M9 Sensor Qualities

[uhoh7]

Nothing to get people talking past each other like bringing up the word "Leica" in reference to a digital camera body.

For many, it's all about the rich and the poor. A popular topic today, considering the ever-increasing ridiculous divide.

For others it's about metrics. What a scandal! Did you see the DX oh score for the M9?

For some it's about history and tradition. Superior "rangefinder" technology usually plays a part in those arguments. Nothing can focus so fast, nothing is so natural to raise to the eyes.

then there are those of us who take a lot of pictures, and are trying various cameras from time to time to see which is going to give us the technical result we prefer. Marketing and DX oh scores are moot to us.

We take an image, and examine the results. Obviously, framing, light, etc. are some major ingredients here, but the camera has a big role in it's ability to resolve detail.

Some people think detail is overrated, and that's fine: they should act accordingly. Myself, I love highly detailed landscapes. I don't love carrying large format gear, or a full frame Nikon body.


L1010092 by unoh7, on Flickr

I don't really know how "advanced" the other sensors are, but nothing I've shot in broad daylight can beat the M9 (here with a 350USD 40/2) for the resolution of fine detail. Certainly not either Sony. How do I know? Because I've shot over 10k pics with both Sonys. I wanted them to be better than the Leica so I could avoid getting one. But they weren't.


L1009970 by unoh7, on Flickr (28 cron)
I've spent alot more on this thing than my M9.

I did not like my M9 much on the first day of shooting, but then I saw the results. From that moment on, I have loved the camera.

 

[goamules]

....[blah blah blah same vent about Leica being too expensive and luxurious]....

Someone mentioned motorcycles. In both bikes and autos no one could do what Leica does and put in an under-performing power plant. It would not compete and would not sell. From displacement to torque it would all be ruthlessly tested by third parties and media (a la DxO) and graded. Leica, as a "passion brand" (Leica CEO's own term) does not have to do that. They can under-spec in the knowledge that passion, and NOT technical competence will create sales. To me it is a stark example of the business of marketing luxury over performance.

Um....carburated boxer BMW motocycles. Their "sensor" was way underpowered, loud, and had high emissions. They were expensive. They were luxury bikes compared to a Honda. People loved them and bought them, even when the design was decades old. Same with Harley, oh my gosh....how outdated and expensive. Bimoto, again. Cars? Bentley and Cadillac come to mind.

History is full, to the brim, of "stark examples of the business of marketing luxury over performance." I agree, and only carefully buy if the attributes outweigh the flaws. My BMW took me all over this continent, for 14 years, with nary a hitch. Oh, but it was underpowered. Sorry if you don't want passion in people's buying decisions.

 

[Ranchu]

And Yamaha SR500's are cool too. I don't think 'not marketing to pros' is much of an argument against leica, pro's tastes in gear aren't really relevant anymore, at least the ones using monster dslrs. If their tastes were ever relevant as more than marketing to the rest of us. Not many photographers want to carry those things around. So another solution. As far as the sensor critique, seems like one of those things you'd have to look at the files, and as far as I can see, the people who have used the cameras like the files. Curious if the OP has shot any raw files on an M9? (I haven't anyway)

 

[MCTuomey]

.... And it's not offensive unless you confuse your identity with the camera that you happen to use.

You are quite correct - my identity and that of my camera aren't at issue; I haven't confused them at all. But you miss the point - it's the OP's syllogism that's offensive:

Premise 1. I have a Leica dRF. (A = B)
Premise 2. Leica dRFs are for fashionistas. (B = C)
Conclusion: I am a fashionista. (A = C)

I'm offended at the fashionista label. I'm so much more than that. I am a Leica user.

 

[Corran]

Ditto. Well-spoken. And it's not offensive unless you confuse your identity with the camera that you happen to use.

It's offensive when people imply that I can't make photographs with this or that gear, or implying that the technical sensor measurements from DxO are more important than the photographer himself.

I don't even have the M9 in my hands yet, but use the top Nikon DSLRs discussed, and I felt offended by many of the comments.

 

[Aristophanes]

Apologies if business talk style comes off as brusque. Legitimate, economically based Leica criticism sure stirs up some passions. I've owned Leica (and acnafford to). I admire their engineering and have said so many times.

Obviously those "passions" distort some reality s stated i this thread.

We were told that Leica's did not go to war (they did; Leica says so)
That Leica is not really a luxury brand (Leica advertises itself as a luxury brand)
That the M9 sensor was state of the art (it was not by all objective tests)
That CCD renders colours differently than CMOS (cannot; all sensors are monochrome)

One of the ruthless problems with digital photography is the capability to relentlessly and empirically test components. We did this with film, optics, RF alignment, etc

Optics and sensors now are no exception and the empirical data is very compelling. It tells us that Leica's non-Sony sensors from CMOSIS are demonstrably sub-par, especially with poor SNR profiles and an inability to climb the ISO scale compared to peers. So what does that mean from a business perspective? Sky falling? Not really. Leica sales have been very strong.

Look at Leica's marketing and they increasingly stress what goes into the camera (hand brushed aluminum blocks), what the history of Leica is (the film Soul), where it is sold (their own brand name shops designed by a jewelry specialist), and who touts it (Manhattan and London fashionistas).

Part of this is inevitable. Digital is homogenizing image quality from the technical, scientific perspective. This severely limits Leica's ability to compete on image output. Leica optics + RF skill + Tri-X + master printer are subsumed by this digital homogenization and flattening of the market.

Since Leica's glass + sensor combo can long differentiate qualitatively like they did in film days, the marketing and ownership thrust has shifted from what comes out of the camera (the decisive moment) and the occupation behind the lens (photojournalist) to what goes into the camera (German handicraft labour), who conspicuously carries it (Seal, Brad Pitt), and its historical street cred (RFF). In the end the consumer-grade sensors can produce identical images because traditional Leica attributes are a wash with this homogenization. Leica's choice of sensors appears to be a business decision contributing to this, not fighting it. That is my major takeaway from all this.

I find this an interesting business shift and market phenomenon. Some people feel threatened by it. Oh well.

 

[Ranchu]

CCD's do look different, I don't think you have any experience of what you're talking about. You're making the most common error in digital photography, confusing the model for the reality. Ok, realizing that, I'm bored of this.

 

[Aristophanes]

It's offensive when people imply that I can't make photographs with this or that gear, or implying that the technical sensor measurements from DxO are more important than the photographer himself.

I don't even have the M9 in my hands yet, but use the top Nikon DSLRs discussed, and I felt offended by many of the comments.

I said, explicitly, that one has worse sensor performance with the Leica than with the consumer-grade sensor now. I didn't really say it. I simply pointed to DxO and related data. Apparently my sin has been pricing photons.

You can make all the photos you want with your M9. They will simply have more noise, less signal, and therefore inferior output compared to most other sensors (in fact against pretty much every current production APS-C or FF sensor).

The problem many here are having is not with the "can" or "can't". It is in having a comparison at all.

DxO measurements are what they are regardless of photographer, regardless of whether you shoot cuddly kittens or cadavers. Sensor metric (and MTFs) are neutral. They simply say that if you want to be at the leading edge of sensor development which is high-ISO, low SNR, increased DR, Leica is not for you. Or you will swallow Leica's sensor limitations and buy for all the other good reasons articulated here to buy a Leica.

 

[Corran]

I'm not disagreeing that on boring tech measurements it scores less.
I'm saying the differences are minimal, and irrelevant. Especially in most situations, where ridiculous ISOs are not important. Again, if there is no light in the scene, adding light via flash or whatever will be a better choice with any camera.

 

[hepcat]

Apologies if business talk style comes off as brusque. Legitimate, economically based Leica criticism sure stirs up some passions. I've owned Leica (and acnafford to). I admire their engineering and have said so many times.

Obviously those "passions" distort some reality s stated i this thread.

We were told that Leica's did not go to war (they did; Leica says so)
That Leica is not really a luxury brand (Leica advertises itself as a luxury brand)
That the M9 sensor was state of the art (it was not by all objective tests)
That CCD renders colours differently than CMOS (cannot; all sensors are monochrome)

...

In the end the consumer-grade sensors can produce identical images because traditional Leica attributes are a wash with this homogenization. Leica's choice of sensors appears to be a business decision contributing to this, not fighting it. That is my major takeaway from all this.

I find this an interesting business shift and market phenomenon. Some people feel threatened by it. Oh well.

I'm not the least bit put off by business style talk... but yours wasn't, it was demeaning and confrontational from the onset in this thread. So... let's review your "reality" by reviewing your actual statements...

The schmucks who purport to buy Leica's for their IQ, which is definitely not supported by the sensors...not even close (Ming Thein's S2 review is a killer)...are only giving street cred to the status brand effort ("See. The old school RF geeks still like them"). When the RFF crowd reach up to pay luxury prices, it only feeds the Leica marketing effort to give the stars who use Leica the impression they are continuing the workaday, photojournalist credibility that built the brand. It's the mystique and nostalgia that sells. You are helping them. They've got you doing their work.

We here who are members of RFF who buy Leicas are schmucks who shill for Leica without any true understanding of why we own them? You don't see that as being insulting? I'm all for "business talk... but that ain't it.

The M3 was built tough because it had to be tough. It went to war!

You didn't say Leicas went to war, you said the M3 went to war. The M3 was introduced in 1952. It was, in fact, used by a few journalists covering conflicts, but was introduced AFTER the end of WWII and was NOT purpose-built for anything but the civilian post-war market. They proved themselves as compact, rugged and reliable, but the 1:1 viewfinder wasn't well accepted by those in pho-jo who wanted a 35mm frame in the finder. By the time Viet Nam heated up, the M2 was the preferred body for most journalists. The M4 was introduced in 1967 and quickly became the body used my most photojournalists and military photographers who shot Leica. The U.S. Navy and Army bought M2 kits in the early 1960s, and by 1970 most of those had been retired and replaced by M4 or KE-7A kits. The M3 as a model just didn't see much action. There are at least a couple of us here who used those Navy kits while we were in the service.

Leica was never a value brand save for their outstanding durability; a rugged, enduring photographic tool.

Apparently from your posts, that it remains a rugged, enduring photographic tool is no longer a valid reason to buy Leica?

That the M9 sensor was state of the art (it was not by all objective tests)

I would take issue with that... I've said this several times in this thread but apparently it's gotten lost. I'll say it one more time... no off-the-shelf FF sensor was competent to be used with the short back-focus of the Leica. The engineers had to come up with a new design to accommodate the M bodies. While the sensor may not show well against whatever other sensor you want to do "objective testing" with, there is no other sensor that will work in a Leica body. It was, in fact, "state of the art" as a result of it's unique abilities.

From Luminous Landscape:

"Many will remember as well that Leica had said that a full-frame M series would be very unlikely. The reason for this is the extremely short back focus of rangefinder lenses. This is because there is no mirror housing and therefore the rear of the lens lies very close to the focal plane. With a full frame sensor, it was believed, there would be no way to allow for coverage at the edges and especially the corners, because of the acute angle of the light rays, especially with wide angle lenses and lenses of retrofocus design. These peripheral rays end up striking the corners of the photo site wells rather than the silicon at the bottom of the well.

Somehow though the engineers at Kodak were able to pull it off though the use of microlenses over the sensor as well as the positioning of the photo sites at the periphery of the sensor."



I have made part or all of my income in one area or another of photography since 1971. I was a Navy photographer from 1974-1979. I've used most brands along the way in both film and digital. I'm not particularly thin skinned about equipment. Cameras are tools. Like most of us, I have preferences; I like using some better than others. I like using coupled coincident-rangefinder cameras when I can. I really don't care much what anyone says about any particular brand or model, but when someone comes along with opinions that are promulgated as "immutable truth" that "proves" their point; that they're confrontational about the dogged presentation of those "truths;" and their "truths" really don't rise to the level of significance they seem to think that they do, I get annoyed.

I am annoyed when this same tactic occurs in politics as well. Occasionally something that every camp does is suddenly elevated by a strident voice as being a practice that is suddenly inappropriate and finger-pointing begins. Apparently, you haven't closely examined the advertising programs and marketing structures of any of the other major brands who do exactly the same things you ascribe to and rant about Leica for... but because Leica prices their equipment higher, it's suddenly bad? If they've figured out how to make money in this economy, they're brilliant. You can bet that the other manufacturers are following their success closely.

Now, I'll grant you that the Dx0 numbers for the Leica sensors are not as high as other brands. I'll NOT allow, however, that I think that's a problem. The cameras perform admirably in the real world. There's a point in computer technology where it's appropriate to ask the question "how fast is 'fast?'" We seem to be at that point with cameras as well. Measures of performance vary. My M9P makes brilliant 24"x36" prints. That's better than I could ever get out of 35mm film. I don't know what else you can ask of a 24x36mm sensor.

Sorry, but... you're continuing to stir a tempest in a teapot. Your premise is that because the Dx0 testing numbers for the Kodak CCD sensor in the M9 are less than that of other more recent sensors that the M9 product is inferior. DxO numbers alone do not make images nor do they translate directly into making prints in the real world, and your arguments still don't hold water. In use, the M9 product's performance is more than adequate. In fact, there's nothing in its class for it to be inferior to. There ARE no other full-frame coincident, coupled-rangefinder cameras on the market at any price by any other manufacturer. The sky still isn't falling. And this thread has really continued on far too long now.

 

[furcafe]

I think your analysis is off by several decades.

As I see it, Leica has always been a luxury brand whose products primarily sold to wealthy amateurs. During its heyday, roughly 1925-60, those products were adopted (& made famous) by many professionals, but amateurs bought most of the (very expensive) merch. The only periods they could have been said to truly dominate even 35mm photography was between 1925-1936 (after Leica I, before Contax II) & 1954-59 (after M3, before Nikon F).

The Leica cameras & lenses were compromises on pure image quality from the beginning, the principal reason being size (recall that Barnack just wanted a camera he could take with him while hiking). As early as the 1930s, they were already behind on lens technology & they were only able to catch up to Zeiss because of WWII. AFAIK, their current incarnation as maker of super pricey uber-optics dates back to the 1960s after the Japanese competition, particularly Nikon, took over the professional market & made RFs a small niche.

Ever since Hermes took controlling shares of Leica in 2000 in its dark days, the brand has mostly been a luxury brand. The key here is "well-heeled". Just looking at their sensors Leica has been a marginal player in moving IQ forward, and is more interested in making a status symbol.

 

[bobbyrab]

Aristophanes, the phrase that springs to mind with your assertions is, the price of everything and the value of nothing, or in your case the technical data of everything but with no currency given to form and function, you only see the data.

I don't disagree that the sensors are not, nor were they at their launch, cutting edge spec, but Leica just don't have the sales heft to interest one of the big sensor producers to allow them access to those sensors. So they've gone with the best that was available to them.

If you want a digital rangefinder, not an SLR, not working off an LED screen, or using an EVF, then you're left with a Leica, it's the only camera that ticks all those boxes if those are the boxes you need ticked.

The M9 and 240 produce perfectly acceptable files within a fairly reasonable iso range. If you take a great photograph with one, no one will give two hoots what the SNR measurements are, really, no one will care, and despite what you think, if it was a compelling image you won't be interested what the SNR figures were either. You don't go and delete all your past digital images when a new improved sensor comes along do you, even if the data proves they have been bettered. For most folk who use them, the rangefinder focus system is more important than the data, and SNR figures are of interest to trainspotters.

I should add that I don't own a digital M, I think despite I'm sure their best efforts, I find the electronics to be too risky a proposition even for the current used price of one. I'd quite like a 240 for the RF experience allied to digital, but they've priced me out of the market, but I don't doubt that for the company to survive and thrive the price is probably right.

 

[willie_901]

CCD's do look different, I don't think you have any experience of what you're talking about. You're making the most common error in digital photography, confusing the model for the reality. Ok, realizing that, I'm bored of this.

I agree completely.

Well almost completely.

Images from Leica CCD sensors look different than images from other sensors that use different color-filter array micro lens.

Both CMOS and CCD sensors use photodiodes to collect and store electrical charge. Photodiodes are just one type of silicon semiconductors. The electronic circuitry and manufacturing technologies may be different. But the final result is identical in both cases... both CMOS and CCDs create electrical charge using photodiodes.

It is impossible to create different kinds of electrical charge. It's only possible to create electrical charge using different methods.

Aristophanes' model for judging IQ is incomplete.

The model is flawed because, as far as I can tell, the Aristophanes' analysis ignores everything but the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range of the photo-diode array. Aristophanes' model can not explain how the lack of an IR filter in front of the sensor degrades our perception of color in the rendered image when the subject emits IR light. Superior signal to noise, quantum efficiency or any other characteristic in Aristophanes' discusses can overcome the negative impact of IR light on color quality in the Bayer model.

Aristophanes' refuses to address possible, but real differences in the signal itself. Specifically what information does the signal acutually represent besides a light amplitude?

 

[semilog]

It's offensive when people imply that I can't make photographs with this or that gear, or implying that the technical sensor measurements from DxO are more important than the photographer himself.

It would be offensive, if anyone on this thread had actually said that.

 

[froyd]

The M9/M8 sensor is definitely behind the times. It's good enough for average users like me, but I can see why it would not suit many others.

To that end, I'm offering a to trade a brand new Fuji X-T1 toward an M9 or preferably M9P (which should should be avoided like the plague by anyone fearing to be labeled as a fashionista)

 

[rogazilla]

First post

First post

Greetings everyone, this is my first post and I enjoy the discussion between artistic vision and technical vision (specs). A bit of a background, I am good with electronics, programmings and math but not a very creative person growing up. Art is never my thing but I have always enjoyed photography. Maybe it is the mechanic part of it that draws me in the first place.

Back on Topic and for this to be a discussion:
What do you propose Leica do to survive as a company? From a business point of view. 1. They obviously do not make their own sensor, never did and still don't. Which means they have to source their sensor, while the sensor has to be able to be compatible with most of their legacy lenses.
2. Most of the consumer care about AF speed. People are terrified if you even say the word 'Manual' never mind 'Manual focus'. To keep the range finder on top of a camera body to cater to a very niche market?
3. How do you propose they market their product and who should be their target consumers?

If you run Leica, what would you do differently?

my personal thinking is 1. A7 from sony finally have a FF sensor that can fit into a small body!!! at end of 2013... Maybe Leica can finally source the sensor next time around? But not sure what could they have done back in 2012 when M came out or 2009 when M9 came out.

2. niche product commands the price, if you want a true digital range finder to go with your M mount lenses, this is it...

3. the marketing scheme is inline with what everyone else is doing, the Tennis star for Canon, Ashton guy for Nikon and the list go on and on... as far as that is concerned. It is true that photojournalism is not what they used to be, my wife's family have several retired photographers for local news stations and from what I know, not much is left there. Most of them dont even have staff photographers anymore. I would target the same people who buys apple product

 

[Ranchu]

Aristophanes' refuses to address possible, but real differences in the signal itself. Specifically what information does the signal acutually represent besides a light amplitude?

Absolutely. I think it might be the superior signal to noise of ccd allows for their finer color variations, while with cmos the amps mush it over somehow. Might have something to do with the tighter packing of the sensor pixels. Maybe the filter design constraints are different somehow too. I find it more honest to speculate about the reasons for the differences I see, than to state there are no differences because I have no explanation for them. Don't you agree?

 

[Aristophanes]

You are quite correct - my identity and that of my camera aren't at issue; I haven't confused them at all. But you miss the point - it's the OP's syllogism that's offensive:

Premise 1. I have a Leica dRF. (A = B)
Premise 2. Leica dRFs are for fashionistas. (B = C)
Conclusion: I am a fashionista. (A = C)

I'm offended at the fashionista label. I'm so much more than that. I am a Leica user.

I never said YOU were a fashionista.

I said Leica uses the RF pedigree to sell to the fashionistas (Leica = trendy, retro, photo geek, what's my Hermes bag) which Leica's own people readily admit. They say this alongside an admission their product is less and less use by pros. Is that because of cost? Or is it also because the Leica cannot technically keep up?

How you use your camera is up to you. How Leica uses its user base as part of their marketing is up to them. They are very good at utilizing their user base past and present.

Talk about syllogism. Most of this stuff comes direct from Leica staff and officers.

 

[Pioneer]

I am really honored that anyone would actually believe that I am helping Leica in any way, but I am equally honest with myself so I know that Leica, and most everyone else, could care less what I am using.

I use Leica digital gear because I like how it handles, and I like the pictures I can get. I have shot Nikon, Canon (still own a 5d Mk 1) and several others and much prefer the Leica dRF form factor.

I used to worry about megapickles and ISO and half a dozen other factors that everyone said was important. But I learned that what was really important was focus, composition, lighting and those other things...just like in the film days. If I could master those things all the rest didn't really matter.

So, my M9 sensor is probably mush, I really don't know. If it is, fortunately it just so happens that I like mush.

 

[MCTuomey]

I never said YOU were a fashionista.

I said Leica uses the RF pedigree to sell to the fashionistas (Leica = trendy, retro, photo geek, what's my Hermes bag) which Leica's own people readily admit. They say this alongside an admission their product is less and less use by pros. Is that because of cost? Or is it also because the Leica cannot technically keep up?

How you use your camera is up to you. How Leica uses its user base as part of their marketing is up to them. They are very good at utilizing their user base past and present.

Talk about syllogism. Most of this stuff comes direct from Leica staff and officers.

Hey, I'm trying to lighten the tone here, sorry. I didn't say you said I was a fashionista. I said that your posts present a syllogism. That syllogism can be offensive, depending on whether one wants to be considered a fashionista. Not a term often associated with an unsightly 60 year old, but I can dream.

Anyhow, you were addressing RFF members, some of whom, like me, own Leica digital M's, so premise 1 is sound:

1. I have a Leica dRF. (A=B)

You have stated variously that buyers of Leica digital M's are fashionistas, schmucks, etc., so premise 2 is sound, in your view:

2. Leica dRFs are for fashionistas. (B=C)

So, it follows, as the night the day,

3. I am a fashionista. (A=C)

It just kinda flows from your odd rant, but thank you.