Leica CCD Based M240? Maybe, just maybe!

[D&A]

Hi All,

Leica Rumors just posted about a possible updated M-E body. It might not be an M240 incorporating a CCD (instead of it's CMOS) sensor, but it might be heading somewhat in that direction. Better rear LCD, battery and possibly other updates for those that prefer the look of M9 files (as I do).

It's anyone's guess but I find it interesting. Maybe Leica is listening after all.

Here is the link:

Leica rumored to announce a M-E camera replacement | Leica News & Rumors

Dave (D&A)

 

[segedi]

Photokina can't come soon enough!

 

[Jon Warwick]

If a CCD version of an M240 did materialize, does that suggest that there IS a difference in look between CCD and CMOS sensors? I don't have extensive experience of CCD. I understand the benefits of high ISO and live view that comes with CMOS, but was wondering if there is a consensus about why some people like the CCD look more - is it less "digital" (more "crunch" to the look and with no plastic-looking smearing, is it more film like than CMOS etc?)

 

[fotografz]

Jon, if this rumor is even remotely true, it suggests that some M digital users were pleased with the look and feel of the M9 files regardless of how it was achieved. It may be a confluence of a number of interacting attributes including, but not limited to, the use of a CCD sensor.

I am one of those who favored the M9 look and feel, and rarely felt constrained by ISO limits or 18 meg. In fact, I specifically preferred the look of the M9 at ISO 640, which I felt was most "film like" in appearance.

I also am of the opinion that massive DR is an over-blown attribute, and do not recall many instances where it was an issue with the M9 … but freely admit that would be specific to how and what I shoot in tandem with the processing techniques I use for all the CCD cameras I have used (Hasselblad H, Leica S, M8 and M9).

It would be a nice option to get the M9 sensor in a better body … better LCD read-out, and hopefully the better rangefinder of the M240. Oh, and a black body rather than the (IMHO) ugly grey).

A simple, pure rangefinder without all the bells & whistles would be just fine with me. Meanwhile, the M Monochrome does the trick for rangefinder work.

- Marc

 

[VINCET]

Dave,

It could also be due to availability issue of their current LCD screen.

Vince

 

[MPK2010]

I am one of those who favored the M9 look and feel, and rarely felt constrained by ISO limits or 18 meg. In fact, I specifically preferred the look of the M9 at ISO 640, which I felt was most "film like" in appearance.

Agree re IS0 640 on the M9.

 

[JohnW]

This has piqued my interest too, as I consider going back to a digital M. But I would likely pass if a CMOS sensor, and would prefer a higher pixel CCD with better ISO performance. I shoot B&W almost exclusively and love the M8/M9 look. I'm also keen to see what the X-Pro2 offers.

John

 

[Double Negative]

Don't believe everything you read.

 

[Paratom]

If a CCD version of an M240 did materialize, does that suggest that there IS a difference in look between CCD and CMOS sensors? I don't have extensive experience of CCD. I understand the benefits of high ISO and live view that comes with CMOS, but was wondering if there is a consensus about why some people like the CCD look more - is it less "digital" (more "crunch" to the look and with no plastic-looking smearing, is it more film like than CMOS etc?)

Thats what some people write.
For me - I am not sure. I sometimes feel tht overall I was happier with the M9 results than with those from the M-T240 - but then when I run some comparisons the difference between the files is not so clear. Sometimes I prefer the M9 files but sometimes the ones form the new M. It also seems that C1 has better profiles for the M than LR so one should probably not judge just based on LR processing.

It would be nice to have the option between both sensors in a newer body, but I can not imagine Leica would go this way.
On the other side -even though the new M has some clear advantages in regards of speed and rangefinder and display the M9/ME is still a good camera IMO.

 

[mtsullivan]

....would prefer a higher pixel CCD with better ISO performance. I shoot B&W almost exclusively and love the M8/M9 look.

This already exists, it's called the M Monochrom!

 

[gogopix]

I hate to pull the old "where there's smoke there's fire" but fairly credible photographers have commented on the "LOOK" difference M9 to M240. This happened with "fat pixels" film vs digital etc. as well

Everyone has their aesthetic preference, and I for one also find the M9 files to have more depth and "reach in" look to them.

Can you reproduce? I have noticed M files becoming more m9 like over time. Firmware? processing? Who knows. But I do object to those who say that those of us who see things are "seeing things" LOL

Marc, who has great credibility here (as well as evidence of his professional eye) says it right when he comments that it MAY be CCD vs CMOS or other things. We don't know. But differences are not illusions; they are real.

I for one wojld like either a CMOS with less flatness (sorry, thats what I see) or CCD with better ISO performance.,

All life is compromise, and Leica seems to be doing ist best to focus on the IMAGE as the end game. Good for them; whether CMOS, CCD or whatever, I am glad someone makes a camera better than that on the iphone.

regards
Victor

 

[D&A]

Nicely put Victor!

Marc, I agree with vitually all you wrote in your post "above" except for one thing. I too thought the Greyish-Green M-E body was hidious looking in pictures but once I saw the real thing, it looked astonishing good, business like, subdued and doesn't call attention to itself. It actually looks good with both silver and black lenses. Thats not to say is surpases Black or for that matter the elegance of silver...but when viewed in real life, a lot of people quickly chaged their minds about its appearance. As usual, to each their own.

Dave (D&A)

 

[250swb]

The CCD vs. CMOS differences are true, but only apply if you sit back and do nothing to adjust the pictures.

Otherwise simple post processing makes one look like the other. Its the mid-tone micro contrast that makes the most difference, adjusting that in Viveza or Color Efex Pro is an easy and less expensive way to make a CMOS file look like a CCD file. But I do appreciate that buying a new camera is more exciting.

Steve

 

[fotografz]

Nicely put Victor!

Marc, I agree with vitually all you wrote in your post "above" except for one thing. I too thought the Greyish-Green M-E body was hidious looking in pictures but once I saw the real thing, it looked astonishing good, business like, subdued and doesn't call attention to itself. It actually looks good with both silver and black lenses. Thats not to say is surpases Black or for that matter the elegance of silver...but when viewed in real life, a lot of people quickly chaged their minds about its appearance. As usual, to each their own.

Dave (D&A)

Point taken. I've never seen a Leica M-E in person.

- Marc

 

[docmoore]

The CCD vs. CMOS differences are true, but only apply if you sit back and do nothing to adjust the pictures.

...simple post processing makes one look like the other. Its the mid-tone micro contrast that makes the most difference, adjusting that in Viveza or Color Efex Pro is an easy and less expensive way to make a CMOS file look like a CCD file.

Steve

Which is great if you have only a few pictures to adjust. I imagine that most pros who need to deliver 100s of proofs by Friday and the finals in a short amount of time with each new client might not find it easy nor inexpensive...time wise.

Me, if I work on 10 pictures it has been a productive week. :ROTFL:


Bob

 

[D&A]

Which is great if you have only a few pictures to adjust. I imagine that most pros who need to deliver 100s of proofs by Friday and the finals in a short amount of time with each new client might not find it easy nor inexpensive...time wise.

Me, if I work on 10 pictures it has been a productive week. :ROTFL:


Bob

I would also add that although its possible to adjust M240 files in post processing to emulate or come close to the look of M9 files, that's not always the case in my opinion. At the end of the day, sometimes the differences are subtle or hard to detect and at other times preferences are obvious. Of course it's quite subjective and for some it goes the other way.

It's like two cars that have very similar specs and differ mostly by the visceral feeling one gets while driving or pushing these cars in any number of ways. Some prefer one over the other but no matter how they are both driven, most will have a preference at the end of the day.

Dave (D&A)

 

[ptomsu]

The issue is that obviously Leica still is not able to treat their CMOS files the way that they look like coming from a CCD, or maybe they do not want.

Take Fuji for example, they allow to apply film simulation either to their JPEGs in camera or RAWs in post processing via LR5. This leads to a bunch of very useful presets where results are hard to achieve in manual post processing. I assume that this could be done same way to achieve a certain CCD look.

IMHO CCD is pretty dead for new (next generation) cameras and advances in CMOS are so enormous that I could not think of camera manufacturers just to go back to CCD and deal with all the issues resulting from that. So the way needs to be to tray files from CMOS in a way that they look like coming from a CCD. Leica should have achieved that goal already after almost 18 months since the introduction of the M. If they did not so far then this is their fault. And similar will be an issue then with the next generation S coming based on a CMOS sensor.

 

[fotografz]

The CCD vs. CMOS differences are true, but only apply if you sit back and do nothing to adjust the pictures.

Otherwise simple post processing makes one look like the other. Its the mid-tone micro contrast that makes the most difference, adjusting that in Viveza or Color Efex Pro is an easy and less expensive way to make a CMOS file look like a CCD file. But I do appreciate that buying a new camera is more exciting.

Steve

I've had numerous discussion with M users that I highly respect that have both cameras (M9 and M240). Their opinion is that they are different and one cannot emulate the other no matter how much PP you do. I confirmed this myself with a demo M240 I used for two weeks.

The color rendering is different … how the colors and tonal separations relate to each other is different.

And that works both ways. If you prefer the M240 rendering then you could spend a month of Sundays trying to emulate it with a M9.

My preference is for a camera to produce initial files that are close to my aesthetic preferences, not struggle with them to do so … be it one image, or one Thousand.

- Marc

 

[Double Negative]

Honestly, I don't care what the files from the M look like (as compared to CCD). I've got an M9 and MM and see no reason to "upgrade."

I've got a Fuji X-T1 for that sort of stuff, which does it better up and down - and only cost a grand.

 

[Paratom]

Hi Marc,
which raw converter did you use in your comparisons?
And are you mainly talking about daylight or artificial light or both?
I am not questioning anybodys findings about M9 vs M but I am trying to make a decision for myself between the two and my findings are not so clear in one direction.