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!

archiM44

Member
Most if not all of the sensor cracks have occurred in M9's purchased in the third quarter of 2009 and the actual crack occurs much to very much later after quite a bit of use which for me puts a question mark on QC being able to spot the fault.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Two dimensions you might consider in evaluating Leica service on the M cameras.

1. Rangefinder/lens calibration occurs because the fast glass is at the limits of the RF system. The more you push it (Noctilux wide open) , legacy lenses (before 6 bit) and the more lenses you have ..the harder it is to maintain perfect calibration of an entire system. This should work perfect with a new body and a new lens but the claims that every lens in a kit is perfect just don t match my experience. Aside from the new glass I assume that this is more like maintenance.

2. In the USA if you have a warranty claim you have to send it to NJ . If it has to go to Solms you lose and entire month in cross shipping and customs..2 weeks each way. During this period its almost impossible to track the progress and return shipping frequently ends up on your door step . They often turn the repair around in 10 days which I consider reasonable but its normally 4-6 weeks for anything and thats warranty work. A repair like a CLA often takes another 2-3 months. Talking to customer service is worse than a waste of time . Nice people that listen but rarely do anything .
Hi Roger - of course I don't know what it's like talking to customer service in Solms from the USA, but I've had excellent experiences with them from the UK, with turnaround times of less than a week on several occasions.

I quite agree with you about rangefinder / focus adjustments, they really should come under maintenance rather than repair - having two interacting mechanical systems is bound to be difficult to balance correctly, especially with a mixture of lenses of different age and condition.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The key to a happy M experience is reasonable expectations and some level of redundancy. I am convinced that Leica will not change for the better anytime soon. They simply don t believe that any change is necessary. Their recent success in the market place virtually assures us of the status quo.

My experience is that once an M system has been completely calibrated and any new camera bugs have been worked through.....the system has been very reliable. It has not abandoned me like a car on a dark road ..rather most issues can be worked around until proper service is available.

When a repair is needed I try to get it in asap and most of the time its back with minimum of disruption.

No excuses for Leica ..I just had to adjust my expectations for the service requirements ...and I am a very happy M9 user .
 

Lloyd

Active member
The key to a happy M experience is reasonable expectations and some level of redundancy. I am convinced that Leica will not change for the better anytime soon. They simply don t believe that any change is necessary. Their recent success in the market place virtually assures us of the status quo.

My experience is that once an M system has been completely calibrated and any new camera bugs have been worked through.....the system has been very reliable. It has not abandoned me like a car on a dark road ..rather most issues can be worked around until proper service is available.

When a repair is needed I try to get it in asap and most of the time its back with minimum of disruption.

No excuses for Leica ..I just had to adjust my expectations for the service requirements ...and I am a very happy M9 user .

I agree with your "key", Roger, and I can see how a plan like you described above would allow the "key" to work. Unfortunately, many folks, and sadly these days, myself included, do not have the option of redundancy, or dipping into our own pockets for what should be covered under warranty. Simple economic reality; which makes my level of tolerance for the QC and service issues much lower, for sure. ONE M9 is a stretch for some of us. Much less having redundant systems!

My love affair with Leica goes back more than 40 years, and yes, there have been a few issues along the way in the film days, but no where near what I've endured since the digital Leicas came out. I went through three M8s, and endured lots of "that's just a firmware issue", etc., and did lots of complaining to dealers and reps before Leica finally acknowledged, "yes, we're aware of the issue...", etc. Long waits for service, to the point I finally just gave up even thinking about having them deal with focusing issues, and just adapted my practice to the lens in hand. (And in one case, just quit using that lens altogether. Fortunately, it worked on someone else's camera.)

Had an M9 on day one of it's release, and it had lines in the sensor (as had my very first M8). I was so disappointed, and, frankly, disgusted, that I opted not to risk the M9, and am still shooting my M8. I'm tempted to get one now, but then I see a thread like this, or the issues endured by Dan Lindberg, and described here, and I wonder if I really want to take the risk again?

No question, the M9 can produce some truly wonderful results. But between these sorts of issues, and the sky high prices of anything Leica these days :loco:, and I can't help but feel that my long love affair may be nearing an end. I guess I'll just keep shooting my M8 until it dies. At that point, I'll probably have no choice but to sell off my Leica glass, and sit and watch the sun set. :( I can't begin to tell you how sad that thought makes me.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Most if not all of the sensor cracks have occurred in M9's purchased in the third quarter of 2009 and the actual crack occurs much to very much later after quite a bit of use which for me puts a question mark on QC being able to spot the fault.
I got mine at the beginning of October 2009. I'm Just waiting for that morning when I shoot the first shot with the special pair of lines across the picture ...

(of course those that have seen me in full gear destruction mode will doubt that I'll get that far :eek: ) :ROTFL:

Brad: I feel your pain. Good news, sort of, is that it's nothing you did. Not that it helps much of course.
 

kirio

Member
Brad: I only hope they were accurate in telling you that you will have it back in 7-10 days. Mine suffered the same fate last Nov. and was with Leica NJ for about 3 weeks. I should have received it sooner since the the actual sensor repair was completed when I called them to inquire but apparently they had to wait for the vulcanite cover to arrive from Germany.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Completely agree with your assessment . The expense of the leica equipment often leads buyers to "expect" a level of reliability and service that just isn t there . It pains me to see new buyers being told that Leica gear is exceptionally reliable or that they are the exception when something happens .

If you can afford an M9 I would not hold back on it. Its that much better than an M8. Test all your lenses and deal with any calibration issues immediately . After that I think the M9 has good reliability. When my sensor cracked NJ turned it around in a little over a week. Since then the cameras have been flawless.

But I would not plan a big trip with just the one M9 and I would not expect leica to turn around any repair in less than 6 weeks .

I use DAG sometimes because it costs about $100 to have a RF calibrated and he turns it around inside 10 days. Seems like a decent value when I need something done on a schedule .




I agree with your "key", Roger, and I can see how a plan like you described above would allow the "key" to work. Unfortunately, many folks, and sadly these days, myself included, do not have the option of redundancy, or dipping into our own pockets for what should be covered under warranty. Simple economic reality; which makes my level of tolerance for the QC and service issues much lower, for sure. ONE M9 is a stretch for some of us. Much less having redundant systems!

My love affair with Leica goes back more than 40 years, and yes, there have been a few issues along the way in the film days, but no where near what I've endured since the digital Leicas came out. I went through three M8s, and endured lots of "that's just a firmware issue", etc., and did lots of complaining to dealers and reps before Leica finally acknowledged, "yes, we're aware of the issue...", etc. Long waits for service, to the point I finally just gave up even thinking about having them deal with focusing issues, and just adapted my practice to the lens in hand. (And in one case, just quit using that lens altogether. Fortunately, it worked on someone else's camera.)

Had an M9 on day one of it's release, and it had lines in the sensor (as had my very first M8). I was so disappointed, and, frankly, disgusted, that I opted not to risk the M9, and am still shooting my M8. I'm tempted to get one now, but then I see a thread like this, or the issues endured by Dan Lindberg, and described here, and I wonder if I really want to take the risk again?

No question, the M9 can produce some truly wonderful results. But between these sorts of issues, and the sky high prices of anything Leica these days :loco:, and I can't help but feel that my long love affair may be nearing an end. I guess I'll just keep shooting my M8 until it dies. At that point, I'll probably have no choice but to sell off my Leica glass, and sit and watch the sun set. :( I can't begin to tell you how sad that thought makes me.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Service repairs and customer service in my experience are a real downside. To anyone that ever worked in the electronics industry the solutions are obvious. Leica isn t interested for exactly the reasons you mention..how could anyone comment on building a camera. The best example to look at is Porsche. Worst to first in vehicle reliability after they hired the Nisson engineers to consult with them on flow manufacturing and quality control. Leica doesn t have to change and they won t .
HI Roger
I agree with most of what you say. However, I'm going to take issue with this. I think they really do care about QA, certainly, whilst I was there it was in everyone's mouths.

It's only in the last year that they've been in the position to even think about spending money on such things (everyone was assuming they were heading for catastrophe until the M9 had been out for 4 or 5 months).

Whether they 'have to' change it or not is a moot point, but I'm quite certain that they intend to. The very fact that the consensus is that things have improved (even if it's only marginally). . . whilst their sales have gone through the roof, suggests that something has been happening.

all the best
 

bradhusick

Active member
I would really love to be able to choose among a few full frame cameras with no AA filter that use Leica M glass. It would put the pressure on Leica to innovate and QC. Imagine a hybrid finder, live-view, 900K pixel LCD, great high-ISO, etc.
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
sorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
 

baudolino

Active member
sorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
That's what I've been thinking too, admittedly judging only from the S2 output that's been published here on the forum and my long experience with M Leicas. For me, the uniquely nice glass in MF remains Zeiss for Hasselblad V (I am a Rollei/Schneider user now but my best ever images were shot on film with the Planar 110 or Superachromat 250, on an old beaten-up 203FE which I sold as part of my transition to digital..). Ok, my rant is even more :OT:, apologies
 

PeterA

Well-known member
sorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
Thats an interesting observation Bob - what glass in MF do you think is as good ( hopefully better) as its Leica equivalents? I am intereted to know because (so far) I only have the 70mm. In close focussing, sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, wide open and bokeh tests - it outperforms all the 80mm equivalents from Hasselblad ( H and CF, Rollie and Mamiya) I have loved the Contax fast 80 - but it is soft in comparison wide open.

I would love to be able to say ( for example) that the Zeiss lenses I have accumulated over time are as good as the leica S2 on an S2 - and look forward to making these tests when I get an adaptor - it would save me a small fortune!

Good as the Schneider 40mm is or the Zeiss CFE (floating glass) 40mm from Zeiss - some examples I have seen of the 35mm from Leica in close focussed use (which is my acid test) sees the Leica 35mm blow these away in sharpness corner to corner and out of camera distortion tests. The 35mm from Leica is actually better tested against wides from Schneider and Rodenstock to get real peer comparison quality - and then you have to say Leica eats these in terms of aperture range, autofocus and shutter speed range..

Of course all these observations are subjective and personal but interested in your opinion as to why you havent been impressed "that awful much" and which lenses in particular?

Pete
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Thats an interesting observation Bob - what glass in MF do you think is as good ( hopefully better) as its Leica equivalents? I am intereted to know because (so far) I only have the 70mm. In close focussing, sharpness, contrast, micro contrast, wide open and bokeh tests - it outperforms all the 80mm equivalents from Hasselblad ( H and CF, Rollie and Mamiya) I have loved the Contax fast 80 - but it is soft in comparison wide open.

I would love to be able to say ( for example) that the Zeiss lenses I have accumulated over time are as good as the leica S2 on an S2 - and look forward to making these tests when I get an adaptor - it would save me a small fortune!

Good as the Schneider 40mm is or the Zeiss CFE (floating glass) 40mm from Zeiss - some examples I have seen of the 35mm from Leica in close focussed use (which is my acid test) sees the Leica 35mm blow these away in sharpness corner to corner and out of camera distortion tests. The 35mm from Leica is actually better tested against wides from Schneider and Rodenstock to get real peer comparison quality - and then you have to say Leica eats these in terms of aperture range, autofocus and shutter speed range..

Of course all these observations are subjective and personal but interested in your opinion as to why you havent been impressed "that awful much" and which lenses in particular?

Pete

Well it is a tough comparison and it depends about what you care about of course. On the Leica side we have the S2 and on the Phase side a P65+, so right away there are a few other factors in play.

I tend to evaluate a lens not by absolute contrst and sharpness, indeed I think it possible that a lens can be too sharp.
The MF lenses that have impressed me from the perspective of great over-all look and sharper then the sensor can resolve to the corners have bee the Schneider 80LS and 110LS (the 55LS not so other than one sample) these have a beautiful look of a combination of crispness all-over one stop down and totally acceptable sharpness but a beautiful look wide open.
For pure clinical sharpness, however, on the Phamiya body, the Phase 150D just is almost too sharp for the ladies LOL. I think that if you like the Zeiss look you would like the 150D

The 47 digitar looks great at f/11 the 35 and wider non-retrofocals get weird on the edges and corners mainly due to the angle of incidence to the sensor. I am hoping to see how the IQ180 is in this regard since it is too soon to tell

I have high hopes for the new 40 and 60 but I am in reset-mode on tech cameras. I am really afraid I will like the Rodenstock retro-wides on a Rm3Di which may suck me in if I like them too much.
-bob
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Oh ok - you are referring to a preference regrding the new LS lens formulations from schneider /Mamiya..I can't comment on these as I have not shot with them on a mamiya - I do use a number of Schneiders in rollie mount and they render beautifully - my favourite is the 180 Xenotar - sharp as a razor balde at focus and beautiful soft roll off from there.

Intereting your thoughts on the 35digitar- I havent' shot with a P65+ but havent seen any poor performance with this lens with am H#D11-39 back ( only 40 megapixels but lful frame enough ) or a P45+ or a Leaf 75 and certainly not with a Sinar 75LV - you ar eno wthe second peron who has indicated a weakness atteh edgees on a P65+ - interesting. For me on Alpa it is THE go to lens for wide. My investigations showed that the P65+ as a back has weknesses at teh edges with a lot of wides...(but thats another story)

Of course there are new formulations now out from both Rodenstock and Schneider at or around this focal length with larger image circles - which will offer better scope for shifts @ 10K a pop they better be THAT much better!

Pete

Check out the Alpa correction software btw - it works a treat.
 

bradhusick

Active member
Happy ending...
I got my M9 back from Leica NJ two days ago and they installed a new sensor and calibrated the meter. Everything is now up to spec on the camera, and they included a new certificate, all for free (except the shipping back to NJ). That was a three week process, which I consider to be reasonable.
 
L

Lux

Guest
If I didn't like the ergonomics and (ultimately) the image quality of the M9 system so much, I would have lost my patience. The first M9 I got had a shutter failure right out of the box. Dealer took it back no questions. The second one I got was a dealer's personal demo so I knew it had no problems and has been perfect since the day I got it. Then, I purchased a 75 cron that had focusing problems. Back to the dealer (different one), no questions. The latest new lens I got focuses perfectly and is so sharp it out-resolves the sensor. Go figure. I finally have a system that is utterly fantastic, but I more or less went through customer hell to get there.

Honestly, I know the M8 and M9 represent huge technological leaps for Leica, so I can understand SOME quality problems as they work the kinks out. They are on a really steep learning curve. But, I'm sorry, lens problems should never ever happen, whether they are backlogged or not. If it's this bad for us, imagine what the dealers are going through. Moral of the story, be prepared for stumbling blocks along the way, but when you finally get what you're looking for, WOW!
 

woodyspedden

New member
Well it is a tough comparison and it depends about what you care about of course. On the Leica side we have the S2 and on the Phase side a P65+, so right away there are a few other factors in play.

I tend to evaluate a lens not by absolute contrst and sharpness, indeed I think it possible that a lens can be too sharp.
The MF lenses that have impressed me from the perspective of great over-all look and sharper then the sensor can resolve to the corners have bee the Schneider 80LS and 110LS (the 55LS not so other than one sample) these have a beautiful look of a combination of crispness all-over one stop down and totally acceptable sharpness but a beautiful look wide open.
For pure clinical sharpness, however, on the Phamiya body, the Phase 150D just is almost too sharp for the ladies LOL. I think that if you like the Zeiss look you would like the 150D

The 47 digitar looks great at f/11 the 35 and wider non-retrofocals get weird on the edges and corners mainly due to the angle of incidence to the sensor. I am hoping to see how the IQ180 is in this regard since it is too soon to tell

I have high hopes for the new 40 and 60 but I am in reset-mode on tech cameras. I am really afraid I will like the Rodenstock retro-wides on a Rm3Di which may suck me in if I like them too much.
-bob
Bob (and Peter A)

The only Leica lens for the S2 that I don't have is the 120mm Macro. The other three to me are just fantastic. I compare the 35mm with my copy of the Zeiss 40 CFE/IF and frankly there is no comparison. The lack of distortion on the Leica 35 just blows the other out of the water. Now I admittedly have no experience with the offerings from Mamiya/Phase, nor have I had the opportunity to shoot with either Rodenstock or Schneider MF lenses. I hear these are fantastic. But as I compare the Leica 35mm to the Zeiss and to other 35mm lenses I have owned such as the Leica R offerings, the S2 version blows them away.

I am also impressed as can be with the 180mm S2 lens. It so reminds me of the Leica 180 2.8 R lens and that was one of my all time favorites. (Wish I'd kept it and had Leitax install a new mount for Nikon Dammit!). I think Mark Gowin's work shown on this thread is a testament to what the lens can do.

I guess I will never totally understand the logic of a lens being "too sharp." There are so many ways of reducing sharpness in software (just back off clarity a bit in Lightroom or ACR for example and you can make portraits much more flattering if that is your desire.) Or you can use optical filters e.g. Softars from Zeiss to creatively reduce the sharpness. But trying to get an unsharp lens to be critically sharp is impossible. You can increase clarity or sharpness controls but these are basically contrast controls and do nothing for resolution.

So color me addicted to very sharp lenses. Of course JMHO

Woody
 

fotografz

Well-known member
sorry, a bit :OT:, but Leica glass seems to have its niche in the 35mm format worls. I have not been impressed with their glass that awful much on the S2. Granted it is nice, but not uniquely so.
-bob
I get a big :D how :thumbdown: Leica comments lead to :OT: :deadhorse: :cussing: ... then insecurity and :cry:

Man up S2 users ... we know these are the best MFD lenses ever made! :thumbs:

IMO, the 120/2.5 Macro "isn't unique" is a statement from someone who hasn't used one ... finally a macro that beats the Zeiss Contax 120/4, which IMHO no one has surpassed for a combo of sharpness and character ...until now. The S35mm is the best MFD 35mm I've ever used from anyone ... at least as sharp across the frame as the 40IF without all the distortion (which I also HATED about the Zeiss-Contax 35mm). Oh, and the lovely S180 ... the soul-mate in character and 3D feel to the Leica R180/2.8 APO, my all time favorite 35mm tele-optic. The S70 barks with the best normal MFD lens ever made and then some ... but isn't built like an afterthought kit lens.

Ya gotta go with what ya love. :thumbs: I like the Leica look and the S delivers it ... very similar to the newer M lenses and hard to tell apart when shot together in the same lighting.

I'm sure the Schneider lenses are great ... for you Bob ... use them in good health.

-Marc
 

gogopix

Subscriber
Well, finally, a lively thread:eek:

Bringing out all the best in the group. I would be a chicken not to pipe in
1) I had the M9 crack problem, was fixed by Leica free, quickly (and camera came back looking new!
2) The issue was the Kodak sensor and spontaneous fracture
3) My first P45+ actially had a bubble in the sensor (Phase was keenly interested, because it may have been due to shipping a sensor with gas trapped that outgassed at high altitude shipping) [NB: iPad 2 has a similar issue; due to bonding agent not drying. Goes away. We consumers DO demand everythig yesterday.]
4) Cameras are not airplanes or pacemakers; these have triple and quadruplely redundant systems that often break...you just don't hear about it till it's on page ONE.
5) These are really cutting edge products...remember when people said you couldn't even MAKE a rangefinder digital, certainly not a FULL FRAME:rolleyes:
6) I have the 120/4 Contax, the 250 350 SA and did test the S2 for a few wekks. Like Marc, I was impressed (just didn't rush YET to get the S2...IQ180 comes first :thumbs:

Except for #6 these are facts, not oppinions.

regards
Victor
 
Top