Leica M9 defect looks like fractals artifacts

<p>Dear members,<br>

Since I was planning to sell it, I have just tested my Leica M9. I hadn't used it for several months. <strong>All my pictures have a fractal-like artifact</strong>. It looks like a lousy Photoshop texture effect. I checked my sensor from close, and I can see the artifacts on the sensor. What happened? Is is ruined? I'd love your inputs if you've ever heard of such problem.<br>

Best, Maurizio</p><div></div>

<p>have you previously used it in cold weather? </p>

<p>interesting but unfortunate reticulation pattern.</p>

<p>I've never heard of this. There doesn't seem to be a recurring visual pattern in whatever it is. It may be on the glass filter that covers the sensor. Has the camera suffered severe conditions of temperature or humdity? Obviously it is capable of making pictures, so that part of its functions is OK. I would send a copy of the photograph and others to Leica or their authorized repair service in your area for a comment and then send the capped body to them to have the glass filter checked (foreign coating) and perhaps also verified the sensor and its function. If that is a recurring problem you will obviously need it fixed before sale. Someone else may suggest a simpler solution.</p>

<p><em><strong>Carl F.</strong></em> had a similar issue in a past thread here on Pnet. <a href="/leica-rangefinders-forum/00bgPT">M9 sensor issue? </a><<<<em>click</em></p>

<p>It's been heavily reported on the Net; <strong>Cracked sensor</strong>.<br />(Either the <strong>layering of the IR filter</strong> developing cracks, or sensor<strong> mounting pressure</strong> irregularities)<br /><strong>OR</strong><br /> it could be: "The extreme sharpness of the lenses cracking the sensor like a soprano shattering a wineglass..."</p>

<p>Send to a Leica factory service location for their "<strong><em>goodwill</em></strong>" replacement.</p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>I wish you good luck on your "goodwill hunting" from the Leica factory.</p>

<p>They are noted for their impressive repair work, with prices to match.</p>

<p>Jerry Lehrer</p>

<p>After much search, I still haven't found anything similar in the web. I will bring it an authorized Leica center and appeal to their supposed reliability. Thanks to you all</p>

<p>I've heard of quite a few people getting their M9 sensors replaced due to faults. Another reason why I am avoiding getting a digital M.</p>

<p>Take a look at the L-Forum (Leica Users Forum) and go to the "ME, M9, Monochrome" sub-forum. Find the thread called "Strange White Spots on M9 sensor." It's 13 pages long and growing. You won't like what you're going to read.</p>

Ohhhhh, and have you seen this scary post? I will *not* be buying an M9 after all

 

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=145845

<blockquote>

<p>"Two days ago Leica informed after more and more discussion in the LUF about the 'corrosion-problem' with sensors of M9/P, MM and M-E."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Thanks to Bernard Miller for that post and the details released by Leica.</p>

<p><em>Firstly, a small detail, and it is probably grammatical. The link to the Leica declaration does not mention the M9 as such. Maybe the M9/P refers to M9 and M9P, rather than the M9P? Probably. It is hard to imagine that the problem did not occur also with the M9, and Maurizio's Leica is probably the M9 as he stated in his OP and not an M9P. So, as much as I might wish it. my M9 is not safe from this issue.</em></p>

<p>Does it occur as a result of poor cleaning practice with cleaning swabs or fluids? Or other possible incompatibilities? Not likely, as Leica does not mention that in their declaration. If it is a defect due to manufacturing practice or strategy, Leica should be more generous in righting the problem, even with 5 or 10 year old cameras. Instead, they want to charge us a very high amount 5 or 6 or more years down the road, of the order of 1500 Euros (nearly 2000 US$) or in the range of an equivalent FF DSLR.</p>

<p>Their 3 year from purchase limit for free correction of the problem only deserves to suggest that Leica considers their cameras good for up to 3 years! Not what one expects from Leica. This may turn out to be a game changer for many former Leicaists. $2500 per year depreciation is rather high. There are other options out there for Leica optics.</p>

<p>Even if their technician works at $100 US/hour, it is hard to realize that it requires <strong>20 man hours</strong> to replace the defective parts that Leica will probably obtain without charge if the sensor and glass manufacturers bear responsibility.</p>

<p>The M240 is not affected (!?)</p>

<p>Yes, you can twist my other arm as well! Perhaps it is not affected, but what other problem is waiting in the shadows. If you have a defective car part owing to manufacture poor practice or oversight most automobile manufacturers will replace it free of charge with its recalls that go beyond 10 years.</p>

<p>Where is Leica's responsibility? We know that digital cameras are less robust than former mechanical film cameras (the legendary Leica robustness) but one might expect that for a premuium camera price the responsibility for defects should be greater than it is.</p>

<p>Unless the corrosion issue is caused by the client and not Leica. They have yet to say that I think.</p>

<p>Sorry for the rant, Leica, as you have treated me most fairly in the past, but this one is hard to stomach.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The M240 is not affected (!?)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The M240 uses a CMOS sensor, not CCD like the M9 and others. Plus the sensor is sourced from a totally different company.</p>

It sounds like the problem is the IR absorbing glass, which is a different type from that used in the M8. The problem

also seems to occur under certain conditions, I've read that high humidity is an issue.So, some users will be

affected and not others. My M9 is coming up on four years old, no signs of any problems. Same with the m

Monochrom- 2 years old, no issues. The M8- not even a bad pixel or a coffee stain. Bought used 5 years ago. Now

I wish Kodak had stuck with Dichroic filters on the CCD instead of IR absorbing glass. My first DSLR is over 21

years old.

<p>Brian, humidity is an interesting point you mention and I wonder to what extent high ambient humidity and also the misuse of humid cleaning swabs or fluids have affected the glass cover and sensor? Jim, I realize that the M240 has a different sensor and source than the previous Leica digitals, but (notwithstanding Leica's assurances) it may still have a cover glass or coating that may not be 100% exempt from future similar problems. Somehow, I feel that Leica could be a bit more open in regard to such information and to accepting their responsibility for their product engineering and quality. What is a small problem today may haunt them in future. It is a different ball game today and despite possible abuse by users of their digital cameras they had no similar threat in the period of production of only film cameras. </p>

Since this thread- i visited the new On Semiconductor site which has made the KAF-18500 data sheet

available. This datasheet shows the Kodak/Truesense/On Semiconductor use Schott S8612 cover glass, which

is different from that used in the M8. This glass has been around for years, I found reference to a detector made

in 1998 that used it. It is also available as screw-in filters.

 

I posted this on Leicaplace,

 

-------------------

 

 

http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/product.do?id=KAF-18500

 

http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/KAF-18500-D.PDF

 

The KAF-18500, and many other detailed data sheets are now available for download. Kodak and Truesense

did not make the datasheets for the KAF-18500 available before. I'm happy...

 

http://www.onsemi.com/PowerSolutions/parametrics.do?id=101682

 

 

I found the datasheet for the cover glass used by the KAF-18500,

 

http://www.howardglass.com/pdf/s_8612_datasheet.pdf

 

It is made by Schott. Apparently, it was also used in the Kodak SLR/n of 2004.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52096442

 

This filter is listed as "sealed" in the KAF-18500 datasheet. I'm going to venture a guess that some solvents will

eat away at the sealing, allowing the underlying salts to react to moisture and liquid.

 

This glass is also sold for use in screw-in filters, here is a discussion on FLICKR.

 

https://www.flickr.com/groups/under_400nm/discuss/72157631641338757/

 

SO- from everything that I've read about the problem on various forums, the problem is with the type of IR

absorbing glass used in the KAF-18500. It is not the only sensor to use this Schott glass. I wonder how wide-

spread, ie how many sensors really affected and under what situations. It sounds like Schott needs to issue

cleaning instructions. I also wonder if the IR filter is annealed to the sensor, or if it can be replaced separately

from the sensor. Usually this is the case.

 

Looks like it was cemented on the DCS SLR/n,

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3200898

 

and you can see the problem is with the Schott glass filter, white-spots.

 

So- these IR filters have been in use for a long time, and by a lot of manufacurers. I've found articles mentioning

it from the 90s. All of them are not suffering from white spots, some of them are. If they were all corroding from

"just age", I'd expect to be reading about a general problem. My advice- avoid wet cleaners, use a rocket

blower, send in for a pro cleaning at Leica when it's bad. Myself- I've used a wet cleaner one time on each of

the M9 and M Monochrom when they were a few months old, and twice on the M8. I'm not too worried.

 

http://media.digikey.com/pdf/Data%20Sheets/Cypress%20PDFs/CYII4Sx014KAA-GxC.pdf

 

I found the datasheet for the Cypress/Fillfactor sensor, and it used the same S8612 IR cover. The Fillfactory

engineers setup CMOSIS. I do not know what glass was used by CMOSIS, their datasheets are not available

on the website.

 

-----------------------