The New CMOS Sensor May Not Be As Bad As People Imagine

[ferider]

Come on rffers, I need to know what is the best camera. M9 or M240? I only buy best camera, then feel good inside.

For lazy eye, Mike, M240 is best camera.

 

[MikeL]

So, regardless of whether it's a good camera or a sh*t camera - there's no other option for someone who does want a digital rangefinder.
Dave

Mr. Dave, this doesn't help. I don't want good camera or sh*t camera. I want best camera.

For lazy eye, Mike, M240 is best camera.

Iron rider understand me. Good post. Helpful.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

For lazy eye, Mike, M240 is best camera.

Ahh but a lazy eye is a "special eye" 😉

http://youtu.be/B0VtkCrbLd8

 

[semilog]

Mr. Dave, this doesn't help. I don't want good camera or sh*t camera. I want best camera.

Iron rider understand me. Good post. Helpful.

ROTFLOL...

 

[Tom Niblick]

Mr. Dave, this doesn't help. I don't want good camera or sh*t camera. I want best camera.

Iron rider understand me. Good post. Helpful.

The best camera is the one you have with you right now.

 

[Godfrey]

The best camera is the one you have with you right now.

Yes.

Voigtländer Perkeo II with Voightländer clip-on rangefinder​

"Love the one you're with." - Crosby, Stills and Nash

 

[willie_901]

Leica CCD Cameras May Be ISOless

Leica CCD Cameras May Be ISOless

I think I found the answer to my own question.

A recent and very long thread on Luninous Landscape discusses the measurement and relevance of a knowing a digital camera's unity gain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76730.0

Deep in this thread measurements from the Leica M9 indicate the camera probably does not use electronic amplification. If this is true, then increasing the camera's ISO setting increases the values written to the in-camera raw file solely by digital multiplication.

This means raw shooters never have to change ISO from the minimum setting. Increasing the Exposure slider in one's preferred raw rendering software during post processing should produce identical results to increasing the camera ISO.

Has anyone ever tried this with their M8 or M9?

I an curious about the data path in the M8/M9 cameras.

I recently read that cameras with CCD sensors typically do not employ electronic gain when the photographer increases ISO. For instance, the Phase One P65+, CCD sensor operates this way. Instead, the data from the analog to digital converter are multiplied by the firmware before they are written to the in-camera raw file. As far as I know, the signals from the CCD sensors do not require or benefit from electronic amplification.

Does anyone know if Leica CCD cameras use analog, electronic amplification or only digital multiplication to increase the values written to the raw file when the ISO parameter is increasd?

By contrast cameras with CMOS sensors use either one or two stage electronic amplification in between the sensor and the analog to digital converter in order to increase the signal level when ISO increases. At very higher ISO values electronic amplification is no longer useful, so then the data values from the analog to digital converter are multiplied digitally before they are written to the raw file.

 

[dcsang]

I think I found the answer to my own question.

A recent and very long thread on Luninous Landscape discusses the measurement and relevance of a knowing a digital camera's unity gain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76730.0

Deep in this thread measurements from the Leica M9 indicate the camera probably does not use electronic amplification. If this is true, then increasing the camera's ISO setting increases the values written to the in-camera raw file solely by digital multiplication.

This means raw shooters never have to change ISO from the minimum setting. Increasing the Exposure slider in one's preferred raw rendering software during post processing should produce identical results to increasing the camera ISO.

Has anyone ever tried this with their M8 or M9?

THAT is interesting - I'd like to hear more about this... I assume that noise reduction only applies to JPEG capture but anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on that (because I am not that technical when it comes to the sensor or in camera processing).

Cheers,
Dave

 

[ampguy]

I've used the M8 at base ISO/DNG, and you can't recover the exposure digitally, I am pretty sure it uses analog electronic gain. Not sure about the M9/240. I think the link you posted is about EVFs, which the 240 optional one, is the Olympus one, as is the optional mic.

I have heard of non-leica ccd users report of converting raw black images (to the naked eye) to semi-usable images though.

 

[DwF]

base ISO vs Higher in M9

base ISO vs Higher in M9

I think I found the answer to my own question.

A recent and very long thread on Luninous Landscape discusses the measurement and relevance of a knowing a digital camera's unity gain.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76730.0

Deep in this thread measurements from the Leica M9 indicate the camera probably does not use electronic amplification. If this is true, then increasing the camera's ISO setting increases the values written to the in-camera raw file solely by digital multiplication.

This means raw shooters never have to change ISO from the minimum setting. Increasing the Exposure slider in one's preferred raw rendering software during post processing should produce identical results to increasing the camera ISO.

Has anyone ever tried this with their M8 or M9?

This is interesting. At dusk the other day/night, I was working with my Thin-Tele 90 under the freeway. I was driving home and saw the light was getting interesting. I got stuck at a rail crossing, so before I made it to anyplace where I could get the camera out, it was getting darker!

I made a couple of exposures wide-open. One DNG that I have since discarded was at ISO 160, but the one that turned out usable and good I think was at ISO 1250. I posted that elsewhere here on RFF. I had always preferred to opt for base or lower ISO in low light. I should mention that I really worked on the file shot at lower ISO but without ever getting what I needed to make a workable image.

I imagine if what you are talking about here is true, then post processing and use of a particular software is really critical to getting the most out of the M9 in low light. I have been using CS5 and have LR but for me CS5 has always gotten me best results. I have considered from all I read that I need to learn how to use LR.

David

 

[willie_901]

Digital multiplication with some CCD sensors is not problematic in any sense. The output signal from CDD sensors has different characteristics than CMOS signals. In some cases increasing the electronic gain has no technical or practical advantage whatsoever.

For instance, some of SONY's newest CMOS sensors also use digital multiplication as the only means to increase the in-camera raw values. I believe the Nikon D7000 is one example.

In every digital camera I know of, increasing ISO above the sensor's base value by either electronic or digital means does not increase the native sensitivity of the sensor. Changing the camera's ISO increases the signal and the noise (identically) in between the sensor and the ADC after the data is recorded. There is yet different extremely long thread at Luminous Landscape where this is discussed, debated and agreed upon.

 

[jaapv]

I imagine if what you are talking about here is true, then post processing and use of a particular software is really critical to getting the most out of the M9 in low light. I have been using CS5 and have LR but for me CS5 has always gotten me best results. I have considered from all I read that I need to learn how to use LR.

David

That is strange, as LR and CS in their various versions always share the same raw processing software. It is just the user interface and some of the tools that differ. And CS will have more tools and features, of course.

 

[DwF]

CS5 or LR

CS5 or LR

Results for me between the two were close but I find that the controls (for B&W conversion) tend to work better for me in CS5; mainly using curves or levels.

Occasionally when doing a direct comparison, again I found the two were close but working the file with CS5, it was easier to achieve results I was after -so maybe not so strange considering they share RAW software.

David

 

[ramosa]

It's interesting how for years now, we Leica users said DxOMark reviews were worthless and didn't really get sensor quality. But now that DxOMark reviews provide a positive impression of a Leica sensor, we now think that DxOMark reviews make sense and have value. (Before blasting me, please see that I said "we.")

 

[willie_901]

I think CMOSIS deserves congratulations for producing a sensor that DxOMark rates higher than every Canon offering to date.

It's interesting how for years now, we Leica users said DxOMark reviews were worthless and didn't really get sensor quality. But now that DxOMark reviews provide a positive impression of a Leica sensor, we now think that DxOMark reviews make sense and have value. (Before blasting me, please see that I said "we.")

 

[semilog]

Willie's comments are right on point. Indeed, an amplifier stage precedes the A/D converter in all CCD and CMOS sensors that I'm familiar with. The only question is whether adjustable amplification gain is implemented on a given sensor.

For outstanding primers on sensors see these: CCD; CMOS.

Digital multiplication with some CCD sensors is not problematic in any sense. The output signal from CDD sensors has different characteristics than CMOS signals. In some cases increasing the electronic gain has no technical or practical advantage whatsoever.

For instance, some of SONY's newest CMOS sensors also use digital multiplication as the only means to increase the in-camera raw values. I believe the Nikon D7000 is one example.

In every digital camera I know of, increasing ISO above the sensor's base value by either electronic or digital means does not increase the native sensitivity of the sensor. Changing the camera's ISO increases the signal and the noise (identically) in between the sensor and the ADC after the data is recorded. There is yet different extremely long thread at Luminous Landscape where this is discussed, debated and agreed upon.

 

[jaapv]

It's interesting how for years now, we Leica users said DxOMark reviews were worthless and didn't really get sensor quality. But now that DxOMark reviews provide a positive impression of a Leica sensor, we now think that DxOMark reviews make sense and have value. (Before blasting me, please see that I said "we.")

Count me out. I still am no fan of their ratings.

 

[dcsang]

It's interesting how for years now, we Leica users said DxOMark reviews were worthless and didn't really get sensor quality. But now that DxOMark reviews provide a positive impression of a Leica sensor, we now think that DxOMark reviews make sense and have value. (Before blasting me, please see that I said "we.")

I personally never had an issue with DxOMark in the first place. I did have issues with Kodak's sensor in the M8, and, to some extent, the M9 - and I owned an M8 (but did not own an M9 however I did try one out).

I would agree with Willie's statement above - re: congratulating CMOSIS

The biggest concern for ME was whether or not the new CMOS sensor (and it's manufacturer) were any good. That was the big unknown when it came to the M and the biggest let down in the M8/M9 (my opinion only). The reason I say it was a let down was mainly due to the ugly noise at the "extreme" ISO end (i.e. ISO 2500 and even at ISO 1600 or 800 in the M8).

I still recognize the fact that, for a digital rangefinder camera; there is no other option in production currently other than Leica.

However, just because that is the case; it does not necessarily translate to the fact that I should or must accept whatever they produce. I can choose not to purchase or shoot with it (as I have done for the past 4 years now) and instead opt for my still awesome D700.

Now, however, it seems (so far) that they may have hit their stride to some extent. They still will lag behind the DSLR competition but it would appear that this effort (M 240) would be an adequate camera including usable ISO3200 (crosses fingers).

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Mcary]

Once there are a few thousand M240s out in the field you will stop hearing how they don't want live view on their M's. In one fell swoop it eliminates a huge set of rangefinder disadvantages when one has the time to shoot a bit more deliberately. It makes an M as versatile as a DSLR -- in some ways more versatile.

Paraphrased from the M/240 Review in the Feb/Mar 2013 issue of LFI Unlike DSLRs in which the optical viewfinder goes blank when using live view. The Leica M/240's optical viewfinder/rangefinder are both usable giving you the option of using the rangefinder or the LCD for focusing/framing when using rangefinder lens.

 

[furcafe]

FYI, in limited crappy lighting testing of my brand new M, there is indeed a 1 stop improvement over the M9, but still about 1 stop behind the Nikons above 1250. So, yes the M has a usable ISO 3200, but you have to "shoot to the right" to mitigate banding in the shadows (as Ming Thein reported, the M preserves highlights pretty well, so no need to use -1 exposure comp as I did on my M9/8).

Now, however, it seems (so far) that they may have hit their stride to some extent. They still will lag behind the DSLR competition but it would appear that this effort (M 240) would be an adequate camera including usable ISO3200 (crosses fingers).

Cheers,
Dave