Derek Leath
dl__images Instagram
Leica Charged me $1595 for a new sensor, CLA, new leather covering, plus a year warranty. I think shipping was $25-30 for 2nd day USPS.
willie_901
Mentor
The cause is an ill-chosen IR filter film material in the sensor cover glass.
While this IR filter film is very thin and efficient, it reacts with water vapor. Excess humidity is not the problem. The problem is the chemical properties of the IR filter layer. Depending on the extent of sensor assembly thermal stress, the environment and other factors, all original M9 sensors will develop optical imperfections in the sensor cover glass. The only variable is how fast will symptoms appear and how quickly will the affected areas grow. If an original M9 was not used often, its sensor assembly has a low number of thermal expansion/contraction cycles. So the odds are optical corrosion will not be present.
The only camera with this particular problem is the M9. Leica's goal was to replicate the experience of using a film M camera. One criteria was a body width that was as close to a M film camera as possible without sacrificing optical performance. A thin, efficient IR filter film helped meet this goal.
Other Leica digital M cameras use a thin and inert IR filter layer material.
Years ago a few other brands experienced other types of cover glass delimitation problems that are unrelated to water-vapor penetration. The total number of digital cameras (excluding the M9) with any sort of sensor cover-glass failure due to design and, or manufacturing issues is extremely small. Thermal expansion/contraction cycles do not cause premature sensor assembly failures. High humidity environments are not problematic because the IR filter films in all other cameras react very slowly, if at all, with water vapor.
I would think that most digital cameras do not fail because of the sensor.
DwF
Well-known
Huss,
With all due respect, you answer the question regarding what you accurately point out is a disparity in pricing between the Sony. Leica is a small company, but materials and construction (occasional design flaws notwithstanding)
of the Leica add to costs......but then there are no plastic battery doors on the M either.Most importantly, the M provides the rangefinder (and wonderful viewfinder) experience that we simply have to play for. I shoot way better and I am better focused (pun not intended) using the M than any other camera. The M cameras distract less if at all from what I see out front of me that inspires making a picture in the first place; more than any other camera I have used. So for me, the comparison to the Sony from a cost perspective has little bearing here.
I have to add that recently getting the M10, I still really love the handling and hardware aspects of my older M9-M (MM) with quirks and all, and can say for sure, I would consider paying up to service a fairly priced M9 with a corrosion issue. I was fortunate to get in under the wire with my MM but paid 9-month some dues having it sitting in New Jersey during that rush on sensors.
David
jarski
Mentor
Note also that M8 and 9 are long since been discontinued. Being able to get service on them is not a bad thing, and now it shouldn't even cost anything it seems.
Huss
Mentor
New sensor, old everything else. The shutter has to be expensive to replace (to you not to Leica).
Can you imagine the scandal if a Japanese mfg did this? First knowingly shipped cameras w defective sensors, then denied there was an issue, then claimed lifetime replacement, then cancelled that policy, then upped the charge from $1000 to $1800?
Huss
Mentor
How do you come up w the free service? Also does Leica still service the M8? I thought parts were no longer available.
Huss
Mentor
Huss,
With all due respect, you answer the question regarding what you accurately point out is a disparity in pricing between the Sony. Leica is a small company, but materials and construction (occasional design flaws notwithstanding)
Most importantly, the M provides the rangefinder (and wonderful viewfinder) experience that we simply have to play for. I shoot way better and I am better focused (pun not intended) using the M than any other camera. The M cameras distract less if at all from what I see out front of me that inspires making a picture in the first place; more than any other camera I have used. So for me, the comparison to the Sony from a cost perspective has little bearing here.
I have to add that recently getting the M10, I still really love the handling and hardware aspects of my older M9-M (MM) with quirks and all, and can say for sure, I would consider paying up to service a fairly priced M9 with a corrosion issue. I was fortunate to get in under the wire with my MM but paid 9-month some dues having it sitting in New Jersey during that rush on sensors.
David
Don’t get me wrong, I love my film Leicas and my M240 has been rock solid. But I bought that used and after the M9 debacle I would never buy a new Leica again. Failed after 3 months, 6 months to fix w no loaner (or replacement) then the fix had the same defective sensor.
DwF
Well-known
That would frustrate me as well if not piss me off! I've never purchased a new Leica M body with exception of a demo M8. I've found service on my Leicas to be pretty good but with sensor replacement I had no loaner for the MM while it was out of service for 9 months. I ended up buying a used Fuji X Pro 2 during that time to keep me going.
I'm just saying that the Sony ad Leicas are so different- price of having a nice rangefinder. I also had one costly repair on my Sony RX1R II (Pop-up EVF).
Huss
Mentor
That’s the thing, Leica is the only mfg that essentially makes a film camera with digital back. And that’s all I want from a digital cam (unless I scan film then I have a Z7 for that).
I love the optical rf which is why I still use them. They really are glorious when working, which is why I recommend a used M240 as a great way to get in.
But man if someone else ever made a real digital rf camera, like a modern Zeiss Ikon ZM, I’d be in. I’m kinda surprised Cosina never did as the Ikon could have been a nice base for one.
(And no the Nikon DF is not close to a film camera with a digital back. What a fat, miserable to focus with manual lenses disappointment that was. Tried one, gave it back. And honestly all they had to do was give it a real manual focus screen from the F6).
I love the optical rf which is why I still use them. They really are glorious when working, which is why I recommend a used M240 as a great way to get in.
But man if someone else ever made a real digital rf camera, like a modern Zeiss Ikon ZM, I’d be in. I’m kinda surprised Cosina never did as the Ikon could have been a nice base for one.
(And no the Nikon DF is not close to a film camera with a digital back. What a fat, miserable to focus with manual lenses disappointment that was. Tried one, gave it back. And honestly all they had to do was give it a real manual focus screen from the F6).
Poor Df... I loved it. I used it with AF lenses though...
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Thank you for the explanation.
ZivcoPhoto
Well-known
Wonder if that was Kodak’s misjudgment or Leica’s - after all, I thought Kodak designed and manufactured the sensor for Leica.
johnmshaw
Member
Thanks for this information, and I think that is a fair deal considering the upgrade cost.
Mine is going to a new home for $650 shipped and he will be having the sensor replaced.
I am now on the hunt for an
M240 or M-P 240.
The only Leica M I have bought new was a film MP many moons ago. I couldn’t imagine laying down the cash for a brand new digital one. Especially after my M9 bit the dust.
Cheers John
jarski
Mentor
How do you come up with price levels they should set for their service?
About M8, its not too long ago when I contacted them about fixing sensor with dead pixel(s), answer was yes it was still possible by the factory. Again, not near-free as you seem to expect, so decided its not worth it.
willie_901
Mentor
I would say a Leica is the only way to own a digital camera with an analog optical rangefinder with analog focusing. While the Epson RD-1 also has an analog optical rangefinder, these cameras are rare, unsupported and use a Nikon D1 sensor from 1999.
FUJIFILM uses a reverse Galilean design with the X-100 and X-Pro bodies. While this electronic rangefinder (FUJIFILM's description) uses a hybrid analog-digital design, one can compose (and focus) while viewing outside the frame-line estimates using an optical finder. However the focusing aids are digital.
I agree about the Z7. However, any of the recent Nikon DSLRs can be operated as one would operate a F6.
raid
Dad Photographer
I paid for such an issue with my M8. It was worth it to me.
Huss
Mentor
The DF was designed to be used as a film camera w a digital back. That’s why Nikon made a big deal about it being compatible with all its F mount lenses including the non AI ones. It’s why they made the aperture feeler flip up out of the way. So the suggestion was that all these old mf lenses would be great with it. But they forgot about the focusing screen. The same old AF screen that was in the 610 (?) which was accurate to maybe f4 manually. Using the digital rangefinder was not of much help as there was far too much play in it. The in focus dot remained lit over a wide focus range relatively speaking.
The D750 had much better manual focusing as the digi rf was tightened up and on the D850 it is just great.
Thing is, if you are using AF lenses with the DF, the 750 has much better Af. So for me, the DF is just.... poor mf, and weak in comparison af. All at a premium price.
madNbad
Well-known
Owned a Df for a while, it was fine with MF lenses, including non-AI but changed the screen to this:
[/url]IMG_1475 by Michael DeLuca, on Flickr[/IMG]
Tried it with AF lenses and it felt like carrying a bowling ball.
Tried it with AF lenses and it felt like carrying a bowling ball.
Yes, you may be right... but I'm a dedicated shutter speed dial type of guy. Also, I do not like DSLR grips generally. The DF had a minimal grip. The Df had the D4 sensor. I just liked it. You expect rationality on RFF forum?
Somehow I was able to photograph with it though... I am not sure how with how bad you make it out to be. At the time I bought it used, the Df and the D750 were the same price. I had no interest in any other DSLR. Still do not. The Df is still my favorite DSLR. I'm sorry Nikon hurt your feelings with it.