The problem is called "confirmation bias."
I have no doubt people have preferences. The problem comes when try to ascribe cause. I had a conversation with a person that swore that a particular Alpa camera made sharper images than other camera, even though the optics, and in this case, film back were identical ( Alpa does not make these things). Apparently. The metal spacer that was the Alpa camera was the secret sauce. That person could not show me the difference in the images except to say that they could see it.
I really do not doubt that folks find a particular camera "better." I do not doubt their experience, nor do I doubt their skill. I simple doubt the ascribed cause, in this case.
I am not sure calling this a religious affliction is quite fair. Many photographers are very intuitive. Intuition can be a powerful driver in the creative arts. The problem comes when trying to rationalize intuition. It is extremely hard to reduce complex intuitive experience. While it is easy to reduce the CCD/CMOS issue technically, it still is difficult to reduce the intuitive experience of those having those system. While I can't subscribe to a CCD look, I don't doubt that photographers can have a real perception of systemic quality.
Sorry for the typos, iPads have drawbacks.
Well stated, and eye opening for both sides of the debate.
I sometimes also feel there is a bit of "Cognitive Dissonance" at play here ... also on both sides of the discussion.
While there may not be the pure scientific logic to support preference for the M9 rendering, there is plenty of empirical evidence. For me it is direct experience and a lot of it, fueled by intuitive observation ... and by extension that of others who's opinion I trust and value.
My pal Irakly is a great photographer IMO, and soldiers on with his M9, I see Doug of Wildlight Photography continue on with his 10 meg crop frame DMR with a CCD and electronics by Imacon when he could have adapted his long Leica R lenses to another camera long ago. Etc. Etc.
I do admit to feeling that there is a disproportionate hue and cry regarding the M(240) "differences", or supposed lack of them compared to the rendering from the M9 ... to quote:
"A key tenet of cognitive dissonance theory is that those who have heavily invested in a position may, when confronted with disconfirming evidence, go to greater lengths to justify their position." thus my: "Me Thinks thou protest to much" post when a retailer posts their "evidence". As an ad man, I've sat through enough blind product comparisons to know how flawed that approach is.
To be fair, the same could be said about others defending the CCD verses CMOS based solely on second-hand web info.
Personally, I am not trying to defend a my personal preference and intuitions ... it is MY choice, and I sure am not trying to convince anyone else it is right or wrong ... just that it is right for me.
Heck, I currently do not have either a M9 or M(240) ... all rangefinder work is done with a MM ... so I have zero motivation to even engage in this debate. However, I do wish I could have smoothly transitioned to a M(240) and availed myself of the camera's functional improvements ... while retaining the look and feel I got from the M9 which IMO was unique amongst 35mm cameras, and a image companion in continuity with my S system.
Actually, it beggars the imagination that Leica didn't see their own unique image properties compared to the myriad other choices, and didn't do what was necessary in the CMOS image chain to retain it.
IF it is the non-sensor aspects that led to the M(240) differences, is it not possible to alter those? Can a M9 Profile be created as suggested by others here? If it is the sensor filtration, can a second version of the M be produced like how other camera companies are doing? I don't want a ME with less functionality, I want M functionality that renders in the unique manner the M9 did/does.
- Marc