douglasf13
New member
I got rid of all of my digital gear, except an M9, a collapsible 50 Summicron that I use 99.9% of the time, and a 90 tele-elmarit that I use for an occasional portrait. Choice bogs me down, and I love this streamlined setup.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
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!
Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison
- Thread starter jonoslack
- Start date
John Black
Active member
One is CMOS (1Ds3) and the other is CCD (M9). Same day within 10 minutes or so of each other -
CCD vs CMOS doesn't matter much. It comes down to AA filter vs no AA filter and how the raw editors decode the raw files. Just my $.02...
CCD vs CMOS doesn't matter much. It comes down to AA filter vs no AA filter and how the raw editors decode the raw files. Just my $.02...
John,
Of course when it comes to web based images, telling apart CCD/CMOS matched pairs of images can often be dependent on a whole host of variables. With that said, looking at these two images by themselves, I much prefer the 1st image, especially for skin tones and texture and a bit of depth to the image. The lighting in the second one though I believe has influenced some of this. Of course what transcends all this is her attractiveness, lovely smile and pose.
Dave (D&A)
Of course when it comes to web based images, telling apart CCD/CMOS matched pairs of images can often be dependent on a whole host of variables. With that said, looking at these two images by themselves, I much prefer the 1st image, especially for skin tones and texture and a bit of depth to the image. The lighting in the second one though I believe has influenced some of this. Of course what transcends all this is her attractiveness, lovely smile and pose.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
edwardkaraa
New member
Regardless of the differences in color rendition, to my eyes, there is an unmistakable difference between what I described earlier as the density and depth of CCD files that is similar to slide film versus the light and airy character of CMOS more similar to negative film. I can see those characteristics clearly in John's lovely photographs.
(PS: also the IR contamination in the sweater is unmistakable too
)
(PS: also the IR contamination in the sweater is unmistakable too
)
douglasf13
New member
You know, I was just telling someone on another thread that haven't noticed any IR issues with black clothing and the M9, but if that first pic is from the M9, I may have to reevaluate.
edwardkaraa
New member
I can't say I have seen it often. Most of the time, it's imperceptible.
IR affects more than just blacks. But in this example, if only one pic were shown, one would have no clue about the accuracy of the sweater color.
We like to think we can tell these things, but in a 'blind' test, looking at different prints of diverse subjects by lots of unknown photographers, most people have no clue about the camera or lens used.
Jeff
We like to think we can tell these things, but in a 'blind' test, looking at different prints of diverse subjects by lots of unknown photographers, most people have no clue about the camera or lens used.
Jeff
douglasf13
New member
I agree. I'm just surprised it is so noticeable compared to the Canon in those shots.
ptomsu
Workshop Member
This shows exactly what I always say! And we could go on here - Nikon, Pentax etc ....One is CMOS (1Ds3) and the other is CCD (M9). Same day within 10 minutes or so of each other -
CCD vs CMOS doesn't matter much. It comes down to AA filter vs no AA filter and how the raw editors decode the raw files. Just my $.02...
Many thanks for posting this!!!!
Peter
scott kirkpatrick
Well-known member
Re: CCD/CMOS transition in MFDBs
scott
Oh, Since the later backs have maximum exposure time of 1-2 min, and lots more display controls (zooms, touch-screen input), I got the impression they were Dalsa CMOS, but checking the Phase site, I see there is no Live View. So the MFDB world is still all CCD and doesn't tell us anything about this transition, right?
scott
John Black
Active member
Douglas - I wouldn't get to sussed about the IR. In trying to match the color between the images, it's a tug of war with the color balancing in Photoshop. FWIW - the 1Ds3 can show IR from time to time; it just depends on the ambient lighting, such as direct sunlight on a black car interior.
Dave - having fought the CCD vs CMOS battle with a friend and even dumping various medium format kits into the mix, the differences can be minute. I really think the 1Ds3 punched above its weight class. The M9 can be more endearing due to lens character - for example, the 50 Lux ASPH has no peer in dSLR land. The non-AA'd cameras have more "punch" in terms of acuity, but then there is the false color and aliasing. After the images are processed, the differences are so small (assuming comparable file sizes). Bringing the P65+ to the fight isn't fair, but the DF system had the most focus errors by far, so the benefit of all those pixels could be diminished very easily. Here are 100% crops at F2 - same day, same lenses. In terms of acuity, both are comparable. The 100 ZE does a very good job of cutting through AA filters (IMO) --- 100% crops from the raws.
Anyways, first image is the M9 w/ 75 APO & second was the 1Ds3 with 100ZE; both shot af F2. EXIF is attached. The draw of the lenses is quite comparable (as shown above) at near distances.
In normal day to day use, the difference I always see is the M9's color rendition vs the 1Ds3. The M tends to the blues; the 1Ds3 goes to the reds and yellows. Based on the M-240 DNGs we've seen thus far, I think I much prefer the M240's color rendering over the M9. I prefer a more neutral file, and then I'll edit it in the direction I like. I'll reserve final judgement until the M-240 is supported by C1 with a proper color profile.
Dave - having fought the CCD vs CMOS battle with a friend and even dumping various medium format kits into the mix, the differences can be minute. I really think the 1Ds3 punched above its weight class. The M9 can be more endearing due to lens character - for example, the 50 Lux ASPH has no peer in dSLR land. The non-AA'd cameras have more "punch" in terms of acuity, but then there is the false color and aliasing. After the images are processed, the differences are so small (assuming comparable file sizes). Bringing the P65+ to the fight isn't fair, but the DF system had the most focus errors by far, so the benefit of all those pixels could be diminished very easily. Here are 100% crops at F2 - same day, same lenses. In terms of acuity, both are comparable. The 100 ZE does a very good job of cutting through AA filters (IMO) --- 100% crops from the raws.
Anyways, first image is the M9 w/ 75 APO & second was the 1Ds3 with 100ZE; both shot af F2. EXIF is attached. The draw of the lenses is quite comparable (as shown above) at near distances.
In normal day to day use, the difference I always see is the M9's color rendition vs the 1Ds3. The M tends to the blues; the 1Ds3 goes to the reds and yellows. Based on the M-240 DNGs we've seen thus far, I think I much prefer the M240's color rendering over the M9. I prefer a more neutral file, and then I'll edit it in the direction I like. I'll reserve final judgement until the M-240 is supported by C1 with a proper color profile.
jonoslack
Active member
HI There John
Thanks for this - excellent - and so, of course, I agree with every word!
all the best
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Re: CCD/CMOS transition in MFDBs
Not Yet. At the moment it's all CCD based. That will change
It all depends on how picky you are. My clients do not like green hair like in the Canon sample shot ... and for me, fixing that on 50 bridal shots is NOT easy and mind numbingly boring.
For this specific portrait, I think the 75's draw was better for her face BTW... the 100 compacts and flattens it a tad too much. Focal length choice makes a huge difference on different faces.
I shot a zillion weddings with the IDsMK-III, and got really sick of spending so much time in PP to even come close to the M9 in "presence" ... so I dumped it in favor of the Nikon D3X ... which turned out to be jumping from the frying pan to the fire even using the incredibly slow to use ZFs that defeats the main AF advantage of a 35mm DSLR . So I dumped that also. So far the Sony A900 is still the best of the lot for consistent color out of the camera (jury is still out on the A99).
Right now I have a nice color consistency between the S2 and M9, with a relatively easier PP job with the Sony/Zeiss output and my LR user presets ... if profiles, presets and whatnot gets the M 240 in that ballpark, then it'll go into the bag.
Remains to be seen.
-Marc
cuonghuutran
Member
Ditto. I have been using 5d mk2 with Leica R lenses (80mm 1.4, 180mm 2.8 APO, 90mm f2, 35mm 1.4). Most of the time, I can spot the difference between 5D mk2 vs. M9 instantly (same glass on both 80mm 1.4 on 5D Mk2 vs. 70mm 1.4 on M9). M9 photos really bite when the light is ample. In John Black's example, I prefer the first photo, which turns out to be M9. I spent minimal time in editing - mostly with C1. (Off topic, for M9, how is C1 vs. LR -- hate to learn to use yet another raw editor).
But you likely wouldn't have noticed much difference if the M9 had been used with a UV/IR cut filter, as I use with my M8.2. That would have at least eliminated some of the obvious color distinction (on the sweater especially) between the two photos. The internal M9 filtration has been known to be weaker than the external filtration provided by the filter.
Jeff
douglasf13
New member
I know. That's my quandary. I'm wondering if using an IR filter is worth the occasional weird, green reflections that they sometimes cause. Maybe I'll get one for occasional usage.
douglasf13
New member
I've read a lot about green reflections in point sources of light from the IR filters on M8s from other members, but I've never tried an IR filter, myself.