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!

Leica Modifies/Ends Free Sensor Replacement Program for M9/M9P/ME/MM Bodies

D&A

Well-known member
Dave, As i understood, it was a threat of legal action from China that made Nikon change its attitude.

My opinion is that Lica should have issued a recall and fixed every camera they sold.
I think, although I may be wrong, but I believe Japan also got involved with the Nikon situation too.

I also agree with you. Even unaffected M9/MM1 cameras should have had a recall and had their sensors replaced proactively. No telling if, when or maybe never, the issue arrises and like I said, for some cameras it was there right out of the box new.

I should also point out that in all my reading of posted messages here and elsewhere on this issue currently, I've only come across two posters (although there may be more) that are in agreement with Leicas latest statement and offers and both of these individuals do not own any cameras of the M9/MM1 lineage. One can draw their own conclusions.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

atanabe

Member
It just could be that Leica has grown up and taken an adult approach to their problems. Instead of taking the hard line approach they took the "customer is always right" approach which was good for us, the customer, but financially devastating for them. I am not saying that this is good for us, the owners of Leica gear. In fact my confidence in Leica as a company is eroding at a rapid pace.

We knew that if we paid a premium for their goods, we will be taken care of. For many years that was indeed the case, they made good on their defects without stipulations. First it was the S lens exchange for CS lenses that after the CS lenses became available a cutoff date was put in place retroactively. The S lens AF motor once thought to apply to the lifetime of the lens now has a cutoff date. Most recently, the M sensor corrosion has a cutoff date. If you are the CFO of Leica, it assures that the company will not bleed cash for eternity sevicing old cameras at no cost. But the ethics of producing defective goods with no general recall in place leaves me scratching my head wondering what they were thinking.

So in their adult approach the only way to get satisfaction is to sue them. The only way to fight is with your wallets.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Yes, that is good news Godfrey, but regardless of this offer, I think Leica's decision will have an adverse impact on the value of existing cameras which still have the original sensor, due to the uncertainty and risk of additional costs that prospective buyers will face.

I just cancelled a bid on a very nice condition MM with the original sensor for this reason. If the seller re-lists it for a significantly lower price, I will certainly consider it, but I will now be factoring the sensor replacement costs into my decision.
I agree that it will reduce the value of un-upgraded cameras by some amount, a percentage of the sensor replacement cost for older ones for sure. But such it is... the true value of a camera is not how much money you can get by selling it but what it can do to make photos for you. I do presume that the reason most folks want these older model Leica Ms still has more to do with them having some unique and special imaging quality that they value a lot than whether they are Leica Ms for the status that the brand affords.

I personally really don't care at all what my cameras are worth unless I'm buying or selling them. The rest of the time, I don't think about it. They're not an investment: they're tools.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... I also agree with you. Even unaffected M9/MM1 cameras should have had a recall and had their sensors replaced proactively. No telling if, when or maybe never, the issue arrises and like I said, for some cameras it was there right out of the box new.

I should also point out that in all my reading of posted messages here and elsewhere on this issue currently, I've only come across two posters (although there may be more) that are in agreement with Leicas latest statement and offers and both of these individuals do not own any cameras of the M9/MM1 lineage. One can draw their own conclusions.
(Bolded) I guess then that you don't consider that this could well have put Leica out of business, never mind been impossible to actually do in a timely way since it takes quite a bit of time to both remanufacture, install, and process all the cameras. Or you don't care. At which point, I wonder if you consider whether they feel the same way about you.

Regards my ownership of an affected camera, you can draw whatever conclusions you like but given your predisposition I bet that you'd be incorrect in your opinions.

I had and used the M9 for three years and had ambivalent feelings about its performance long before the sensor corrosion issue surfaced. It would have saved me the better part of $4000 to let Leica repair it FoC, but after testing an M typ 240, I knew the right thing for me would be to take advantage of the trade-in offer and move on to the later model camera. If I'd been as happy with the M9 to begin with as I was with the M-P (and now am with the M-D typ 262), I'd have had them do the service and return it without a moment's thought.

But I was so encouraged by Leica's taking this bull by the horns and doing the right thing, I bought into their equipment offerings even more deeply, and later went in with them even deeper to buy the SL and M-D. I'm completely satisfied with my gear, and all the other manufacturers' gear I bought and used along the way looking for the right kit is now up for sale. My confidence that Leica will do the right thing on my behalf is very high, thank you.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
An off topic heads up for Godfrey.

Your website appears to be down.
Thanks, but what website are you referring to? The only link I provide to a website nowadays is to my account on flickr.com.

... Ah, I looked at my profile and saw that the old link to gdgphoto.com was still there. I've removed it. I closed that website down in 2010.

G
 

D&A

Well-known member
Bottom line is a sensor is the heart of a digital camera. When the heart of a $7,000 camera has the the great potential for becoming defective, even unusable in time, where even some were shipped, out of the box with this issue, or sometimes within the early part of its life, thats an issue a company with ethics needs to rectify without cost to the purchaser as they (the buyer) have no control over this costly defect. Its not something that generally occurs 20 years down the road for most. That would be different.

If they don't want to be proactive and change out all sensors, then at the very least offer a unlimited time frame where they will change out defective sensors. Thats exactly what they appeared to do with their initial "revised" statements approx a year ago. Thats fine too and a good compromise on the costs to the company.

Except for two people who now do not own any M9/MM1 cameras of this linage, the overwhelming majority of posters have echoed the same sediments as as I outlined. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The Nikon D600 is a good example what a compnay eventually had to confront (and maybe forced to do), and that dust/oil issue as much as a hassle for some, didn't have the potential to overhelm a sensor and render it useless. Some who clean sesnors regulary also aaid they could live with this but the majority spoke up and it resulted in Nikon (forced or not), to effectively address the issue.

When Leica 1st issued their guidlines in addressing the M9 sensor issue anout a year ago, it was unexceptable to most users. They spoke up amd Leica quicklt changed the terms. They all praised Leica for soing the right thing until this latest reversal.

Just because a company doesn't and/or won't adequately provide acceptable recourse, doesn't make it right. You had a Freelander (and I have mine), but read that scathing attack in the Wall Street journal on Land Rover, leaving most USA Freelander owners high and dry. That still didnt get Land Rover USA to budge. For them sales of that vehicle in the States was a drop in the bucket, so why bother.

I'll stick with the overwhelming majority and their opinions on the current Leica issue with M9/MM1 sensors. Even their offer to part exchange their defective M9/MM1's for an M240 (but not M10) didn't go over well when the output of the current M10 is more to their liking and closer approximates their M9 output and is one of the reasons many did not initially upgrade to the M240. Thats a different issue at this point.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
And I'll be quite happy to disagree with you.

Leica has done very well with this program. It's not a reversal, it's how to continue it into the future since by the statement of the revision, the service program has already been "... successful and largely complete ...". The revised program simply puts a reasonable cap on the number of free services based on the age of the camera. If you bought your camera more recently than five years before the problem surfaces, they still do the service free of charge if/when it surfaces. It's only if you buy an older camera second hand, presumably inexpensively, that has NOT had the update performed already that they charge you for the service, which includes a general camera refurbishment AND a one-year factory warranty.

How much flesh do you want from them, Doug?

G

"You may take your pound of flesh, but not a single drop of blood." —The Merchant of Venice
 

D&A

Well-known member
And I'll be quite happy to disagree with you.

Leica has done very well with this program. It's not a reversal, it's how to continue it into the future since by the statement of the revision, the service program has already been "... successful and largely complete ...". The revised program simply puts a reasonable cap on the number of free services based on the age of the camera. If you bought your camera more recently than five years before the problem surfaces, they still do the service free of charge if/when it surfaces. It's only if you buy an older camera second hand, presumably inexpensively, that has NOT had the update performed already that they charge you for the service, which includes a general camera refurbishment AND a one-year factory warranty.

How much flesh do you want from them, Doug?

G

There are those who purchased their M9/MM1 brand new from a authorized Leica dealer and 6 years after their purchase, their sensor shows visable corrosion (although it may have not been readily evident when it first started). No sweat, just shell out $900+ dollars out of pocket to have it fixed (regardless of that extra service which many cameras otherwise wouldn't need).

Sorry most every original owner would not take kindly to this and many original owners have stated as such. Regardless of what they spent for their their camera and for whatever reason they purchased, many don't consider $900 chump change after assuming the camera they purchased new with their hard earned money, had an unavoidable built in defect and were expected to pay for this. I didn't know their opinion should be based on the financial well being of the company.

Dave (D&A)
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Godfrey, Support Leica as much as you want but i would request that you leave out quoting from the Merchant of Venice to defend a German company. It just does not sound good at all.
 

atanabe

Member
Maybe I am wrong in assuming that a camera, any camera, should have a reasonable service life. A manufacturer should take this in consideration when doing design specifications for their camera. They test shutters for lifetime actuations, shouldn't the circuitry, sensor included, be cycle tested as well? A camera sensor cover glass should not corrode or is not expected to corrode under normal use, nor should the cover glass unexpectedly crack for no good reason. My Nikon D1X- 16 years old, still functions, the cover glass is neither corroded or cracked.

If and only IF Leica had decided to recall ALL of the production M9s regardless of corroded or cracked sensors with a replacement years ago, we would not be having this conversation today. They produced a defective product, they admitted to it, they replaced affected sensors for free when brought to their attention. If they ran a recall at this point, I would applaud them, as it stands it is now a hostile environment where Leica loyalists are rethinking their affinity as myself. I love the look of the images, the glass is the ultimate, but if my Leica camera is good for a few spins around the block and then POOF! I really have to ponder what else is out there. Unlike some Leica owners, I am just a salary man who has to save for my purchases and each purchase needs to last me the lifetime of enjoyment where I set the timeline. I really enjoy my M9, it produces great images, a look that I have not been able to duplicate with other cameras. I had planned on it to be my last digital M
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I personally really don't care at all what my cameras are worth unless I'm buying or selling them. The rest of the time, I don't think about it. They're not an investment: they're tools.
G
It is indeed only in the buying or selling that I care about what a camera/lens is worth too Godfrey. Since I rarely sell any of my photo equipment, it is really just the buying.

As regards the selling, with all the cameras you have sold recently and plan to sell in your simplification/down sizing, I would think you might be a little more sympathetic to the Leica owner, perhaps not as well off as yourself, who may now find the value of his/her M9/MM etc rapidly falling, thanks to this change in Leica's program, just as he/she was trying to sell it.

As others have said....IMHO, Leica should have either issued a recall for ALL cameras potentially affected by this defect or left the original program in place.

Gary
 

D&A

Well-known member
Additionally, imagine those who own both a M9 and a MM1 and at some point have to shell out $2,000! There are quite a few I know who already had both of these cameras they own suffer from sensor corrosion and sometimes multiple times for each to the same camera becuase the sensors were replaced with the same original sensor (new ones were not available yet).

When a company does the right thing that most expect, the majority dont take advantage of the situation but lends what support they can to insure the future success of the company.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Godfrey

Well-known member
I see no point to debating this any further.
I'm quite comfortable with what Leica is doing and am certain it is the right thing. If they bow to public pressure and change policy again to what the entitled users think they should, the company will suffer.

As regards the selling, with all the cameras you have sold recently and plan to sell in your simplification/down sizing, I would think you might be a little more sympathetic to the Leica owner, perhaps not as well off as yourself, who may now find the value of his/her M9/MM etc rapidly falling, thanks to this change in Leica's program, just as he/she was trying to sell it.
Sorry, but no. I've sold all my 21 pieces of Nikon gear now. Most returned about what I expected, some didn't quite make the numbers I wanted, others made slightly higher numbers. All in all, I got what I expected out of it once I reviewed what actual prices for the gear I had were like. No surprises. When you're selling, you have to accept what the market is willing to offer at the time you're going to sell, that's all. And if you're playing with expensive photo gear without being able to afford the fact that it sometimes needs repair and often does not hold its value very well, well, that's a foolish thing to do IMO.

Doing a total recall of all potentially affected cameras whether or not they needed a sensor ... say for grins 50,000 units at around €1300 per sensor, never mind development time and money and all the other bits needed ... never mind again insufficient personnel and production capacity to do the work! ... would have almost certainly put Leica Camera out of business. I'm happy they didn't go that route.

G
 

D&A

Well-known member
I personally find it strange when the term entitlement is used in the context in the post above. Its as though owners are asking for a handout. I and I'm sure many many others when they purchase a $7,000 camera new and the most major part of that camera is subject to early failure, don't consider it entitlement in having the manufacturer take responsibilty and rectify the situation free of charge. I'm certain they refer to that as a "reasonable expectation". I know I would.

No one said Leica "must" be proactive and swap out every old sensor (although it would give peace of mind), but at the very least not put a time limit on changing out defective sensors when they corrode without charging the consumer. Thats the responsible thing to do and the cost of doing business when a defective product is released and subject to early failure of the heart of a $7,000 camera, namely its sensor.

I also don't agree with the argument that if one scrimps and saves for an expensive camera, they should expect expensive repairs or shouldn't be buying such equipment...not when the needed repair is due to a defective manufactured part. That responsibilty I believe lies with the manufacturer not the consumer and how rich or poor the buyer is has nothing to do with this.

Again the financial hit unfortunately in a case like this belongs to the manufacturer. The consumer didn't precipiate this issue. Nikon thought along the lines of Leica and they ultimately were proven wrong and had to pony up the price. People spoke up and apparently in Nikon's situation, some sort of regulatory body intervined, rightfully so, and insisted or forced Nikon to be responsible for its problematic situation and rectify it.

People with defective Nikon D600's weren't concerned with the financial hit Nikon would take. They just wanted what was rightfully theirs and what they paid for, a non defective camera. In Nikon's case it wasn't even sensor failure but the constant egress of oil and dust on the sensor and not all cameras were affected either. Yet they (Nikon) was held responsible for addressing each and every D600 manufactured. The size of each respective company has nothing to do with their responsibilty to the situation.

I admire both of these companies (or I wouldn't use their products), but admiration extends far beyond the products themselves. Its how they handle situations as the ones we are discussing. The similarities between the two situations these companies encountered with regards to problematic sensors right out of the box, so to speak and how they initially tried to handle it, is quite remarkable and telling.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Godfrey likes Leica. Hooray! :clap: Godfrey wants the company to succeed and be profitable. WaHoo! :salute:

So do I :thumbs:

To succeed as an admittedly high-end, ultra-premium priced imaging company in the digital age, they have to employ "high touch" customer relations to foster loyalty and long term health. From the reaction to this announcement (following a similar one regarding the S-lens AF issue), Leica seems to at best be partially absolving themselves of responsibility for known engineering and/or R&D testing faults ... and it seems this is NOT going over well with the faithful.

If, as Godfrey speculates, a majority of M9/ME/M9-MM sensors have been fixed (which I do not believe for a minute), then what actuarial exposure would the company really have to absorb?

No sir, I believe they are doing this because there ARE many cameras that have not been fixed since the permanent sensor was developed. I bought my MM in late 2012 and it showed signs of corrosion early 2017. I other words it took well over 4 years to manifest itself. I have inside info that it is NOT a matter of when a M9/MM sensor fails, it is when.

Similarly, the limits to fixing the S AF issue was announced shortly after the permanent replacement was announced. Virtually every S and CS lens made since the S system shipped is vulnerable to AF failure sooner or later ... not IF, but WHEN.

We can look at these facts from different perspectives:

1) We want Leica to do well, and find it reasonable that they are limiting their financial exposure.

2) We do not find it reasonable that a MM originally costing $8,000, and S/CS lenses that cost upwards of $7,500+, have built-in limits to their life and usefulness. Like it or not, when people buy Leica, there are certain expectations built from previous experience, plus their elitist brand positioning and marketing of the brand.

Like Godfrey, I find the value of any gear purchase (be it camera, lens, strobe, etc.) to be in its usage, not as an investment in anything other than my own making photographs professionally or privately.

My selection of the M Monochrome and Leica S System was based on those ideals. With-in reason, I don't care if the stuff depreciates ... as long as, with proper use and maintenance, it works.

Unfortunately, Leica will skate on this because they can't make M10s fast enough, and apparently the SL and lens set seems to be doing well. IMO, their financial heath is not threatened by the promised good-faith coverage that they should be offering on their previous products given the egregious failures associated with them. Most take such promises on their face value, and do not run to a lawyer to interpret the "weasel wording".

I'm okay since my MM has the new sensor ... and I'll deal with the S AF issues as they manifest themselves. The MM results are unique to my eye, ditto my S(006) and S lenses. I was considering a M10 but need to reserve the gear budget to fix Leica's mistakes.

My sympathy is with the owners not the company because to let this go means it is acceptable in future ... hope the M10 doesn't have some latent issue, or that some lens issue doesn't crop up on the SL three or four years into its life.

- Marc
 

GMB

Active member
I am with Marc on this one. If Leica would know that they have replaced the majority of the old sensors with new ones, why stop the program now. Makes no sense. If you went 90% of the way, you don't stop to piss off your customers. I have an M9 (where the sensor has been replaced but I fear with an old one) and a MM where it has not been replaced. I am considering selling them (as I now have the M10) but have been holding off because prices are very low. Bad decision, because the latest announcement just knocked aprox. 1000 EUR off the value of each of them.

I also have a bunch of S glass. As I was an early adopted of the system (I got four lenses in 2011), several of my lenses are 5+ years old. So far I had only one lense developing the autofocus problem. I have a date with my dealer to put all my lenses on a S007 (I shoot with the S006) to check whether they are ok.

As we all know, this is not normal wear and tear but a design fault. If you sell a premium brand (asking for premium prices), you should fix these in a appropriate manner. Leica originally did that. And then they switched gear.

I am fortunate enough that, from a financial point of view, I don't have to loose sleep over that. But it bloody enois me. And I fear that the reputational damage to Leica is much bigger and costly than a continuation of the original solutions.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
I fear that the reputational damage to Leica is much bigger and costly than a continuation of the original solutions.
I agree....they have really blown it with this move. I hope it is not a sign of how they will handle future design or manufacturing defects, should they occur, but it probably is so.

Gary
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I bet there are still a lot of older M9s out there with sensor deterioration of some sort, and Leica would like to collect about 1000 EUR for doing refurbs. The M9 is still a fine camera, and with a fresh warranty, I suspect a CCD M9 will be an easier sell than a CMOS M240 of slightly lesser age. I just heard from them that my M9 (purch 2009), which would appear to be working fine but does have possible bad spots on the sensor, is eligible if I get it to them before Aug 15, so I'll do that.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Mine will be shipped to them tomorrow.

I want to record that their customer service over the phone was very nice (complimentaryry on the Deutsch as well!) and helpful! :) :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Top