ktmrider
Well-known
Honestly, I did not know my M9 had a problem. I sent it in because it had been living in a backpack for 90 days of travel through Europe. I am sure it needed a cleaning and I was a bit rough on it during the trip so I wanted to make sure everything was factory spec.
I am happy to have a new sensor as I now have a 12 month Leica warranty on the whole camera. If your camera is not showing any signs of a problem, then hang onto it.
I am happy to have a new sensor as I now have a 12 month Leica warranty on the whole camera. If your camera is not showing any signs of a problem, then hang onto it.
willie_901
Veteran
Another advantage of waiting is Leica formally announced they are modifying the IR filter/cover glass design to eliminate the deamination problem. The rest if the sensor (Color filter array and PIN assembly are not involved in deamination.
So, if you you photograph a cloudless sky at the smallest lens aperture you ever wish to use, and you do not see lamination defects, it makes sense to wait.
If you do see lamination defects, then it still makes sense to wait if you prefer to clone out the defects instead of being without the camera during the duration of the replacement.
So, if you you photograph a cloudless sky at the smallest lens aperture you ever wish to use, and you do not see lamination defects, it makes sense to wait.
If you do see lamination defects, then it still makes sense to wait if you prefer to clone out the defects instead of being without the camera during the duration of the replacement.
nightfly
Well-known
Thanks for the guidance. Camera is relatively new to me and had the sensor cleaned recently at Nippon Camera in New York (before I was aware of the defect hoopla) and everything is look pretty good so I'll wait and see what happens.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Huss
Veteran
So, it's been 3 months since the announcement by Leica (and who knows how long since they've been aware of the problem).
Any news as to how the development of the 'new' sensor for the M-E/M-9 is coming?
Any news as to how the development of the 'new' sensor for the M-E/M-9 is coming?
Its been years since this problem first surfaced. What is happening Leica?
BTW, it would be great for M system sales if a brand new CCD sensor was developed out of this problem and installed in future digital M cameras
- turning lemons into lemonade.
Stephen
Kwesi
Well-known
That would be ideal but unfortunately the benefits of a CMOS sensor are too great to ignore in creating a system camera. So my sense is that what we are most likely to see in the next M is a default processing algorithm designed to mimic the M9 color output.
Leica has been listening to the die hard M9 fans but they really can't ignore the benefits of CMOS.
Ronald M
Veteran
CCD can`t do video which to me makes no difference. Others differ.
We can develop out own preset to make M240 colors look like M9. Not a big trick. Get the grey to match, then RGB. Use a color checker.
M8 colors are not too accurate, but I used the fix above to make a pretty good camera to of mine. Before you tell me how great your M8 is, I have compared many and they are all like mine.
willie_901
Veteran
Both CMOS and CCD semiconductors are more similar than different when it comes to capturing light as electrical charge.
"The 'pinned photodiode' is a photodetector structure used in almost all charge-coupled device (CCD) and CMOS image sensors (CIS) due to its low noise, high quantum efficiency and low dark current. "
It's all the non-pinned photodiode electronics technology that are inherently inferior. CCD electronics will alway have a higher noise level. There are other technical advantages to CMOS as well.
I am not aware of any R&D efforts to develop CCD sensors. As far as I know the Kodak CCD sensor design is one of the few in production for high-end still photography. Even newer medium format cameras (Pentax 645Z) now have CMOS sensors.
The quality and design of the color-filter array and sensor-site micro-lenses is a different story. Starting with the M8, Leica differentiated themselves by using high-quality CFA and micro-lens assemblies.
uhoh7
Veteran
The debate continues and it's far from clear that for still work CMOS is better.
What we do know:
CMOS is cheaper
CMOS does movies
Pioneer
Veteran
It does seem quite interesting to me. People tend to worry that the selection of films has declined over the years but no one seems the slightest bit worried that all the digital choices are now moving to one type of sensor. Which, of course, isthe least expensive one to produce, though not necessarily the best.
willie_901
Veteran
The peer-review scientific and engineering literature is conclusive. The consensus of world-class engineers and scientists, their peers and academic journal editorial boards contradicts any notion that CCD technology is superior to CMOS for photography.
There is no objective, empirical or even theoretical evidence to support your claim CMOS is "not necessarily the best". The idea that CCD technology is superior is based on ad-hoc, subjective opinions.
But forget about the conclusions of those who did the science and engineering to develop CCD and then CMOS technology. The market place has spoken. There will be no more new CCD still imaging sensors for photographers. It's not the manufacturing costs that drive this decision. It's that a minuscule sliver of the photography market finds any value at all in CCD-based sensors.
This does not mean all the other components in the M9 data stream (including the color filter array and micro-lenses) do not produce aesthetically preferable images. In fact it's clear many thoughtful photographers prefer M9 images above all others. But that is an entirely different topic.
The issue is not to improve CCD electronics design. Instead the issue is how to make a new camera with a data stream that produces similar rendering as the M9 with the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range of the M-240.
It's unfortunate a manufacturing defect in the sensor assembly that has nothing to do with CCD technology adversely affects one of the very few choices for photographers who prefer to use CCD technology.
The Nikon D200 is built like a tank and has a CCD based data stream. I suspect with either the Fotodiox or Metabones F-Mount adapters Leica R lenses the D200 would be a reliable platform for CCD proponents who also choose to use some of the best optics on the planet.
There is no objective, empirical or even theoretical evidence to support your claim CMOS is "not necessarily the best". The idea that CCD technology is superior is based on ad-hoc, subjective opinions.
But forget about the conclusions of those who did the science and engineering to develop CCD and then CMOS technology. The market place has spoken. There will be no more new CCD still imaging sensors for photographers. It's not the manufacturing costs that drive this decision. It's that a minuscule sliver of the photography market finds any value at all in CCD-based sensors.
This does not mean all the other components in the M9 data stream (including the color filter array and micro-lenses) do not produce aesthetically preferable images. In fact it's clear many thoughtful photographers prefer M9 images above all others. But that is an entirely different topic.
The issue is not to improve CCD electronics design. Instead the issue is how to make a new camera with a data stream that produces similar rendering as the M9 with the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range of the M-240.
It's unfortunate a manufacturing defect in the sensor assembly that has nothing to do with CCD technology adversely affects one of the very few choices for photographers who prefer to use CCD technology.
The Nikon D200 is built like a tank and has a CCD based data stream. I suspect with either the Fotodiox or Metabones F-Mount adapters Leica R lenses the D200 would be a reliable platform for CCD proponents who also choose to use some of the best optics on the planet.