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!

Sean Reid's M9/MM/M240 Comparison

fotografz

Well-known member
Good discussion points Roger.

While the ship has sailed, and any further points about CCD are most certainly moot, I still wonder if Leica prematurely abandoned the CCD uniqueness that separated it from other CMOS solutions. BTW, I fear they will do the same with the next S camera.

While I agree that above ISO 800 (or maybe 1000 if you have your shooting/PP skills honed), the M9 can start getting jinky ... I also wonder if the CCD technology had been fully explored, and whether a 1.3x CMOS gain in higher ISO demonstrated in Read's comparison was really all that impossible with CCD.

I say this because I experienced how Hasselblad had improved CCD ISO performance to provide a 40 meg sensor with an ISO 1600 performance visibly better than the 800 that proceeded it ... which BTW, clearly outperforms the S2 at ISO 1250 by a good margin.

To date I'm not a big fan of ANY CMOS camera above 1600, so if Leica can tweak the new M to perform at 2000 to 3200, they will have something. It will remain all in the eye of the beholder.

In addition to the DMR with its Imacon solution, I also herald back to the Contax N Digital which used a 6 meg full-frame Phillips CCD and produced spectacular color and tonal depth. Both these camera suffered horrible power issues, which with modern Lithiums would NOT be such an issue today. Same with highly tweaked PP profiles we have now.

Basically, I see this new M as having been driven to provide versatility in using SLR lenses and shooting video ... neither of which I have any interest in with a rangefinder. Hopefully, the only advantage with the clip-on EVF is that it can be improved without replacing the camera.

-Marc
 

edwardkaraa

New member
What I'm worried about, and I hope to be wrong, is the standardized look of CMOS sensors. I have used Canon and Sony DSLR in the past, and while one can be easier to PP than the other, they all share a certain flat look and color rendition. When I moved to the M9 I was shocked in the beginning by the color rendition and really disliked it, as it was very different to what I was used to. Now I came to like it, and even prefer it to the CMOS look, especially that it is quite unique that differentiates it from other 24x36 cameras. When I first saw the M samples and played with the raw files, I immediately felt the familiarity with the Canon and Sony files. Not bad, actually quite nice, but nothing unique about it. I think Marc (fotografz) mentioned something in another thread about all FF sensors getting a standardized look and I fully agree with him.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Its hard to know the logic behind Leica s product decisions . Most of us view this from a market or probably even narrower personal perspective . e.g.. if Leica wants my business or maybe if Leica wants a successful new product .

Unfortunately Leica has to consider their own internal capabilities to deliver the product . I am sure they feel burned by the Kodak CCD supply issues and at the same time did not want to get a "me too" sensor from Sony . It was only mentioned as a small point in one of the reviews but Leica had to work with the sensor supplier to develop a new micro lens solution . This is potentially an improvement in edge sharpness with wide angles .

Establishing a low volume ,highly complex electronic supply chain is extremely difficult for a small manufacturer . Add in that they had to consider the new plant (which comes with plenty of new equipment ) . I think production sets the parameters for the digital M .

Now once they have decided on the key components then marketing takes over to stuff the new product with things they believe will resonate with their customers .

I believe this is how we ended up with the new M .
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
What I'm worried about, and I hope to be wrong, is the standardized look of CMOS sensors. I have used Canon and Sony DSLR in the past, and while one can be easier to PP than the other, they all share a certain flat look and color rendition. When I moved to the M9 I was shocked in the beginning by the color rendition and really disliked it, as it was very different to what I was used to. Now I came to like it, and even prefer it to the CMOS look, especially that it is quite unique that differentiates it from other 24x36 cameras. When I first saw the M samples and played with the raw files, I immediately felt the familiarity with the Canon and Sony files. Not bad, actually quite nice, but nothing unique about it. I think Marc (fotografz) mentioned something in another thread about all FF sensors getting a standardized look and I fully agree with him.
True ....to an extent .

There are three components that are controlled by the manufacturer that impact the key elements of IQ .

1. Sensor .

2. In camera processor (Maestro from the new M ) .

3. lenses .

The same sensor in different bodies will always have a family resemblance but the tuning accomplished thru the in camera processor creates much of the vendor specific aesthetic . e.g.. Nikon D3X and Sony A900 ..very different results from the same sensor .

The lenses .....take the same D800/E and use Nikon,zeiss and Leica R glass and you get a different aesthetic . Look at Leica s X1/X2 ..Sony APS-C sensor and Leica lens .

Add in the post processing ... .NEF look very different in NX/2, C1 and LR4 before I add in my custom WB, color calibration , process selection and lens calibration .

Generally the main complaint is WOW thats a lot of work to get a good file ..and it is . The interesting thing about the new M files is they look finished right out of LR with the embedded profile .

I don t think they will get the new M CMOS to match the M9 CCD but I think the new M will have excellent aesthetic ...if its better than the D800/E with R lenses ..then it will be better than everything else ...except maybe the M9 .
 
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.
 

douglasf13

New member
The interesting thing to me is, from a marketing perspective, it might have actually made more sense for Leica to stick with CCD, simply because the argument of a "different" look can be made, thus differentiating it from the other 35mm cameras out there. By going to CMOS, even if it does technically perform better than the CCD, their sensor will be directly compared to the likes of Sony, which is a tall order when people expect the best from a $7K camera.

Of course, I could be wrong, since I'm sure the new M will sell very well.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Roger,

Leica folks did mention they're aware of the popularity of the M9 output and tried to emulate it with the new M sensor CFA and processing. The CFA play a very important role in color rendition and separation and it seems Leica engineers were quite successful at that, as Ming Thein places the M between the M9 and the D800E, but closer to the M9, which says a lot. I don't think it would be technically possible to achieve exactly the same output due to the radically opposite ways CCD and CMOS work, and that's regrettable, but that's the way it is, and we'll have probably to adjust our exposure habits and PP to the new sensor characteristics. I just hope Leica resolves the banding issue as a priority, the slow start up time as the 2nd most critical issue. The sensor output will be very nice, no doubt. Just not as nice as the M9 ...
 

jonoslack

Active member
The interesting thing to me is, from a marketing perspective, it might have actually made more sense for Leica to stick with CCD, simply because the argument of a "different" look can be made, thus differentiating it from the other 35mm cameras out there. By going to CMOS, even if it does technically perform better than the CCD, their sensor will be directly compared to the likes of Sony, which is a tall order when people expect the best from a $7K camera.

Of course, I could be wrong, since I'm sure the new M will sell very well.
Hi Douglas. I don't think they reckon that you can distinguish between a CCD and a CMOS if the colour is adjusted right and you don't pile on the NR like some companies do. I think I agree with them as well.
All the best
 

douglasf13

New member
Hi Douglas. I don't think they reckon that you can distinguish between a CCD and a CMOS if the colour is adjusted right and you don't pile on the NR like some companies do. I think I agree with them as well.
All the best
Oh, I agree. Assuming the banding is fixed, I'd surely be fine with the new sensor. The sensor in the M9 was a relatively old base design even in 2009, but there has been a lot of magical CCD talk over the last few years, which, for better or worse, added a bit to the mystique of the camera and brand.
 
Slightly off topic question please. Sean said the M8.2 was essentially an M9 with a smaller sensor. Does that mean the IR sensitivity was reduced in the M8.2 so that IR filters are not required as they are in the M8? I'd be tempted as a back up body if that were the case, but not if I had to use filters. txs....Peter
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Slightly off topic question please. Sean said the M8.2 was essentially an M9 with a smaller sensor. Does that mean the IR sensitivity was reduced in the M8.2 so that IR filters are not required as they are in the M8? I'd be tempted as a back up body if that were the case, but not if I had to use filters. txs....Peter
No you still need IR filters with any iteration of the M8. He was referring to the sensor design. They are essentially the same (even down to the pixel pitch of 6.8 microns.) The M9 has a stronger IR pass filter but neither has an AA filter.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hi Douglas. I don't think they reckon that you can distinguish between a CCD and a CMOS if the colour is adjusted right and you don't pile on the NR like some companies do. I think I agree with them as well.
All the best
Here I have to disagree by a wide margin. It's why we buy medium format backs its not just the color it's the smoothness of the file and tonal range that makes a CCD sensor. Frankly this is going to be a unpopular comment but we are never going to see a CMOS sensor look like a CCD in these terms. It can get close but I am not looking at Leica to be the one doing it, they simply do not have the color technology behind them. If anyone can maybe pull it off it maybe the guys from MF since they have been doing digital color CCD for so long. Dalsa sensors are probably the best at color, saturation and neutrality. That has not been the case with Kodaks which have less DR which equals more saturation or punch as we call it and a more compressed looking color file. Go look at the Dalsa sensors very carefully and see the smoothness of tone.

Now many may disagree with me but this was why I jumped on the P40 back with Dalsa from the P30 with Kodak. There is a difference between them not that one is bad over the other but very different in how they render. Now this is how I see all this as I have had 5 backs and tested or owned pretty much everything out there and now have the D800e which is great but you have to work your *** off in post just like every other CMOS sensor and no matter how good you are and I'm pretty good at it with post that is, it's a really tough nut to crack. Bottom line CMOS is all about high ISO and CCD is about base ISO and we hit the wall on CCD. We are not going to get higher ISO from it in any major way, tweaking software maybe a chance. Yes the Leica is a new CMOS but so is Nikon, Sony and Canon in there own way. No one has cracked the nut yet to look like CCD and I don't expect them. What I would do is hold on to my M9 since its the last of the breed when color counts and get the new one for more usability shooting. This is more than just pure color the issue here which Leica will get pretty good but I would not expect CCD smoothness of tone. Not sure anyone can crack that.

My opinion here but I go by my eyes and that's unfortunately what I see. Now we are talking stuff that mere mortals outside the folks here that would ever notice in the first place. So unless your a pig like me don't worry about, go shoot it and be happy.

Bottom line buy the new Leica for usability in the field and if you really stress on pure color and tonality it maybe the one area you may have to compromise on and believe me we compromise on every system out there. Just pick your poison and go have fun.
 

Jeff S

New member
Does that mean the IR sensitivity was reduced in the M8.2 so that IR filters are not required as they are in the M8?
Nope, M8 and M8.2 sensors are the same, and both lead to better b/w output in some circumstances than the M9 since the external filtration is more effective. Sean prefers the M8.2 to the M8, as do I, for the other upgrades, especially the 2m frame lines.

Jeff
 

Jeff S

New member
As a side note, I'm particularly amused by the fact that some of the same folks who complained about the need for a simple cut filter for the M8, now have no problem with the potential need for many filters (color, ND) for the MM. Yes, the M8 solution was achieved ***-backwards, but it works better than the M9 approach for b/w.

Jeff
 
V

Vivek

Guest
As a side note, I'm particularly amused by the fact that some of the same folks who complained about the need for a simple cut filter for the M8, now have no problem with the potential need for many filters (color, ND) for the MM. Yes, the M8 solution was achieved ***-backwards, but it works better than the M9 approach for b/w.

Jeff
Not speaking for any of them. Just want to point out something-

There is nothing *simple* about the cut filter usage. One needs to massage the images afterwards as well. Even after that colors are all over the place. The wider the lens, more of a problem.

The cut filters also will not work for extreme wide angles.

No such issue exists with the MM and filter (or no filter) usage! :LOL:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Here I have to disagree by a wide margin.
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). As we all know, CCD is inherently better at noise than CMOS.
Personally I wouldn't claim to have the knowledge to have a valid opinion, but I can see the point that people's perceptions are perverted by the AVAILABLE sensors rather than the POTENTIAL sensors, and that the current CMOS sensors don't have the same feel as the best CCD sensors as a result of the irresistible urge to load the CMOS sensors with NR.
Hard to get at a TRUTH here, and we all have opinions. I'm caught between the rock of Leica and the hard place of Guy.
It must be time to go out to dinner! :chug:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I know and was not meant to argue your points but I would keep expectations at pause on Leicas new breed of CMOS. Like to see what they think they can pull off in final production version. Lets face it Nikons is pretty dang good as they increased the DR better than anyone thought and rivals MF which no one thought could be done. That was a pleasant surprise. But these sensors on highlight bloom more than the same shot on CCD and that's where the color tonality is not the same. If they can do that than that would be something. Ill have to show you guys that test someday. Pretty interesting.

I tested a lot of Nikon vs Phase that I never had time to post or show. It's quite interesting but its really nit picky stuff too. 98 percent of shooters would never see this stuff, lets face it this forum is the other 2 percent and I love that fact. We have some very serious shooters around here and that's great for all of us to learn from.

Have a beer for me bud.
 

Jeff S

New member
Not speaking for any of them. Just want to point out something-

There is nothing *simple* about the cut filter usage. One needs to massage the images afterwards as well. Even after that colors are all over the place. The wider the lens, more of a problem.

The cut filters also will not work for extreme wide angles.

No such issue exists with the MM and filter (or no filter) usage! :LOL:
I was speaking about b/w (hence the MM comparison), so no significant issues with color or wide angles. And the M8 files, with the filter, require less work than the M9 for b/w (which may never fully recover if blacks aren't right).

And, again with b/w only, the M8 filters can be put on and forgotten (except possibly with bright lights at night), while MM usage may require continual filter changes if one cares about the fine tonal distinctions and/or shallow depth of field in daylight.

Again, this was only a comment about complaints regarding filter usage between the M8/M8.2 and the MM, not a commentary on the obvious advantages of the MM in other regards.

Color is a different story, and the M9 color is improved over the M8. To your point on wides, however, one could argue that extreme wides on the M9 present more issues than on the M8.2...red edge, etc. But that's another discussion, and one that doesn't concern me in any case since I don't use anything wider than 28.

Jeff
 

D&A

Well-known member
Guy Wrote>>>"we compromise on every system out there. Just pick your poison and go have fun."<<<

and if I might change that line a bit to add:

"we compromise on every system out there so just pick your poison and work with it to the best of your ability"

No camera, no system works for everything and most certainly not for every situation each one of us is most likely encounter at some point. Compromises are bound to exist and it's often a matter of gaining something when choosing a different or new camera or lens while at the same time often having to give up something. The trick is to gain as much as possible while giving up as little as possible, when it comes to performance levels we strive for. For example....sometimes these tradeoffs are as simple as having to lug around a heavy big lens if we want to reach 500-600mm with both speed and performance.

It can be fustrating for those times when things come close and we wish for just a bit more performance in a given area, whether it's a particular level of performance from a lens or alternatively color purity, higher ISO performance or FPS from a body, etc. I could of course go on and on but i think you get the point.

All we can do is wait and hope with each succeeding generation of equipment, that strides are made. Occasionally and unfortunately a step or two is sometimes taken backwards while achieving other things that are deemed an improvement. I'm reminded of the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII. It may be for many a better performing lens when used on full frame that its predisessor, but for some, focus breathing is then became an issue with the newer lens. On DX cameras though, many feel the older VRI lens might actually be the better choice.

So when everything reaches perfection, we can then all put our cameras down and call it a day :)

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
Top