CCD or CMOS - you choose

[jonoslack]

Where you measuring the look and feel of your photographs?

- Marc

Ah, Marc
do you mean:
Where (in my office)
were (yes)
We're (I don't think that makes sense)

I don't measure the look and feel of my photos, because I haven't devised a unit of measure - and that is really my point.

I really understand that you don't like the images from the M(240) (and I wouldn't presume to try and persuade you otherwise). I just don't think that you can ascribe that dislike to a distinction between CCD and CMOS . .

 

[fotografz]

I don't think that there is anything subjective about 'Like' it might be personal, but that's not the same thing - the problem is that before you can coherently say that you like CCD better than CMOS you must be able to define the difference in some kind of coherent manner which is relates specifically to CCD (rather than the difference between the M9 and the M240 - they're unquestionably different, but without some kind of empirical definition you might as well assign it to the 0.6mm thicker, or the different battery).

The problem with all of these CMOS/CCD arguments is that they require a definition of the look of each type of sensor . . . and any arguments about colour are clearly rubbish, as the Bayer filter and the de-mosaicing are nothing to do with the type of sensor.


Religion hinges around an act of faith - and I'm seriously intolerant of any kind of photographic act of faith (aren't you?)

PS - I completely subscribe to your right to dislike the colour/files/ whatever of the M240 - wouldn't dream of arguing (don't have to agree) - what I'm arguing with is your connecting this dislike to the difference between CCD/CMOS sensors.

Jono, I still do not understand why the creative preferences of others is so important to you. Why the burning need to discredit anyone's personal preference for CCD over CMOS whether real or perceived? Why the insistence on quantitate measurable proof of a difference? After all, it is aesthetics we are talking about ... and BTW, it is here we disagree completely, because "Like" & "Don't Like" are very subjective words ... and both are always personal.

Personally, I don't have to connect a creative preference to any specific aspect of one camera verses the other. All I need do for myself is have that preference ... and if it happens to consistently be cameras with CCD sensors, then that is what I prefer. If it is a coincidence attributable to other factors, so what? If it is a consistent phenomena of CCD cameras to produce a signature look and feel I like, then that becomes the preference.

Oh, and I engage in a act of faith every time I press the shutter button ... hoping the digital camera works.

- Marc

 

[Godfrey]

...
Oh, and I engage in a act of faith every time I press the shutter button ... hoping the digital camera works.

We seem to belong to different faiths ... I have that moment of uncertainty and faith when I press the shutter release on my film cameras but not on my digital cameras. I know the latter are going to work, where I'm never sure with the film cameras.. ]'-)

G

 

[fotografz]

Ah, Marc
do you mean:
Where (in my office)
were (yes)
We're (I don't think that makes sense)

I don't measure the look and feel of my photos, because I haven't devised a unit of measure - and that is really my point.

I really understand that you don't like the images from the M(240) (and I wouldn't presume to try and persuade you otherwise). I just don't think that you can ascribe that dislike to a distinction between CCD and CMOS . .

Now you are getting petty Juno ... the typo was obviously meant to be "Were".


I don't think anyone intellectually measures the look and feel of imagery, and that was my point. They viscerally react to it.

So, if I consistently "like" the look and feel of a number of CCD cameras more than that of many different CMOS cameras, it is human nature to subscribe that experiential preference to differences in sensor ... or any filter/readout/whatever that accompanies them.

"Experiential" is a key element in all this. It isn't just the M240 rendering that turned me off, there have been a number of CMOS cameras I wasn't all that fond of. While I didn't mind the Sony A900 CMOS rendering, I still preferred results from the antiquated and abandoned DMR, flawed M8, and M9 over the A900.

Every time I think to get a M(240) for all the other functional advancements, I look at the M image threads and feel grateful that I still can work with a CCD camera ... at least for now.

However, I'm not pushing CCD verses CMOS other than for myself. So, I remain perplexed by the fervor to discredit the creative preferences of those that subscribe to CCD ... be it real or just perceived. It is like telling someone they shouldn't like the color red, they should like blue ... and then insisting that they "prove" why they like Red.

In the meantime, my MM suffices for rangefinder work and keeps the M lenses busy, and happily go about making photos with my S(006) ...

- Marc

 

[anGy]

Maybe it would be more appropriate not to speak about Cmos vs CCD sensor tastes but about cameras built around Cmos or CCD sensors.

I think camera makers are building their whole camera concept around the specific sensors propriety, sound quite logical, no ?. They will optimize high Iso capacity of Cmos sensors using weaker color filters and who knows what else to get the best possible DR and noise signals. That's what most customers want, clean high isos.
It doesn't mean that Cmos sensor couldn't also be optimized for the best possible IQ at native iso (that's what Canon has done with the new 5Ds I believe) but it is a more efficient business plan to give customers what most of them want.
CCD cameras are optimized for native ISO IQ, there is no other option and they excel doing that.
Looks very obvious to me and I don't understand why some people who know everything about CCD sensor weaknesses have hard time dealing with the unrivaled IQ at base iso of the CCD cameras that are optimized for that purpose.

Race cars are not that good for off road but once on a racetrack...

 

[jonoslack]

Now you are getting petty Juno ... the typo was obviously meant to be "Were".

Juno?

However, I'm not pushing CCD verses CMOS other than for myself. So, I remain perplexed by the fervor to discredit the creative preferences of those that subscribe to CCD ... be it real or just perceived. It is like telling someone they shouldn't like the color red, they should like blue ... and then insisting that they "prove" why they like Red.

- Marc

Hi there Marc - the reason I'm fervent about it is that it cultivates a feeling on the internet that there really IS difference between CCD and CMOS colour, and that CCD is inherently better, this then has a negative effect on sales of a camera which is serving those of us who like it extremely well.

Of course, that's not my personal problem, but I find it sad when I hear people saying they won't buy an M240 because it has a CMOS sensor (when they haven't tried it) - sad for them, because they're missing out on the obvious benefits of the newer camera, and sad for Leica because they're missing out on sales on the basis of a prejudice which doesn't stack up logically or scientifically.

Which is absolutely NOT a criticism of your choice, because you looked and decided. I just don't like the propagation of an internet myth which impacts both people and companies.

All the best

 

[Vivek]

There is a recent piece on this with certain claims in the title:

M9 pop on a M240: The 35mm Zeiss Distagon T 1.4 By Howard Shooter | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

My "visceral" reaction is posted and will appear there if approved.

This is what I posted:

Instagram look. Not sure this is impressive by any stretch.

 

[jonoslack]

Maybe it would be more appropriate not to speak about Cmos vs CCD sensor tastes but about cameras built around Cmos or CCD sensors.

I think camera makers are building their whole camera concept around the specific sensors propriety, sound quite logical, no ?. They will optimize high Iso capacity of Cmos sensors using weaker color filters and who knows what else to get the best possible DR and noise signals. That's what most customers want, clean high isos.
It doesn't mean that Cmos sensor couldn't also be optimized for the best possible IQ at native iso (that's what Canon has done with the new 5Ds I believe) but it is a more efficient business plan to give customers what most of them want.

I quite agree - although, in the case of Leica they have not done this with the M, which explains why the high ISO is not as good as you'd expect with a 24mp CMOS sensor . . . . and also why so many of us like the colour from the Sony A900 (which had fundamentally the same sensor as the D3x, but did much better colour and much worse high ISO).

 

[Paratom]

IMO it doesnt matter if the difference people see comes from the CCD vs CMOS, or from something else. As long as everybody knows which camera he/she prefers we are all fine.
I prefer the M over the M9, but I also prefer the S over the M
I dont know yet if I would prefer the S007 over the S006, I will wait and look (at the images but also at the price development).

 

[KeithL]

I use both the CCD M9 and CMOS M240 cameras. I find the differences between the out-of-camera files of the two cameras at low ISO are of no significance. I find the differences between the two cameras are of great significance. Each to their own.

Choice is good but make the most of it, it won’t last.

 

[jonoslack]

I use both the CCD M9 and CMOS M240 cameras. I find the differences between the out-of-camera files of the two cameras at low ISO are of no significance. I find the differences between the two cameras are of great significance. Each to their own.

Choice is good but make the most of it, it won’t last.

Hi Keith
I quite agree - but what won't last? the camera or the choice

 

[KeithL]

Hi Keith
I quite agree - but what won't last? the camera or the choice

Jono, you're not suggesting that perhaps the CCD sensor has an inherent fault?

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, you're not suggesting that perhaps the CCD sensor has an inherent fault?

Heaven forfend!

 

[Vivek]

Heaven forfend!

Thank you, Jono! Hopefully that will come true for my MM!

 

[fotografz]

Juno?



Hi there Marc - the reason I'm fervent about it is that it cultivates a feeling on the internet that there really IS difference between CCD and CMOS colour, and that CCD is inherently better, this then has a negative effect on sales of a camera which is serving those of us who like it extremely well.

Of course, that's not my personal problem, but I find it sad when I hear people saying they won't buy an M240 because it has a CMOS sensor (when they haven't tried it) - sad for them, because they're missing out on the obvious benefits of the newer camera, and sad for Leica because they're missing out on sales on the basis of a prejudice which doesn't stack up logically or scientifically.

Which is absolutely NOT a criticism of your choice, because you looked and decided. I just don't like the propagation of an internet myth which impacts both people and companies.

All the best

LOL! I'm just not doing well with auto spelling corrections of typos. Got to re-read everything closer. Sorry ... Jono.

Personally, it isn't my job to police people's opinions, and the marketing of cameras is the task of the companies and retailers, not mine.

I'd agree that one shouldn't dismiss a camera like the M(240) without trying it. However, that in itself can be problematic because getting one for a few weeks to properly explore it (like I did) is not an easy task.

Also, I doubt that those not buying the M(240) are making the decision based strictly on internet innuendo. It is more likely that in lieu of actually shooting with one, they are looking at all the images on M threads.

Setting the CCD/CMOS thing aside, if some people like the M9 files and not the M(240) files, what's a mother to do? Doesn't matter what the reason is, the result is the same.

To be clear, my preference isn't a closed minded one that dismisses CMOS out of hand. It is simply based on experience with which cameras seem to satisfy a personal aesthetic prejudice gained over time.

- Marc

 

[KeithL]

Also, I doubt that those not buying the M(240) are making the decision based strictly on internet innuendo. It is more likely that in lieu of actually shooting with one, they are looking at all the images on M threads.

Marc, I doubt either method is wise

 

[jonoslack]

HI Marc
I rather like being Juno occasionally - I have a vision of some big busty brassy bird (the inner me ).

Also, I doubt that those not buying the M(240) are making the decision based strictly on internet innuendo. It is more likely that in lieu of actually shooting with one, they are looking at all the images on M threads.

I don't doubt it Marc, in fact I KNOW it's true that people are not buying based on the internet chatter - I get hundreds of emails from people about different aspects of Leica, and this kind of thing really is the case.

As for looking at images on threads - have you tried David Farkas 'experiment' nothing like that is perfect, but it seemed to me that it proved pretty conclusively that you couldn't even tell the difference looking at images on the net . . . .and if you can't tell the difference then having a preference is a little moot!

Setting the CCD/CMOS thing aside, if some people like the M9 files and not the M(240) files, what's a mother to do? Doesn't matter what the reason is, the result is the same.

A mother isn't to do anything - it's absolutely fine - you'll never have heard me criticise the preference for a minute . . . and it doesn't matter what the reason is - I quite agree it doesn't matter what the reason is - but if preferences is promulgated as a fact and attributed to something rather unlikely . . . AND others believe it - then THAT does matter.

To be clear, my preference isn't a closed minded one that dismisses CMOS out of hand. It is simply based on experience with which cameras seem to satisfy a personal aesthetic prejudice gained over time.

- Marc

I never thought it was for a minute . . . . I just feel that the way you put it is teaching others to believe that your preference is actually a fact.

Anyway - perhaps we should stop dancing on the heads of pins (of course we ARE both angels .

All the best
Jono (the skinny grey one)

 

[Godfrey]

When my M9 sensor needed replacement, I lay on the bed of nails and contemplated my choices. Replacement: free. Upgrade: $4000.

I went to the store with my own lenses and card, spent an hour or two making boring test exposures similar to ones I had from the M9.

- I much preferred how the M typ 240 worked.
- Comparing the test shots, I preferred what the M typ 240 produces.

I spent the money and have been delighted I did so. Besides, "Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor" sounds so much more neat and techie than "Charge Coupled Device" ...

G

 

[Auni]

Indeed Rick - it drives me crazy, but I realise now that you only have to bring up the subject to reinforce peoples religious belief in the CCD

I agree, in the sense that it is very much like having a discussion about religion. All the facts can be laid out, but one must be careful to not tread on faith. Faith is the deliberate decision to believe. Faith does not have to concern itself with facts. You just have to believe that something looks better, then describe it as an aesthetic or a feeling that is personal. End of objective discussion. Don't tread on faith.

But, I can tell you as an owner of the M8, M9 and M... and not just borrowing them for a week or looking at photos on the internet, but really working with the files in PP for months and years that they all can be made to look the same. Except, once you leave base ISO where the M retains its color depth much, much better. Or, if you are trying to recover highlights or bring out shadow tone where the M has the advantage.

I also print a lot and I often print huge on a HP Z3200 44" printer. Both cameras are able to produce, under most situations, identical prints that I know for a fact that none would be able to tell the difference in the feel or the esthetic of the sensor type.

But, on the internet people can claim anything they want. Come over to my print office and look at my prints and try and identify the esthetic that you like so much and I'll tell you if you are picking the correct sensor... you won't be able to. In print it isn't even an issue of equal but different. In print they are equal.

Rick :deadhorse:

 

[Auni]

When things can be "subjectively measured" it will be the absolute end of creative prerogative ... and the micrometer wielding, chart quoting photobots will then be dictating aesthetics.

- Marc

I actually should have said objectively measured. As in; I can't list one thing, that can be objectively measured, that isn't better with the M. Which is even more to my point.

It is you that is subjectively measuring.

Also, I don't believe it is the end of the creative prerogative, as you say, when we objectively measure a tool. On the contrary, it is the beginning. The creative process, for me, starts when you hand me the camera and everything in between that moment and the print.

The objective measure is a completely different aspect and has little to do with creativity. The subjective measure is just belief masquerading as reality.

Rick