Defective M9

[bradhusick]

Lucky me. Yesterday I finally received my new M9. I got one of the defective M9 cameras that suffers from the "column defect" in the sensor. It dumbfounds me how Kodak could ship this to Leica and how Leica could allow this to ship. My dealer is working hard to get me a replacement ASAP. Here are crops of what the defect looks like (in every frame).

I was also one of the lucky ones who bought an early M8 and had to have it replaced because of a defective sensor.

I am the horse. :deadhorse:

 

[ddk]

Sorry to hear that Brad but this is another reminder why not to dive into an S2 system blind!

 

[jonoslack]

Hard Luck Brad
These days, I think they use pixel mapping to sort this out rather than a sensor replacement (like every other camera company . . . only others do it in the firmware ).

I also think that it can easily develop at any time, so it doesn't follow that Kodak sent out a faulty sensor. I had it on mine and it went away (go figure).

Still, you should obviously have a new camera - I hope it comes really quickly!

all the best

 

[bradhusick]

Thanks for your sympathy. I'll report here how many days it takes Leica to get me a replacement.

 

[Jack]

Bummer Brad, sorry this hit you twice. I am surprised that Leica doesn't at least shoot a few frames out of each camera to confirm all is well before shipping them...

 

[Streetshooter]

Brad,
Don't feel bad. I had 4 M8's and all were bad.
I eventually gave up. It is heartbreaking but at least the company stands behind the camera. Hopefully you'll have the new one fast.

Best of luck and keep us informed...
Don

 

[simonclivehughes]

I am surprised that Leica doesn't at least shoot a few frames out of each camera to confirm all is well before shipping them...

I'm flabbergasted that Leica don't have a better Quality Control / Quality Assurance system in place. From what happened with the M8 and now this with the M9, it begs the question of what kind of Quality Management System they are using (if any). It sure as hell isn't ISO9001.

Cheers,

 

[carstenw]

I don't know what they are using, but you do need to balance the reports of problems against the number of cameras shipped. I am under the impression that the M9 launch has gone much better than the M8 launch did, the known problems notwithstanding.

 

[simonclivehughes]

I don't know what they are using, but you do need to balance the reports of problems against the number of cameras shipped.

Carsten,

My point is that a typical strategy for QC/QA is a zero-acceptance sampling plan where zero defects within the sample are allowed at QA, otherwise the entire shipment is returned to QC for re-checking. If defects are found, then the sample size is increased for a specific time period to be more stringent.

Intermittent issues are always a hard one to check (Jono mentioned this issue on his sample went away), but one would expect a premium product to be defect free.

Cheers,

 

[francishmt]

Brad, I am sorry to hear about the defective M9 as well. Hope they will find a replacement for you ASAP. It's so disappointing when we have all been waiting for one to arrive, just to find out it is defective.

 

[beamon]

I don't know what they are using, but you do need to balance the reports of problems against the number of cameras shipped. I am under the impression that the M9 launch has gone much better than the M8 launch did, the known problems notwithstanding.

Point taken, Carsten, but I also wonder how many customers take delivery of their new M9 and never see the problem.

Wonder how many early Canon 5DII customer never saw the white spots on the specular highlights from bright light sources?

 

[simonclivehughes]

Point taken, Carsten, but I also wonder how many customers take delivery of their new M9 and never see the problem.

Wonder how many early Canon 5DII customer never saw the white spots on the specular highlights from bright light sources?

Or, more properly, how many QC/QA inspectors never saw the problems!

Cheers,

 

[Lloyd]

I know exactly how you feel... except mine had two lines through it. Hope they take good care of you on this.

 

[bradhusick]

I have already been contacted by Leica. They say it can be fixed solely in the system software of the camera. I am expressing it to them for the fix. I will update when it's returned.

 

[Maarten]

I have already been contacted by Leica. They say it can be fixed solely in the system software of the camera. I am expressing it to them for the fix. I will update when it's returned.

Brad, I had similar problems with my M8 (not found them on my M9, lucky me). Solms also told me the could solve this with pixel mapping in the software but in the end they replaced the CCD, which IMO is a better option.

Good luck,

 

[jonoslack]

Or, more properly, how many QC/QA inspectors never saw the problems!

Cheers,

HI Simon - and others.

First of all, I'm not saying that this is okay - certainly not

HOWEVER.

all these criticisms assume that this fault is demonstrable in the sensor when the camera is built - this is not necessarily the case (of course, I can't prove that they aren't dreadful at QA), but I do know that it isn't always visible at first.

This is something which can easily crop up at a later date. (like all sensor pixel faults).

Every other camera I'm aware of has some kind of pixel mapping facility to sort this out (Olympus cameras and most others do it automatically). Leica don't (pity that).

The test camera I used definitely did not have the problem at first . . . then, about a month later it did - an obvious line defect with a dead pixel in it. . . . then, after a few weeks in Crete, it had disappeared again. Although, very occasionally, the dead pixel was still visible. This is easily verifiable by going through the shots.

I'm not trying to belittle the problem - far from it. Brad should clearly have a new camera. I'm just trying to put a bit of perspective on the criticisms of Leica QA - i.e. it may be bad, but this issue certainly doesn't prove it! (although my personal opinion is that you shouldn't need to send a camera back to Germany to do a pixel remap).

all the best

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I have already been contacted by Leica. They say it can be fixed solely in the system software of the camera. I am expressing it to them for the fix. I will update when it's returned.

Keep us plugged in Brad.

 

[mwalker]

I'm very intrested to see how quickly Leica resolves the problem. Sony was a 9 day turn around for me (expedited).

 

[bradhusick]

I think Leica is trying to do the right thing. They offered me a new camera, but since the steel grey color is in short supply, they couldn't promise me a swift date. They assured me that the fix is solely in the software (not firmware) and that if I am not happy they will replace the camera as soon as they get a grey one from Solms. I'd rather have had a working camera in the first place, but I think this is good customer service.

I'll let you know when I get it back from NJ.

 

[georgl]

These effects can happen from one shot to another - most likely this particular sensor had no defect as it was tested. I was asking a Leica-engineer because I had the same problem with my M8 after about one year and got a new sensor-board, too. He told me that Jenoptik makes the sensor-board and therefore also selects the Sensors from Kodak, as I was told they reject 2 of 3 sensors from Kodak! Then the mapping is done and the finished board is send to Leica.

This particular effect seems to be more problematic because it effects the readout in a whole column instead of just one "dead" or "hot" pixel, it seems as mapping doesn't help - why would they replace a 2k$-board otherwise?

The S2 has a self-developed board - I don't think it's manufactured by Jenoptik anymore. But the problem lies within the technology itself.

In spite of popular belief, ISO9001 has nothing to do with actual quality - it became even popular to use it as an "excuse" for cost-cutting by actually buying cheaper components. It doesn't define actual quality standards but only ways to test it - they could simply define that such banding is normal and therefore every single of these cameras would pass qualit control... In fact, I know of many smaller companies that rather save the money for the quite expensive ISO9001-certification and invest it into better materials/machines...