rich_
Established
Morning ladies and gents.
This is a long angry thread!
My addition would be:
I have a few cameras, an EM-1, RX-1, EOS-M and Leica M9-P.
The Leica probably has the worst sensor compared to the others above with regards to DR and other measurable outputs. The RX-1 definitely has the richest files.
But for me, in my eyes, I much prefer the rendition of the files from the Leica. Imperfections really can make things more beautiful.
This is a long angry thread!
My addition would be:
I have a few cameras, an EM-1, RX-1, EOS-M and Leica M9-P.
The Leica probably has the worst sensor compared to the others above with regards to DR and other measurable outputs. The RX-1 definitely has the richest files.
But for me, in my eyes, I much prefer the rendition of the files from the Leica. Imperfections really can make things more beautiful.
__--
Well-known
Here are two pictures shot at ISO 640 pushed 4 stops; the second one some light from red LEDs falling on the subject:
Leica M9-P | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 4 stops on main subject | f/2.8 | 1/60 sec
BangkokLeica M9-P | Summicron-28 | ISO 640 pushed 4 stops on main subject | f/4.0 | 1/60 sec
Hua HinMITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
Aristophanes
Well-known
Lighting cannot be articulated in a sensor without the right SNR, just an FYI.
And the M9s SNR is about equal to a $500 Nikon APS-C at Wal-Mart now. Leica glass cannot improve on that delta.
What is the point in posting 4-sop pushed M9 shots that display awful chroma noise when a $600 camera can now do better? The sensor saddens the lens. What is your point?
http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/new_leica_m_uses_cmosis_24_mp_cmos_image_sensor
"Thanks to the special sensor technology and wide pixel aperture from CMOSIS, we can now, and for the first time, offer a digital system camera that is perfectly optimised for use with both M- and R-Lenses”, said Alfred Schopf, Chairman of the Executive Board of Leica Camera AG."
Straight words from the Leica top dog. Matters to him, and you pay him.
CMOSIS FF sensors like the M 240 barely pip the APS-C latest from Nikon and even lose on DR. Leica FF right now at $8,000 for a body = Nikon APS-C at $1,000 per body. All that yummy Leica optics gets smeared down to APS-C equivalent file data by the time the CMOSIS sensor gets through with it.
I question Leica's use of CMOSIS as a supplier. It just does not add up to a premium brand...
It is very easy to make this case with information supplied solely from Leica itself, Blackstone, and empirical product testing. The case practically writes itself.
And the M9s SNR is about equal to a $500 Nikon APS-C at Wal-Mart now. Leica glass cannot improve on that delta.
What is the point in posting 4-sop pushed M9 shots that display awful chroma noise when a $600 camera can now do better? The sensor saddens the lens. What is your point?
Matters to these guys:
http://www.cmosis.com/news/press_releases/new_leica_m_uses_cmosis_24_mp_cmos_image_sensor
"Thanks to the special sensor technology and wide pixel aperture from CMOSIS, we can now, and for the first time, offer a digital system camera that is perfectly optimised for use with both M- and R-Lenses”, said Alfred Schopf, Chairman of the Executive Board of Leica Camera AG."
Straight words from the Leica top dog. Matters to him, and you pay him.
CMOSIS FF sensors like the M 240 barely pip the APS-C latest from Nikon and even lose on DR. Leica FF right now at $8,000 for a body = Nikon APS-C at $1,000 per body. All that yummy Leica optics gets smeared down to APS-C equivalent file data by the time the CMOSIS sensor gets through with it.
I question Leica's use of CMOSIS as a supplier. It just does not add up to a premium brand...
It is very easy to make this case with information supplied solely from Leica itself, Blackstone, and empirical product testing. The case practically writes itself.
Corran
Well-known
You are grasping at straws.
Obviously, the statement is talking about the sensor being optimized for non-retrofocus design wide-angles, and also the live-view / EVF for usage with R lenses.
And now you are implying that resolution suffers on these sensors? Ha! What a riot. First it was high-ISO, and then DR, and now you are just playing darts with your claims.
When I get the M9 I just bought recently, I'll shoot it against my D800E. I don't doubt you are right, that the D800 sensor will have somewhat more data, but will it be significant? Absolutely not. Will it make a difference? Nope.
Obviously, the statement is talking about the sensor being optimized for non-retrofocus design wide-angles, and also the live-view / EVF for usage with R lenses.
And now you are implying that resolution suffers on these sensors? Ha! What a riot. First it was high-ISO, and then DR, and now you are just playing darts with your claims.
When I get the M9 I just bought recently, I'll shoot it against my D800E. I don't doubt you are right, that the D800 sensor will have somewhat more data, but will it be significant? Absolutely not. Will it make a difference? Nope.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Aristophanes, what do you hope to get out of trying to convince us that the Leica M9, and other digital Leicas, is not as good as a Nikon or some other camera? Who are you really trying to convince? Wouldn't you would really rather have a Leica--I mean, a Buick--no, a Leica?
Lss
Well-known
Please give an example of the closest consumer model equivalent (need not have a rangefinder for purposes of this discussion) that used the same sensor as any of existing digital Leica M models.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
As has been noted:
In terms of the importance of sensor technology I probably sit at one pole, having noted (way, way up there ^^ somewhere) that, for the types of photographs I want to take with it, the decidedly old-tech sensor in my Canon 5DmkI does the job for me quite nicely. For a number of reasons, some good and some bad (the bad including some employment uncertainty) I quite consciously decided not to upgrade my DSLR system (which also includes a Canon 50D) until such time as the cameras or camera system held me back from something I really wanted to do with my photographs. So far that hasn't happened, so I haven't upgraded. While I have participated here, none of my oxen are being gored (* but see below), so I'm in at least a somewhat disinterested position here. My camera sensor is cr*p and yet: so what? It takes photos I like and that's good enough for me.
At the other pole, I think Victor (YVV_146), for example, has explicated rather well the types of photographs he wants (and, as I understand it, professionally needs) to take and why, for his kind of photography, sensor performance matters a lot to him. I get the impression from Victor that for what he wants to do, even the best of current sensor technology involves compromise and that he'd rather like to see improvements and will probably take advantage of any which come along (as long, I guess, as they have some level of affordability).
Lots of others, I'd guess, are at or between those two poles. That's more than just fine! Everybody's wants and needs and circumstances are different. What's somewhat less than fine, and probably the source of much of the "angry" nature of this thread, is being told that your wants and needs and circumstances are just plain wrong and that the enlightened among us should be listened to as they have the one and only true truth. Somehow I find that unlikely.
(*) For myself, since the start of this "discussion" I've dropped rather too much money (for my personal value of "too much") on something with (apparently) a decidedly inferior sensor. In keeping with my style of photography, I didn't buy it in order to stress the sensor, or the system, because, well, that's just not my style. I didn't buy it for any improvement in sensor quality at all, as I have no need for any improvement over the decidedly ancient, obsolete, outdated (and perfectly adequate for my needs) sensors I already have. I bought it for other reasons, but in my mind - and despite commentary in this thread - those are unrelated to any need to be "fashionable". Anyone who knows me would know that me and fashionable occupy entirely different spaces. I drive a 30 year old car, I dress at the minimal end of "business casual", I work in a decidedly unfashionable (though IMO necessary) area of IT (IT, already!) which most people seem to believe ceased to even exist some years ago. I don't even know whether I'll keep "the thing" or not (that is nice about overpriced Leica gear: the resale value curve is favourable). I've taped over the "bling bits" on the camera (and despite possible carping, that's for practical rather than "reverse fashionable" reasons). I've not even had it for 24 hours yet, so I can hardly claim to have produced any "great art" with it (as if!) yet I'm enjoying playing with it so far:
If that makes me a dupe of the horrid marketing machine then so be it.
...Mike
It is, IMO, all too occupied with what I regard as over-definite statements such as:
etc. ad nauseum.
In terms of the importance of sensor technology I probably sit at one pole, having noted (way, way up there ^^ somewhere) that, for the types of photographs I want to take with it, the decidedly old-tech sensor in my Canon 5DmkI does the job for me quite nicely. For a number of reasons, some good and some bad (the bad including some employment uncertainty) I quite consciously decided not to upgrade my DSLR system (which also includes a Canon 50D) until such time as the cameras or camera system held me back from something I really wanted to do with my photographs. So far that hasn't happened, so I haven't upgraded. While I have participated here, none of my oxen are being gored (* but see below), so I'm in at least a somewhat disinterested position here. My camera sensor is cr*p and yet: so what? It takes photos I like and that's good enough for me.
At the other pole, I think Victor (YVV_146), for example, has explicated rather well the types of photographs he wants (and, as I understand it, professionally needs) to take and why, for his kind of photography, sensor performance matters a lot to him. I get the impression from Victor that for what he wants to do, even the best of current sensor technology involves compromise and that he'd rather like to see improvements and will probably take advantage of any which come along (as long, I guess, as they have some level of affordability).
Lots of others, I'd guess, are at or between those two poles. That's more than just fine! Everybody's wants and needs and circumstances are different. What's somewhat less than fine, and probably the source of much of the "angry" nature of this thread, is being told that your wants and needs and circumstances are just plain wrong and that the enlightened among us should be listened to as they have the one and only true truth. Somehow I find that unlikely.
(*) For myself, since the start of this "discussion" I've dropped rather too much money (for my personal value of "too much") on something with (apparently) a decidedly inferior sensor. In keeping with my style of photography, I didn't buy it in order to stress the sensor, or the system, because, well, that's just not my style. I didn't buy it for any improvement in sensor quality at all, as I have no need for any improvement over the decidedly ancient, obsolete, outdated (and perfectly adequate for my needs) sensors I already have. I bought it for other reasons, but in my mind - and despite commentary in this thread - those are unrelated to any need to be "fashionable". Anyone who knows me would know that me and fashionable occupy entirely different spaces. I drive a 30 year old car, I dress at the minimal end of "business casual", I work in a decidedly unfashionable (though IMO necessary) area of IT (IT, already!) which most people seem to believe ceased to even exist some years ago. I don't even know whether I'll keep "the thing" or not (that is nice about overpriced Leica gear: the resale value curve is favourable). I've taped over the "bling bits" on the camera (and despite possible carping, that's for practical rather than "reverse fashionable" reasons). I've not even had it for 24 hours yet, so I can hardly claim to have produced any "great art" with it (as if!) yet I'm enjoying playing with it so far:
If that makes me a dupe of the horrid marketing machine then so be it.
...Mike
Takkun
Ian M.
This is the point where I proverbially tap out. Tomorrow's a sunny day and I'm going to go shoot some Tmax on 4x5. I'm sure the results will sate all parties here.
pieter
Established
Hmmm, it must be a very special camera if it can spark so much debate so many years after its release. There must have been a lot of umami in the Leica marketing team, or maybe it can be scientifically proven to be a capable sensor...
*stirs hornets nest and runs away*
*stirs hornets nest and runs away*
YYV_146
Well-known
Well said, I hope you enjoy your M.Canon's sensors (and focusing systems) hasn't actually improved much since the 50d/5d mk1 days, so you are at least in the clear there
If you really found something the 5d mk1 can't do, chances are you'll need a Nikon or Sony FF body to do it...Thanks for the compliment. Sometimes I think growing up with digital gives people a mentality about what kind of images they want to produce. My first personal camera was a film Hexar in 02', but the second one was a 3MP Sony digital, which amazingly is still in working condition today. And yes, I am still looking for better solutions - the A7S might just be the best thing that's ever happened in photography for me - but I will wait for the reviews.
People in this thread, IMO, are confusing "good" with "good enough" and "bad" with "bad enough". DXO gives an excellent metric of what's "good" in the digital world, but you and only you can know if a camera is "good enough" or not. Trying to impose your judgement on others, and they will try to impose back. I am sorry if I've given some people the impression that I am imposing my preferences on them - I am simply stating my experience with these cameras, and how they perform compared to each other.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
One of the things I find interesting about people who post on forums (and it makes no difference if its cameras, bikes, travel trailers or whatever) is that because they don't know other posters personally, they tend to assume that all of the other members are in circumstances identical to their own.
DxO gives a nice base comparative among brands and models, but there is so much more to photo equipment; not the least of which is form factor, viewing method, handling and ergonomics... all of which are very personal and affect your ability to use the equipment to it's fullest as much or more than what's under the hood. If you can't hold the thing comfortably, or the lens unlatches "backwards," or you can't find the controls from muscle memory when you need them and miss a shot, the best sensor image quality money can buy doesn't do much for you.
It's important to give perspective about your position so other members can understand your post(s) from your perspective. I'm demanding of my equipment, but in a much different set of circumstances than Victor or RiverCityRocker and so our "needs" and our level of satisfaction with any particular piece of gear depends on how we use it more than on the gear itself.
Pretty much any "pro" gear produced in the past five years is "good." Whether its "good enough" depends on the circumstances under which you use it. And much of the commentary about sensor technology we read today is truly opinions about angels dancing on pinheads. It's interesting, but just doesn't make THAT much difference to most of us... unless we're pushing the envelope of that technology. And I'm not.
The gear either works for you most of the time, or you try to find something that does. It's pretty simple. The M9P works really well for me most of the time, and when it doesn't I have a couple of other cameras to cover those exigencies. No camera "does it all." We're fortunate when a camera "does most all of it." When that happens it's a keeper regardless of who manufactured it or what it's got inside.
I'm a pro as well, but my work is more pedestrian... run of the mill portraiture, weddings, advertising, and generalist oriented. My M9P has a form factor I'm comfortable with, the viewfinder system I'm MOST comfortable with, probably the best files I've ever seen and worked with, and lens compatibility with film bodies. If I have a beef, it is what they cost; but that's irrelevant when I'm getting the best files I've ever had. So for me, the M9P "does most all of it" and is more than "good enough."
I don't really care about the claims of others that I'm not getting my money's worth... 'cause I am. I'll even go out on a limb here and say that probably most of us who own M9s and are happy with them are getting our money's worth out of them.
Aristophanes
Well-known
None. Kodak's fabs are (M9) with Truesense now being acquired by ON Semi. I think this supply chain is now near termination for consumer photo products.
CMOSIS only supplies Leica in photography. CMOSIS sensors score poorly on DxO. They are behind Sony, Fuji, and Canon.
To find "equivalent" you only need to look at DxO. The M9 is readily bested by a Nikon D3300 @ ~US$600 (w/kit lens). The FF M 240 is also almost caught by the APS-C Nikon lowest end model. Leica's optics cannot make up those deficits. That's the performance delta I find particularly interesting because for all the success of Leica, that effort is mostly focused on the camera body. Those who understand the science of photography know that optics play a critical role and invest accordingly.
Leica appears to be putting more effort into marketing at Middle East airports than at sensor tech. There's some pan-European talk throw around but some of the impediments could be patents.
That said, RF lenses and the perpendicular optical requirements of sensors do not mesh well. Even the M240 has to fudge it with firmware on top of the microlens adjustments. Yet that applies to any digital back like a Sony A7 one might adapt to M, and the Sony sensor clearly outperforms the CMOSIS. Empirically the Sony tech is in a league far ahead of the CMOSIS. If Sony wasn't so incompetent with their controls and menu designs.....
If you look at Leica's product line as an investor (system, shareholder, channel) you would have to question the choice of power plant. It is the weak link in the brand, ironically being the component most amenable to strict and verifiable testing to objective, third party standards and criteria.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I wonder, since the discussion seems to be focused on the Leica M9 sensor (with creep into the M240) - why doesn't (or why can't) Leica source from another more "reputable" brand?
The M240 was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to use CMOSIS sensors. I had never heard of this maker prior to Leica announcing it's pact with CMOSIS for the M240. What is stopping Leica from approaching Sony? Sony sells their sensors to Nikon and others so you would think it's feasible they could also sell to Leica.
Curious,
Dave
The M240 was, to the best of my knowledge, the first to use CMOSIS sensors. I had never heard of this maker prior to Leica announcing it's pact with CMOSIS for the M240. What is stopping Leica from approaching Sony? Sony sells their sensors to Nikon and others so you would think it's feasible they could also sell to Leica.
Curious,
Dave
YYV_146
Well-known
I said I won't comment on the image quality of M240 or M9 sensors any more, so I'll try to loophole myself to answer this question...
The immediately identifiable reason is the ability to customize sensor cover glass and microlenses. It's not sure that Sony would allow Leica to do this, but with a small FAB like CMOSIS Leica probably has more bargaining power...
Also, it might be nice for Leica to associate with European electronics. I suspect if the M uses the A7's sensor, less people will buy the M because they don't see it as being prestigious enough.
And they probably won't be buying in the quantity Sony usually deals with. Nikon and Pentax would likely order millions of sensors by batch, Leica however has a demand probably in the thousands.
CMOSIS isn't known for camera sensors, but for smaller sensors used in monitors and CCTV systems. In fact their equipment is so unfit for producing FF chips, I've heard that they have a grossly low yield...But of course they don't give out the statistics.
Corran
Well-known
sig
Well-known
Somewhere between Leica not willing to pay what better sensor costs and nobody wants to sell?
Not willing to pay - leica decided that the M will be sold for X, after all the other cost like weather seal, I mean paying Seal, only Y could be used for sensors.
Not willing to sell - sony does not want to be assosiated with Seal?
Most likely the current vendor gave the best price with good enough specs......
Not willing to pay - leica decided that the M will be sold for X, after all the other cost like weather seal, I mean paying Seal, only Y could be used for sensors.
Not willing to sell - sony does not want to be assosiated with Seal?
Most likely the current vendor gave the best price with good enough specs......
Berth
Member
+2 Yes, that sums it up nicely.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Thanks Victor. This makes a lot of sense.
I wasn't concerned about "image quality" per se so much that I was curious why Leica couldn't go to another more "mainstream" manufacturer - and if your assumptions hold true then I would agree. They are sort of in a "tough spot" perhaps but clearly not a spot that don't mind being in in the first place.
Cheers,
Dave
CrisR
Well-known
On a slight tangent here, but can I just point out that 4 of the 5 most popular cameras on Flickr are all iPhones?
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/
Clearly you're all wrong here, and the iPhone 5 has the best sensor.
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/
Clearly you're all wrong here, and the iPhone 5 has the best sensor.
luuca
Well-known
photography is not my job, but I can say that I never discarded a good shot because of low IQ, and I never saw a mediocre shot becoming good because of high IQ.
for me it's more a matter of sensations: shooting with my m9 (and mp) makes me feel good and when I feel good my shots come out better
for me it's more a matter of sensations: shooting with my m9 (and mp) makes me feel good and when I feel good my shots come out better