What is the "magic" that has resulted in so much discussion of CCD verse CMOS ...with so little information being shared. The new M lacks the "pop" of the M9 ...the 3D effect . Its really important yet ....I sure can t describe it or explain why it seems to appear .
Somethings we know (IMHO) ....the new M will be "different " from the M9 and at base ISO ...some will prefer the M9 . The new M has lots of "cute" features ...some are even relevant to a die hard CRF user. The new M will blow away the M9 at anything above 400-640 ISO because of noise differences .
We also should know that the new M will improve overtime as raw conversions are fine tuned . This could make a significant difference ..as it did with the S2 . The early S2 files were flat ..lacking in overall image contrast . No "Pop" .
Leica lenses of course make a major contribution to the "Leica look" so I am speaking to differences in DR ,Color saturation etc etc that are established by the sensor/processor (and subsequent raw conversion ).
My initial assumption was that the CCD files did a better job with highlights ..the light colors had more brilliance ..like when I pull the luminosity up in a color . Puts states that the CMOS DR translates into better tone separation in the highlights and less noise in the shadows .
If so inclined look for Erwin Puts next post on the M where he covers the black and white set points differences between the M and the M9 .
Who cares ? Well ....understanding how the M and M9 differs could help in bringing back the "pop" ..even If I can t describe it .