Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Peter,Godfrey,
thanks for your test and sharing your findings - I had the feeling this would be the result after all my own investigations too - great to hear that confirmed!
Also for me is now clear - no used M9, rather go for the M240 or wait till next release!
Peter
Meh, what a monumental waste of time.
.....
.....
- Marc
For anyone local to the San Francisco Bay Area who might be in the market, Keeble & Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto has an extremely minty second-hand black Leica M typ 240 for sale at present. The camera is as new far as I can see, some incredibly small number of exposures made with it, in the box with all bits as originally sold. I think my buddy there told me they want $5500 or $5400 for it.Peter,
if I were you I would try to find a DEMO or slightly used M in very good condition. That way you wouldnt loose too much money when a new model is released.
Or - if you are patient, wait for a new model, without knowing if you will hold it in your hands in 15 weeks or in 15 months
It sure is. Just waiting for some sensors to become available so mine can be replaced.Well, I believe that the MM is the best digital M from Leica to date.
Totally agree.I didn't miss anything about the M8 when I used the M9, and I don't miss anything about the M9 now that I use an M240. It's all been very straightforward progress from my standpoint.
+1I didn't miss anything about the M8 when I used the M9, and I don't miss anything about the M9 now that I use an M240. It's all been very straightforward progress from my standpoint.
The difference though comes from what is in front of the sensor. CCD (UV/IR) filtration is more straightforward than it is required for a CMOS sensor is my understanding.Let's face it, the sensor only collects light intensity, not colour values, which come from the Bayer filter and the subsequent de-mosaicing algorithms (which are firmware and not hardware dependent).
Meh, what a monumental waste of time.
Leica is on record as saying CMOS is the future ... then made good on that by changing both their flagship cameras to CMOS sensors (M(240) and S(007). They are temporarily hedging their bet by offering the ME and SE CCD cameras, but those cameras are obviously not Leica's focus.
As to Leica adopting a Sony CMOS sensor I ask why then would I pay $7K to 8K for a Leica when a Sony cost $1.7K? Just for a rangefinder that can take tack-ons to make it more like the Sony?
Hopefully, Leica will stay the course, and keep developing their own approach to a M CMOS even if the current one is lacking in some folks eyes (including mine BTW).
Despite working with Sony cameras since early 2009, I ... do ... not ... like ... my current Sony stuff. It is convenient. It is technologically advanced ... all the utilitarian boxes are checked ... but it leaves me cold ... in use, and especially the image qualities.
Sony seemed on the right path with the A900 ... then went all techno geek, consumer fluffin-stuff to check off all the "Wants 'N Gimmes" of as many people as they could ... (especially the highly vocal and endlessly argumentative techno geek, pixel peeping, DR demanding folks) ... which is typical Sony mass-marketing mentality.
IMHO, Leica would do well to avoid anything to do with Sony's homogenization of the camera world.
Meanwhile, I'd agree that Leica needs to tighten up their quality on all fronts. If I have one more S lens go down on me, I will scream loud enough for Germany to hear me all the way from here.
- Marc
The David Farkas study shows that the differences are trivial to all but a few who continue to believe they can spot a CCD image and distinguish it from a CMOS image. I don't think most people looking at photos in a gallery gives a hoot about what kind of sensor was used or could tell the difference if their life depended upon it.Dave Farkas showed pretty clearly that in all but images of extreme DR, even LightRoom's restricted controls could make M9 and M[240] images practically indistinguishable. Photoshop and CaptureOne have very complex color curve editors that can do even more but I, at least, haven't got the time, and am not sensitive enough to color nuance to spend that time. I use an M9 sometimes for a consistent look in a never-finishing project that started with the M9, have an M8 still for old time's sake but haven't used it in over a year, and prefer the M[240] for everything because it just works better.
scott
You make too much sense! :lecture:Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but Leica has not stopped selling an M with a CCD. The M-E is still in production. So are people simply petitioning Leica to make a camera they are already making? The outrage!
+1. Wow!Despite working with Sony cameras since early 2009, I ... do ... not ... like ... my current Sony stuff. It is convenient. It is technologically advanced ... all the utilitarian boxes are checked ... but it leaves me cold ... in use, and especially the image qualities.
Sony seemed on the right path with the A900 ... then went all techno geek, consumer fluffin-stuff to check off all the "Wants 'N Gimmes" of as many people as they could ... (especially the highly vocal and endlessly argumentative techno geek, pixel peeping, DR demanding folks) ... which is typical Sony mass-marketing mentality.
IMHO, Leica would do well to avoid anything to do with Sony's homogenization of the camera world.
Meanwhile, I'd agree that Leica needs to tighten up their quality on all fronts.
- Marc