The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

M9 sensor glass cracked all by itself!

bradhusick

Active member
I took my perfect M9, less than a year old, off the shelf yesterday for some portrait work and reviewed the first few shots to discover a strange diagonal line in all the photos. I thought somehow a hair got on the sensor, but I discovered a giant crack in the IR filter glass covering the sensor! Needless to say, I was less than pleased, as the camera has never been subjected to a drop or shock.

I started reading on the L-Forum and apparently many M9s have had the same experience as mine and people are listing their serial numbers there. I am contacting Leica NJ customer service today and I will post the outcome here.

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!
:mad:
 

mathomas

Active member
Really sucks. If Leica's image quality weren't so amazing, they'd be out of business given their QC issues (I'm thinking focusing issues, mainly).
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
It is another instance of persistent Leica quality issues.
I personally have never had as much grief from any other gear manufacturer as I have had from Leica. I was really hoping that they had these issues behind them but it seems that the focus on special editions is more earnest than making stuff that works. I do know several happy M9 owners but I just do not have their patience.
-bob
 

cly

Member
While there is no doubt that Leica does have QC issues, the M9 sensor cracking problem, as far as I know, is/was a Kodak problem :)

(still waiting for mine to crack - got my M9 on the first day, so it's in for a crack too :)

Chris
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
It may have been a supplier issue, but primary responsibility resides with Leica to specify and inspect that parts are built to specification.
-bob
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
It may have been a supplier issue, but primary responsibility resides with Leica to specify and inspect that parts are built to specification.
-bob
I hear you Bob, but I think we need to cut Leica some slack on this sensor glass issue.. they wrote a great spec, the sensor is fabulous. Why should they even have to bother with specs on the type or Brand of glue used to cement the glass down? Sorry, but that falls in Kodak's lap, in my opinion. When I buy a new pair of glasses, I am responsible for providing my correct prescription. God help me if I had to also start telling them what glue to use in holding them together :salute:
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
I wouldn't.
Incoming inspection is common amongst competent manufacturers. A small sample subject to a thermal shock test, which is very common in the semiconductor and sensor industries, would likely have shown them that something was amiss. We have been doing this for YEARS.
No, I don't cut them any slack on this at all.
They are in over their heads and all the (expletive deleted) folks that cut them slack allow them to be oblivious to fact.
-bob
 

bradhusick

Active member
Regardless of who's ultimately responsible, Leica is taking care of me. I am sending in the camera and as long as there's no sign of trauma on the body they are replacing the sensor at no charge. They said I will have it back in 7-10 days. I suppose if I yelled and screamed it would take less time, but I have backup cameras so no need to yell.

Despite the problems, I have never enjoyed any camera as much as the M9, nor have I gotten better pictures than I have from the M9.
 

250swb

Member
My sensor cracked last summer. So far it seems a small batch of sensors (from KODAK) are responsible and from cameras built Sept > November'ish 2009. Serial numbers don't give a direct match as they are assigned in large groups.

But I had to wait seven weeks for a repair as Kodak were on back order and Leica were selling as many M9's as they could make. The seven weeks is all I can quibble about. I don't think Leica would expect to micro inspect every Copal shutter they buy for the M9, never mind micro inspecting every sensor which should be built to the agreed tolerances which are set down by Leica in the first place. If anybody is 'in over their heads' its Kodak, and I resent the idea that I'm in denial by 'Bob'.
Steve
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
My sensor cracked last summer. So far it seems a small batch of sensors (from KODAK) are responsible and from cameras built Sept > November'ish 2009. Serial numbers don't give a direct match as they are assigned in large groups.

But I had to wait seven weeks for a repair as Kodak were on back order and Leica were selling as many M9's as they could make. The seven weeks is all I can quibble about. I don't think Leica would expect to micro inspect every Copal shutter they buy for the M9, never mind micro inspecting every sensor which should be built to the agreed tolerances which are set down by Leica in the first place. If anybody is 'in over their heads' its Kodak, and I resent the idea that I'm in denial by 'Bob'.
Steve
Steve,
Sorry if you do, but think about the situation of a similar attitude were taken by auto or aircraft manufacturers.
Sure Laptop computer manufacturers had issues with one manufacturer's batteries causing the products to burst in flame. Yes the original fault was the part maker, the actual party that YOU do business with is the assembler.
Specify, test, inspect. I will grant that from time to time stuff gets past them but responsible manufactures then do a recall and pro-actively replace units in the field.
Ask yourself the question: Would you buy a Leica pacemaker?
Digital makes all sorts of stuff more complicated and the mechanical to digital transition is not at all easy since it takes a whole raft of new expertise on the part of the manufacturer. Most camera makers have gone through it already and sure, some have had their problems. My peeve is that it seems to be taking Leica an inordinately large amount of time to resolve the "simple" issues. I say simple because these sorts of failures have been known in the industry for several years and there are well known and commonly implemented circumventions.
Frankly, if I did not like the camera I just wouldn't care. It just seems that after my two years of M8/8.2 experience and all the time that they spent in the shop; I get tempted again to buy an M9 and see this stuff is STILL happening.
It is really pretty poor practice to have too much business to resolve a fundamental product defect.
So resent it or not, as long as folks keep buying this stuff and giving the company too much business for it to get its house in order it probably won't get systematically fixed.
If it did, I might actually buy one.
-bob
 

250swb

Member
Steve,
Sorry if you do, but think about the situation of a similar attitude were taken by auto or aircraft manufacturers.
Sure Laptop computer manufacturers had issues with one manufacturer's batteries causing the products to burst in flame. Yes the original fault was the part maker, the actual party that YOU do business with is the assembler.
Specify, test, inspect. I will grant that from time to time stuff gets past them but responsible manufactures then do a recall and pro-actively replace units in the field.
Ask yourself the question: Would you buy a Leica pacemaker?
Digital makes all sorts of stuff more complicated and the mechanical to digital transition is not at all easy since it takes a whole raft of new expertise on the part of the manufacturer. Most camera makers have gone through it already and sure, some have had their problems. My peeve is that it seems to be taking Leica an inordinately large amount of time to resolve the "simple" issues. I say simple because these sorts of failures have been known in the industry for several years and there are well known and commonly implemented circumventions.
Frankly, if I did not like the camera I just wouldn't care. It just seems that after my two years of M8/8.2 experience and all the time that they spent in the shop; I get tempted again to buy an M9 and see this stuff is STILL happening.
It is really pretty poor practice to have too much business to resolve a fundamental product defect.
So resent it or not, as long as folks keep buying this stuff and giving the company too much business for it to get its house in order it probably won't get systematically fixed.
If it did, I might actually buy one.
-bob
So you are saying that by your criteria when an aircraft manufacturer buys an engine from Rolls Royce they do/should strip it down and build it again? Its all well and good making examples of things you relate to, but clearly it doesn't extend beyond that in a 'real world' sense.

Steve
 

bradhusick

Active member
Steve, I have to agree with Bob here. I owned two M8 cameras (one had a bad sensor out of the box, both suffered from the stupid IR filter scenario), then I had two M8.2 cameras (same stupid IR situation, same terrible LCD, no dedicated ISO button) and now two M9 cameras (one cracked sensor, both with the same goddamn LCD), but I stay in denial and keep handing Leica my money. Why? Because the optics are so great, and the photos speak for themselves. Canon and Nikon bodies are better in every specification, but when I want real photographs for my wall, I reach for the Leica.

In blissful denial, and proud if it,
Brad

P.S. I would not buy a Leica pacemaker, except for Dick Cheney.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
So you are saying that by your criteria when an aircraft manufacturer buys an engine from Rolls Royce they do/should strip it down and build it again? Its all well and good making examples of things you relate to, but clearly it doesn't extend beyond that in a 'real world' sense.

Steve
Well, aircraft manufacturers don't strip it down, but they do have in-process inspections and component tests that they find spots almost all of the likely problems. Aircraft manufacturers are more system integrators than manufacturers really. most of the big components are built elsewhere and then put together at final assembly. This is precisely my point.
The specific problem of the cracked sensor glass has is unfortunately an old well known failure mechanism and can be avoided by specifying thermal cycling or doing what is known as an AQL sampling of the incoming materials and subjecting them to such an inspection. This is, by the way, common practice at other companies.
-bob
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Steve, I have to agree with Bob here. I owned two M8 cameras (one had a bad sensor out of the box, both suffered from the stupid IR filter scenario), then I had two M8.2 cameras (same stupid IR situation, same terrible LCD, no dedicated ISO button) and now two M9 cameras (one cracked sensor, both with the same goddamn LCD), but I stay in denial and keep handing Leica my money. Why? Because the optics are so great, and the photos speak for themselves. Canon and Nikon bodies are better in every specification, but when I want real photographs for my wall, I reach for the Leica.

In blissful denial, and proud if it,
Brad

P.S. I would not buy a Leica pacemaker, except for Dick Cheney.
LOL
Brad, I tend to agree that the bit that Leica has down is lens design and lens making, although not necessarily the mechanics (consider the original tri-elmar)
Myself, I reach for my P65+; now if only Leica made glass for the Phamiya :)
-bob
 

charlesphoto

New member
And if only one could fit a Phamiya plus four-five lenses in a small Billingham bag and walk around all day comfortably. :)

There's a reason we shoot Leica M's, niggles, frustrations, heartaches and all. And I'm praying my sensor doesn't crack (it's an early one) but it hasn't stopped me from taking thousands of images with the most enjoyable (digital) camera I've had the pleasure of owning.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Brad, that stinks. I am so sorry for you! I worry about that with my M9's, but it hasn't happened so far, despite some exposure to extremes (India, Egypt, Venice)...Leica should service it, but what a waste of time and resource!
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
And if only one could fit a Phamiya plus four-five lenses in a small Billingham bag and walk around all day comfortably. :)

There's a reason we shoot Leica M's, niggles, frustrations, heartaches and all. And I'm praying my sensor doesn't crack (it's an early one) but it hasn't stopped me from taking thousands of images with the most enjoyable (digital) camera I've had the pleasure of owning.

LOL
I used to carry two M8s and a total of four lenses in a small bag.
On one trip to Prague I ended up coming home with four lenses, one of which was jammed, one M8 with a self-destructed shutter and one that acted as much like a brick as a camera.
They were easy to carry for sure, but I ended up buying a Panasonic something or other from a Prague camera store just so I would have SOMETHING to shoot with.
For me, as much as I love shooting Leicas (and film Leicas led me to digital Leicas) a combination of frustrations since I was not about to bring four bodies with me on trips and focusing issues made me hang up my Leica sneakers.
I am a much happier shooter with medium format both for landscape and studio and a GH2 for carry-about.
I get great service great IQ and I never need to print street very big.
So far all my in the field camera failures have been user-induced. I totally forgive the camera makers issues caused by my clumsiness.
-bob
 
Top