MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Wet cleaning may be causing sensor corrosion - Leica M9  (Read 13502 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 04, 2014, 11:49 »
0
Interesting blog post here explains an issue which Leica have now responded to and which seems to potentially affect all Leica M9 models.

The issue relates to sensor corrosion which is apparently being caused by wet cleaning (i.e. with isopropyl alcohol). An apparently somewhat confusing response from Leica so far.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2014, 14:13 by bunhill »


Uncle Pete

« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2014, 23:21 »
+2
Since when did glass start to corrode when wiped with alcohol?

This sounds like something under the glass protective layer, the surface of the actual sensor, causing the problem. But that's just a guess.

Overpriced $7,000 camera with a classy name, and they can't get it right?  :-[

Rinderart

« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2014, 23:48 »
0
every 6 months I have experts clean My Camera. they take the responsibility. My first camera was leica...1956 had many after. They dropped the ball years ago........EGO!!

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2014, 06:23 »
+1
If you can spend $7,995 in a camera (only body) like the M9 you have no need to clean the sensor
Just buy a new one

« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2014, 07:06 »
0
If you can spend $7,995 in a camera (only body) like the M9 you have no need to clean the sensor
Just buy a new one

You are the real Beppe Grillo!I can spend $7,995 for a camera one time, not two.

« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2014, 15:05 »
0
Since when did glass start to corrode when wiped with alcohol?

Don't glass coatings potentially contain metals ? Sensor cleaning alcohol invariably contains water content (and the longer it is on the swab the more of the alcohol will have evaporated - which is why people get drying marks if they do not clean quickly or re-use wet swabs).

Overpriced $7,000 camera with a classy name

Leica M8 digital launched in 2006 costing $4,795. Today the used price for that camera averages around $1,500.  The camera has retained slightly more than 0.3 of its original price. By comparison the 2006 Canon 30D launch price was $1,400 body only. Today you can buy one on eBay for less than $100. That camera has retained appx 0.07 of its price.

You could have bought about 3.4 Canon 30Ds for the price of 1 Leica M8. But the relative cost of ownership would have been much greater. The same money spent on Canon would today represent a depreciation of appx $4500. Canon is much more a part of the world of disposable consumer goods.

On that basis it seems to me that a Leica potentially represents better value for money. Certainly, it depends how you look at it. And I doubt that anyone ever fell in love with a Canon 30D. (IMO Canon only ever made one digital camera for people to actually fall in love with. That was the original 5D).

ETA: I have only ever owned film Leicas btw so I am playing the Devil's advocate here. I only buy used camera gear these days anyhow.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2014, 15:17 by bunhill »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2014, 16:11 »
0
Yes bunhill, I'm not Leica and don't know the formulation of their glass, or if the sensor glass has a protective coating and that's the problem. But it said corrosion, not water spots.

NEVER, NEVER re-use a swab. If it picks up a speck of sharp dust it will scratch the sensor glass. Wipe one direction, one time, flip if necessary, wipe with that side, the same direction, one time. Throw it away!

I don't know how people can risk damaging a camera over 5 cents in alcohol and a pec pad.

Part II of the alcohol, blotches and water. People need to use the correct type of alcohol, it's not like Scotch or Gin will work (but they are fine for other cleaning) it must be Methanol.

Here's a possible issue: Methanol could potentially create a problem, penetrating the seal between the low pass filter and the sensor itself, allowing debris to contaminate the sensor. If it gets in from the edges, it could corrode the sensor.

Once again, if someone is slopping alcohol onto the sensor instead of using a drop or two, as it's supposed to be done, the problem could be user and cleaning induced.

In other words, if done wrong, the problem isn't with Leica but with the owner and Leica gets the blame. Misuse and abuse often get credited to the Mfg. when it's a user problem.

Good job on the devils advocate except the flawed logic is, based on resale value, and percentage, not actual initial useful tool value for the product. Yes I've had some Leica cameras and lost a nice 85mm lens in a flood. It's a bookshelf piece now, still pretty?  :)  And I wrote M9 not M8.

The price was based on a quick search for M9 on Amazon. I admit it's flawed but that's what I found. Body only eBay Sold auctions, not asking prices, range from $3,200 delivered to $4,699 (why? I don't know, there are Buy It Now of the same camera, for much less?)

Anyway, there's an update. It could be a problem with the way people clean the sensor and less of a manufacturing or camera flaw. It could be that the mounting or adhesive on the Leica sensor isn't resistant to alcohol?

I continue to use wet cleaning on my Canon cameras and have experience no adverse results. It's not voodoo or rocket science, just takes careful handling and following instructions. And of course, Methanol not Ethanol, clean pads, one direction, one time.

« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2014, 16:43 »
0
it said corrosion, not water spots.

If the coating is metallic then would that not potentially be liable to corrosion ? Water + metal = corrosion potentially.

Anyhow the on-going story to date according to well known Leica expert Brian Sweeney seems to be that the IR layer comprises Schott S8612 glass which has previously been known (apparently) to be subject to humidity affected corrosion.

Worth noting that at least one of the companies selling isopropyl based cleaning solutions guarantee that correct use of their product will not cause damage. That could end up being a show-down between insurance companies !

« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2014, 06:17 »
+1
Glass corrosion is a phenomenon that is well known among archaeologists, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_disease). The change in the glass primarily depending on how the glass is composed. However, cleaning with alcohol should not cause any problems, especially at such a young glass like in modern lenses. When something like this happens, Leica should replace the lenses without extra cost for the photographer.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2014, 07:24 »
+1
8000$ bucks is just for the camera, have fun buying a couple other Leica lenses for up to 10000$ like the Noctilux or the Summicron !

and good luck doing street photography with 20000$ of gear on your neck in any third world country, not to mention the manual focus lenses and the whole idiotic concept of using a rangefinder in 2014 !!




Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2014, 07:29 »
+1
i mean i'm really getting sick about these freaks claiming to be "purists" and using Leica and Zeiss because some weirdos working at MAGNUM are still stuck in the '60s.

Alex Majoli (Magnum) instead made magnificent shots using a cheap-as-s Olympus pocket camera years ago, that's a real photographer who's not giving a sh-it about all this talk about gear and luxury gear.

what about the others ? most of them using battered down 5DII or D3, many now even shooting the odd iphone photo or sticking with sony A6000 or NEX, fuji X series, etc ... you know that's proper street photography in the streets of Baghdad or Kabul ...


« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2014, 10:05 »
-3
8000$ bucks is just for the camera, have fun buying a couple other Leica lenses for up to 10000$ like the Noctilux or the Summicron !

and good luck doing street photography with 20000$ of gear on your neck in any third world country, not to mention the manual focus lenses and the whole idiotic concept of using a rangefinder in 2014 !!
It's the "brand" you have to pay for, if you would be so stupid. I would never buy a Mercedes Benz or BMW. My old Toyota drives more reliable than any expensive brand car 8)

« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2014, 10:06 »
0
uups, double posting again, sorry
« Last Edit: December 07, 2014, 10:08 by roede-orm »

« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2014, 11:58 »
+2
people hate Mercedes just because they can't afford 'em

« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2014, 14:01 »
0
people hate Mercedes just because they can't afford 'em
I don't think so. Mercedes is somehow old-fashioned and definitely not as reliable as  Japanese cars. Personally, I would prefer a Volvo at any time.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2014, 20:25 »
0
Add Porsche, Audi, Rolls, Ferrari and... yes there is some level of envy (misplaced hate) over what someone can buy and drive. Myself I'm in with  roede-orm - except I have a Honda Accord, best darn car I ever owned. I hope to make 300,000 but it's getting close to missing the mission because of little things like ignition switch and I'm on the third distributor/ignitor in only ten years. Four new tires this Spring, I'm good to go.

Passed 287,000 miles last week.

I still like to look at some of the nice sports cars. But I took my money and bought a house instead.  :)

people hate Mercedes just because they can't afford 'em


I just want one of these?



Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2014, 23:24 »
0
It's the "brand" you have to pay for, if you would be so stupid. I would never buy a Mercedes Benz or BMW. My old Toyota drives more reliable than any expensive brand car 8)

actually buying those 10K $ lenses is a wise investment as they never lose value over time and you could even make some profit.

but the 8000$ body will soon be worth 2-3000$ once new models come out and in 10 yrs from now you will sell it for 50 bucks on Ebay just like it's happening now with old nikon D2x or canon 1D.









Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2014, 23:27 »
0
Mercedes is somehow old-fashioned and definitely not as reliable as  Japanese cars.

well ... try a BMW motorbike like the GS series .. there's people doing round the world trips with it and they beat the Hondas hands down.

« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2014, 11:05 »
+3
Reading this thread reply's, I can see how stupid are Leica M buyers, including me - it seems you are right, I bought also Leica M-lenses, and get so much less "material" :'(

« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 11:34 by kalevitamm »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2014, 12:41 »
+1
Reading this thread reply's, I can see how stupid are Leica M buyers, including me - it seems you are right, I bought also Leica M-lenses, and get so much less "material" :'(

there's no doubt Leica/Zeiss make the best lenses ever but ultimately many people are locked into Leica and Apple because they joined a "cult".



« Last Edit: December 08, 2014, 12:43 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2014, 13:09 »
0
many people are locked into Leica and Apple because they joined a "cult".

Visually aware people also often appreciate good industrial design. eg - a beautifully designed a lens with a characteristic aesthetic - or the look and feel of a menu system.

(One of the things I hated about the Sonys which I briefly used earlier this year was their ugly and poorly thought out menu systems which reminded me of Windows / Fisher Price. And the fact that the design of the physical interface often resulted in me accidentally changing the ISO).

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2014, 14:09 »
0
many people are locked into Leica and Apple because they joined a "cult".

Visually aware people also often appreciate good industrial design. eg - a beautifully designed a lens with a characteristic aesthetic - or the look and feel of a menu system.

(One of the things I hated about the Sonys which I briefly used earlier this year was their ugly and poorly thought out menu systems which reminded me of Windows / Fisher Price. And the fact that the design of the physical interface often resulted in me accidentally changing the ISO).

modern camera bodies are all full of sh-it in one way or another because they're designed to be as generic as possible and target a wider audience of all-purpose photographers, on top of this now they also make video and some models have wi-fi and GPS, there's just no space for all this cr-ap and buyers keep asking for more !

menus and firmware are terrible in pretty much any brand i've used so far, i don't think Sony is the exception.

they should provide us with a decent desktop app instead, maybe adding some calibration features for instance, or more finer control.

as for aesthetics i fully agree some models really look awful, the Sony DSLR in particular are so blocky and ugly but they've a good grip and the feel solid so it's really up to you in the end.

the worst thing in camera tech in my opinion is being locked-in into a specific camera maker, being denied the option to use canon lenses on a nikon and viceversa, just because of a few different electric pins that can be easily hacked by the way but they also need chips etc ... why not agreeing on a single socket for all ? why not using DNG format instead of proprietary RAWs ? i'll probably stick with Nikon forever but ...

« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2014, 14:56 »
0
menus and firmware are terrible in pretty much any brand i've used so far, i don't think Sony is the exception.

The D700 Nikon I used to use had a reasonably good menu system. And, more importantly, once set up all of the important controls were available without looking via buttons and dials. The interface was a definitely improvement vs the Canon DSLRs which I had used previously.

These days I am very pleased with my Fuji X-E1. Bought used (mint) for less than half what it would have cost new. The menus are neat and logical. And it has proper dials and a built-in EVF  (today I prefer using an EVF vs either a prism, a rangefinder or a viewfinder). The 35mm f/1.4 (also bought used) may very possibly now be all of the lenses which I need. Although I also have a 60mm + plus a draw full of manual primes which I might use one day.

I fully expect to buy an X-E2 used if and when an X-E3 is launched. The X-E2's virtual split screen manual focus area is something I want. I think the car analogy above works well today. Might as well let someone else pay to drive it out of the garage / take it out of the box for the first time.

« Reply #23 on: December 12, 2014, 04:20 »
0
i use(d) sensor film for cleaning canon and nikon cameras. never had any kind of problem. results from the other side are not comparable with results from authorized service's cleaning. (in favor of sensor film).

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2014, 05:35 »
0
The 35mm f/1.4 (also bought used) may very possibly now be all of the lenses which I need.

for no-frills street photography, yes !






 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
33 Replies
11125 Views
Last post October 04, 2006, 02:09
by fintastique
16 Replies
6832 Views
Last post October 25, 2006, 14:54
by Pichunter
5 Replies
3656 Views
Last post May 19, 2007, 18:30
by sharply_done
19 Replies
6493 Views
Last post November 01, 2008, 23:32
by hrhportia
13 Replies
5675 Views
Last post October 27, 2008, 09:49
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results