How much character can a CMOS sensor have?

P

pieter

Established
Local time
1:49 AM
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
105
With the announcement of the new Leica M I can't help but wonder about its sensor. I am actually very surprised at how many people can be so excited about the features of the new M without having seen any of its files or seemingly giving no thought to the new sensor in the M. Surely the fact that it's no longer a CCD sensor but now is a CMOS sensor makes it a different ballgame?

One of the things I love about my M8.2 and about the M9 is that its sensor is amazing. It has character and has its own look. Much of this also has to do with the fact that it has an CCD sensor. (and yes I know that other cameras use a CCD even bad ones).

From what I have seen of CMOS sensors they all seem to have less soul and more of a digital quality to them (well the files they produce anyway). So my question: are there any CMOS based cameras that have has as much character? Are any significantly different from other CMOS sensors?
The Fuji sensor at least tries to be different, I guess. But to me at it is at its core still a CMOS sensor.

I don't doubt that the M will have a brilliant perfect CMOS sensor. But will it stay recognizable as a CMOS sensor, however technically perfect it it?
or, the main question: How much faith do you guys have in the character of the sensor in the Leica M?
 
Last edited:
I am really not sure Pieter. What I am sure about is - Leica will do their best to get as much of 'character' out of the new M as possible. And should they fail then there is the perfectly fine M-E ;)
 
Has anyone done, or is it even possible to do a double blind study? It sure would be full of pitfalls. There are so many other factors that come into play. In the end, the final product probably has more to do with the total execution from lens to the raw file/software. I think this is what both Fujifilm and Leica are striving for. Given their technological expertise, I guess that I should have included Sony in this, but I'm not sure that they have the "total execution" down, but they sure know how to make sensors and the supporting electronics. The fact that Leica is betting "the FF farm" on CMOS makes me think that they will come out with a superior product, or are they hedging their bets by keeping CCD alive?
 
bwcolor said:
Has anyone done, or is it even possible to do a double blind study? It sure would be full of pitfalls. There are so many other factors that come into play. In the end, the final product probably has more to do with the total execution from lens to the raw file/software. I think this is what both Fujifilm and Leica are striving for. Given their technological expertise, I guess that I should have included Sony in this, but I'm not sure that they have the "total execution" down, but they sure know how to make sensors and the supporting electronics. The fact that Leica is betting "the FF farm" on CMOS makes me think that they will come out with a superior product, or are they hedging their bets by keeping CCD alive.
Click to expand...
Highlight: exactly.

Also, many people buy cameras without getting obsessive about 'character'. Their photography provides all the character that's needed: the camera is secondary, because they aren't going to pixel-peep or trade it in a few months later, after mollycoddling it to keep its trade-in value as high as possible. They just buy the best tool that will enable them to realize their pictures, and USE IT.

Cheers,

R.
 
I use Canon digital stuff. Each camera has a CMOS sensor. I've been told they use less electricity than the CCD chip. I used my 2004 Canon 20D camera today and I started with the original battery thinking someday it's gotta give out and brought a couple of backups. Backups stayed in the camera bag! This camera is now over 100k cycles and it's still going strong.

To me, the best chip is the chip making photos.

A wise old photographer once said a camera doesn't make photos. My eyes do!

Have a wonderful week. Smiles!

P.S.

The smile is the most universal gesture recognized by people everywhere on earth. Try smiling at most everybody this week and see how many new friends you can meet!
 
If we talk about character then maybe about lens character, not sensor character. If I look through my photos then the M8+Elmarit photos don't stand out from the photos of 5D+Canon lenses, but the M8+Zeiss photos do.
 
I realize my post might give the suggestion that I think CCD is better than CMOS. I can definitely see the strengths of CMOS sensors and think for many photographic applications they would be my preference as well. But I just have to say that I've learned to love the output of the CCD sensor of the M8 and the M9. Much harder to work with than for example the output of the CMOS sensor in my Sony Nex system, but to my eye in the end it has a style I enjoy.

My M8+zeiss is decidedly different from my Nex+same zeiss in output. Sensor make plays a part in it. Look at the foveon sensor if you want an even clearer difference in sensor make.

So when trying to decide between an M9P and the new M for me the sensor and the character play a part in the decision. Nothing to get obsessed about, of course. But like all the different aspects of the end result I think sensor can be as much of a influence on the end result as the choice between a zeiss sonnar and summicron.
 
I'm not going to go on about "soul", but I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss the OP's question completely. I'm at least open to the possibility that there's some sort of difference between the output from CMOS sensors and CCD sensors.

I've no experience working with Leica digital files - most of my digital photography has been done with CMOS-sensor Canon cameras (300D, 30D, 50D, 5DmkI and some with my father's 40D and 60D). I have some more limited experience working with files from a Pentax K200D I picked up cheaply, which has a CCD sensor, and even more limited experience with friends' D70 and D200 files (also CCD). I have noticed some differences which just might have something to do with some consistent difference between CMOS and CCD as an input source (and might just as easily be due to other factors to do with design of support circuitry, or processing algorithms or all sorts of things, including the fact that most of these are old cameras).

Does this matter? I don't know. Does this matter to me as a Leica fan-boy thing? Not at all. I have no skin in the game on Leica vs anything else digital (or, to the extent I do, I'd presumably be biased towards Canon) nor any strong opinions on the virtues or otherwise of CCD or CMOS sensors.

Would this matter in real-world photos? Again, I don't know. I do know there are some things which might bias me towards using, say, my K200D rather than one of my Canon SLRs for certain applications and despite inconveniences (I have only old MF Pentax lenses). But that may be a Pentax digital vs Canon digital thing rather than something based on CMOS vs CCD .

But the possibility remains that one of the things which makes me prefer my Pentax output for a few applications may derive, in part, from the fact that it uses a CCD sensor.

...Mike
 
The biggest differences between all digital sensors, be they in the M9, the Canon, the Nikon or whatever, are the software algorithms that are interpreting the electronic signals and turning that into an image file. It isn't like film where you are looking at the actual result of the light hitting the silver, rather there is a software interpretation going on. If you think your Canon images show more "character" then that means that you are happy with how the Canon engineers designed their software package. :D
 
It's made-in-Belgium, you know. Gotta have a tad more character than the soulless mass produced Sony counterpart from Japan.
 
As others have posted before me, the creative and technical talent of the photographer is much more important than the differences in CCD and CMOS technology. In recently manufactured camera I doubt character has much to do with the sensor electronics used to estimate photon counts. Optics, color-filter array lenses, sensor pitch, and other non-electronic factors are another matter altogether.

In the past CCD technology had technical advantages in still photography because the circuitry was simpler. In the past 3-5 years CMOS technology development has been intense and now CMOS sensors do not suffer the disadvantages they did in the past. Notions that CCD sensors are special and produce excellent results in still cameras are correct. Technology has progressed to the point where CMOS sensors now produce the same level of excellence.

The fact is today both sensor designs can produce superb images. It is also true that CMOS sensors are less expensive to manufacture and consume significantly less power.

It is entire reasonable to applaud Leica for realizing CMOS technology no longer is fundamentally inferior to CCD technology. At the sometime it is fair to ask: what took them so long? After all, the most discerning professionals who purchase images in support of high-budget advertising campaigns pay top dollar for images from cameras with state-of-the-art CMOS sensors. They have done so for years. Of course they also buy images from cameras with CCD sensors. While the monetary value of images is an incomplete measure of their character, it is certainly one way to keep score about what is important.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Also, many people buy cameras without getting obsessive about 'character'. Their photography provides all the character that's needed: the camera is secondary, because they aren't going to pixel-peep or trade it in a few months later, after mollycoddling it to keep its trade-in value as high as possible. They just buy the best tool that will enable them to realize their pictures, and USE IT.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

very well said, Roger.
 
Archlich said:
It's made-in-Belgium, you know. Gotta have a tad more character than the soulless mass produced Sony counterpart from Japan.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how best to unpack this statement. Is soul and character a result of being boutique or Western or unsuccessful at market? :rolleyes:
 
ccd vs cmos result: it's like the difference between a cabinet made of oak and one made of mahogany- when both painted with five layers of black lacquer.
You only start to see the difference when you strip it clean, or start taking it apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom