raid
Dad Photographer
Have you recently used an M8 or M9 and also an M240 side by side? The colors coming out directly from the M8 look more natural to me than what I am getting with the M240. Is this due to the different sensors or is this just an illusion on my part?
CCD vs. CMOS? Kodak vs. other sensor brand... probably makes sense.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is individual preferences. M8 has visible limit of dinamic range on color and BW. Sometimes. M9 showing it less. Old digital P&S camera effect.
But I never get details this crisp with any other camera. Nor I used M240...
But I never get details this crisp with any other camera. Nor I used M240...
willie_901
Veteran
It Makes Sense
It Makes Sense
In terms of color rendering aesthetics, a CCD camera can be better than a CMOS camera when the CCD camera benefits from superior IR, CFA and demosaicking firmware design and engineering.
There can be subtle differences in the pinned photo-diode frequency response between CCD and CMOS sensor beds (the silicon wafer the sits behind the color-filter array layer). But both CCD and CMOS pinned photo-diodes produce the same exact thing - electrical charge. Electrical charge not possess aesthetic attributes.
However, differences in the CFA layer frequency band-pass characteristics have a much larger effect. Theses difference affect the spatial array of electrical charge amounts or Q (coulombs).
For example here's a comparison of Phase-One IQ3 camera's CFA response versus an unidentified CMOS camera.
Here's a similar comparison for four different CCD sensor assemblies.
CMOS technology is inherently better in terms of signal capture. However the light that recorded by the CCD or CMOS wafer is not identical unless their CFA and IR filter materials have identical frequency response characteristics.
Raw data demosaicking algorithms are fine tuned to match the camera's CFA frequency response. The goal is for the image rendering model to map directly onto the spatial RGN color information. For in-camera JPEGs, each brand uses a different proprietary imaging engine for products with different sensor assemblies.
It Makes Sense
- The characteristics of the color-filter array assemblies are not identical
- The IR layers' frequency response are not identical
- The in-camera JPEG rendering algotithms are not identical
In terms of color rendering aesthetics, a CCD camera can be better than a CMOS camera when the CCD camera benefits from superior IR, CFA and demosaicking firmware design and engineering.
There can be subtle differences in the pinned photo-diode frequency response between CCD and CMOS sensor beds (the silicon wafer the sits behind the color-filter array layer). But both CCD and CMOS pinned photo-diodes produce the same exact thing - electrical charge. Electrical charge not possess aesthetic attributes.
However, differences in the CFA layer frequency band-pass characteristics have a much larger effect. Theses difference affect the spatial array of electrical charge amounts or Q (coulombs).
For example here's a comparison of Phase-One IQ3 camera's CFA response versus an unidentified CMOS camera.
Here's a similar comparison for four different CCD sensor assemblies.
CMOS technology is inherently better in terms of signal capture. However the light that recorded by the CCD or CMOS wafer is not identical unless their CFA and IR filter materials have identical frequency response characteristics.
Raw data demosaicking algorithms are fine tuned to match the camera's CFA frequency response. The goal is for the image rendering model to map directly onto the spatial RGN color information. For in-camera JPEGs, each brand uses a different proprietary imaging engine for products with different sensor assemblies.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is a very technical explanation of how several factors and CCD and CMOS sensors could play a role in any perceived differences. Thanks for the details. It will take me some time to go through the material. In the end, a digital camera cannot last forever and we need to move forward anyways.:bang:
ernstk
Retro Renaissance
I use an M8 and M-P 240
Most of my work is B&W and I can say that the B&W from the M8 is better than the M-P.
The tonal range seems better and overall, the M8 image seems more subtle than the M-P.
Ernst
Most of my work is B&W and I can say that the B&W from the M8 is better than the M-P.
The tonal range seems better and overall, the M8 image seems more subtle than the M-P.
Ernst
raid
Dad Photographer
This is what I also have been seeing in my files, Ernst.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The differences are real. The only role perception plays is whether you prefer one over the other. You should shoot the one you prefer. Based on your expressed preference, my guess is you will keep your M9 if it ever comes back from Leica NJ, and not trade it for an M240.
retinax
Well-known
The real question is, which of the differences (beside obviously signal/noise and resolution) cannot be leveled out or reversed in PP? willie_901, how and under which circumstances are the differences in CFA response noticeable after PP? Not trying to be snarky, I really want to know.
raid
Dad Photographer
Yes, I will try to keep my M9 and return the M240 to Leica.
user237428934
User deletion pending
What do mean? Do you use jpg out of camera?
raid
Dad Photographer
My camera => DNG ==> LR5 ==> JPG.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Ok. Leica is not known for a high quality jpg-engine. And they are not known for a good white-balance either (except for the really new cameras) and this also influences the colour.
What you see in LR is sensor data + raw converter profile + sometimes bad white balance. Adobe does nothing to achieve a consistent look for different sensors. So of course you see a real difference between M8, M9 and M240
If you like the M8 files straight out of LR...perfect for you. For me M8 meant a lot of work all the time.
micromontenegro
Well-known
The M8 is a very underappreciated camera. Best digital B&W IMHO.
Huss
Veteran
But unintentionally so because Leica did not spec the correct IR filter for it.
This is one of those rare moments when messing up led to a happy unintended consequence.
Do some models of the M8 have a 1/8000 shutter? I'd like that on my M.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Well, maybe some day I'll be able to shoot an M9 and M240 together. I have images from way back when I still had an M9 and they have a different look for sure! That's one reason why I wouldn't mind having my M9 again. Perhaps in another 7 1/2 months it will come home...
I once had an M8u as well. It gave me really nice images that looked a lot like the M9 images. As an upgraded M8, mine had a top shutter speed of 1/4000. The original M8 had a top speed of 1/8000. I don't know if that was optimism, or a genuine speed demon.
I once had an M8u as well. It gave me really nice images that looked a lot like the M9 images. As an upgraded M8, mine had a top shutter speed of 1/4000. The original M8 had a top speed of 1/8000. I don't know if that was optimism, or a genuine speed demon.
The original M8 came with a 1/8000 shutter, that in order to achieve that high speed, had the curtains move very fast... and noisily. So in the follow-on M8.2 the speed was reduced to give a 1/4000 top speed and quieter operation. One of my M8 cameras has the M8.2 shutter upgrade offered later by Leica service.
You bring up the IR issue... And that is indeed a factor in color output as well as B&W. It took me a few months to become a believer in the necessity of the UV/IR Cut filters for color. It made a difference, such as with green foliage and black artificial fibers.
So color output will be different with use of the IR filter. The M9 and later Leicas have a thicker sensor cover glass with more effective IR attenuation, but not as effective as an M8 using a filter. I think the IR attenuation has become more effective in later Leica models, but then I'm still using the IR Cut filters even on the M240 and M262.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have the M8 with top speed 1/4000. Some state that the first model was a better model with 1/8000 top speed. I use low ISO, so it is not a point for me.
1/8000 would be preferable to help avoid ND filters with that new f/1.2 lens! 
And maybe imaging the solar disk, other uses... But some say it comes with "shutter shock" as the curtains move more quickly than other M shutters. Strong acceleration to get the curtains moving only to slam to a stop shortly after. Since this happens at the same time as the exposure, there's the claimed camera vibration along with the noise. My upgraded M8 is noticeably quieter than the stock one...
And maybe imaging the solar disk, other uses... But some say it comes with "shutter shock" as the curtains move more quickly than other M shutters. Strong acceleration to get the curtains moving only to slam to a stop shortly after. Since this happens at the same time as the exposure, there's the claimed camera vibration along with the noise. My upgraded M8 is noticeably quieter than the stock one...
raid
Dad Photographer
I take photos of the Gulf of Mexico and my family. I do not need such a shutter speed. My favorite aperture settings are 8~11.