xiaubauu
Member
Is the ccd sensor on the m-e still manufactured by Kodak?
Sensor in the M-E
- Thread starter xiaubauu
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 59
- Views 10K
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
No - nor was the one in the M9-P. Kodak's sensor division was sold to Truesense quite some time ago.
The sensor in the ME is the same one as the one in the M9
The sensor in the ME is the same one as the one in the M9
theno23
Established
I understand it's the same design, and made on the same production line though, so it's still the Kodak design.
majid
Fazal Majid
I believe Truesense is a Kodak spin-off that was bought by a private equity firm, so it's the same design, same people and for all practical purposes the same thing, except that now they are no longer under Kodak's incompetent management and thus have a fair shot at survival.
IEDEI
Well-known
correct.
Truesense = Kodak. just a new name after re-organizing.
http://www.truesenseimaging.com/about-us/history
IEDEI
Well-known
i find those tests and scores to be utterly useless. Leicas are all about the glass and the combination of the sensor + glass are what helps us to create magic. The objectivism of these analytical sensor tests are fine in a 'bubble'...but out in the real world, even a score of much less can easily translate into fantastic photos.
The only people who gloat over those scores are owners of the horrifically uninspiring mass produced DSLRs which score so high in those tests....then people buy those cameras, put rubbish lenses on them and are not able to apply the sensor abilities into the real world.
Ron (Netherlands)
Well-known
Thanks, makes clear at least that Leica long lost the digital boat.....
of course for (us) Leica aficianados it is also all about glass like said above, however looking for USD 7000 camera, - you have to buy glass next - they are very very poor performers. It seems they even miss the boat with the new M looking at the files distributed so far and compared to the output of eg. the D-800. IMHO this has nothing to do with being able to shoot with Leica glass - Leica should have invested more in getting the best out of the sensor (since they already have the best glass around). However they did not and that is a real pity for the true Leica lover.
NicoM
Well-known
DxO measures dynamic range, high ISO performance and color depth, which are all important to many. These tests don't paint the whole picture like you say, and yes, fantastic photos come from all different kinds of camera, but how are these tests "utterly useless"?
I see this type of negativity towards objectivity a lot here in a forum where people pay a lot more for equipment that is not "technically better" than cheaper equipment.
I'm not bashing on those that do spend on more expensive gear as I own a few pieces of expensive and arguably outdated tech, but why is there so much negativity to those that choose the more objective route?
FrankS
Registered User
The M2 still rules, IMO.
Clint Troy
Well-known
You realize that an el-cheapo Nikkor 50 1.8 surpasses any old Leica lens which are known for their "magic" while the Nikkor has "aberations".
There's a limit to how "magical" the Leica lenses can be. In this digital age, the sensor really holds it important place.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I remind everyone to keep the discussion positive and supportive of your fellow forum participants.
There is no upside to bashing equipment, manufacturers, brands, etc. It leads to pointless debates and hurt feelings, and promotes ill will.
Thank you.
G
Moderator - Not Monk
There is no upside to bashing equipment, manufacturers, brands, etc. It leads to pointless debates and hurt feelings, and promotes ill will.
Thank you.
G
Moderator - Not Monk
noimmunity
scratch my niche
And I was just thinking this morning how cool it was that the DxO test hadn't incited a multipage flamewar thread on RFF like it did on another site. (Not that discussion isn't good, so have at it, chaps!)
Quantitative evaluation (QE), of which DxO is a form, is a given nowadays. People who place their faith in it will eventually wake up, as many did on September 15, 2008, to find that what they had been told was valuable is in fact worthless.
Neither DxO nor a red (or black) dot is going to be a guarantee of very much.
Quantitative evaluation (QE), of which DxO is a form, is a given nowadays. People who place their faith in it will eventually wake up, as many did on September 15, 2008, to find that what they had been told was valuable is in fact worthless.
Neither DxO nor a red (or black) dot is going to be a guarantee of very much.
jsrockit
Moderator
What happened on that date?
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Lehman Brothers declared Chapter 11 (bankruptcy).
S&P gave Lehman an AAA credit rating one month before the collapse.
IEDEI
Well-known
i definitely do not agree with that.....sounds reactionary.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree that sensor plus glass makes the difference. But I would not disparage DSLRs. Not everyone puts crappy lenses on them. I have just spent over two grand on a high quality pro Nikkor and don't use anything lesser quality as a matter of (obsessive) principle. I would say the majority of (top end) Nikon bodies are the same. However as someone pointed out some "cheap" lenses like the 50mm f1.8 are superb in their own right. I own both the Leica M and the Nikkor system and both are excellent in their own domain.
We do tend to romanticise Leica glass a bit and regard their aberrations as being their secret magic.
Clint Troy
Well-known
Reactionary?
Let's just say that Five years after you'd be steadily printing about 25 to 50 prints a week (FB 16x20 and FB 20x24) from negatives shot with the 21 Lux, 24 Lux, Noctilux, Summilux Asph 50mm, 28mm Cron, Noct-Nikkor, 50 1.8, 28-70 f2.8 and so on, I'd be very attentive of your thoughts on the matter.
But in this case, that guy is me 🙂 I think I know a thing or two on the subject.
jsrockit
Moderator
jsrockit
Moderator
He's not as far off as people like to think though and in some situations, he's right.
Bill Clark
Veteran
F.Y.I.
Amongst the pros I associate with I don't find anyone using Leica digital equipment. The folks who are doing particular, what I term as "high end" type of photography, I find using Hasselblad stuff with digital backs. Perhaps it's because of several reasons, Zeiss lenses, large sensor, the ability to change backs and upgrade when they desire and an outfit they are comfortable using.
Here is one gent that I know who lives here and uses a Hasselblad 500C with a digital back:
http://www.rademacherportraits.com/index2.php#!/HOME
At any rate, thought I'd mention that.
Amongst the pros I associate with I don't find anyone using Leica digital equipment. The folks who are doing particular, what I term as "high end" type of photography, I find using Hasselblad stuff with digital backs. Perhaps it's because of several reasons, Zeiss lenses, large sensor, the ability to change backs and upgrade when they desire and an outfit they are comfortable using.
Here is one gent that I know who lives here and uses a Hasselblad 500C with a digital back:
http://www.rademacherportraits.com/index2.php#!/HOME
At any rate, thought I'd mention that.
Similar threads
