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!
5) Convert to b/w.In these situations you have four choices:
1) Suck it up
2) Clone it out
3) Pull the filter
4) Get an M9
I am fascinated about the CCD vs CMOS discussion also, I think there is a good case for now at least to keep the M9 where possible, while having the improved ergonomics and functionality of the M240. At base ISO's, I feel the M9 will become the classic, sought after look. With the improved firmware and profiles the new M240 will look similar, and in reality maybe very hard to pick the difference on the computer screen.
Having the RX1, FF Sony's latest CMOS sensor, the IQ, DR and low light ability have amazed me. At base ISO's, the M9 has the definite clean, rich and full look that the RX1 files seems to lack, even with extensive PP'ing.
Well you have thousands of people wanting an M, many are M9 owners. You will see a lot on the forums. Now is a good time to buy an M9! Long term who knows, maybe they will rise in price!Well looking at the Buy/Sell forum, all I see are M9's for sale now.....
Am I to assume that everyone is going for the new "M"
I understand your point about sensor tuning beyond intrinsic sensor technology itself, but the chosen base ISO of 200 in this camera represents a decision to prioritize high ISO performance at the expense of low ISO performance. Don't get me wrong - I'm sure the low ISO performance is, for all practical purposes, wonderful. I also don't doubt that it will be better than the M9 at all ISO values. However, my understanding is that - all other things being equal - a sensor designed with a lower base ISO will have better image quality at base ISO than a sensor designed with a higher base ISO.I think the point was that its the temptation to calibrate a CMOS sensor to have fantastic high ISO which compromises it rather than the actual sensor technology. AFAIK there are no modern CMOS sensors which do not do this. The new CMOSIS sensor is much less ambitious (as was the sensor in the Sony A900).
Is there any way to see or verify the higher "color precision" of such sensors? I have seen several indications that Leica (M9, specifically) uses more selective filters and I wonder how it would be reflected in actual images. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but one of the DxO numbers is about color depth and the collected numbers are more or less the same as competition, which rises my curiosity.What can be compromised in favour of higher sensitivity is the density of the CFA, using more "transparent" filters which reduce "color precision".
Here are some great posts from Joakim (thesuede,) who works in the industry:Is there any way to see or verify the higher "color precision" of such sensors? I have seen several indications that Leica (M9, specifically) uses more selective filters and I wonder how it would be reflected in actual images. I don't want to open a can of worms here, but one of the DxO numbers is about color depth and the collected numbers are more or less the same as competition, which rises my curiosity.