Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 140

Thread: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

  1. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by douglasf13 View Post
    No one is saying the technologies are identical. What Jono and are I saying is that, when it comes to the look of the file, narrowing the differences down to being simply a matter of CMOS vs. CCD is a bit dubious, because I don't believe that any of us have used identical cameras with identical filters packs and processing, the only difference being the underlying sensor design, and that's what it would take to really suss out the differences.

    I love my M9, and I'm not planning on buying an M 240 anytime soon, but I'm not scared by the new CMOS, as long as Leica isn't doing things like using more transparent color filters for better high ISO, etc.

    I never implied anything of that sort. But you must also understand any image starts with a sensor, the rest of the chain cannot create any new data only modify Data coming off the sensor. So sensor difference do matter. To say it is not is dubious.

    Finally i have a M on order so I am not scared of M. I know the M for what it is. It is a better camera in build, weather sealing, LCD, Live view etc etc. it is also different than M9 in color/tonal characteristics and iso output due to sensor differences. Whether you will notice it in your final output or whether it matters is a personal choice. It is ok for the new M to be different. After all if every camera is the same, we will not have so many choices. But at the same time, I understand what each camera/lens brings to the table and use it accordingly.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Final output to me is a matted and framed print, under glass, on a wall. If I showed any audience a dozen such prints (image no bigger than 12x18) of many different subjects of my choosing, not test shots, black and white or color (with no clues about shooting conditions, format, processing or print technique, papers or anything else), I bet they would rarely guess the camera and lens used. I've seen fabulous work using relatively modest gear, and crap using supposedly the best, and in that regard not much has changed since the film days.

    But then I live in the practical world of enjoying real prints of real subjects, not scientific analysis or meaningless (to me) side by side comparisons from others, especially not on the web. The only test important to me is actually using the gear to make my own prints of my own pics. Eventually I'll do that with the new M and draw my own conclusions.

    Jeff

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    I think the context of M evaluation falls into two basic camps:

    Those primarily seeking a traditional rangefinder shooting experience, and are used to the look and feel they have become accustomed from a combination of CCD sensor and M lenses.

    Personally, I'm in this camp, and any additional features or attributes of the new M are weighed against any change in this look and feel. I am not much of a low ISO shooter nor a high ISO shooter with any camera I have ... (save the MM, which I rarely shoot above ISO 3200 anyway). In most light, I prefer ISO 640 on the M9 and adjust up or down to 320 or 800/1000 only if absolutely necessary.

    I've never hit the buffer with a M9, nor had any M digital fail due to weather. So for me, probably the more important "improvement" of the M would be how much better it performs at ISO 1600/3200, and whether the few times I actually needed it for color work makes it worth the different look and feel of the CMOS sensor ... not to mention $7,000

    Then perhaps, there are those who relish the versatility presented by the new M, and are more open to a different look and feel of CMOS capture as long as it is expressive of a so called "Leica aesthetic" (for lack of a better term).

    I admit to being intrigued by this, and concede that one can get used to something new over time.

    The personal caveat ... or perhaps better defined as aesthetic prejudice ... is that of 4 separate systems I make images with, 3 of them are CCD based. The exception is my 35mm DSLRs which have ranged across brands ... none of which produced the aesthetic that I loved from the CCD based Leica DMR/9 and Contax N Digital (as flawed as both camera were). In this format, practical performance over-shadowed aesthetics ... so the question I face is am I willing to make that decision with the M system, and really how severe is the decision? Not so much I would guess.

    -Marc

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Marc, I too was enamored with the Contax N Digital's aesthetics (image wise) and came this close to taking out my wallet at the time....but there were too many obstacles to overcome in practical use compared to the Nikon digitals I was shooting at the time.

    If say image attributes stay pretty much as they are today with the new M, I think a good case can be made for each model as you suggested and the decision to favor one or the other will come down to a multitude and combination of factors which will differ for each one of us and hence the discussions and comparisons will be nearly endless for quite some time.

    Dave (D&A)

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Yeah Dave, in retrospect, you dodged a bullet with that one.

    The Contax N Digital was a Love/Hate relationship. It used a tray of AA batteries and gulped power at a ferocious rate ... at a time when rechargeables were less than stellar ... and came with a crude profile on a CD that was individually calibrated to each camera ... a horrible PP interface. A bunch of us Contax faithful pleaded with Adobe's Thomas Knoll to support the camera, which they did. With that, and the new lithiums coming on the market, it became quite a nice solution ... only to be promptly discontinued when Kyocera bailed on all things Contax.

    I think the new M will bring in new users that have the means, no matter what other more rational solutions there may be. Meanwhile, I also believe that the M9 and M9Ps will hold their value ... in shooting appreciation and making personal art, if not financially. That Leica saw to produce the ME seems to verify that somewhat.

    -Marc

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    my take on this: I will not sell my M9 until I have used the M for a certain time.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Paratom View Post
    my take on this: I will not sell my M9 until I have used the M for a certain time.
    Hi Tom. Eminently sensible. I've sold an M9p to help fund two M bodies, but my lovely old M8/M9/M9p hybrid is definitely staying.

    But I have to say, it hasn't been used a great deal in the last few months

    Just this guy you know

  8. #58
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    So how about that new M7, huh? It's got aperture priority.

    Man, times have changed.

    I'm with paratom; I have NO plans to get rid of my M9 any time soon.

  9. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    I think the context of M evaluation falls into two basic camps:

    Those primarily seeking a traditional rangefinder shooting experience, and are used to the look and feel they have become accustomed from a combination of CCD sensor and M lenses.


    Then perhaps, there are those who relish the versatility presented by the new M, and are more open to a different look and feel of CMOS capture as long as it is expressive of a so called "Leica aesthetic" (for lack of a better term).
    Guess I always attend a somewhat different camp.

    I'm in camp one, as far as that goes, and don't place a high priority on the versatility of the new M as defined in camp two; those things are nice provided they don't get in the way of traditional M RF shooting.

    But folks in my camp primarily look forward to an incrementally better operational experience than the M8.2 or M9, without diminishing, and perhaps improving, some aspects of IQ. We don't dismiss, and in fact embrace, changes like 2m frame lines, illuminated lines, longer battery life, faster processing, less 'buggy' experience with cards or cracked sensors, weather sealing improvements, quieter shutter, etc. These things aren't just frills, but meaningful improvements for folks like us. (And as long-time, older, M users, we wouldn't mind even more improvements to the VF and focusing experience, provided the form factor doesn't change for the worse.)

    It might have been nice if Leica offered these changes while retaining CCD, but I frankly don't care about the technology used (which involves a lot more than just CCD vs CMOS) if the results are adequate for my own style and needs. And until I make my own prints of my own pics, I'll reserve judgment.

    Jeff
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Hi There Sven
    Quote Originally Posted by sven View Post
    Sorry Jono, for every post that agrees with you, there are others who do not.
    Indeed - how could it be otherwise when discussion a subjective judgement on a theoretical comparison .
    But actually, my position is that I don't know the answer to the question - and more to the point, nobody else does either (see below)!

    I'm challenging what is an almost universally held belief on the internet (i.e. that CCD is inherently different from CMOS), because some technical people who I consider to be very knowledgeable and who are involved in sensor design, say that it is not the case. My argument here is not based on any personal technical knowledge, but on an understanding of logic and scientific methodology - which tells me that saying .Period. don't make it so!

    Quote Originally Posted by sven View Post
    CCD look cannot be replicated by CMOS no matter what the hardware and software chain is. Period.
    see above Saying. Period. doesn't make it so - it just means you believe it to be so.

    Quote Originally Posted by sven View Post
    Moreover saying Leica of all manufacturers did a better job (compared to giants like sony, canon or nikon) is stretching things a bit. The difference between M and other CMOS cameras like the D800/e is due to Leica lenses than anything else. Once again CCD look cannot be repliçated by CMOS with current technology.

    I will give you reasons. CCD can convert light to voltage, one CCD pixel produces one signal nothing else. Whereas in CMOS, at each pixel there is light conversion, amplification and noise reduction at sensor level. This leads to extremely high signal uniformity in CCD which cannot be matched by CMOS. But since there is massive parallel processing in CMOS high speeds are easy. This is the fundamental design so dont argue that one can change it. No amount of post processing chain can change this.

    Another fundamental difference is near infrared sensitivity. CCD sensors can made with thick subrate (75-200 microns) increasing their sensitivity and spatial resolution as well as high/extended near infrared sensitivity. CMoS can have only 25-50 micron substrate thickness, so they never match the CCD's near infrared sensitivity and fine spatial resolution in this region.
    Okay - we agree that CCD works differently from CMOS and produces a different output.

    The point of discussion is not this, but whether it is the processing of this data which produces the distinction between the current crop of CCD sensors from the current crop of CMOS sensors (which we can also agree have a different look) - or whether there is an inherent and visible difference.

    The person I was talking to at Leica is quite certain that it's the way that the data from the sensor is treated in the production of the RAW file which characterises the image, and NOT the distinction between sensor technologies.

    Of course, until someone changes their approach to using the data from a CMOS sensor consciously with the same values which are applied to data from a CCD sensor then it's really not possible to come to any categorical decision about this - because there are no two such sensors to compare the output from.

    On a slight side track, it's interesting to look at the output from the D3X and the Sony A900. It's radically different, with the Sony showing characteristics which make it (at low ISO) look rather more like the current crop of CCD sensors. With a poor high ISO response - the D3x is rather the opposite. This is only interesting because they are the same sensor.

    Let's put it this way:

    a) some people say that there isn't necessarily a definitive and observable difference between a CMOS and CCD sensor (whatever the current crop of sensors might imply). (FWIW I've been told this by technical people at Leica amongst others)

    b) some people say there is a definitive difference between the look of a CMOS and a CCD sensor - whatever the processing between sensor and RAW file (I've been told this by you and Guy (and most of the rest of the internet).

    Describing the way the sensors work really doesn't have any bearing on these positions. It all hinges around the intent of the processing of the information and whether this is more important than the data from the sensor.

    What is clear is that Canon and Nikon process the data to produce the best possible high ISO response - because that's the visible and definable IQ factor which sells cameras. (and this is what the internet defines as the CMOS look)

    What is also clear is that Phase and Hasselblad process the information to provide the best colour response - because that's what their clients want, and because it's an identifiable advantage over what Canon and Nikon do. (and this is what the internet defines as the CCD look)

    What is also clear is that Leica have tried to process the information from the M240 to produce a sensible compromise - whether they have achieved this or not will become more obvious when the final firmware is released - but it's worth bearing in mind that both Sean Reid and Ming Thein have been surprised at how the files from the new M look like something in between the M9 and D800 files.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #61
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Afaik, CCD and CMOS are like slide and negative film. They work in opposite ways, and curiously their output does resemble slide film (CCD) and negative film (CMOS). CCD images to my eyes have a certain density and depth only visible with slide film, while CMOS produces light and superficial color very much like negative film. Both are good and produce excellent results, but are fundamentally different.

    Now what differentiates color response of similar sensors in different cameras are the CFA design and demosaicing algorithms. The density and the hue of the color filters have a direct influence on the color output and separation characteristics. Of course how the raw converter decides to interprete this information plays also an important role.

    So is it possible to replicate the CCD look of the M9 with the M CMOS sensor by controlling the CFA characteristics and the demosaicing algorithms? IMHO, not really, but I'm no expert. Obviously there will be varying opinions, but I guess we will know soon enough when the first batches hit the shelves.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #62
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    I think all this discussion about CCD versus CMOS is something happening in the minds of people coming from different camps (different sides).

    Truth is that both use digitized information resulting from light falling onto different technology photo sites and then being processed and calculated for the final image afterwards.

    As long as all information on color, DR, brightness, etc. is contained coming from either sensor, it is only a matter of the final software (which is stored in FW in case of cameras) what final look an image will have and what reserves are still in the resulting OOC image to compensate for any weakness (brights, darks, etc.)

    And then there is of course also post processing which allows for further adoption to the final style one likes, but actually the images should already come OOC in a way so that there is almost no further PP needed to achieve the optimum look as the scene really was if all in camera (FW and handling of photography parameters by photographer) are handled in the right way.

    Having said that - the only reason that CCD might look different than CMOS is because of the SW/FW is not mature enough.
    Last edited by ptomsu; 25th February 2013 at 07:04.

  13. #63
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    I'm actually looking into this CCD vs. CMOS issue right now. Pretty much since the beginning, I've noticed that my Canon DSLR files look different than my Leica files. Different how? Less contrast, saturation - pop. What Ed said above has a bit of a ring to it.

    Both cameras are set to produce flat files (RAW/DNG anyway) and I do everything in post. While my PP recipe has evolved, it hasn't changed much. It's not the camera resolution despite the Canon being 8.2MP, the M8 10.3MP and the M9 18MP. I do chalk it up to:

    Evolution of ACR (Canon on older versions, Leica the latest)
    Lack of an AA filter on the Leica bodies
    CCD vs. CMOS, perhaps?
    Leica prime vs. Canon zoom

    But the one thing that stands out to me is ACR. It's easy enough to test and that's exactly what I'm going to do. Re-process older Canon files in the latest ACR and according to how I PP my files today.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    IMHO, Ming Thein seems to have extracted his old CCD look out of the M with CMOS.

    Perhaps ACR helps as DN suggests, but Ming has an uncanny way that brings out the best of most sensors from what I can tell.

  15. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Describing the way the sensors work really doesn't have any bearing on these positions. It all hinges around the intent of the processing of the information and whether this is more important than the data from the sensor.
    And there are even more variables, e.g., the presence or lack of AA filter, the actual design of the CCD or CMOS sensor (not all are created equally), including use of micro-lenses, etc, etc.

    Frankly I don't know or care too much about most of this, anymore than I care about how my car engine and other internals work to achieve its performance. The articles written about it, by reputable sources, are interesting, but at the end of the day, I do my own test drives and evaluate accordingly. And I can't make that judgment until the car (or camera) is actually available for sale.

    Kudos to Erwin Puts (here) for reserving judgment on the M's performance until the final version is complete and relevant RAW developers are available.

    Jeff
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #66
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    That (Puts) review is one that will read and look forward to.

    It does not even need a subscription!

  17. #67
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    ...It does not even need a subscription!
    Yeah, I'm so done with Reid Reviews. I subscribed for two years... But that stupid Flash interface has got to go. Since it didn't - I did.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    IMHO, Ming Thein seems to have extracted his old CCD look out of the M with CMOS.

    Perhaps ACR helps as DN suggests, but Ming has an uncanny way that brings out the best of most sensors from what I can tell.
    I think he's a good photographer, and there is some nice sense of rich color to the shots he posted ... different than M9 files, but nice in their own right.

    However, I also feel many of the M shots looked to crispy and slightly over-processed. Perhaps a difference in tastes, but I personally have a slightly uneasy feeling of "trying to hard" in post.

    I still tend to gravitate to Sean's more neutral or native approach when initially viewing potential, since we all have different goals.

    The caveat is that the M isn't done yet ... so it's all a bit premature ... fun, but premature.

    -Marc

  19. #69
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    My opinion but nothing should be done in post when doing any review. WB maybe a touch of sharpening but always on a neutral playing field.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    The funny thing is that I bet > 80% of people in this discussion will probably own a new M in 1 year from now. (I am afraid I wont be part of the 20%)

    However regarding the opperational advantages-I never had a real problem with the speed of the M9, the shutter noise and it never broke due to bad weather.
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #71
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    CMOS vs CCD,
    lets say it depends a lot on mainly four variables.
    1) the spectral response curves used for the bayer filters (or whatever filters) are used
    2) The way that noise is controlled in the specific implementation.
    3) profiles.
    4) date that the design team froze the process (they are all constantly evolving)

    Anyway I am eager (Guy, please no name calling) in getting my hands on one of those 240's.
    If I can get my eye surgery to early enough I definitely will try once more an un-assisted RF.
    Why?
    Because I liked them.
    -bob
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #72
    Senior Member jstaben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Honestly I think there is something nice about having cameras that produce a different look out of the camera. My Nikon D800E files look a lot different than my M9P files. Much more dynamic range. Sometimes that's good, and sometimes it's a bit too much. Sure I can reduce it in post, but there's something nice about not having to go into every file and work them in post to give it that. When I use my Monochrom though it's nice to have that flexibility to push the pixels around. My opinion is those limitations of the M9 CCD sensor produce some of those unique qualities. It's nice to have choices and some will prefer one vs. the other!

  23. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    My opinion but nothing should be done in post when doing any review. WB maybe a touch of sharpening but always on a neutral playing field.
    For some aspects, yes. But it would be nice to learn in an MM review, for instance, that the files are 'robust' and 'malleable' without introducing problems in PP. One can't know this without extensive PP adjustments.

    Anyway, I rely on reviews more for technical aspects than for any screen shots or IQ assessments, which: (a) may be based on some aesthetic judgments by the photographer that I might not agree with; and (b) may have no relevance to real prints, particularly ones based on my own print size, style and preferences.

    Jeff

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    422
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    I decided mid-last year to save for an MM to pair with my M9 (still wait listed on the MM). Mostly because I need 1-2 stops better high iso for some club shooting I do and plan to increase. Now on the fence with the M 240 likely to arrive about the time my ticket for the MM will be up. Do I want the better of two worlds and use two cameras to get there or do I want the lesser of two worlds and use just one camera? Or is the practical image quality difference so small that better/lesser is a non-issue?

    I need my own experience with the M 240 and the MM. This is going to be expensive. Sometimes I really wish I disliked rangefinder shooting ...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  25. #75
    Senior Member jstaben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
    I decided mid-last year to save for an MM to pair with my M9 (still wait listed on the MM). Mostly because I need 1-2 stops better high iso for some club shooting I do and plan to increase. Now on the fence with the M 240 likely to arrive about the time my ticket for the MM will be up. Do I want the better of two worlds and use two cameras to get there or do I want the lesser of two worlds and use just one camera? Or is the practical image quality difference so small that better/lesser is a non-issue?

    I need my own experience with the M 240 and the MM. This is going to be expensive. Sometimes I really wish I disliked rangefinder shooting ...
    I got the option to pick up an MM and promptly cancelled my M240 preorder. Couldn't be happier. Kept my M9P. The low light performance with the MM is so nice I have no need for the M240 now. If you want color low light then the choice is obvious.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by innerimager View Post
    Excellent discussion, and Sean's review was up to his superb standards. I came away leaning heavily toward getting the MM and keeping my M9. The MM out resolves it's siblings, has the best high iso, and I believe will produce images at low and medium iso that outshine the M because of the added malleability of it's files, especially pushing shadows. This aspect is not covered in Sean's review which only looks at out of camera rendering.
    +1
    Woody

  27. #77
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    CMOS vs CCD,
    lets say it depends a lot on mainly four variables.
    1) the spectral response curves used for the bayer filters (or whatever filters) are used
    2) The way that noise is controlled in the specific implementation.
    3) profiles.
    4) date that the design team froze the process (they are all constantly evolving)

    Anyway I am eager (Guy, please no name calling) in getting my hands on one of those 240's.
    If I can get my eye surgery to early enough I definitely will try once more an un-assisted RF.
    Why?
    Because I liked them.
    -bob

    Hell I want one also . Actually either one would be nice . I'm a sick bastard too
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #78
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Hell I want one also . Actually either one would be nice . I'm a sick bastard too
    Guy - Bob
    semantic arguments about CCD/CMOS are just one thing. Lovely cameras with delicious silky shutters, lovely lenses and a rangefinder are just the other.
    There really is no escape

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Preaching to the choir, Jono?

    Bob, Hope your lens replacements will go smoothly.

  30. #80
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Preaching to the choir, Jono?

    Bob, Hope your lens replacements will go smoothly.
    Absolutely Vivek - except that I know you aren't a member

    . . . and like you I'd like to wish Bob all the best with his eye surgery

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  31. #81
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Guy - Bob
    semantic arguments about CCD/CMOS are just one thing. Lovely cameras with delicious silky shutters, lovely lenses and a rangefinder are just the other.
    There really is no escape
    ENABLER.


    Heck never seen this one yet. Its called face smack
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Absolutely Vivek - except that I know you aren't a member
    That may be because I still can not get over the fact that Barnack is no more!
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  33. #83
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post

    Heck never seen this one yet. Its called face smack
    HI Guy - I assumed you'd put it there. It's what you have to do to yourself when you decide that you really have to have two M bodies.

    Just this guy you know

  34. #84
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Well, you need backups for those two bodies, don't forget...
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #85
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    After spending the entire weekend shooting S, I have become even more confused about my gear future.

    Keep M9P and MM
    Keep MM and get M and drop M9 after M works out especially with R lenses.
    Keep 5D3 for long AF shooting
    Keep P45+ or get S and sell P45+ V mount and 5D3 kit, but love the 70-200 even with the 1.4x
    Like the S AF, like the 5D3 AF, like my P45+ V mount images as they come with such nice warmth or are they familiar-yes that old Kodachrome discussion.
    S very expensive kit especially for landscape. AF not needed for landscape. New 24 would be great. Base ISO 100 double my P45+ at ISO 50. But as a good friend said, with PS stitching capabilities today why buy new wider lenses, just stitch more.

    For now-keep M9P, MM and P45+ V mount and all the heavy lenses I carry around. Get M for some wide and some long and higher than 1250 ISO use up to 2500 to 3200. If 6400 works out in the future-all the better. Try to make M my street discreet camera and make use of my fast Leica glass.

    Skip the RX-1 as I have too much crap already.

    I was trying in my mind to get one system for everything except discreet street. It just might be a fool's wish. Anyway how many MP do I really need for 24x36 prints. 18MP is probably more than enough, but when I look at those 39MP images I can see they are better. What dynamic range!

    CCD I like and know, but being new to CMOS with the 5D3 I am happy with it-just don't know it yet.
    Last edited by algrove; 25th February 2013 at 20:26.

  36. #86
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    After spending the entire weekend shooting S, I have become even more confused about my gear future.

    Keep M9P and MM
    Keep MM and get M and drop M9 after M works out especially with R lenses.
    Keep 5D3 for long AF shooting
    Keep P45+ or get S and sell P45+ V mount and 5D3 kit, but love the 70-200 even with the 1.4x
    Like the S AF, like the 5D3 AF, like my P45+ V mount images as they come with such nice warmth or are they familiar-yes that old Kodachrome discussion.
    S very expensive kit especially for landscape. AF not needed for landscape. New 24 would be great. Base ISO 100 double my P45+ at ISO 50. But as a good friend said, with PS stitching capabilities today why buy new wider lenses, just stitch more.

    For now-keep M9P, MM and P45+ V mount and all the heavy lenses I carry around. Get M for some wide and some long and higher than 1250 ISO use up to 2500 to 3200. If 6400 works out in the future-all the better. Try to make M my street discreet camera and make use of my fast Leica glass.

    Skip the RX-1 as I have too much crap already.

    I was trying in my mind to get one system for everything except discreet street. It just might be a fool's wish. Anyway how many MP do I really need for 24x36 prints. 18MP is probably more than enough, but when I look at those 39MP images I can see they are better. What dynamic range!

    CCD I like and know, but being new to CMOS with the 5D3 I am happy with it-just don't know it yet.
    I run into this on workshops with folks. Just to much stuff. Really need to try and simplify your life with gear. Now your not a Pro so you have no restrictions here as far as being forced into gear. You shoot what you like, I know I say this when I retire I'm getting a M9 and 3 or 4 lenses. Street , travel and enjoyment. Tech cam landscape work 3 or 4 lenses and pretty much call it a day. But you really need to sit down and figure this out or gear thoughts will just cloud you art.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #87
    Not Available
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    ^ Totally agree with Guy.

    Too much stuff paralyzes. If you still can't decide, try this. Grab a random combination of some gear; mix it up. Then go out shooting with it, playing into it's strengths (or weaknesses). Exploit it. If nothing else, it helps to get out of a rut and keeps things interesting. Bonus is it exercises the gear - and you.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #88
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Major big thing for hobbyists is what gear you just love to shoot and gear that does nothing emotionally for you. Get rid of that negative feeling gear. This is about fun and your hobby. Biggest lesson I can give anyone is never force it but exploit the fun and enjoyment of it. The rest is crap you don't need. You get the gear thoughts out of your head I guarantee you that you will do better art.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  39. #89
    Senior Member jstaben's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    291
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    algrove simplify what you can. I've got excessive gear but I refused to buy a common focal length with my Leica and Nikon D800E kit. No my nikon only has a 21mm zeiss and the 200f/2. All others are Leica!

  40. #90
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Interesting discussion.

    But is the image quality better ( if that matters ) or is the quality of the image
    better ( if that matters ) from let's say the M8 or M3?

    I shall just wait and see for myself.

  41. #91
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,867
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I run into this on workshops with folks. Just to much stuff. Really need to try and simplify your life with gear. Now your not a Pro so you have no restrictions here as far as being forced into gear. You shoot what you like, I know I say this when I retire I'm getting a M9 and 3 or 4 lenses. Street , travel and enjoyment. Tech cam landscape work 3 or 4 lenses and pretty much call it a day. But you really need to sit down and figure this out or gear thoughts will just cloud you art.
    Guy,

    Fully understand and back these thoughts. Although I have a question I cannot overcome without having a (FF) DSLR - what do you choose would you choose for wildlife?

    Peter

  42. #92
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    After spending the entire weekend shooting S, I have become even more confused about my gear future.

    Keep M9P and MM
    Keep MM and get M and drop M9 after M works out especially with R lenses.
    Keep 5D3 for long AF shooting
    Keep P45+ or get S and sell P45+ V mount and 5D3 kit, but love the 70-200 even with the 1.4x
    Like the S AF, like the 5D3 AF, like my P45+ V mount images as they come with such nice warmth or are they familiar-yes that old Kodachrome discussion.
    S very expensive kit especially for landscape. AF not needed for landscape. New 24 would be great. Base ISO 100 double my P45+ at ISO 50. But as a good friend said, with PS stitching capabilities today why buy new wider lenses, just stitch more.

    For now-keep M9P, MM and P45+ V mount and all the heavy lenses I carry around. Get M for some wide and some long and higher than 1250 ISO use up to 2500 to 3200. If 6400 works out in the future-all the better. Try to make M my street discreet camera and make use of my fast Leica glass.

    Skip the RX-1 as I have too much crap already.

    I was trying in my mind to get one system for everything except discreet street. It just might be a fool's wish. Anyway how many MP do I really need for 24x36 prints. 18MP is probably more than enough, but when I look at those 39MP images I can see they are better. What dynamic range!

    CCD I like and know, but being new to CMOS with the 5D3 I am happy with it-just don't know it yet.
    You are not alone on this subject my friend. As I head toward more retirement, I'm faced with what to keep, what to jettison, and what to replace.

    This is the materialistic mental gymnastics that can drive anyone crazy, and sap your ability to focus on getting creatively good at something.

    As my old advertising mentor used to quip: "The problem with making a decision is that it eliminates all the other possibilities." ... a lesson I applied well in my ad career, but seemed to have forgotten as of late with photography.

    If I muse to myself about certain photographic subjects, usually some names immediately come to mind. If I think "birds" ... Bam! ... Doug (and his Long Leica optics on a DMR). Weddings: Jeff Ascough (was Leica Rangefinder, now Canon); Landscape: Derek Jecxz (Hassey H) ... and so on. Each of our lists will differ, but the common element is usually a focus on something, to the exclusion to others ... and the right gear to do it.

    It is when we generalize either by choice, or diversify for Pro reasons (broader income base), that the gear closet can become a monster ... where "horses for courses" becomes a barn full of stallions, plow horses, thoroughbreds, and an occasional mule.

    Add to this melange, decisions with-in each category of "Horses" ... not just a Rangefinder, but a CCD one or a CMOS one? Or a M Mono, or for some a film M ... then all the lenses as they may apply to the camera choice.

    I'm gradually phasing out weddings ... so I don't need a bag full of 35mm DSLR stuff anymore. I think I'll just keep one camera and 3 zooms and sell all the primes and second camera.

    My key Rangefinder is the MM for street, but will need a color one for travel and what weddings I may still do. M9P or M240? Jury is still out.

    The biggy is not being able to support two MFD systems anymore as I also slow down commercial work (which the economy slowed down anyway). I'm so conflicted on this that if I do not make a decision it will be the rubber room for me. The issue is further made complex when the tentacles of a system reach so deep with hordes of accessories and do-dads, that the very act of selling it is overwhelming.

    S2 or H4D/60? .... H4D/60 or S2? ... ARRGH!

    -Marc

  43. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    74
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi There Sven
    Indeed - how could it be otherwise when discussion a subjective judgement on a theoretical comparison .
    But actually, my position is that I don't know the answer to the question - and more to the point, nobody else does either (see below)!

    I'm challenging what is an almost universally held belief on the internet (i.e. that CCD is inherently different from CMOS), because some technical people who I consider to be very knowledgeable and who are involved in sensor design, say that it is not the case. My argument here is not based on any personal technical knowledge, but on an understanding of logic and scientific methodology - which tells me that saying .Period. don't make it so!


    see above Saying. Period. doesn't make it so - it just means you believe it to be so.



    Okay - we agree that CCD works differently from CMOS and produces a different output.

    The point of discussion is not this, but whether it is the processing of this data which produces the distinction between the current crop of CCD sensors from the current crop of CMOS sensors (which we can also agree have a different look) - or whether there is an inherent and visible difference.

    The person I was talking to at Leica is quite certain that it's the way that the data from the sensor is treated in the production of the RAW file which characterises the image, and NOT the distinction between sensor technologies.

    Of course, until someone changes their approach to using the data from a CMOS sensor consciously with the same values which are applied to data from a CCD sensor then it's really not possible to come to any categorical decision about this - because there are no two such sensors to compare the output from.

    On a slight side track, it's interesting to look at the output from the D3X and the Sony A900. It's radically different, with the Sony showing characteristics which make it (at low ISO) look rather more like the current crop of CCD sensors. With a poor high ISO response - the D3x is rather the opposite. This is only interesting because they are the same sensor.

    Let's put it this way:

    a) some people say that there isn't necessarily a definitive and observable difference between a CMOS and CCD sensor (whatever the current crop of sensors might imply). (FWIW I've been told this by technical people at Leica amongst others)

    b) some people say there is a definitive difference between the look of a CMOS and a CCD sensor - whatever the processing between sensor and RAW file (I've been told this by you and Guy (and most of the rest of the internet).

    Describing the way the sensors work really doesn't have any bearing on these positions. It all hinges around the intent of the processing of the information and whether this is more important than the data from the sensor.

    What is clear is that Canon and Nikon process the data to produce the best possible high ISO response - because that's the visible and definable IQ factor which sells cameras. (and this is what the internet defines as the CMOS look)

    What is also clear is that Phase and Hasselblad process the information to provide the best colour response - because that's what their clients want, and because it's an identifiable advantage over what Canon and Nikon do. (and this is what the internet defines as the CCD look)

    What is also clear is that Leica have tried to process the information from the M240 to produce a sensible compromise - whether they have achieved this or not will become more obvious when the final firmware is released - but it's worth bearing in mind that both Sean Reid and Ming Thein have been surprised at how the files from the new M look like something in between the M9 and D800 files.

    all the best
    Jono,

    My explanation is not theoretical but based on practical engineering issues. Talk to any specialist in Dalsa. CMOS is lot cheaper so why CCD at all by all MFDB manufacturers?

    Anyway we have differing views, respect you as a photographer. So I will not argue anymore.

    Sven

  44. #94
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by sven View Post
    Jono,

    My explanation is not theoretical but based on practical engineering issues. Talk to any specialist in Dalsa. CMOS is lot cheaper so why CCD at all by all MFDB manufacturers?

    Anyway we have differing views, respect you as a photographer. So I will not argue anymore.

    Sven
    Hi Sven
    Well - I'm determined to have the last word . . . . .

    Peace!

    Quite agree, there is a point where it's not useful going on with a discussion, and agreeing to differ is very elegant

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  45. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: CCD/CMOS transition in MFDBs

    Guy, you mentioned that the Phase back series gives a clear comparison between where Kodak got with CCD (P45, P45+), and where Dalsa got (P30). But that was a while ago. The current IQxxx through 180 series are Dalsa CMOS, with LiveView and all that, correct? So how do they compare?

    I've got a P45+ V-mount and can see the improvement over the M9 in subtle ways (midtone discrimination, mostly). With that as a reference, will be interested in seeing how the M240 holds up.

    scott

  46. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,282
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: everyone but Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Jono, you seem to have gone through multiple cameras and multiple firmware levels, not entirely in sequence. Was the beta firmware not upgradeable for some technical reason? Would your October sidekick with February firmware be a whole different breed of cat, or is there some reason to stay with the old firmware on it?

    scott

  47. #97
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: CCD/CMOS transition in MFDBs

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    Guy, you mentioned that the Phase back series gives a clear comparison between where Kodak got with CCD (P45, P45+), and where Dalsa got (P30). But that was a while ago. The current IQxxx through 180 series are Dalsa CMOS, with LiveView and all that, correct? So how do they compare?

    I've got a P45+ V-mount and can see the improvement over the M9 in subtle ways (midtone discrimination, mostly). With that as a reference, will be interested in seeing how the M240 holds up.

    scott
    That would be Dalsa P40 not P30 which was Kodak. The same sensor in the P40 is identical to the IQ 140 and 160 although larger FF size.

    So for clarity

    P20+
    P21+
    P25+
    All Kodak 9 micron sensors. Not made anymore

    ____________________________________________

    P30+ Kodak sensor 7.9 Micron high ISO to 1600
    P45+ Kodak sensor 7.9 long exposure king

    ____________________________________________

    P40+
    IQ 140
    P65+
    IQ 160
    All share the same Dalsa sensor 6 micron

    __________________________________

    IQ 180 Dalsa 5.4 Micron sensor
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #98
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    The P45+ and M9 along with P30+ are kind of like sensor brothers and sisters. They are very similar in look. I did the M9 with the P30+ which should be around . They look really close in terms of color and tone. So 18 mpx versus 31mpx. Resolution obviously went to the P30+ but the M9 with its glass held up very well.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #99
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: everyone but Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    Jono, you seem to have gone through multiple cameras and multiple firmware levels, not entirely in sequence. Was the beta firmware not upgradeable for some technical reason? Would your October sidekick with February firmware be a whole different breed of cat, or is there some reason to stay with the old firmware on it?

    scott
    Hi Scott
    At one point there were three cameras - as you say, it wasn't necessarily upgradeable without recalibration/adjustment . I'm not going into all the details (not sure that I understand them all), and there was certainly no drama, but there has been quite a lot of traffic between Germany and the UK!

    To be fair, the first prototype was really good (but with some patterns in low light areas), later ones improved on this.

    I'm hoping to have a go with the final firmware
    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  50. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I run into this on workshops with folks. Just to much stuff. Really need to try and simplify your life with gear. Now your not a Pro so you have no restrictions here as far as being forced into gear. You shoot what you like, I know I say this when I retire I'm getting a M9 and 3 or 4 lenses. Street , travel and enjoyment. Tech cam landscape work 3 or 4 lenses and pretty much call it a day. But you really need to sit down and figure this out or gear thoughts will just cloud you art.
    Guy: This comment was not intended for me, of course, but it can serve as a fine guide for lots of us, including my pondering of which FF digital rangefinder to get after having had M8 for five years. Keep it simple and get what you need--not what you want. At least for me, that's a good approach. Thank you.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •