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!

Anyone signed the petition?

retow

Member
Too late to sign the petition as I pushed the "buy" button for a M60 last night.
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
Godfrey,

thanks for your test and sharing your findings - I had the feeling this would be the result after all my own investigations too - great to hear that confirmed!

Also for me is now clear - no used M9, rather go for the M240 or wait till next release!

Peter
Peter,
if I were you I would try to find a DEMO or slightly used M in very good condition. That way you wouldnt loose too much money when a new model is released.
Or - if you are patient, wait for a new model, without knowing if you will hold it in your hands in 15 weeks or in 15 months ;)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Meh, what a monumental waste of time.

Leica is on record as saying CMOS is the future ... then made good on that by changing both their flagship cameras to CMOS sensors (M(240) and S(007). They are temporarily hedging their bet by offering the ME and SE CCD cameras, but those cameras are obviously not Leica's focus.

As to Leica adopting a Sony CMOS sensor I ask why then would I pay $7K to 8K for a Leica when a Sony cost $1.7K? Just for a rangefinder that can take tack-ons to make it more like the Sony?

Hopefully, Leica will stay the course, and keep developing their own approach to a M CMOS even if the current one is lacking in some folks eyes (including mine BTW).

Despite working with Sony cameras since early 2009, I ... do ... not ... like ... my current Sony stuff. It is convenient. It is technologically advanced ... all the utilitarian boxes are checked ... but it leaves me cold ... in use, and especially the image qualities.

Sony seemed on the right path with the A900 ... then went all techno geek, consumer fluffin-stuff to check off all the "Wants 'N Gimmes" of as many people as they could ... (especially the highly vocal and endlessly argumentative techno geek, pixel peeping, DR demanding folks) ... which is typical Sony mass-marketing mentality.

IMHO, Leica would do well to avoid anything to do with Sony's homogenization of the camera world.

Meanwhile, I'd agree that Leica needs to tighten up their quality on all fronts. If I have one more S lens go down on me, I will scream loud enough for Germany to hear me all the way from here.

- Marc
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Peter,
if I were you I would try to find a DEMO or slightly used M in very good condition. That way you wouldnt loose too much money when a new model is released.
Or - if you are patient, wait for a new model, without knowing if you will hold it in your hands in 15 weeks or in 15 months ;)
For anyone local to the San Francisco Bay Area who might be in the market, Keeble & Shuchat Photography in Palo Alto has an extremely minty second-hand black Leica M typ 240 for sale at present. The camera is as new far as I can see, some incredibly small number of exposures made with it, in the box with all bits as originally sold. I think my buddy there told me they want $5500 or $5400 for it.

And, btw, if anyone would like a black Artisan & Artist leather half-case for M9 (MM, M-E too, I believe), an excellent condition M9 battery (also for M8, MM, M-E, 3 available), or a charger (2 available), let me know and I'll work you a good deal. :)

G
 
Last edited:

weinschela

Subscriber Member
For the reasons stated re M(240) vs M9, as well as my own impressions having owned both, I would not sign such a petition.

IMHO the M(240) is superior. I agree that CMOS vs CCD is an issue that is overblown. The industry is not going back to CCDs and neither should Leica.
 

wattsie

New member
Well, I believe that the MM is the best digital M from Leica to date. :)
It sure is. Just waiting for some sensors to become available so mine can be replaced.

The MM also shows that it's not about megapixels.

I also think the ability to use higher ISOs on either an MM or M240 is something that is often overlooked in these debates (although the discussion here is far more mature than on one of the other forums!).
 

Amin

Active member
I didn't miss anything about the M8 when I used the M9, and I don't miss anything about the M9 now that I use an M240. It's all been very straightforward progress from my standpoint.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I didn't miss anything about the M8 when I used the M9, and I don't miss anything about the M9 now that I use an M240. It's all been very straightforward progress from my standpoint.
+1

I wasn't planning to buy the M-P when my M9 sensor came up with problems, but I am glad I did. The M-P is simply a better camera in every particular. I am delighted with it.

G
 

Viramati

Member
Personally I prefer the M240 files to the M9. Yes the M9 files had certain 'bite' but I find the M240 files to be neutral and have a much better dynamic range and are thus more malleable for post processing. In fact I find it quite easy to get the same sort of out-of-camera look from the M files that I used to get with the M9. Of course there are the other advantages of LV and better high iso.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Good discussion
Like David, Godfrey, Amin and others I've come to love the files from the M240. Of course they're different . . . but I think that difference is very unlikely to relate to inherent differences between CCD and CMOS. Especially in terms of colour (which is what's usually spoken about).

Let's face it, the sensor only collects light intensity, not colour values, which come from the Bayer filter and the subsequent de-mosaicing algorithms (which are firmware and not hardware dependent).

It'll be fascinating to see how the argument develops if Leica produce a CMOS monochrom camera.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Let's face it, the sensor only collects light intensity, not colour values, which come from the Bayer filter and the subsequent de-mosaicing algorithms (which are firmware and not hardware dependent).
The difference though comes from what is in front of the sensor. CCD (UV/IR) filtration is more straightforward than it is required for a CMOS sensor is my understanding.

Although, now, we do know the perils of a thin filter in terms of longevity. There is a great cottage industry going now trying to emulate the M9 performance in Sony A7 cams. They will be met with similar fate.

I fully support Leica shifting to CMOS from CCD. There is absolutely no way the camera industry is going back to CCD.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
A CMOS well may indeed have a different quantum efficiency (the probability that a photon is captured, releasing an electron) as a function of the photon's wavelength than the NMOS wells used in CCDs. The UV/IR filter layer was 0.5mm of a greenish Schott glass in the M8 and 0.8 mm of probably the same stuff in the M9 and M[240]. These and the side effects of the support circuitry that stands between pressing the shutter and getting out a raw file are so deep in the secret sauce that we are free to speculate about them forever, basing the speculations on the firm evidence of our own observations. (Just like the improvements in AF performance that are reported with every firmware update.)

Dave Farkas showed pretty clearly that in all but images of extreme DR, even LightRoom's restricted controls could make M9 and M[240] images practically indistinguishable. Photoshop and CaptureOne have very complex color curve editors that can do even more but I, at least, haven't got the time, and am not sensitive enough to color nuance to spend that time. I use an M9 sometimes for a consistent look in a never-finishing project that started with the M9, have an M8 still for old time's sake but haven't used it in over a year, and prefer the M[240] for everything because it just works better.

scott
 

aDam007

New member
Meh, what a monumental waste of time.

Leica is on record as saying CMOS is the future ... then made good on that by changing both their flagship cameras to CMOS sensors (M(240) and S(007). They are temporarily hedging their bet by offering the ME and SE CCD cameras, but those cameras are obviously not Leica's focus.

As to Leica adopting a Sony CMOS sensor I ask why then would I pay $7K to 8K for a Leica when a Sony cost $1.7K? Just for a rangefinder that can take tack-ons to make it more like the Sony?

Hopefully, Leica will stay the course, and keep developing their own approach to a M CMOS even if the current one is lacking in some folks eyes (including mine BTW).

Despite working with Sony cameras since early 2009, I ... do ... not ... like ... my current Sony stuff. It is convenient. It is technologically advanced ... all the utilitarian boxes are checked ... but it leaves me cold ... in use, and especially the image qualities.

Sony seemed on the right path with the A900 ... then went all techno geek, consumer fluffin-stuff to check off all the "Wants 'N Gimmes" of as many people as they could ... (especially the highly vocal and endlessly argumentative techno geek, pixel peeping, DR demanding folks) ... which is typical Sony mass-marketing mentality.

IMHO, Leica would do well to avoid anything to do with Sony's homogenization of the camera world.

Meanwhile, I'd agree that Leica needs to tighten up their quality on all fronts. If I have one more S lens go down on me, I will scream loud enough for Germany to hear me all the way from here.

- Marc

EXACTLY what he said!
 

weinschela

Subscriber Member
Dave Farkas showed pretty clearly that in all but images of extreme DR, even LightRoom's restricted controls could make M9 and M[240] images practically indistinguishable. Photoshop and CaptureOne have very complex color curve editors that can do even more but I, at least, haven't got the time, and am not sensitive enough to color nuance to spend that time. I use an M9 sometimes for a consistent look in a never-finishing project that started with the M9, have an M8 still for old time's sake but haven't used it in over a year, and prefer the M[240] for everything because it just works better.

scott
The David Farkas study shows that the differences are trivial to all but a few who continue to believe they can spot a CCD image and distinguish it from a CMOS image. I don't think most people looking at photos in a gallery gives a hoot about what kind of sensor was used or could tell the difference if their life depended upon it.

Moreover, for Leica to bring back CCD sensors is a huge mistake IMHO because Leica does not make its own sensors, and has to rely on others. Most of not all of the recent technical development effort has gone to CMOS sensors, so if we want Leica to have up to date sensors in its cameras (I do) they are going to be CMOS, like it or not, and regardless of whether a few hundred people sign a petition. That is reality.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but Leica has not stopped selling an M with a CCD. The M-E is still in production. So are people simply petitioning Leica to make a camera they are already making? The outrage!
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Um, I hate to point out the obvious, but Leica has not stopped selling an M with a CCD. The M-E is still in production. So are people simply petitioning Leica to make a camera they are already making? The outrage!
You make too much sense! :lecture:
 

JorisV

New member
Despite working with Sony cameras since early 2009, I ... do ... not ... like ... my current Sony stuff. It is convenient. It is technologically advanced ... all the utilitarian boxes are checked ... but it leaves me cold ... in use, and especially the image qualities.

Sony seemed on the right path with the A900 ... then went all techno geek, consumer fluffin-stuff to check off all the "Wants 'N Gimmes" of as many people as they could ... (especially the highly vocal and endlessly argumentative techno geek, pixel peeping, DR demanding folks) ... which is typical Sony mass-marketing mentality.

IMHO, Leica would do well to avoid anything to do with Sony's homogenization of the camera world.

Meanwhile, I'd agree that Leica needs to tighten up their quality on all fronts.

- Marc
+1. Wow!
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The point of any sensor is to accurately reproduce what is in front of it. If every camera manufacturer produced the "ideal" sensor, the output would be identical.
 
Top