jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It does look good, but is still in the early stages of development. The lack of microlenses and IR filter seem to be key features for an RF sensor.
gavinlg
Veteran
It looks so good in fact, that if the fujifilm 'LX' comes out and does indeed have that organic sensor, I might sell my dslr...
If the sensor and processing in my x100 is anything to go by, leica will do extremely well to pair with the fujifilm sensor division!
If the sensor and processing in my x100 is anything to go by, leica will do extremely well to pair with the fujifilm sensor division!
agianelo
Established
I must be missing something here, because my understanding is that the most expensive cameras use CCD sensors. If CMOS were better, wouldn't they use that instead?
gavinlg
Veteran
Not really. Just different. CMOS sensors are much more efficient.
Some dirt cheap P&S cameras use CCD as well...
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Umm..no 't aint that simple. The main catchword is cheap.
This article is quite interesting, as well as the linked documents:
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx
And another:
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j...Hi2NEO&usg=AFQjCNEaZnbFq3ztPy7oPCrv2unchi1n4w
Ill quote a paragraph from the conclusion.:
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
re: the quote - I think that point has already been reached - especially considering the incredible reliability of the sony/canon CMOS sensors in comparison with the patchy reliability of the kodak CCD sensors used by leica. 10 years ago that article might have been valid.
Scheelings
Well-known
Did anyone see the news on Kodak's impending / probable bankruptcy? I think regardless of whether some Investment company now owns the Kodak sensor technology - I think that is likely to be a dead-end. As an engineer - I'd say its very difficult to just pick up where a completely different team of engineers dropped off and continue development.
Are you sure it'll be a completely different team?
jmc56
Member
Call me a sucker, but I bought the M9 P. I love it, treasure it but it fits into a very happy niche of my shooting life.
If I'm comfortable, I take it, but understanding that it's never going to get its value from a fence, I frequently carry a Fuji x100 which has a beautiful APS-C sensor that does things that many cameras can't do. On the other hand, at a rational ISO, it's damned near impossible to beat what the M-9 can do.
My guess is that there will be an M9.2 or equivalent and we may get a P option of no red dot etc. I don't have a problem with that. There are limiting aspects of the digital M series. They don't have the world's best low light performance. They don't have this or that. And as an old SLR user (note absence of the D, I go back to the M3 and Nikon F in their early days), there are too many low light or low contrast scenes where the RF doesn't do so well.
The sensor is a bit dated, but I still consider the M9 (or the M9 P with its image changing lack of red dot) because the sensor still produces shattering images that are probably unequalled (probably because I haven't tried everything).
Amateurs or semi-pros won't appreciate this, but the M8 and M9 fit this wonderful niche. On the other hand, the Canon 5D Mark II (Which I own) is about the same age as the M9 and it is the camera of choice for wedding photographers and assorted other pros. It's exceptional, but it's not the M9. It does HiDef video, takes lenses as short as they come and pretty much as long as they come and, given a modicum of F/Stop and light, will autofucus.
Be that as it may, and as much as I love the 5D2, I'm hooked on the Leica, going back to the IIIc, the first I collected. Many chose the Elmar 50mm F/3.5, not because of its speed, but other characteristics.
The Leica tops out at 2500, but fwiw, it seems the 2500 is more useful than the old ASA 3200 film and at not a lot less than that, it's pretty damn good running it through ACR. I don't have anything against the Kodak sensor, but I think Kodak is getting out of the sensor business. And again, fwiw, the Sony very sensitive sensor is getting use or licensing from Canon and all sorts of others. But that particular sensitivity is good for the Fuji x100 (which I use sometimes) but I'm not so sure in the full size Leica sensor. It's not simple.
There are only so many full sized sensors. Leica is one and it does what it does very well. It's not really a competition. Leica is what it is. The others re what they want to be, usually more diverse, etc, but Leica has always been a bit like the aesthete monastic code.
If I'm comfortable, I take it, but understanding that it's never going to get its value from a fence, I frequently carry a Fuji x100 which has a beautiful APS-C sensor that does things that many cameras can't do. On the other hand, at a rational ISO, it's damned near impossible to beat what the M-9 can do.
My guess is that there will be an M9.2 or equivalent and we may get a P option of no red dot etc. I don't have a problem with that. There are limiting aspects of the digital M series. They don't have the world's best low light performance. They don't have this or that. And as an old SLR user (note absence of the D, I go back to the M3 and Nikon F in their early days), there are too many low light or low contrast scenes where the RF doesn't do so well.
The sensor is a bit dated, but I still consider the M9 (or the M9 P with its image changing lack of red dot) because the sensor still produces shattering images that are probably unequalled (probably because I haven't tried everything).
Amateurs or semi-pros won't appreciate this, but the M8 and M9 fit this wonderful niche. On the other hand, the Canon 5D Mark II (Which I own) is about the same age as the M9 and it is the camera of choice for wedding photographers and assorted other pros. It's exceptional, but it's not the M9. It does HiDef video, takes lenses as short as they come and pretty much as long as they come and, given a modicum of F/Stop and light, will autofucus.
Be that as it may, and as much as I love the 5D2, I'm hooked on the Leica, going back to the IIIc, the first I collected. Many chose the Elmar 50mm F/3.5, not because of its speed, but other characteristics.
The Leica tops out at 2500, but fwiw, it seems the 2500 is more useful than the old ASA 3200 film and at not a lot less than that, it's pretty damn good running it through ACR. I don't have anything against the Kodak sensor, but I think Kodak is getting out of the sensor business. And again, fwiw, the Sony very sensitive sensor is getting use or licensing from Canon and all sorts of others. But that particular sensitivity is good for the Fuji x100 (which I use sometimes) but I'm not so sure in the full size Leica sensor. It's not simple.
There are only so many full sized sensors. Leica is one and it does what it does very well. It's not really a competition. Leica is what it is. The others re what they want to be, usually more diverse, etc, but Leica has always been a bit like the aesthete monastic code.
jmc56
Member
Let me add this to the original post re what is an M which is somewhat akin to what is a Leica.
I'm going to confess to trading a Leica M3 for a Nikon SP (and both of them saw limited use) at the same time I was buying Nikon Fs as my primaries. Why? Because the Nikon did the work well, had excellent optical performance, etc.
But the real question answered is that it was more cost effective for someone who beat the hell of cameras and the Leica required more money than I could justify for a backup occasional usage. Don't ask! the Nikon F fit the use better, whereas the RF were without peer in closeup work in public violence. I preferred the Leica, but cost justification was harder.
In my dotage, I can afford to engage my Leica obsessions and I collect Leicas and Leica lenses (along with some well loved CVs). So far I've focused mostly on IIIcs and afterward, temporarily have half dozen IIIf RDs. But the one real prize of my collection is a IIIg in the lower digits of production. Never used, always a shelf queen, no wear, and near perfection after a CLA. No box, but I'd take it in a minute given the serial. But here's the trick. It has the same shutter as the M3, it has a better rangefinder because of the separate window, It has everything the M3 (also in my collection) has except the rapid advance lever and the single viewfinder winder.
The problem is that what there is, is a better RF window. The viewfinder is variable. But honestly, while the single window VS/RF is convenient, there is greater accuracy in the separate window approach given the magnification question. Better, a question of what you want, but no, not as fast.
The lever makes the M but also the sleek styling. But look at the Ms. they look considerably different in measure. I still expect an advance lever on the M9, but its not there. It has a preview window, but It feels like an M. The feel of the LTMs is distinctive. So is the Ms.
I think Leica is working on the M image given its place in history. But let's face it. they'll keep they M look and feel as long as it makes sense. The M8 and M9 are as closely related despite the size differences as the M6 TTL (I own) and the same size film M7 (which I resisted, but it's an M).
Leica has a good sense of feel. I owned the Leica C compact as a pocket camera and thought it was excellent, especially with the non-zoom normal.
I'm inclined to relax about this. And, for what its worth, for my film work (less as it goes), I also like the CV bodies and lenses, including the latter affixed to the Leica bodies I own.
I'm going to confess to trading a Leica M3 for a Nikon SP (and both of them saw limited use) at the same time I was buying Nikon Fs as my primaries. Why? Because the Nikon did the work well, had excellent optical performance, etc.
But the real question answered is that it was more cost effective for someone who beat the hell of cameras and the Leica required more money than I could justify for a backup occasional usage. Don't ask! the Nikon F fit the use better, whereas the RF were without peer in closeup work in public violence. I preferred the Leica, but cost justification was harder.
In my dotage, I can afford to engage my Leica obsessions and I collect Leicas and Leica lenses (along with some well loved CVs). So far I've focused mostly on IIIcs and afterward, temporarily have half dozen IIIf RDs. But the one real prize of my collection is a IIIg in the lower digits of production. Never used, always a shelf queen, no wear, and near perfection after a CLA. No box, but I'd take it in a minute given the serial. But here's the trick. It has the same shutter as the M3, it has a better rangefinder because of the separate window, It has everything the M3 (also in my collection) has except the rapid advance lever and the single viewfinder winder.
The problem is that what there is, is a better RF window. The viewfinder is variable. But honestly, while the single window VS/RF is convenient, there is greater accuracy in the separate window approach given the magnification question. Better, a question of what you want, but no, not as fast.
The lever makes the M but also the sleek styling. But look at the Ms. they look considerably different in measure. I still expect an advance lever on the M9, but its not there. It has a preview window, but It feels like an M. The feel of the LTMs is distinctive. So is the Ms.
I think Leica is working on the M image given its place in history. But let's face it. they'll keep they M look and feel as long as it makes sense. The M8 and M9 are as closely related despite the size differences as the M6 TTL (I own) and the same size film M7 (which I resisted, but it's an M).
Leica has a good sense of feel. I owned the Leica C compact as a pocket camera and thought it was excellent, especially with the non-zoom normal.
I'm inclined to relax about this. And, for what its worth, for my film work (less as it goes), I also like the CV bodies and lenses, including the latter affixed to the Leica bodies I own.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Maybe the upcoming Fuji new sensor with an organic layer, random RGB CFA and no AA filter.
Apparently this is nowhere near close to being put into cameras...
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2012/01/12/imaging-resource-interview-kayce-baker-fujifilm
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
You know what I want: the ability to snap-in the chip of my choice.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Thanks for the link. Very interesting! Too bad that it's not intended for digital cameras, but maybe he didn't want to disclose future strategy. It seems that Sony is also working on a sensor with three organic layers according to a patent that was discovered some time ago. All this is very promising.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Everybody knows that once the M10 comes out, the two logical things to do is to bash it and begin to speculate about the M11...
Don't forget the fact that the M9 will be bashed for its used prices on the market.
ramosa
B&W
And then we can hear that the M8 is worthless junk ...
Turtle
Veteran
I have a feeling that the M10 will take quite a large leap forwards while retaining some of the line's traditional simplicity. Partnering with Fuji would be a very good move it would seem, but whether that happens is anyone' guess.
I still feel that Leica has to make itself more relevant in the pro realm to ensure the brand retains cache. It will only achieve this by getting more cameras out into the field capturing iconic images. Traditionalists might not like it, but I suspect this will only be possible by adding some functions, features and complexity. They dont have to go nuts, but IMHO they do have to provide what the majority of potential users want. While the M9 has great performance at base ISO, its performance at higher ISOs is now seriously behind the rest of the pack and if it takes CMOS sensors to do this at the expense of a little bit of base performance, this would be the smart move. It adds up to better overall utility for more people.
The M9 made the 'impossible' FF DRF a reality. They have that under their belt but now need to make the platform more relevant to the wider market. This can be done and for all those who said it was not, look at the storm over the X-Pro1. It is not just RF nuts getting excited, but a much broader base of camera users.
A camera somewhere between the M9 and X-Pro1 would match my idea of the current perfect reality and if leica pulls of that balancing act at reasonable price point, they have the potential to get many more M10s out there than M9s. Sure they could go up to $8-9K, but I wonder whether that would be a smart move in the long run. I suspect not.
I also hope they upgrade the body design to integrate a thumb rest and a more sensible design for accessing memory cards etc. These improvements could still be done with great aesthetic sympathy for those who want it to look as graceful as a spitfire's wing
Most of the great master photographers of Leica fame are either dead or very old. Leica needs a new crop of photographers and that will require a wider appreciation of camera utility. I suspect the M10 will be a significant step away from the old towards the new.
I still feel that Leica has to make itself more relevant in the pro realm to ensure the brand retains cache. It will only achieve this by getting more cameras out into the field capturing iconic images. Traditionalists might not like it, but I suspect this will only be possible by adding some functions, features and complexity. They dont have to go nuts, but IMHO they do have to provide what the majority of potential users want. While the M9 has great performance at base ISO, its performance at higher ISOs is now seriously behind the rest of the pack and if it takes CMOS sensors to do this at the expense of a little bit of base performance, this would be the smart move. It adds up to better overall utility for more people.
The M9 made the 'impossible' FF DRF a reality. They have that under their belt but now need to make the platform more relevant to the wider market. This can be done and for all those who said it was not, look at the storm over the X-Pro1. It is not just RF nuts getting excited, but a much broader base of camera users.
A camera somewhere between the M9 and X-Pro1 would match my idea of the current perfect reality and if leica pulls of that balancing act at reasonable price point, they have the potential to get many more M10s out there than M9s. Sure they could go up to $8-9K, but I wonder whether that would be a smart move in the long run. I suspect not.
I also hope they upgrade the body design to integrate a thumb rest and a more sensible design for accessing memory cards etc. These improvements could still be done with great aesthetic sympathy for those who want it to look as graceful as a spitfire's wing
Most of the great master photographers of Leica fame are either dead or very old. Leica needs a new crop of photographers and that will require a wider appreciation of camera utility. I suspect the M10 will be a significant step away from the old towards the new.
