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Or else the M9 will become the "M5" of digital M's...or is that already the M8?
Well the CL killed the M5, nothing else. But the M5 really offered nothing fundamentally different, so was just one model in a string of the same basic technology.
Both M8 and M9 are unique, and I believe will be famous for generations, because the results of each are very distinct.
The M8 and 8.2 has the least filter in front of the sensor of any digital camera ever made, and produces incredibly clean and vivid images. These cameras are wildly under-rated today. The M9 CCD, say what you will, has produced the iconic Leica digital look, in combination with lenses like the 28 Cron and 50 Lux asph, and is revered by many many great photographers today. And silly people like me too
The M5 is forgotten. Mit alles Sturm und Drang, das M9.....neimals!
uhoh7 wrote: Well the CL killed the M5, nothing else. But the M5 really offered nothing fundamentally different, so was just one model in a string of the same basic technology.
I believe you may be mistaken about the M5 "offering nothing fundamentally different". In fact, it was so radically different with regard to design and functionality at the time (at least to M users) that it was not accepted very well at all. It was the first M to offer TTL metering. It was also larger and heavier than previous M's and was incompatible with some M accessories and even lenses. It, just like the Leica M8 and M9, suffered growing pains as well as reliability issues (some due to technological changes over previous M's). Thus, a parallel can be drawn as Leica was attempting to move into new territory and compete against the rapid rise of the more sophisticated japanese SLR's of the time. The CL came a few years later I believe but what really killed the M5 was this radical departure from previous M's. In fact, Leica even reverted to the M4 after it discontinued the M5 after less than 34,000 were sold. It is now somewhat of a collectors item.
