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!

CCD or CMOS - you choose

KeithL

Well-known member
If indeed M240 sales are slow I would have thought it has more to do with competition and perceived value for money rather than CCD vs. CMOS technology.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
If indeed M240 sales are slow I would have thought it has more to do with competition and perceived value for money rather than CCD vs. CMOS technology.
Agree with this 100% and by most accounts the M240 launched with "one foot in the grave" as it applied to technology it competed with then. Now 2 years later the competition is even stiffer when it comes to specs with other (possibly more advanced) FF 24mp sensors going for $12-2500... Not to mention the senosrs with more than 24mp going for only slightly more coin.

Who would've thought 5 years ago that you could buy a digital MF camera for less than a digital M!?! That's perspective and reality.

***DISCLAIMER***

I do still love the M9 and the Monochrome derivative. I suspect there has been much tweaking of the M240 profiles since launch and fully admit my bias is based on a launch model that I preordered/declined after testing. I've move on to a competitor's camera system and for mypurposes the versatility is a better match for what I do. There are some great photographers making the M240 sing as they did with the film M's, M8, M9 and derivatives. If money were no object I'd buy a Monochrom and probably never sell it until something truly better came along. If someone else wants to take a stab at a more affordable Monochrom camera it would be welcomed.
 

jonoslack

Active member
If indeed M240 sales are slow I would have thought it has more to do with competition and perceived value for money rather than CCD vs. CMOS technology.
Even this has got twisted!
I've no information to suggest that M240 sales are slow . . . all that I'm aware of is that some people aren't buying because they think CCD is better than CMOS . . .and I don't think that's a good reason . . . .
 
V

Vivek

Guest
If only some aren't buying what is the big deal? More than some refused to buy the M8 because it was digital. Life goes on and so should should Leica.
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Even this has got twisted!
I've no information to suggest that M240 sales are slow . . . all that I'm aware of is that some people aren't buying because they think CCD is better than CMOS . . .and I don't think that's a good reason . . . .
Jono, I'm afraid that's the nature of this beast :(
 

KeithL

Well-known member
Agree with this 100% and by most accounts the M240 launched with "one foot in the grave" as it applied to technology it competed with then. Now 2 years later the competition is even stiffer when it comes to specs with other (possibly more advanced) FF 24mp sensors going for $12-2500... Not to mention the senosrs with more than 24mp going for only slightly more coin.

Who would've thought 5 years ago that you could buy a digital MF camera for less than a digital M!?! That's perspective and reality.

***DISCLAIMER***

I do still love the M9 and the Monochrome derivative. I suspect there has been much tweaking of the M240 profiles since launch and fully admit my bias is based on a launch model that I preordered/declined after testing. I've move on to a competitor's camera system and for mypurposes the versatility is a better match for what I do. There are some great photographers making the M240 sing as they did with the film M's, M8, M9 and derivatives. If money were no object I'd buy a Monochrom and probably never sell it until something truly better came along. If someone else wants to take a stab at a more affordable Monochrom camera it would be welcomed.
I regularly set out with every intention of using my M9-P but almost inevitably reach for the M240.

Reasons include the greater dynamic range, the superior high ISO performance and the option to select faster auto ISO speeds, the option of using Live View and an EVF together with the ability to frame with precision, the vastly superior screen, Focus Peaking and Image Magnification with the Focus Button, more MP...

When I compare files out of camera I have a preference for the M9 colour, just, but the last time I relied on out-of-camera files was in the last century.

I'm afraid my M9-P now has the role of a very expensive backup camera.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I regularly set out with every intention of using my M9-P but almost inevitably reach for the M240.

Reasons include the greater dynamic range, the superior high ISO performance and the option to select faster auto ISO speeds, the option of using Live View and an EVF together with the ability to frame with precision, the vastly superior screen, Focus Peaking and Image Magnification with the Focus Button, more MP...

When I compare files out of camera I have a preference for the M9 colour, just, but the last time I relied on out-of-camera files was in the last century.

I'm afraid my M9-P now has the role of a very expensive backup camera.
I hear you but my tests included processing test shots to make my decision on whether or not to buy as well.

I still preferred the M9-P by a great margin but I digress because I've since sold my M9 last summer as it wasn't getting much use once I got really comfortable with the A7 series.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I suspect there has been much tweaking of the M240 profiles since launch and fully admit my bias is based on a launch model that I preordered/declined after testing.
Not much tweaking . . . just a correction of the original problem with the AWB (I still wonder why anyone uses that anyway!). But it sounds like your judgement was made before it was sorted out.

I have a Sony A7ii, which I really like . . but I still far prefer the files from the M240, both in terms of colour and resolution.

But the bottom line is still that the real reason for wanting a Leica M is because you want to shoot with a rangefinder - if that's what you want, then it produces fantastic results - if you don't, then it's not the right camera.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Not much tweaking . . . just a correction of the original problem with the AWB (I still wonder why anyone uses that anyway!). But it sounds like your judgement was made before it was sorted out.

I have a Sony A7ii, which I really like . . but I still far prefer the files from the M240, both in terms of colour and resolution.

But the bottom line is still that the real reason for wanting a Leica M is because you want to shoot with a rangefinder - if that's what you want, then it produces fantastic results - if you don't, then it's not the right camera.
Yeah I actually love shooting with a rangefinder between 24mm and 90mm but for me there is balance between what I love and what give me the most value. When it comes to versatility the A7 ultimately won me over but that's not a knock on Leica at all. The M9 was the first camera I ever really "loved" and it may possibly be the only one that I have thus far.

Regarding AWB... I shoot a color checker so AWB or not it's a matter of a few mouse clicks.

So like many say the Leica is the emotional decision while a dslr/mirrorless is usually more of a functional one.
 
Last edited:

Auni

Member
Odd that just asking the question taints public perception of individuals that have never owned the M. Having owned both, I can't list one thing, that can be subjectively measured, that isn't better with the M.

Rick
 

jonoslack

Active member
Odd that just asking the question taints public perception of individuals that have never owned the M. Having owned both, I can't list one thing, that can be subjectively measured, that isn't better with the M.

Rick
Indeed Rick - it drives me crazy, but I realise now that you only have to bring up the subject to reinforce peoples religious belief in the CCD
 

D&A

Well-known member
k-hawinkler ;628153 said:
Spot on. I couldn't agree more! Thanks.
I too couldn't agree more with Marc. Extremely well said and echo's my thoughts as to why this well intentional exercise was conducted at this time. Additionally whats seen on a monitor along with its screen resolution, can be quite different when the actual files are printed.

Art such as photography is as much of a visceral response to both the subject and image presentation as it is to technical measurements, so an empirical formulation as to why some prefer output of one camera to another is not always easily conducted.

Dave (D&A)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Odd that just asking the question taints public perception of individuals that have never owned the M. Having owned both, I can't list one thing, that can be subjectively measured, that isn't better with the M.

Rick
When things can be "subjectively measured" it will be the absolute end of creative prerogative ... and the micrometer wielding, chart quoting photobots will then be dictating aesthetics.:)

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Indeed Rick - it drives me crazy, but I realise now that you only have to bring up the subject to reinforce peoples religious belief in the CCD
Well, Jono ... the only "religion" I smell here is marketing.

There are people that like CCD ... "Like" is a subjective word ... which for some reason people that don't agree can't seem to accept.

I guessed that'd make it "Religious Intolerance" :ROTFL:

- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well, Jono ... the only "religion" I smell here is marketing.

There are people that like CCD ... "Like" is a subjective word ... which for some reason people that don't agree can't seem to accept.
I don't think that there is anything subjective about 'Like' it might be personal, but that's not the same thing - the problem is that before you can coherently say that you like CCD better than CMOS you must be able to define the difference in some kind of coherent manner which is relates specifically to CCD (rather than the difference between the M9 and the M240 - they're unquestionably different, but without some kind of empirical definition you might as well assign it to the 0.6mm thicker, or the different battery).

The problem with all of these CMOS/CCD arguments is that they require a definition of the look of each type of sensor . . . and any arguments about colour are clearly rubbish, as the Bayer filter and the de-mosaicing are nothing to do with the type of sensor.
I guessed that'd make it "Religious Intolerance" :ROTFL:

- Marc
Religion hinges around an act of faith - and I'm seriously intolerant of any kind of photographic act of faith (aren't you?)

PS - I completely subscribe to your right to dislike the colour/files/ whatever of the M240 - wouldn't dream of arguing (don't have to agree) - what I'm arguing with is your connecting this dislike to the difference between CCD/CMOS sensors.
 
Top