After reading this thread, (to mangle Shakespeare a bit) ...
" Methinks thou dost protest too much".
Seriously, why the obvious underlying need to begrudge a preference or fondness for CCD rendering,
be it real or perceived? Why is it so important?
The sun is setting on the era of CCDs across the photographic landscape ... and, speaking of "religion", we will all have to drink the CMOS Kool-Aid soon enough :ROTFL: ... in this specific case, if we wish to continue using a M Rangefinder and
ALL of the M lenses ... and eventually the S system, and all of its expensive proprietary glass.
With all the issues that Leica has had with CCDs (cracking, corroding, etc), and the migration to CMOS in the M240 and S(007), it is clearly ... over and out in short enough order. I doubt ME and SE CCD offerings will last very far in future.
So, while fun, retailer exercises like this feel like sales pitches to convince some of us about what?
I don't get it. While it will probably support those who think there is no difference, it most likely does little to alter the perceptions of those who do. Even if it did, what's the point? To sell more M(240)s? Are they not selling well? Are M9 users not buying? Are too many M9 users migrating to Sony? Is Leica worried that CMOS is, or will be, effecting sales because it is not perceptually different enough from upstart mirror-less competition? Does Leica need to operationally phase out the ME and SE CCD models sooner than later?
As to the CCD/CMOS M differences I see, I think Roger outlined it well, so I won't repeat it.
That this set of images may be hard to distinguish one from another speaks to what? Skill in post? Skill in selecting scenarios with manipulative contrast? Are images from the two cameras
really indistinguishable?
The M9 had a distinct "finger-print" in the eyes of many. Why begrudge it's unique place in Leica's history of image making tools?
It all seems to be a moot point ... actually, soon to be a pointless point
- Marc