Duane Pandorf
Well-known
You are correct Larry. The second one is from my M-E.
Kwesi
Well-known
its really too bad that the ccd sensor isn't or can't be developed further in terms of higher ISO. I wonder if it's consumer driven. Expectation of live view and movies in cameras.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I fear that that is not something we can expect for technical reasons.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I guess I'm just one of those people who prefers CCD output to CMOS output, and thinks that those differences are in fact, ultimately, not down to other factors like camera algorithms, or my imagination, or that they can ever be routinely obviated in post processing (if it were possible to do that by "a few adjustments in post" as some are fond of saying, there would be a button in Lightroom to do just that, right next to the one for converting to monochrome
As someone who spent decades shooting almost nothing but Kodachrome 25 and 64 without feeling photographically hindered, being confined to shooting below ISO 800 doesn't seem like much of a burden, but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars. I'm just thankful that the option of the M-E still exists (not an option for me financially at this point, but I'm glad it's there.)
As someone who spent decades shooting almost nothing but Kodachrome 25 and 64 without feeling photographically hindered, being confined to shooting below ISO 800 doesn't seem like much of a burden, but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars. I'm just thankful that the option of the M-E still exists (not an option for me financially at this point, but I'm glad it's there.)
willie_901
Veteran
It's physics that restricts further development of CCD technology. Here's how.
Link 1. contains graphical (scroll about 1/2 way down) comparing the quantum efficiencies of CMOS vs CCD sensors. QE determines the sensors sensitivity to light. It affects the signal component of the signal-to-noise ratio.
Link 2 summarizes the history of image sensor development and discusses the physics and engineering behind the superior signal performance of CMOS devices.
Link 3 is a technical review in a peer-reviewed academic journal.
Of course the CCD vs CMOS physics is irrelevant compared to the perceived, and therefore authentic, preferences for the M9 data stream's rendering. Life is much too short not to own and use technology one prefers and values.
Consumer expectations are also relevant. Many consumers choose convenience (high signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range along with the option to record video) to color rendition characteristics. These are objective factors that can be measured and evaluated. However they don't necessarily define the value-added nature of a brand. Each consumer evaluates the value-added benefits for themselves.
presspass
filmshooter
I found the comparisons enlightening. Shooting your normal way makes more sense than setting specific parameters for the test, unless you are willing to change the way you shoot. I have been pondering a used M9, new M-E., or biting the bullet for an M240. The ISO comparisons may have made my decision for me. I shot a basketball game last night with an M8, and while the photos will work in newsprint, they're not something I'd be willing to put on a wall. Again, thanks for the comparisons.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for the reading material, Will.
Huss
Veteran
Duane Pandorf
Well-known
I guess I'm just one of those people who prefers CCD output to CMOS output, and thinks that those differences are in fact, ultimately, not down to other factors like camera algorithms, or my imagination, or that they can ever be routinely obviated in post processing (if it were possible to do that by "a few adjustments in post" as some are fond of saying, there would be a button in Lightroom to do just that, right next to the one for converting to monochrome
As someone who spent decades shooting almost nothing but Kodachrome 25 and 64 without feeling photographically hindered, being confined to shooting below ISO 800 doesn't seem like much of a burden, but then I was never all that fascinated by preserving memories of sweaty people singing off key in dimly lit bars. I'm just thankful that the option of the M-E still exists (not an option for me financially at this point, but I'm glad it's there.)
I have to completely agree with what you've said here. It seems whenever any camera is mentioned the first response is what is it's high ISO capability. Yet no concern whatsoever about how the camera actually handles in the field, etc. My biggest wish is that my M-E's base ISO was 64 or even 25 vice wanting 1600 or 3200 ISO!
....speaking of sweaty people singing off key...
M-E, 75 Cron
Kwesi
Well-known
neonart
Established
Thank you noimmunity. I appreciate your honesty.
Is the banding unacceptable in all those photos, or just that one at ISO6400? I shot that one purposely at ISO6400 to keep shutter speed high and achieve more grain. It was probably too much. I could have shot it at 1/60th and ISO 3200 and reduced banding. However, that room was extremely dim, so some areas where just darkness.
That said, my point was that you can get useable results at ISO4000, maybe even 6400, which of course are not even options on the CCD Leicas. If these high ISO results are not acceptable on the M240, then surely the M-E is not a viable option for you. Maybe an A7s or a D4 are in order.
robbeiflex
Well-known
^ I'm pretty sure the M-E is not for him, since he sold it to me.
I'm still very happy with it, but I rarely shoot it above ISO 800.
Cheers,
Rob
I'm still very happy with it, but I rarely shoot it above ISO 800.
Cheers,
Rob
noimmunity
scratch my niche
With the M-E, I regularly practiced push processing in post. It's far better to shoot at ISO640 and push 2-3 stops in post than to use the equivalent ISO speeds.
The practice might work as well for the M240.
For low ISO shooting, I preferred the look of the Foveon Merrill sensor, and got all 3 of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras. A completely different shooting experience from the M-E.
The practice might work as well for the M240.
For low ISO shooting, I preferred the look of the Foveon Merrill sensor, and got all 3 of the Sigma DP Merrill cameras. A completely different shooting experience from the M-E.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Hello Rob,
glad to hear you're having fun with it!
Best,
Jon
glad to hear you're having fun with it!
Best,
Jon
^ I'm pretty sure the M-E is not for him, since he sold it to me.
I'm still very happy with it, but I rarely shoot it above ISO 800.
Cheers,
Rob
anggono
Newbie
It would be great if somebody can do a test shot of same scene, with both camera, with the same kind of lens, preferably outdoor shot (natural light), at pretty low ISO (lets say 400).
Regards,
Kwesi
Well-known
Not sure how familiar you are with the M9 sensor. It's. Rey unique in hat its output is tuned to give you neutral yet rich colors with deep shadows that are quite manageable in post if one chooses. This is a big part of why it has such a loyal following.
You really don't need a side by side comparison to tell them apart.
I and another person here were able to tell them apart pretty quickly, despite the different lenses used.
I would suggest looking at the M9 "alive and well..." Thread to familiarize your self and also the new LFI Gallery with its filtering capability to get a sense of the 2 cameras. If you are on the fence.
raid
Dad Photographer
I almost always use ISO160 on my M9. It brings out its best qualities. I live in Florida, so we have lots of bright sunny days throughout the year. Why would I get a camera with a target to use very high ISO? I have bo assume that we have lots of people here who often frequent dark rooms for their photography, and they live in regions where the weather is very cold and the sky is almost every day cloudy and dark. That's why they LOVE a camera that does well with ISO 5,000. For over 25 years, my "high ISO" has been 400. My preferred "low ISO" has been 50, but on the digital cameras, I am not finding such an ISO setting. My standard ISO was and is 100, but on the M9, I settle for ISO 160. My E-P2 has ISO 100.
anggono
Newbie
I'm not familiar with output of both camera but lately have been thinking of getting the M-240, or the M-E (or M9).
It's a doldrum considering the M9 potential sensor corrosion problem. Else would have given the M9 a definite go.
Btw I picked the second shot by Duane, simply because I found the colour to be richer and more pleasing tonality, which turned out to be shot from the M-E.
Last edited:
Kwesi
Well-known
It is a tough choice to make but having owned both cameras, I would suggest you get the M240.
It's what I am currently using. It is more versatile so you will get more use out of it if it's your only camera.
It's what I am currently using. It is more versatile so you will get more use out of it if it's your only camera.
Manuel Patino
Established
I don't know about comparing the ME to the M240, but the M240 seems to be a nice camera. I am still learning how to use it, and frankly, I am just learning about how to PP effectively and how to use exposure most effectively to allow recovery of highlights or shadows. But I did my very first shoot of a friend and I thought that they OOC jpgs came out pretty well. I wish I had shot DNG to give me more room to PP, but over all I'm pleased
