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

Why is it that no camera manufacturer will fill the very real need for a high quality low iso camera that is acceptable up to 800 iso but outstanding at 100 iso? I'm so tired of the mush I'm seeing at 1600 and 3200 that nothing grabs my interest any longer (apart from the Sigma DP2M when a 45mm focal length will do).

Just another opinion...
Lawrence
I agree totally , I'd like to see 50 or even 25 very clean ISO
Actually the only way is Medium Format

I am really unhappy with the 200 native ISO of the new M (specially with fast lenses) , but I buy it anyway ...
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Have you folks looked at the Sigma DPx Merrill cams for excellent low ISO performance? You can literally have them welded to a strong tripod for a good measure.
 
Vivek,
The Merrill has put the joy back in photography for me. I use the DP2M for florals and landscapes, and though it lacks the color accuracy of the DMR, the color can be corrected in post. Resolution, on the other hand, can't be added later so the Merrill is outstanding in the narrow parameters within which it excels.
Lawrence
 

douglasf13

New member
I don't think any of us can really isolate the difference in "look" between CCD and CMOS, because there are so many other factors in the chain, like color filters, internal processing/algorithms, supporting electronics, conversion methods, specific designs, etc.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I don't think any of us can really isolate the difference in "look" between CCD and CMOS, because there are so many other factors in the chain, like color filters, internal processing/algorithms, supporting electronics, conversion methods, specific designs, etc.
Thank you Douglas. You put it so much better than me. And you have articulated just what I meant to say!:facesmack:
 

sven

New member
Thank you Douglas. You put it so much better than me. And you have articulated just what I meant to say!:facesmack:
Sorry Jono, for every post that agrees with you, there are others who do not.

CCD look cannot be replicated by CMOS no matter what the hardware and software chain is. Period. 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.

If you read my earlier statement, I said CCD look cannot be replicated by CMoS. I did not say one is superior. That is personal preference. As Guy said, pick your poison.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Sorry Jono, for every post that agrees with you, there are others who do not.

CCD look cannot be replicated by CMOS no matter what the hardware and software chain is. Period. 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.

If you read my earlier statement, I said CCD look cannot be replicated by CMoS. I did not say one is superior. That is personal preference. As Guy said, pick your poison.

Well said and that's the science of it. I can see it in the files otherwise why do we make those MF vs that all over the net. This is exactly the reason when you break it down to final output. There is a difference, sure other factors come into play but we judge final output.
 

douglasf13

New member
Sorry Jono, for every post that agrees with you, there are others who do not.

CCD look cannot be replicated by CMOS no matter what the hardware and software chain is. Period. 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.

If you read my earlier statement, I said CCD look cannot be replicated by CMoS. I did not say one is superior. That is personal preference. As Guy said, pick your poison.
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.
 

douglasf13

New member
Well said and that's the science of it. I can see it in the files otherwise why do we make those MF vs that all over the net. This is exactly the reason when you break it down to final output. There is a difference, sure other factors come into play but we judge final output.
I don't know, Guy. I'm a former MFDB owner, although not nearly as experienced with different models like you are, and it's tough to say how CCD MFDBs would compared with CMOS MFDBs, if the MFDB manufacturers ever managed to acquire large CMOS chips. CMOS actually makes even more sense to me in MFDB than in the M camera, since live view would be particularly useful in a more static shooting environment.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Sure CMOS in MF would be a nice option to have no doubt it would give us live view and higher ISO files. I think many are looking for this with also the hope it would bring costs down and don't be surprised if its right around the corner either. In some ways it will have advantages but I'm afraid in others it may not but it is what people are looking for is feature sets that can make life a little better and live view is the big one for sure. This certainly is a big plus for the new Leicas and it will be the same as MF when it goes CMOS. Count these as advantages.

Just look at the differences in CCD with Dalsa and Kodak they are very different looking files. Phase, Kodak, Dalsa, Hassy , Sinar , Leaf and all there players in MF can't get those sensors to look alike. I agree with you all factors do count including software, firmware, color profiles and all that but these two sensors no one has ever matched the same look even in the CCD world. Now not that one is better or worse but very different for sure. They have different traits, now I don't know the science of that and how each one manufactures them either. But we do compare them or at least I have and it's pretty obvious the difference between a P45 and P40 for instance. That would be P45 Kodak and P40 Dalsa for those that don't know which one uses. Leica stuck with Kodak all the way which for them a good choice .

Another of Leicas main problem is basically the same as a tech cam and that is with wides and the rear exit of the lens to sensor being so close. Tech cam users know all about vignetting, color shift even at zero settings and using LCC to correct everything out. Leica M has fought some of those same challenges. Luckily Leica does not have shift lenses or LCC would be the order of the day. Now will CMOS be better at this for them or not. Been wondering about this. N,C,S has never had to deal with this since the lenses are designed different than the M glass. Going to be interesting but I have yet to hear anyone bring this up yet. As we know there is a reason for coding lenses and its not just knowing the EXIF data.

Geez I hit three different topics at once, sorry folks
 

sven

New member
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.
 

Jeff S

New member
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
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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 :eek:

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
 

D&A

Well-known member
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)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
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. :banghead:

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
 

jonoslack

Active member
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:rolleyes:
 

Double Negative

Not Available
So how about that new M7, huh? It's got aperture priority.

Man, times have changed. :D

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

Jeff S

New member
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
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There Sven
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!

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.

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
 
Top