CCD or CMOS - you choose

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono, I (at least I did not) do not think it was directed entirely at you. Just look at some of the posts, everything about color is falling apart if you take some of the posters at their word.

I agree with Joris that this is a futile discussion that is not doing well for Leica in general (my take based on what I read here).

Hi Vivek
I'm sure it wasn't directed just at me - and I'm not offended, and I think that perhaps you're right that it's futile.

I'm just unhappy with the implication that I'm a crusader for CMOS (I'm not) - As scientist born,bred and educated I'm just deeply sceptical that there is an inherent colour difference between CCD and CMOS - and as for attaching value judgements to this non-definable difference!

But I absolutely acknowledge the difference between all different cameras - and I have absolutely no argument against anyone's artistic preferences - personally some of my favourite cameras have been CCD, and some CMOS . . . .

all the best

 

[fotografz]

As much as I like the out-of-camera look of the M9 files I'm not at all sure I'd want the M240 files to be made to look and or behave the same.

The M9 files are punchier largely due to having less dynamic range but are less amenable to post. I find the M240 files slightly flatter but far more malleable and the DR a real improvement.

I guess the preference depends on individual photographer’s subject matter and workflow. Perhaps I might think differently if I was a wedding photographer regularly having to process thousands of files.

I understand that Keith. However, those that like the M(240) rendering aren't the subject of this thread nor the reason that the original comparison was conducted.

I think there is an agreement that the OOC files are different. Whether the M(240) files can be manipulated to produce a similar look and feel of the M9 seems to be the question for those favoring the M9 ... whether it is desirable for M(240) users isn't the question.

My observations have less to do with DR which I rarely had an issue with the M9 ... it is the M(240)'s initial flat file and especially color, which I find less natural ... more specifically, I have seen very few images where the skin looks right to my eye ... and skin tones are very difficult to manipulate and retain realism ... all of which is definitely subjective, but my opinion none-the-less.

I did use a M9 for a lot of Wedding work, and in a few cases as the primary camera, but more for street, lifestyle and travel ... overwhelmingly involving people. I do not shoot much static work or images without people. The emphasis has always been "decisive moment" type humanistic studies where I prefer a rangefinder over all other choices.

I also observed that M9 files more to my liking when converted to B&W ... probably due to the contrast curve.

Here is a work-a-day type location wedding shoot where the M9 played a bit more dominate role than my usual mix of rangefinder, DSLR, MF work. The photographic approach used here was meant to express the personalities of the clients as opposed to my mine. The first 9 spreads were done with the M9 ... color and B&W (it was before I had a MM).

Boston Wedding Album - fotografz

Anyway ...

- Marc

 

[JohnBrew]

Well, I had an M9P and wasn't all at that impressed. Perhaps because I process most of my files as bw and it couldn't touch my M8.2. Then I rented an M240 and while the color didn't knock my socks off, the bw conversion did. While I continue to use the 8.2 for unobtrusive street shooting, the M-P I eventually purchased is excellent and I found I prefer it over the MM for "my style" of bw conversions.

As an aside, the M8 color was excellent, of which I corrected the sale of by purchasing the 8.2. Not sure why but I found it better than the M9-P. Perhaps it was the thickness of the AA filter? All this, of course, is very subjective and as long as someone is happy with their output (either CCD or CMOS), who else should care?

 

[KeithL]

...and skin tones are very difficult to manipulate and retain realism[/I][/U] ... all of which is definitely subjective, but my opinion none-the-less...

- Marc

Marc, I have to admit the skin tones I deal with tend to be Mediterranean or similar. I can appreciate your work involves a much wider gamut and with it associated issues.

Best

Keith

 

[Mike Woods]

I for one love the M240 colours

Mike

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

. . . people buy lots of lenses - but not so many camera bodies!

An intriguing comment. I'm not sure I would agree. With minimal GAS management, I find I buy lenses only once and keep them, while I get each really new body that comes along to support them, and recycle bodies to e-Bay if they still have some value.

After a quick visit to the closet, I guess I've got 17 lenses in M mounts, 3 Rs, and am currently using two of the eight M bodies that I have owned. Right now, the money spent on bodies is about equal to the money spent on lenses (if I don't count two R telephotos), and I'll continue replacing bodies in the future. In micro4/3, the score is four primes and three bodies, two in regular use. I've spent much more on bodies than primes, about the same amount on bodies as on three zooms. If I am so foolish as to wander into a store that has M5ii's behind the counter in the next weeks, bodies will go back into the lead.

I guess why I find Jono's concern puzzling is that those lenses in the closet keep telling me what bodies to buy. It's not a decision I agonize over. They have certainly not been whispering "Fuji" to me, for example.

scott

 

[Vivek]

It is the Sony A7 bodies that see more use of the Leica lenses. It is a fact. Look at the lengths some of the Leica owners go to make them usable on the A7 cameras.

Fuji offers cropped sensor cams. Cute but limited like the NEX' were.

 

[jonoslack]

An intriguing comment. I'm not sure I would agree. With minimal GAS management, I find I buy lenses only once and keep them, while I get each really new body that comes along to support them, and recycle bodies to e-Bay if they still have some value.

You might easily be right Scott . . . a quick look at my camera indicates that it has a serial number of 4912470 and a lens: 4297270 . . . both are pretty new, so it seems there might have been more bodies then lenses.

Still - I don't think people singing the praises of the rigid summicron has nearly as much effect on sales of new lenses.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

An interesting data point on bodies vs lenses -- I was catching up on some Kirk Tuck blog posts today and saw that after accumulating four used E-M5s and falling in love with them, he's taking them all back to his pusher in order to get his second E-M5ii. And his favorite lens to use with the M5ii is an ancient film Pen 60 or 80 or something. This after he had concluded that the M5ii's video wasn't quite the breakthru that he had hoped for. So he's a body man even more than a lens man. Or maybe more faithful to his lenses than to his bodies.

scott

 

[k-hawinkler]

I like using E-M1, E-M5 with VF-4, and E-M5 II next to each other.
Why not? :banghead: Oh, and the M9, D200, D800E, A7R, ...! :thumbs:

Back on topic! There is nothing any single one of us can do about CCD or CMOS!
Whatever new and better technology the (computer) industry at large will figure out to produce economically might some future day be the winner.
Until then CMOS rules except for some special niches IMHO.