Om1.1 mark behind glass on sensor

[drj3]

For what it's worth, I have a pre-order OM-1.1 S/N BJMA05389. It doesn't have the problem.

What we don't know is if the problem is on the sensor, the stack or in between. Also, we don't know who supplies the sensor, who supplies the stack and who assembles them. What I'm getting at is, if the problem is the sensor, is it the brand or is it that it's a BSI stacked sensor. In any case, unless we are sure it's confined to early OM-1.1s, them OM-1.2 and OM-3 owners need to be on their guard.

Sony IMX472-AAJK sensor.

 

[moisocr]

Hi, I wanted to chime in and report that the sensor on my OM-1 has had this problem too since I bought the camera secondhand.

You can see in the attached photos that there is an area in the top left corner that has kind of a triangular shape and looks similar to other sensors shared in this thread.

 

[Bobapingu]

Afer sending my camera to OM repair in NJ last week and getting an invoice for $448 (new sensor) on Saturday I decided to call them this morning. Their line of reasoning was since I performed a sensor cleaning (properly done) they would not honor the warranty. Their line of reasoning is that sensor cleaning should never be done except by their own repair lab. Even though the marks on the sensor were there before the cleaning they are not addressing the cause of the problem.

I don't agree with this and now have a very bad opinion of OM and will eliminate my OM gear over time. My choice is to get the camera repaired and sell it at a current used price or keep it and use it as is for a while. Since I am a senior and we do a lot of traveling I am trying to lighten my load and have been very impressed with my iPhone 17 Pro. My photo outputs are 5 Meural 30" photo frames and the post processed iPhone photos are looking great.

Your sensor damage does look very different from the OPs. The OPs damage is limited to the sensor area and could be either the sensor or something on the back of the sensor cover.

Your damage is definitely not on the sensor but on the sensor cover since it extends far beyond the sensor to the very edge of the cover. This does not mean that it is something you caused but it would appear to not be a sensor delamination or directly related to a specific problem with the camera sensors. I assume the sensor is replaced if the cover is damaged, so the sensor would need to be replaced.

I think all the marks in the several photos are quite similar and can vary depending on ability to capture the light reflections off the sensor. I am still try to find the reason for the sensor problem even though OM has made my warranty invalid because of the proper sensor cleaning that I did. The marks were there before the cleaning and were not different after the cleaning. The reason to clean the sensor was because the marks were there.

That's unconscionable of them to blame you for sensor cleaning. Sensor cleaning is a normal user process. It's up to them to prove that your sensor cleaning caused the problem. The camera was simply not fit for purpose when it was sold. Their claim would not stand up in court. They know that but they also know that few would take it so far. It's a bluff that unfortunately almost always pays off. If you have any consumer protection association in your country, I suggest you approach them and let OM know what you are doing.

 

[Althalus]

So I have attached some high res macro images.

There are clearly straight lines within the sensor substrate, and the issue shows no resemblance to dirt/dust/fungus images I can find online.

I've had the camera store look at the camera who are sure it is a sensor failure. I'm currently trying to reach agreement with omds as to who will pay for the repair. But I suspect I will have to foot the bill as i'm out of warranty. If this is the case I will be trading in all of my omds gear as soon as it has been repaired.

 

[drj3]

Afer sending my camera to OM repair in NJ last week and getting an invoice for $448 (new sensor) on Saturday I decided to call them this morning. Their line of reasoning was since I performed a sensor cleaning (properly done) they would not honor the warranty. Their line of reasoning is that sensor cleaning should never be done except by their own repair lab. Even though the marks on the sensor were there before the cleaning they are not addressing the cause of the problem.

I don't agree with this and now have a very bad opinion of OM and will eliminate my OM gear over time. My choice is to get the camera repaired and sell it at a current used price or keep it and use it as is for a while. Since I am a senior and we do a lot of traveling I am trying to lighten my load and have been very impressed with my iPhone 17 Pro. My photo outputs are 5 Meural 30" photo frames and the post processed iPhone photos are looking great.

Your sensor damage does look very different from the OPs. The OPs damage is limited to the sensor area and could be either the sensor or something on the back of the sensor cover.

Your damage is definitely not on the sensor but on the sensor cover since it extends far beyond the sensor to the very edge of the cover. This does not mean that it is something you caused but it would appear to not be a sensor delamination or directly related to a specific problem with the camera sensors. I assume the sensor is replaced if the cover is damaged, so the sensor would need to be replaced.

I think all the marks in the several photos are quite similar and can vary depending on ability to capture the light reflections off the sensor. I am still try to find the reason for the sensor problem even though OM has made my warranty invalid because of the proper sensor cleaning that I did. The marks were there before the cleaning and were not different after the cleaning. The reason to clean the sensor was because the marks were there.

That's unconscionable of them to blame you for sensor cleaning. Sensor cleaning is a normal user process. It's up to them to prove that your sensor cleaning caused the problem. The camera was simply not fit for purpose when it was sold. Their claim would not stand up in court. They know that but they also know that few would take it so far. It's a bluff that unfortunately almost always pays off. If you have any consumer protection association in your country, I suggest you approach them and let OM know what you are doing.

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

 

[Will Rose]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

 

[Bobapingu]

So I have attached some high res macro images.

There are clearly straight lines within the sensor substrate, and the issue shows no resemblance to dirt/dust/fungus images I can find online.

I've had the camera store look at the camera who are sure it is a sensor failure. I'm currently trying to reach agreement with omds as to who will pay for the repair. But I suspect I will have to foot the bill as i'm out of warranty. If this is the case I will be trading in all of my omds gear as soon as it has been repaired.

Excellent, thanks for posting! Most images so far have the same elongated triangular shape. This has the hallmarks of a manufacturing fault. If it was moisture ingress or misuse by the user, the faults would appear random. I encourage those with this fault to not let themselves be fobbed off. It's irrelevant if it's out of warranty. A camera exhibiting such a fault in less than 5 to 10 years was arguably not fit for sale in the first place. This is particularly so for a camera that was a flagship with professional pretensions at the time of sale. OMDS need to come the party on this one, Olympus would have.

It would be interesting to know if the triangular mark is in a similar orientation and position in all cases.

 

[Bobapingu]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I do recall reading that post but didn't make the connection. Sorry!

 

[drj3]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I see nothing in jaVisst post that indicates anything other than after repairing the camera they decided it should be covered under the warranty. At least the reply does not indicate this went beyond the NJ repair center or that the problem was escalated to OM Systems. Maybe jaVisst could clarify if he contacted anyone other than the repair center.

OM Systems should definitely cover any warranty repairs required by a sensor issue not caused by the user as in jaVistt case.

However, they have no requirement to cover sensor repair for cameras not in warranty whether is it is a used camera or a grey import, but that would be laudable if they did.

 

[drj3]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I see nothing in jaVisst post that indicates anything other than after repairing the camera they decided it should be covered under the warranty. At least the reply does not indicate this went beyond the NJ repair center or that the problem was escalated to OM Systems. Maybe jaVisst could clarify if he contacted anyone other than the repair center.

OM Systems should definitely cover any warranty repairs required by a sensor issue not caused by the user as in jaVistt case.

However, they have no requirement to cover sensor repair for cameras not in warranty whether is it is a used camera or a grey import, but that would be laudable if they did.

I should have added to the above, that any repair for cameras not in warranty will probably have to be approved by OM Systems and not by the repair center. The repair center is not part of OM Systems, it is

US Imaging Systems Inc, a company based in Hackensack, NJ that specializes in providing imaging solutions to various industries.

With a focus on cutting-edge technology and quality service, the company offers a range of imaging products and services to meet the needs of its clients.

Olympus closed its repair centers years ago and outsourced repairs. Originally Precision Camera was the repair company, but that was changed to US Imaging Systems by Olympus and continued as the outsourced USA repair center for OM Systems.

 

[Will Rose]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I see nothing in jaVisst post that indicates anything other than after repairing the camera they decided it should be covered under the warranty. At least the reply does not indicate this went beyond the NJ repair center or that the problem was escalated to OM Systems. Maybe jaVisst could clarify if he contacted anyone other than the repair center.

Then evidently you did not read these two posts from JaVisst:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68475768

In that first one, he describes how they justified how they charged him after examining his sensor.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68486224

In the second one, he describes sending an email to OM about the incident, and the response he received back.

I think his writing was quite clear.

He sent the camera for repair, with his proof of warranty. They decided to charge him. He called the repair center to complain, and they rebuffed him and insisted on charging him. So he succumbed and paid. Then he complained to OM. Then they reconsidered and refunded him. That is what happened.

Admittedly, this is a long thread, so it can be hard to follow if you don't look at each post JaVisst has made.

I'm glad he was so transparent with us, and I think he handled the situation well. OM ended up doing the right thing, but that certainly was not what initially happened.

 

[Will Rose]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I see nothing in jaVisst post that indicates anything other than after repairing the camera they decided it should be covered under the warranty. At least the reply does not indicate this went beyond the NJ repair center or that the problem was escalated to OM Systems. Maybe jaVisst could clarify if he contacted anyone other than the repair center.

OM Systems should definitely cover any warranty repairs required by a sensor issue not caused by the user as in jaVistt case.

However, they have no requirement to cover sensor repair for cameras not in warranty whether is it is a used camera or a grey import, but that would be laudable if they did.

I should have added to the above, that any repair for cameras not in warranty will probably have to be approved by OM Systems and not by the repair center. The repair center is not part of OM Systems, it is

US Imaging Systems Inc, a company based in Hackensack, NJ that specializes in providing imaging solutions to various industries.

With a focus on cutting-edge technology and quality service, the company offers a range of imaging products and services to meet the needs of its clients.

Olympus closed its repair centers years ago and outsourced repairs. Originally Precision Camera was the repair company, but that was changed to US Imaging Systems by Olympus and continued as the outsourced USA repair center for OM Systems.

I think what you're saying is fair.

But I also think it's fair that if we get into a situation (like what in the automotive industry would trigger a recall) where it is found that a component, that should last many years, turns out to have a manufacturing or design defect that causes it to degrade and self-destruct in a much shorter time frame, that different behavior may be appropriate.

Cameras commonly have a one-year warranty. That said, no camera company will survive that sells expensive cameras with sensors that delaminate after two or three years, merely by pointing at the warranty.

I'm not saying there's an epidemic or that we should over-react, but I am saying that regardless of any warranty, there are expectations of fitness and durability that must be met if a company is to maintain its customer base and survive. Automakers (which obviously are also more heavily regulated) understand this, which is why out-of-warranty recalls do exist.

 

[drj3]

DId you miss the later post where JaVisst said they refunded his payment after receiving the camera and examining the sensor?

Maybe you missed a post too.

They didn’t refund JaVisst because they examined his sensor.

JaVisst was actually under warranty (and had provided proof of same), and initially after examining his sensor OMDS decided to renege on his warranty and billed him, claiming it was justified because he had cleaned his sensor.

It was only later after escalation that they decided to honor his warranty and refunded him.

They acted much like an insurance company: deny, and see if they can get away with it.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think that’s laudable behavior.

It remains to be seen how they treat a customer with obvious sensor failure who is beyond the warranty period.

I see nothing in jaVisst post that indicates anything other than after repairing the camera they decided it should be covered under the warranty. At least the reply does not indicate this went beyond the NJ repair center or that the problem was escalated to OM Systems. Maybe jaVisst could clarify if he contacted anyone other than the repair center.

OM Systems should definitely cover any warranty repairs required by a sensor issue not caused by the user as in jaVistt case.

However, they have no requirement to cover sensor repair for cameras not in warranty whether is it is a used camera or a grey import, but that would be laudable if they did.

I should have added to the above, that any repair for cameras not in warranty will probably have to be approved by OM Systems and not by the repair center. The repair center is not part of OM Systems, it is

US Imaging Systems Inc, a company based in Hackensack, NJ that specializes in providing imaging solutions to various industries.

With a focus on cutting-edge technology and quality service, the company offers a range of imaging products and services to meet the needs of its clients.

Olympus closed its repair centers years ago and outsourced repairs. Originally Precision Camera was the repair company, but that was changed to US Imaging Systems by Olympus and continued as the outsourced USA repair center for OM Systems.

I think what you're saying is fair.

But I also think it's fair that if we get into a situation (like what in the automotive industry would trigger a recall) where it is found that a component, that should last many years, turns out to have a manufacturing or design defect that causes it to degrade and self-destruct in a much shorter time frame, that different behavior may be appropriate.

Cameras commonly have a one-year warranty. That said, no camera company will survive that sells expensive cameras with sensors that delaminate after two or three years, merely by pointing at the warranty.

I'm not saying there's an epidemic or that we should over-react, but I am saying that regardless of any warranty, there are expectations of fitness and durability that must be met if a company is to maintain its customer base and survive. Automakers (which obviously are also more heavily regulated) understand this, which is why out-of-warranty recalls do exist.

If it is found to be degrading of the sensor, then there would need to be a recall for all affected sensors. Currently we don't know if it is a problem of degrading sensors or simply sensors that have always had this problem or a problem that occurs because of specific types of usage. Apparently, it is not something that would be likely to be noticed in most images.

My OM1.1 pre-ordered has 317,257 images with stabilization and many others without stabilization and my OM1.2 ordered in the month after release, has 117,710 images with stabilization and many others without stabilization and neither have this problem.

While I do often shoot very long bursts, many times one right after another, I have never used either for video or for very long single exposures should either generate more heat and be possible causes of the damage.

 

[Will Rose]

If it is found to be degrading of the sensor, then there would need to be a recall for all affected sensors. Currently we don't know if it is a problem of degrading sensors or simply sensors that have always had this problem or a problem that occurs because of specific types of usage. Apparently, it is not something that would be likely to be noticed in most images.

My OM1.1 pre-ordered has 317,257 images with stabilization and many others without stabilization and my OM1.2 ordered in the month after release, has 117,710 images with stabilization and many others without stabilization and neither have this problem.

While I do often shoot very long bursts, many times one right after another, I have never used either for video or for very long single exposures should either generate more heat and be possible causes of the damage.

Yes, exactly right. I pointed out a long time ago in this thread, we don't actually know if this is something that develops, or if it is something the sensors were "born" with and was just never noticed. It seems to be difficult to notice unless you are really looking for it, because apparently you have to be looking very closely, and the light has to be just so in order for it to be visible. It appears on images, but again is only noticeable with specific conditions. So it sounds like it's entirely possible this is just a manufacturing defect and perhaps many more people actually have it then have noticed.

I am not aware of anyone conclusively showing that their sensor developed the problem: that it definitely did not have the issue previously, and then one day it did.

Like you, my sensor does not have the issue either. I hope it stays that way.