biggambi
Vivere!
I find it interesting that the Leica community touted how superior the images are from a CCD sensor compared to the CMOS sensor. Then Leica jumps ship. Now everyone is trying to compare how close the CMOS sensor images are to the CCD sensor images; and, how Leica has better captured this phenomenon compared to other companies utilizing the CMOS sensor. It would seem, this argument leads to the conclusion: CCD sensor images are the standard to which CMOS sensors aspires. I understand what is gained by CMOS sensors, but when there is sufficient light, CCD sensors seems clearly to produce the better image. Or, Leica and all of those touting the company line mislead everyone with the M8 & M9 rhetoric. Can anyone demonstrate with photos why they prefer the image produced by the M240 at low ISO over the image produced by the M9? I would love to see examples.
Right now, the only real appeal for me with the M240 is the weather sealing and what sounds like is better ergonomics. Also, by certain accounts the tolerances during manufacturing are held to a tighter standard on the new M240. All three things could have been done with a CCD sensor. I just wish they had forgone the mainstream push and continued on the original path, as I prefer the images. I certainly would like another stop into lower light with the CCD sensor, and I would have thought that would have been achievable with a next generation CCD sensor. But, it would not have been necessary for me to want the new camera. If Leica is going to offer the ME, why not add these features in the next generation of this model? Yes there are manufacturing costs that milking the current design does not incur. But, I do not think this is asking for much. Would anyone else like to see these changes and consider them valuable?
Overall, I grew up shooting film. The images of the M8 and M9 just don’t look bad to me at higher ISO. Do I like them as much as I like the lower ISO image quality – no. But, it has always been composition that is most important to me. I know others have voiced this same sentiment. So, I accept the compromise that comes with the CCD sensor. I guess it is having the ability to capture a better image under more ideal lighting is more appealing than the other side of the coin for me. (This is all very personal and it can easily be argued that the other advantages are more important for someone else. So, please lets not go down that road.) But, I am wondering am I and others like me missing something that is fundamentally changing in the perspective of the observer? New expectations that render past great photos less than desirable. Would most people now prefer a close approximation or recapture of those very photos with todays newest cameras? Or, do we still value the original interpretation as a society above all else? I do not have answers, but maybe you will.
Right now, the only real appeal for me with the M240 is the weather sealing and what sounds like is better ergonomics. Also, by certain accounts the tolerances during manufacturing are held to a tighter standard on the new M240. All three things could have been done with a CCD sensor. I just wish they had forgone the mainstream push and continued on the original path, as I prefer the images. I certainly would like another stop into lower light with the CCD sensor, and I would have thought that would have been achievable with a next generation CCD sensor. But, it would not have been necessary for me to want the new camera. If Leica is going to offer the ME, why not add these features in the next generation of this model? Yes there are manufacturing costs that milking the current design does not incur. But, I do not think this is asking for much. Would anyone else like to see these changes and consider them valuable?
Overall, I grew up shooting film. The images of the M8 and M9 just don’t look bad to me at higher ISO. Do I like them as much as I like the lower ISO image quality – no. But, it has always been composition that is most important to me. I know others have voiced this same sentiment. So, I accept the compromise that comes with the CCD sensor. I guess it is having the ability to capture a better image under more ideal lighting is more appealing than the other side of the coin for me. (This is all very personal and it can easily be argued that the other advantages are more important for someone else. So, please lets not go down that road.) But, I am wondering am I and others like me missing something that is fundamentally changing in the perspective of the observer? New expectations that render past great photos less than desirable. Would most people now prefer a close approximation or recapture of those very photos with todays newest cameras? Or, do we still value the original interpretation as a society above all else? I do not have answers, but maybe you will.
thegman
Veteran
Would it be reasonable to assume that had Leica dismissed CCD right away, and gone with CMOS, that the Leica community would have backed CMOS instead? This reminds me a little of the computing 'wars' between RISC and CISC processors, proponents of each would rattle through the advantages of their favourite, and denigrate the other. I think the reality is that their computer happened to have one or the other installed, and that was the one they supported, technology had nothing to do with it.
Personally I don't think I ever seen a photograph taken with a CCD sensor that looked better than CMOS, or vice versa. The images from a modern version of either look pretty much the same to me. I'd be genuinely interested to see a difference though.
Personally I don't think I ever seen a photograph taken with a CCD sensor that looked better than CMOS, or vice versa. The images from a modern version of either look pretty much the same to me. I'd be genuinely interested to see a difference though.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I've seen no evidence that CCDs in general have superior imaging characteristics. They don't have better sensitivity. They don't have better dynamic range. They don't have better color discrimination. They don't have superior noise characteristics. CCDs certainly don't have better thermal dissipation or power consumption properties.
Leica's engineers are not fools. They know all of this. Hence the M240.
A lot of people people want to believe that they've made the "best" choice, and will argue their way toward that view. Shallow technical understanding on the part of many consumers makes it easier to do. The M9/M-E CCD sensor makes excellent pictures. But it does not need to be better than a modern CMOS sensor to do so; it only needs to be as good as it already is.
For what it's worth my main digis are CMOS cameras, but I keep an old Olympus around with a Kodak CCD (E500) because it still makes very nice images.
ray*j*gun
Veteran
Yes brand loyalty is right up there with genocide.... for gods sake its no big deal. I love and use my M8u and would be hard pressed to ID what kind of sensor it has....same with my D90.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've felt from the beginning that the CCD vs CMOS stuff is malarky from the point of view of a photographer since the impact of image processing on the raw data produced by either accounts for the VAST majority of what we see in the images. What matters far far more than the sensor technology is the tuning and handing of the raw data after capture, and whatever other in-camera processing is applied on the way to jpeg image files.
I love my M9, have no problems at all with it and will be using it for a long time to come. It is a delightfully competent and capable camera. I doubt I really need anything more for 95% or more of what I do.
I do look to the new M in the future for its improvements in sensitivity, responsiveness, acutance, and occasional capability to use with Live View for very long lenses and close-up work. But until I feel flush enough to drop another $7000 on a new body out of pocket, I'm quite content with working the excellent camera I already own.
G
I love my M9, have no problems at all with it and will be using it for a long time to come. It is a delightfully competent and capable camera. I doubt I really need anything more for 95% or more of what I do.
I do look to the new M in the future for its improvements in sensitivity, responsiveness, acutance, and occasional capability to use with Live View for very long lenses and close-up work. But until I feel flush enough to drop another $7000 on a new body out of pocket, I'm quite content with working the excellent camera I already own.
G
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Godfrey hits the nail squarely on its head.
Pioneer
Veteran
I see the CCD and CMOS discussion as a corollary of the Tri-X and TMY discussions. There are certainly some differences between the two, but they can both capture great images if the photographer is up to it.
Exdsc
Well-known
Three reasons Leica went CMOS:
1- High ISO performance
2- Low battery consumption
3- Video!
And a i guess the price of CMOS sensors, they're the most commonly produced sensors these days.
As to CCD vs CMOS debate -- find a used Fuji S5 DSLR, released in 2006, for less than $500, and remember that used Nikon D300 goes for $350...
3rdtrick
Well-known
When I moved up from the Nikon D200 (CCD) to the D300 (CMOS), there was just something I liked better about the D200 images. Was it the CCD, the firmware or the rendering of the PP software? When I got my M9 it was back and I really like the images the M9 produces. Again is it the CCD or something else? That being said, when I got the Nikon D800E (CMOS), I posted sample images from it and the M9 here and you all could not tell the difference and neither could I. Sensors, firmware, and PP Software have advanced so far now that the difference between CCD & CMOS is probably irrelevant. I still like my M9 and I am keeping it but I would not turn down an M240 because of the sensor.
Pete
Pete
Exdsc
Well-known
I have a D200, its images have a smooth luminosity to them, that is how I can describe it, which could be higher dynamic range in highlights. Its shadows are not that good, but shadows in color don't need to be.
Color is a product of light and higher dynamic range in highlights means more smooth and natural looking colors.
Top FF CMOS sensors might have 14 DR but how many of those are in the shadows and how many in the highlights, this is something that no one can measure, or at least I don't know of any means to measure DR in highlights.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Indeed. all this CCD CMos excitement is in reality yawny stuff...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Huh?- DR in the highlights and shadows??
MCTuomey
Veteran
I don't understand the technical aspect at all, so it doesn't influence my decisions. I shoot and process, that's it. The few pics I've made that make me proud have come from cameras using either sensor. Type of sensor is just not an issue, for me.
What I do know is that I have several cameras I like shooting, so I'm likely to try to wear them out before replacing them. Only thing I'm short is time ... so what the h#ll am I doing here?
What I do know is that I have several cameras I like shooting, so I'm likely to try to wear them out before replacing them. Only thing I'm short is time ... so what the h#ll am I doing here?
DougFord
on the good foot
The OP is apparently a buyer of Leica products and is expressing an interest in a current generation CCD 'sensored' M camera.
There seems to be a market for such a beast and Leica is in a unique position to market a 'CCD Classic M' model.
I have no idea of the economic realities in sourcing a current generation CCD sensor and the associated camera design costs. Keeping in mind that the ME is the less expensive M offering. Creating and developing a 'classic' digital hardware imaging market.
Fun to think about anyways.
There seems to be a market for such a beast and Leica is in a unique position to market a 'CCD Classic M' model.
I have no idea of the economic realities in sourcing a current generation CCD sensor and the associated camera design costs. Keeping in mind that the ME is the less expensive M offering. Creating and developing a 'classic' digital hardware imaging market.
Fun to think about anyways.
3rdtrick
Well-known
When I bought the M9 the CCD was a selling point and I was happy to have it but when I bought my D800E, the CMOS certainly was NOT a showstopper. I think the most improvement is in the lack of AA filters.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
All correct. Also:
5- Improved dynamic range;
6- Live view;
7- Higher resolution (tighter pixel pitch).
Note that #1 and #6 also increase resolution substantially. #1 by allowing faster shutter speeds, #6 by allowing more accurate focus when on a tripod. These are important points if users want to actually take advantage* of the performance offered by the latest Leica optics and the better older lenses.
*Yeah, I know, I know…
Aristophanes
Well-known
Add to that CMOS is now less expensive to fabricate.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I'm not sure how much of a factor that is given that the Leica M sensor is still very much a highly customized piece of machinery, manufactured in small batches. CMOSIS is not a Sony in terms of production volumes, which is where the manufacturing cost differences become very important.
G
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I'll defer to Godfrey, as he made sense. While I have some level of understanding of RISC vs. CISC in computers, all this sensor tech is kind of a black box to me. Call it PFM...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That used to be. Nowadays it is all over the place. The shallow-well CMOSIS with dedicated microlenses for the M cannot be exactly cheap.