New M CMOS sensor vs M9 CCD, any thoughts??

Hello,

I am also very curious to see what the new M will be like and how it will be received, even if I'm not in a position to buy one, for now.

But, as this sensor technology switch is somewhat central to shaping many expectations, I'd like to pose a question to those who know some more about the evolution of digital cameras in time.
Out of curiosity, I was looking on some Wikipedia articles and I noticed that, say, Nikon cameras also used CCD sensors up to a point, when they made the switch to CMOS. I guess many more camera manufacturers used CCD sensors as well, but I picked Nikon as an example, seeing as they seemed to make this change a bit later than other companies.
Does anybody remember if that change back then was the subject of any keen observations, reviews or interpretations with regards to the changes in an image's aesthetic or quality?

Thanks!

V
 
An M3 at 4 or 5?! Clearly you were exposed to Leicas at too young an age & were rendered allergic. 😉

Personally, I can get along just fine w/any camera w/an optical rangefinder, whether it's a Plaubel Makina, Kodak Ektra, or Leica M-whatever. I guess I just prefer a RF's binary focusing confirmation &, for my photography, I can work it faster & more consistently than any manual focus SLR (or TLR) & almost every autofocus system I've tried (if only the X-Pro1 focused as quickly & accurately as a D700, which itself is frustrating at times). I would have been happy to accept an M5-sized new digital M if that had been the price of improved high ISO performance; the fact that the new M will be the same size as the M9 is gravy.

semilog said:
And as someone who first used an M3 at the age of 4 or 5 years old, and has shot an M6 for a long time, it is to me -- by far -- the least appealing aspect of using an M. For me it's about the tangible experience of using the device and the actual results obtained....
Click to expand...
 
furcafe said:
I can work it faster & more consistently than any manual focus SLR (or TLR) & almost every autofocus system I've tried.
Click to expand...

Personally, back in the MF film days I don't recall seeing my PJ friends using their Leica M's to cover basketball games delicate situations in hospitals, homes, etc., sure. For close-in sports it was F2s and F3s with wide lenses, all the way. If the focus speed of SLRs substantially lagged that of rangefinders for most people, SLRs would never have achieved the (almost) totally dominant position that they did in covering fast-moving news events and sports, even close-in with wide lenses.

The advantages of rangefinders were always discretion (low noise, compact form), and great performance with small wide-angle lenses -- not speed.

For most people, anyway. There are always exceptions; you may be one.
 
furcafe said:
An M3 at 4 or 5?
Click to expand...

Always under close supervision, of course. Once I was a bit older, I was not so easily supervised, and so not allowed to use the M3; the Pentax system was the one I was permitted to use, until I saved up for my own gear. My dad is a smart guy. ;-)
 
Range-rover said:
It's not the sensor guy's it's each of the cameras company's processor's, they tweek
the outputs here and there till they get what they want, and remember there's only
three colors on a sensor red, green and blue and you mix that all together and you
get oh my what a mess! where's my film camera!


Range
Click to expand...

There are only three color layers in color film too. Mix 'em up wrong and you get the same mess ...
 
Vcotea said:
Hello,

I am also very curious to see what the new M will be like and how it will be received, even if I'm not in a position to buy one, for now.

But, as this sensor technology switch is somewhat central to shaping many expectations, I'd like to pose a question to those who know some more about the evolution of digital cameras in time.
Out of curiosity, I was looking on some Wikipedia articles and I noticed that, say, Nikon cameras also used CCD sensors up to a point, when they made the switch to CMOS. I guess many more camera manufacturers used CCD sensors as well, but I picked Nikon as an example, seeing as they seemed to make this change a bit later than other companies.
Does anybody remember if that change back then was the subject of any keen observations, reviews or interpretations with regards to the changes in an image's aesthetic or quality?

Thanks!

V
Click to expand...

Nikon's change to CMOS was mostly financial (CMOS sensors are less expensive) and partially supply chain. Most of the early Nikon digital cameras used Kodak CCD sensors. At that time (1994-1996) a 2/3 CCD sensor ran over $4,000. And digital cameras ran $28,000. Going to CMOS cut that expense in half.

Nikon always has been tight lipped about who makes their sensors but everyone knows Sony makes most of them. It was rumored that Fuji made one or two but I'm not sure how accurate this is. Sony makes CMOS sensors.

Generally speaking, CCD sensors are sharper and more color accurate at base and lower ISO settings. And you see them used in MF and LF cameras. And on the M8 and M9.

Leica may be going to CMOS for the same reasons - price and availability. In response, many of us will keep our M8/M9s until they die because they have those wonderful Kodak (Kodachrome) CCD sensors.
 
Tom, the big drivers for CMOS use in portable consumer devices are (1) lower power consumption; (2) the ability to put image processing circuitry on the same slab of silicon; and (3) price. The first two are more important than you suggest.

When you say that "Sony makes CMOS sensors" you're omitting to mention that Sony has also made (metric) tons of CCD sensors, and in fact that in important respects (quantum efficiency; read noise) their CCD technology has been superior to Kodak's for well over a decade. One reason why Sony CMOS sensors are so good is the knowledge (and patent) base they built while designing CCD sensors.

Until the recent introduction of high-performance CMOS chips and more exotic EM-CCD sensors, Sony interline HyperHAD CCD sensors totally dominated the market for high-sensitivity cameras used in fluorescence microscopy. A market that Kodak had previously had a strong position in, and lost because the Sony sensors were so much better.

Now CMOS and EM-CCD sensors have almost totally taken over in that relatively price-insensitive market due to their technical superiority (mainly, physically larger arrays without truly astronomical (6 figure) prices). I don't know anyone who's specified a serious microscope camera in the last three years and has chosen a standard CCD-based unit.

I conclude that, barring significant and unexpected advances, CCD is increasingly a moribund technology that will be relegated to smaller and smaller niche markets. CMOS is where it's at.
 
You are certainly correct re: shooting sports, though if you're using wides, you can zone focus w/a manual focus SLR just like you do w/a RF & have the benefit of better framing (because of the better framing, I actually prefer using super-wides on an SLR, even though retrofocal SLR wides are often theoretically inferior to non-retrofocals on RFs). I think for most part, the difference in focus speed between a manual focus SLR & RF is a wash given sufficient practice. I give an SLR the edge for focusing on subjects moving quickly towards or away from the photographer & a big edge to RFs for focusing in low light. Since I shoot a lot of documentary-style subjects in low light & never shoot sports, the RF is my preferred tool.

I think being able to see through the lens, WYSIWYG so to speak, is the bottom-line killer app of SLRs (no competiltion until live view became possible). That & the fact they are also better w/long lenses (which have become more important in PJ work because of greatly increased security restrictions, etc.) & more affordable (easier to manufacture), accounted for their greater popularity even in the manual focus era (which wasn't really that long ago, or maybe I'm just old).

semilog said:
Personally, back in the MF film days I don't recall seeing my PJ friends using their Leica M's to cover basketball games delicate situations in hospitals, homes, etc., sure. For close-in sports it was F2s and F3s with wide lenses, all the way. If the focus speed of SLRs substantially lagged that of rangefinders for most people, SLRs would never have achieved the (almost) totally dominant position that they did in covering fast-moving news events and sports, even close-in with wide lenses.

The advantages of rangefinders were always discretion (low noise, compact form), and great performance with small wide-angle lenses -- not speed.

For most people, anyway. There are always exceptions; you may be one.
Click to expand...
 
semilog said:
I conclude that, barring significant and unexpected advances, CCD is increasingly a moribund technology that will be relegated to smaller and smaller niche markets. CMOS is where it's at.
Click to expand...

Its been a minority sensor type for some time. It is used mostly in very small sensors (e.g. compact cameras, smart phones, etc.) and large sensors (e.g. Pentax 645D, Hassleblad, S2, etc.)

There are characteristics of CCD which are superior, so not sure it will ever disappear.

The problem with predictions in specific technologies is that they have a very small chance of being true
 
furcafe said:
You are certainly correct re: shooting sports, though if you're using wides, you can zone focus w/a manual focus SLR just like you do w/a RF & have the benefit of better framing (because of the better framing, I actually prefer using super-wides on an SLR, even though retrofocal SLR wides are often theoretically inferior to non-retrofocals on RFs). I think for most part, the difference in focus speed between a manual focus SLR & RF is a wash given sufficient practice. I give an SLR the edge for focusing on subjects moving quickly towards or away from the photographer & a big edge to RFs for focusing in low light. Since I shoot a lot of documentary-style subjects in low light & never shoot sports, the RF is my preferred tool.

I think being able to see through the lens, WYSIWYG so to speak, is the bottom-line killer app of SLRs (no competiltion until live view became possible). That & the fact they are also better w/long lenses (which have become more important in PJ work because of greatly increased security restrictions, etc.) & more affordable (easier to manufacture), accounted for their greater popularity even in the manual focus era (which wasn't really that long ago, or maybe I'm just old).
Click to expand...

That tracks well with my own experience.
 
I often get customers insist that the ccd/cmos thing is a big deal. Here's the thing : it isn't.

The fabrication type of the sensor of a camera does indeed bring with it some character, but in all seriousness unless you could get the same camera with a cmos and ccd you really can't make meaningful comparions.

The camera is not a sensor. The camera is a combination of technology that needs to work together to give the best image. Basing a purchasing decision on which manufacturing process a single component was made with, I believe, would be a folly.
 
While I like the quality and character of the CCD in my M9. I'm fine with the quality of the CMOS sensor in my 5D mk2. If the quality from the new Leica M is similar in image quality as well as high ISO quality I'll be a very happy photographer.
 
Ditto. A sensor that performs like a 5D Mk2 sans anti-aliasing filter or downsized D800E would be just fine w/me.

swoop said:
While I like the quality and character of the CCD in my M9. I'm fine with the quality of the CMOS sensor in my 5D mk2. If the quality from the new Leica M is similar in image quality as well as high ISO quality I'll be a very happy photographer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom