M9 Sensor Qualities

[Aristophanes]

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

From Leica and CMOSIS:

"Leica is particularly proud of the fact that the “Leica M” employs a sensor “Made in Europe”, as a large proportion of the sensor is manufactured in France and Germany."

CMOSIS is a very small fab:

"The company has grown continuously and consistently, currently employing more than 40 at its headquarters in Antwerp, Belgium."

I suspect Sony covets higher-end products in the FF sector. Supply is constrained. As someone else alluded that CMOSIS has product issues. This is likely true because FF photolith outside of Sony has been stitched. If that is the case then CMOSIS could struggle to keep any relevance in both yields and quality.

 

[dcsang]

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 😀

Not my words but Spyro's from this thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89622 )

You gotta love digital cameras...

Because of them, all of a sudden you have all these people who never took an interest in art, who never went to a museum or a gallery or bought an art book, confronted with a whole new world that they dont understand... but they are determined to be a part of it, because now they have a DSLR and that makes them an artist, right? So they go ahead and read on the internet about this new photography thingo (still no intention of going to a museum or a gallery- too hard, internet is easier) and they come across the magic marketing term:

IMAGE QUALITY! Ahhhhh yes! Now it all makes sense! You spend the $$$, you get gooood camera, you get lotsa image quality, and good image quality = good photo! right? And then they discover bokeh, woohoo! Add a healthy dose of bokeh for good measure and you have a winner, right? Gallery stuff!

Nope

Sorry. Its kinda hard to explain that technical issues may or may not matter, depending on the artist's intention. There are however other things that definitely matter, things like (caution: artspeak follows) context, emotion, content, mood, concept, aesthetic, cohesiveness and of course more pedestrian stuff that are particular to photography and painting, things like light, composition, timing, tonality and colour if applicable. When HCB's photos score so high on everything that matters, who cares about sharpness? And, to make things even more complicated for the guy who has now discovered this peculiar new art world, it is a world which is not always logical, or fair, or entirely free of trends and fashions. And if that is not enough, photography is the most complicated of all media to explain why it can be art, because of that misguided notion of "easy to make" that has been haunting from the start.

So when people ask me how come some guy's prints sell for $3,000 at XYZ gallery (no sharpness? no bokeh? WTF ), I just tell them that he probably had a really good lens

Cheers,
Dave

 

[hepcat]

Not my words but Spyro's from this thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89622 )

Cheers,
Dave

Dave, that's one of my pet peeves frankly... and the camera companies' advertising doesn't do us any favors that way.

 

[semilog]

WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?

Why are you shouting?

 

[semilog]

Listen: the raw sensor metrics don't matter. Get it through your skull.

With all due respect, I completely disagree.

To say that one sensor is objectively better than another based on measurable criteria is something that I have had to do many times in my professional work over the last 20 years or so. I also shoot pictures with a bunch of digital cameras, some of them old and far back from the current state of the art. And I still shoot film.

Artistic questions are not equivalent to technical questions, but technical considerations place unbreakable limits on what one can do with an optical system, and thus on what one can do artistically.

Depending on the artistic goal, that might or might not matter. In most cases, it probably doesn't matter. In some cases, it absolutely does matter.

But Leica advertises itself on the basis of technical image quality, and yet they ship sensors that do not deliver leading-edge technical quality. It astounds me that so many here take it as a personal affront when someone points that irrefutable fact out. It suggests that people are choosing their cameras not on the basis of technical or even artistic qualities, but because they use their cameras as ego-support devices.

Pointing to a technical flaw in your camera is not equivalent to pointing to a flaw in you, or even in your art, folks.

 

[mlu19]

+1 to semilog.

OP is simply pointing out the obvious, even though his intent is unclear. A non-descriptive title certainly attracts more flame war.

 

[Aristophanes]

Why are you shouting?

The same reason he shoots a Leica at concerts.

He's part of the show, part of the conspicuous consumption Leica marketing effort.😀

 

[CameraQuest]

To point out the obvious, RFF is designed as a place of civil discussion.

If any of you have problems with others disagreeing with you and have some need to be rude, get over it.

Instead discuss the issue at hand, proving or inadvertently disproving your point.

Best,
Stephen

 

[Aristophanes]

Not my words but Spyro's from this thread (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89622 )

Cheers,
Dave

That quote kind of misses the point, with all due respect.

It's not about being a artist or buying that capacity because one buys DSLR.

IQ now is largely (not entirely) about getting the shot one could not get before with film, unless one mastered arcane technicalities, like 3200 speed film and pushing Tri-X 4-stops in coffee.

By far the greatest technical achievement of digital photography, especially larger sensors which have drive the DSLR and mirrorless trends, is low-light, high-ISO performance. So even the amateur with decent gear has a much, much greater chance of getting a natural light shot and avoid these:

The catch is this technical advancement has made a great number of those arcane technicians,less valuable in their field. Today's Nikon D3300 is a low-light, natural light marvel that gets shots we would have required a Leica with super-fast glass shot wide open with perfect technique to have taken 20 years ago. The playing field has levelled, and Leica has not been able to up the game.

Maybe they are diffraction limited, too small, whatever. I just find it a very interesting business case that this premiere engineering brand is lagging in sensor tech but also conspicuously pivoting towards the luxury segment as if being a leader in IQ was not the tour de force of Leica's existence. The glass is certainly there ( though others have mostly caught up), as is body engineering. The Leica ethos appears to be changing under Blackstone and the current group. If Leica stops being a fashionista fad or looks too much like a me-too designer (the T has a generic mirrorless look), and they try and fall back on their engineering, they will have a lot of explaining to do.

Sensor metrics matter in exactly the same way that the metrics provided by a darkroom timer matter. Expose, develop, print. 1 and 3 are distinct art forms unto themselves, but developing is mostly a chemistry class, and the sensor dynamics we are talking about here are with the in-camera developing that is technically only about the sensor's measured capabilities.

 

[hepcat]

Sensor metrics matter in exactly the same way that the metrics provided by a darkroom timer matter. Expose, develop, print. 1 and 3 are distinct art forms unto themselves, but developing is mostly a chemistry class, and the sensor dynamics we are talking about here are with the in-camera developing that is technically only about the sensor's measured capabilities.

And herein lies the fallacy in your logic. Developing is mostly a chemistry class, and is probably the least important step in the process. It's necessary, it can be tweaked a little, and you can get different looks from it but by and large it's a canned affair. The exposing and the printing are where the magic lies.

The sensor is exactly the same. It's important, as without it there would be no image, but it's characteristics are the least important part of the picture, and you're wildly over-inflating its importance to the process.

 

[raid]

My point; I own a Leica M9; I use it; I like the results.
Now it is time to use the camera.

 

[Berth]

And herein lies the fallacy in your logic. Developing is mostly a chemistry class, and is probably the least important step in the process. It's necessary, it can be tweaked a little, and you can get different looks from it but by and large it's a canned affair. The exposing and the printing are where the magic lies.

The sensor is exactly the same. It's important, as without it there would be no image, but it's characteristics are the least important part of the picture, and you're wildly over-inflating its importance to the process.

+1

In the digital world the magic lies in the software, in your camera, on your computer.

 

[Corran]

...technical considerations place unbreakable limits on what one can do with an optical system, and thus on what one can do artistically.

With all due respect, I completely disagree.

We can go round and round all day about the 5% more chroma noise or whatever but that hardly matters. There are people out there making better art than most with cellphone cameras. I never said the Leica M9 sensor is as good, or better, than other, newer sensors (duh), it's just highly irrelevant to 99.9% of situations.

Some people also seem to forget that just because the D4S can shoot at ISO1million or whatever doesn't make it good, or useful. I guarantee if you are looking for technical image quality, actually adding light to the scene is probably way more effective than using a different sensor...

 

[dcsang]

<snip>IQ now is largely (not entirely) about getting the shot one could not get before with film, unless one mastered arcane technicalities, like 3200 speed film and pushing Tri-X 4-stops in coffee.</snip>

I agree with most of what you're saying but I think this is where you're making assumptions.

For you, IQ may largely be about what you state above but for me IQ is about, and this is the best "definition" I could find and/or think of, how accurately the image looks like the "real thing" - You can get great IQ on film if conditions are correct and you can get great IQ on digital as well but if you overexpose a shot the IQ is craptacular 😀 even if the sensor is the same that's in a D4S.

And I think this is where others have gotten a bit perturbed in previous posts. I get where you're coming from but when you (the plural "you") speak in generalizations or post items that seem to be factual when they are, in essence, opinion, you come off as talking down to people. I know that's likely not your intent but I can see how it can be read that way.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[willie_901]

The sensor metrics matter.

But they are only part the story because they are only part of what's required to render an image with a Bayer filter mosaic.

If the signal information content is not optimal, a low noise level looses it's importance.

What information is required for the signal to be useful?

 

[semilog]

With all due respect, I completely disagree.

That's certainly easier to do when you rip a quote from its context, as you've just done. Here is the very next sentence:

Depending on the artistic goal, that might or might not matter. In most cases, it probably doesn't matter. In some cases, it absolutely does matter.

Here's the rest of what I wrote, on the off chance that you care.

 

[Aristophanes]

+1

In the digital world the magic lies in the software, in your camera, on your computer.

Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out. The old software mantra.

All software starts with input data and the sensor is the sole source and interpreter of that data. It captures and converts. The more it captures in an utterly quantifiable manner, the more "magic" you can work with.

Since sensors and in-camera processors, starting with the interpolation, are whereat all begins, the science of photography (as opposed to the art) cannot occur without this data.

 

[Berth]

Where did you get the fixation that photography is only a science? 😕

Pointillism is only one artistic technique, doubling the number of brush strokes doesn't promote a second rate artist to a master. A sensor is a lump, 2nd rate image processing software turns even the most numerous of pixels into 2nd rate images.

 

[music_healing]

With all due respect, I completely disagree.

To say that one sensor is objectively better than another based on measurable criteria is something that I have had to do many times in my professional work over the last 20 years or so. I also shoot pictures with a bunch of digital cameras, some of them old and far back from the current state of the art. And I still shoot film.

Artistic questions are not equivalent to technical questions, but technical considerations place unbreakable limits on what one can do with an optical system, and thus on what one can do artistically.

Depending on the artistic goal, that might or might not matter. In most cases, it probably doesn't matter. In some cases, it absolutely does matter.

But Leica advertises itself on the basis of technical image quality, and yet they ship sensors that do not deliver leading-edge technical quality. It astounds me that so many here take it as a personal affront when someone points that irrefutable fact out. It suggests that people are choosing their cameras not on the basis of technical or even artistic qualities, but because they use their cameras as ego-support devices.

Pointing to a technical flaw in your camera is not equivalent to pointing to a flaw in you, or even in your art, folks.

agreed

technical and science talk is not the same with photo critique

lets see .. in my other world that would translated like this..
a 21600 bph automatic movement always tick at 21600 despite of all the finishing of the watch
it is also the apply to 28800 and 36000 bph..

doesnt matter if the watch made from plastic , metal, titanium, platinum, even adamantium casing ..

the most beautiful 500 k USD Seiko ... even by law of physics and art is more beautiful and respectable handmade by the reputable artist..

wont ever have the same status, snobbery , defens mechanism , cult status of a 500 k USD Patek Phillipe (with hand assembled machine made movement )..

in term of value .. techincally and art speaking ... the 500 k USD exceed the Patek in same price
but in term of argument, cult status, the PP would be defended by the mass ...

sorry I dont understand car 🙂


I only shot photos for 3 years... from +/- only 30 something people shoot Leica M digital...
only 2 people that honestly and big heartedly know the M9 M10 MM limitation ... and make the best use of the M ...

they honestly know the sensor limitation
and they use Leica M for their own satisfaction in taking photos


well... enough said from a new starter like me

Sincerely
William Jusuf

PS: I think from science wise , the OP get the point right
unfortunately OP forget 1 thing ... the thing he explain would offend many avid fanatic of the brand

 

[Aristophanes]

Where did you get the fixation that photography is only a science? 😕

I didn't. The science of photography creates a tool using industrial capital, which goes to market.

Whether one takes that commodity and uses it for art, forensic science, vernacular family snaps, documentary journalism, or whatever, each contributes to the evolution of the tool. Skewing the argument towards a singular dynamic ignores a valid, economic analysis of the tool.

I believe I have been consistent in seeing a delta between the quality of the tool and the market. The tool for whatever purpose it is use is designed to capture photons and turn their energy into a photo. Leica's sensors capture fewer photons than the market average for equivalent sensor sizes, especially per price unit (there are 2 deltas). The M9, and also the M240, under-perform. They capture less photons despite premium optics. The market, however prices the product in line with it being a conspicuous consumption item.

When the CEO of Leica specifically states that they no longer make a photojournalistic tool but make a luxury item, there you have it. The pro and prosumer expectation of technical IQ is bound to the lowest common denominator of those who buy for luxury.

I am explaining why he said what he said. Those who do not buy a Leica for its luxury branding do so for their own reasons, but they are measurably competing in the free and paid marketplace for photos (Flickr, self-promotion, traditional print media, RFF galleries, etc.) against much lower cost products that capture more photons at a far better price to performance ratio.

I will caveat that this may not be entirely of Leica's/Blackstone's doing. Sensor supply constraints may have pushed them into this situation. European economic chauvinism may also be playing a factor.

It is perfectly reasonable to have vibrant forum discussions in which we separate the science of photography, the economics and business of photography, and the art of photography.