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!

Leica CCD Based M240? Maybe, just maybe!

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Marc,
which raw converter did you use in your comparisons?
And are you mainly talking about daylight or artificial light or both?
I am not questioning anybodys findings about M9 vs M but I am trying to make a decision for myself between the two and my findings are not so clear in one direction.
Every which way you can think of … daylight, tungsten, flash, strobes, mixed light, low-light, noon, twilight, sunset, moonlight, streetlights. I had the camera for 2 weeks and I wrung it out shooting the stuff I face all the time. But the most important thing was shooting people and how the M240 rendered skin.

Had the latest firmware installed when I tried it.

Loved the camera and wanted to like the files … but I didn't.

I primarily use Lightroom, and I am NOT learning something else just for one camera … I can get what I want out of Lightroom with all my other cameras including the Leica S2 and my previous M9 and Hassey H4D/60, and all the CMOS Sonys.

I have the need, the need for speed … and Lightroom is f a s t

It is purely subjective … personally I do not like the way the M240 renders color out of the camera, and especially do not like the skin tones … I see people raving about some shot with the subjects sporting skin tones not found in nature … unless they were shot shortly after a nuclear denotation ;) IMO, fixing that is hard work.

Addendum: I think there are those who get nice images from the M240, even decent skin tones … I just couldn't without a lot of work, and I still see a lot of M240 shots that are just to "hot" for my tastes.

- Marc
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
Every which way you can think of … daylight, tungsten, flash, strobes, mixed light, low-light, noon, twilight, sunset, moonlight, streetlights. I had the camera for 2 weeks and I wrung it out shooting the stuff I face all the time. But the most important thing was shooting people and how the M240 rendered skin.

Had the latest firmware installed when I tried it.

Loved the camera and wanted to like the files … but I didn't.

I primarily use Lightroom, and I am NOT learning something else just for one camera … I can get what I want out of Lightroom with all my other cameras including the Leica S2 and my previous M9 and Hassey H4D/60, and all the CMOS Sonys.

I have the need, the need for speed … and Lightroom is f a s t

It is purely subjective … personally I do not like the way the M240 renders color out of the camera, and especially do not like the skin tones … I see people raving about some shot with the subjects sporting skin tones not found in nature … unless they were shot shortly after a nuclear denotation ;) IMO, fixing that is hard work.

Addendum: I think there are those who get nice images from the M240, even decent skin tones … I just couldn't without a lot of work, and I still see a lot of M240 shots that are just to "hot" for my tastes.

- Marc
Hi again,
I also dislike using different converters but lately I have also used C1 again (follwoing some advise from a Leica guy) and it seems to work clearly better for M skin tones (and I think also slightly better for M9 over LR).
I just wish there was a propper profile for the S so I could switch alltogether to c1.
Tom
 

jonoslack

Active member
I primarily use Lightroom, and I am NOT learning something else just for one camera … I can get what I want out of Lightroom with all my other cameras including the Leica S2 and my previous M9 and Hassey H4D/60, and all the CMOS Sonys.
Hi Marc
Maybe this is the root cause of our disagreement. I use Aperture (and I'm not learning something else just for one camera). Actually, I also know LR quite well, and cordially dislike both the operation and the results. To me Aperture seems much less interventionist and much more natural.

To me Aperture seems much less interventionist than LR (and don't even get me started on C1). Sure the files are noisier and less "sophisticated" out of Aperture, but that's why I like 'em!.

As for a CCD based M240? Who is going to make the sensor? (certainly not Jenoptic!) it seems fantastically unlikely to me (but I really don't know).
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Hi Marc
Maybe this is the root cause
As for a CCD based M240? Who is going to make the sensor? (certainly not Jenoptic!) it seems fantastically unlikely to me (but I really don't know).
...(but I really don't know)...all you legal guys note this disclaimer. Now as one not invited to the Leitz Park Inauguration I can only speculate on how deep Jono's contacts are.....:toocool:

But IMHO they dropped CCD so either cherish your old ride or learn the new new thing.....

And as many of the older CCD based cameras are being off-loaded at relatively reasonable prices the choice for now is yours.

Personally I love the CCD ... a bit rough but that fits with my personal esthetic of photographic presentation.

Regards,

Bob
 

jlm

Workshop Member
random thought, but for the monochrome camera, would there be any difference between CCD and CMOS with respect to image quality?
 

Duane Pandorf

New member
Hi again,
I also dislike using different converters but lately I have also used C1 again (follwoing some advise from a Leica guy) and it seems to work clearly better for M skin tones (and I think also slightly better for M9 over LR).
I just wish there was a propper profile for the S so I could switch alltogether to c1.
Tom
I created my own profiles for my "ugly" M-E to use with LR. I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I created my own profiles for my "ugly" M-E to use with LR. I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting.
Your posts reflect just how good the lowly M-E can be...

I think I used the preview lever on my M6 a couple of times in 1982. Its absence on the M-E is not a loss and I do think personally that the gunmetal grey color is gorgeous...nothing like the pictures of the camera.

My dealer, a fairly astute Leica historian, believes it will hold its value well due to its somewhat limited numbers...should one want to move from the camera.

I doubt that any replacement will change its desirability or value.

Bob
 

Duane Pandorf

New member
Hi again,
I also dislike using different converters but lately I have also used C1 again (follwoing some advise from a Leica guy) and it seems to work clearly better for M skin tones (and I think also slightly better for M9 over LR).
I just wish there was a propper profile for the S so I could switch alltogether to c1.
Tom
Your posts reflect just how good the lowly M-E can be...

I think I used the preview lever on my M6 a couple of times in 1982. Its absence on the M-E is not a loss and I do think personally that the gunmetal grey color is gorgeous...nothing like the pictures of the camera.

My dealer, a fairly astute Leica historian, believes it will hold its value well due to its somewhat limited numbers...should one want to move from the camera.

I doubt that any replacement will change its desirability or value.

Bob
Thanks Bob. This is my first Leica and I couldn't be happier. No. A camera is perfect but I love its simplicity as it's forced me to slow down and helped enjoy my photography hobby more than ever.
 

D&A

Well-known member
As for a CCD based M240? Who is going to make the sensor? (certainly not Jenoptic!) it seems fantastically unlikely to me (but I really don't know).
Jono, Are we certain that all the current M-E's and MM bodies currently being made are using sensors from Leica stockpiles of CCD sensors. I suspect they are still being manufactured and there is no reason the same basic sensor couldn't go into a M240 type body. Of course features like live view, video, focus peaking, etc. would be absent.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Your posts reflect just how good the lowly M-E can be...

I think I used the preview lever on my M6 a couple of times in 1982. Its absence on the M-E is not a loss and I do think personally that the gunmetal grey color is gorgeous...nothing like the pictures of the camera.

My dealer, a fairly astute Leica historian, believes it will hold its value well due to its somewhat limited numbers...should one want to move from the camera.

I doubt that any replacement will change its desirability or value.

Bob
Bob, even though I'm good at visualizing and estimating framing when a certain focal length frame isn't present in the viewfinder, I miss not having a frame lever Maybe I'm in the minority.

As for the M-E gunmetal color, my thoughts expressed in a previous thread sum up how I feel. In pictures, the color doesn't represent itself well, but as you said, in person the color is quite beautiful in a elegant understated way.

Dave (D&A)
 

white.elephant

New member
Take Fuji for example, they allow to apply film simulation either to their JPEGs in camera or RAWs in post processing via LR5. This leads to a bunch of very useful presets where results are hard to achieve in manual post processing. I assume that this could be done same way to achieve a certain CCD look.
One of the biggest changes in LR's embrace of the X-Trans line of cameras was the addition of these presets. I loved the look of JPGs coming out if my X-Pro 1 so much that for a time, I stopped shooting RAW.

Leica could do this and it could be built into Lightoom.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I created my own profiles for my "ugly" M-E to use with LR. I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting.
I also habe been satisfied with LR for the M9. It just happened that I checked out LR because of the new M and also processed soe M9 files and found them to come out really nice.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, Are we certain that all the current M-E's and MM bodies currently being made are using sensors from Leica stockpiles of CCD sensors. I suspect they are still being manufactured and there is no reason the same basic sensor couldn't go into a M240 type body. Of course features like live view, video, focus peaking, etc. would be absent.

Dave (D&A)
Hi there Dave
I don't know where the current MM and ME sensors are coming from, or how infinite the supply might be......... But why would you want to put it into an M240type body? I can see why you might want to put an M240 type shutter and LCD into an M9 type body, but I think it would take a redesign from scratch.

Just take a step back: by going back to a lower res CCD with less dynamic range and out of house firmware would be:
1. a real step backward
2. a virtual admission that the M was a mistake

What company would do such a suicidal move..........and then make it cheap (ME):bugeyes: :ROTFL:

Look, if they really agreed that a CCD was the right way (which I'm pretty sure they don't), surely they'd use a different and better one, develop it in house and make it a premium product..... Not spend lots of money on changing the electronics and then sell it as entry level!

All the best
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi there Dave
I don't know where the current MM and ME sensors are coming from, or how infinite the supply might be......... But why would you want to put it into an M240type body? I can see why you might want to put an M240 type shutter and LCD into an M9 type body, but I think it would take a redesign from scratch.

Just take a step back: by going back to a lower res CCD with less dynamic range and out of house firmware would be:
1. a real step backward
2. a virtual admission that the M was a mistake

What company would do such a suicidal move..........and then make it cheap (ME):bugeyes: :ROTFL:

Look, if they really agreed that a CCD was the right way (which I'm pretty sure they don't), surely they'd use a different and better one, develop it in house and make it a premium product..... Not spend lots of money on changing the electronics and then sell it as entry level!

All the best
Jono, thank you for your thoughtful response. There is a sizable contingent of M digital users that prefer the output of thr M9 over thr M240 for a variety of reasons. Whether it's solely due to use of a CCD sensor or a combination of factors where the CCD plays a supporting role has been hotly debated on the forums. These M9 users though love the LCD, shutter, rangefinder and a host of other features that the M240 has and wish those that can be supported by the M9 sensor, be incorporated in a M240 type body. Whether this is accomplished in a modification of the current M9 body, incorporating thr M9 as nor in a M240 type body or simply designing a newly designed body would probably all reach the design objective of giving M9 users what they'd like. The output of the current M9 but in a more up to date body with the features I mentioned above.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a newly designed CCD vs. Using the current one. I don't believe if done that it implies that Leica made a mistake utilizing a CMOS sensor in the M240. It was the only way to currently achieve high ISO performance, live view, focus peaking and a other perforce characteristics that aren't supported by CCD.

Ofifering users a choice of bodies with different sensors is simply providing end users with choices for their needs and desired output. It's simply product line diversification. Just because Nikon comes out with point and shoot cameras doesn't mean their SLR line is a failure.

This isn't unique to the M9 as other cameras with CCD output are also favored by some others over similar models utilizing CMOS sensors. It's just another alternative...not better nor worse, just differemt. By the way my favorite flavor of ice cream is Mint Chip ice cream but even I've come to realize others might prefer differently, even though I know the superiority of my preferred flavor. :).

Dave (D&A)
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, thank you for your thoughtful response. There is a sizable contingent of M digital users that prefer the output of thr M9 over thr M240 for a variety of reasons. )
Hi Dave
I understand that this is the case. Just as there was a sizeable number of digital M users who preferred the output of the M8 to the M9. But I'm not seeing people who actually use the M complaining, only people who are still using their M9s.

For instance, I have a great deal of respect for Marc, but with that respect, it's worth mentioning that it took him over a year to decide he liked the S2, and he only gave the M two weeks. Look at the portrait work of young photographers like Sarah Lee and tell me that the colour is wrong!

I'm not going to get into the CCD CMOS debate, as it's so subjective as to be meaningless. What I will say is that there are a number of excellent young photojournalists using the new M, and I don't see too many complaints about the colour. When I published shots from the MM I was crucified because they looked flat. The M has a lot more dynamic range than the M9, which means that out of camera shots are inevitably lacking the zing. The same is true of the MM.

However, were Leica to revamp the electronics of the old sensor to work in the new body, then it would definitely look different from the M9, no question.

If you want a camera which takes images like the M9, then you have one. You won't get another one! No, not even were Leica to bring out an M with a CCD, it would still be different.

I can talk about this, because I have absolutely no knowledge of this theoretically cheap new M with a CCD, so I'm breaking no confidences. But I would think that a little common sense would tell you that it is neither likely, nor the solution to nostalgic (and perfectly acceptable) preferences for the M9.

All the best

PS. Maybe Leica will be convinced by the old guard who prefer a CCD (I doubt it, but I don't know). But if they are, it will be with a brand new camera, not an entry level model like the ME!
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Could it be that Leica is really trying to solve a production problem ? Don t they need Trusense sensors for quite sometime into the future to support the m8,m9,mm and S2 products …..it is helpful if they have some usage of the sensors in current product offerings .

At the same time haven t they had big problems with the spare parts for the m8,m9,mm LCD …..and we all know what will happen to the batteries availability overtime ……did you own a DMR ?

The biggest question comes regarding the battery and its impact on the circuitry ….can they really put an M240 battery into an ME body ? or is it a better choice to move the CCD chip to the M240 body .

If they do this for the ME can the MM be far behind ….I think you have to look to what problem they are trying to solve . My guess its problems with the low volume suppliers of components for the M8,M9 and MM that is the driving this.
 

jonoslack

Active member
If they do this for the ME can the MM be far behind ….I think you have to look to what problem they are trying to solve . My guess its problems with the low volume suppliers of components for the M8,M9 and MM that is the driving this.
Glen, I think you have to expect that this story is a load of rubbish!it doesn't stack up in any direction, either technically or commercially. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi Dave
I understand that this is the case. Just as there was a sizeable number of digital M users who preferred the output of the M8 to the M9. But I'm not seeing people who actually use the M complaining, only people who are still using their M9s.

For instance, I have a great deal of respect for Marc, but with that respect, it's worth mentioning that it took him over a year to decide he liked the S2, and he only gave the M two weeks. Look at the portrait work of young photographers like Sarah Lee and tell me that the colour is wrong!

I'm not going to get into the CCD CMOS debate, as it's so subjective as to be meaningless. What I will say is that there are a number of excellent young photojournalists using the new M, and I don't see too many complaints about the colour. When I published shots from the MM I was crucified because they looked flat. The M has a lot more dynamic range than the M9, which means that out of camera shots are inevitably lacking the zing. The same is true of the MM.

However, were Leica to revamp the electronics of the old sensor to work in the new body, then it would definitely look different from the M9, no question.

If you want a camera which takes images like the M9, then you have one. You won't get another one! No, not even were Leica to bring out an M with a CCD, it would still be different.

I can talk about this, because I have absolutely no knowledge of this theoretically cheap new M with a CCD, so I'm breaking no confidences. But I would think that a little common sense would tell you that it is neither likely, nor the solution to nostalgic (and perfectly acceptable) preferences for the M9.

All the best

PS. Maybe Leica will be convinced by the old guard who prefer a CCD (I doubt it, but I don't know). But if they are, it will be with a brand new camera, not an entry level model like the ME!
Jono, FYI ... I initially tried the S2 for 1/2 day while in Florida and determined that it had great promise but wasn't ready for prime time yet, not to mention that there were only two lenses available at the time (S-70mm and S-180mm). I waited a year to see how things went. So implying that I used the S2 camera for a year before "liking it" is not correct.

I did not like what I was initially seeing from the M240, waited for over a year, then worked with one for two weeks ... which confirmed I didn't like what I was seeing. I didn't need a year to determine that.

It is not a matter of "right or wrong," "old guard verses new guard," or any such thing.

It is about preferences and choices ... and how much one has to fiddle with images to obtain the results one prefers. I do not question that others have met their own criteria with the M240, however their eye is not my eye ... nor a number of others that seem to prefer the M9 look and feel over that of the M240. I am convinced that the M9 produced unique imagery that meshed well with its' lenses ... and conversely feel the M240 is homogeneous with a lot of other CMOS based cameras ... but, fortunately, it is still unique because it is a rangefinder.

Personally I think it is wishful thinking regarding a CCD based M240 type camera. I'd be nice, but Leica has clearly stated that CMOS is the future, and acted accordingly. At sometime in future we all will have to "like it or lump it," if we want to work with a rangefinder. In the meantime ...

- Marc
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Glen, I think you have to expect that this story is a load of rubbish!it doesn't stack up in any direction, either technically or commercially. Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't think so!
Jono

Sorry I don t understand your point of view ?

Just to go back a bit ….no one followed the logic of the Mono introduction . Lets look at some facts on that one as a reference . (1) sales of the M9P had dropped off the cliff …they were in stock everywhere and they were priced even higher than the M9 ……(2) the M240 and the new plant(s) were both behind schedule …….so what was Leica going to sell and keep the plant loaded .

The Mono could be made with many of the existing components and because of an expected surge in demand (maybe for short period of time ) would nicely load the existing production facilities .

It was IMHO a brilliant solution to a significant business problem and allowed time to transition to the M240 . It had absolutely nothing to do with the desire to produce a B&W solution . Sounds good and was packaged nicely by marketing .

I don t for a minute think Leica needs an ME (CCD) camera in the product line for any other reason but to continue their supply of sensors for maintenance and repair . The most straight forward approach would be to keep making the existing ME(CCD) in small batches a few times a year and do the same with the Mono. But they also have problems with several other component suppliers for the original digital M platform .

I would completely agree that its seems far fetched to believe that the classic digital M body (M8,M9,Mono) could be modified in a way to accept the M240 battery and a new LCD . If it could ..how could we justify the expense over such a low volume of product ?

It also seems a stretch to believe that Leica can justify moving the entire CCD platform to the M240 body . This would however have some long term benefits if possible .

I guess I agree …the whole proposition seems like a bridge too far . From a product/technology perspective appears unlikely . Yet…….

How big a problem do you think it will be when Leica can t supply CCD sensor replacements ?
 
It's like two cars that have very similar specs and differ mostly by the visceral feeling one gets while driving or pushing these cars in any number of ways. Some prefer one over the other but no matter how they are both driven, most will have a preference at the end of the day.

Dave (D&A)
Are you sating the M240 is back-heavy and understeers? :salute:

I find it quite nicely balanced with precise handling, with just a hint of oversteer in highlights if pushed over the limits. The M9 was more like a old time 911 Porsche, nasty handling at the limits when pushed too hard.

That said, with 911's many people still vouch for the air cooled models of old time, due to feeling, even when they are so clearly beaten by modern technology on the track.

//Juha :watch:
 
Top