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!

the monochrom - CCD vs CMOS

jonoslack

Active member
Very true, my read of him is shallow as I can only judge on posts that I've read here and elsewhere. My impression of him is not particularly favourable, especially when he lays into another user about things that were not really central the conversation. Fact correcting in such a strong and arrogant way gives the impression of someone who's trolling the conversation looking for an opportunity to post something that will reinforce the impression he's trying to give that he's an expert, not someone who's trying to actually contribute to the conversation.
Oh Dear!
Me and Vivek go back for (almost) decades, and we’ve laid into each other on numerous occasions for one reason or another.

. . . I’m rather mortified that you should think that I’m trying to reinforce the impression that I’m an expert (I’m not).

Ooops (blown it!)
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Very true, my read of him is shallow as I can only judge on posts that I've read here and elsewhere. My impression of him is not particularly favourable, especially when he lays into another user about things that were not really central the conversation. Fact correcting in such a strong and arrogant way gives the impression of someone who's trolling the conversation looking for an opportunity to post something that will reinforce the impression he's trying to give that he's an expert, not someone who's trying to actually contribute to the conversation.
Dez

Jono in my experience is one of the most humble appropriate guys you would encounter. Perhaps the conversation he responded to was a bit
over the top ... the OP for that issue has had a bone to pick with Leica for a LONG time. Think that he may have gotten under Jono's skin
and really this exchange J/V does not represent the true character of either of the players.

Jono ... a troll ... not a chance ... it is hard to get him to engage as he has IMO an idyllic life on a small island. Beautiful wife ... gorgeous family ...
dogs to die for ... and a kitchen my wife would love. So reality is that the troll may be his apposite. And I truly enjoy V .... but at times
all of us want to correct distortions in the fabric of the Universe.

I assume that if you had an afternoon with him at the local Pub your impression would be much different.

Please take this not as an attack or criticism ... just presenting a different view of the scrum.

Regards,

Bob
 

DezFoto

New member
Oh Dear!
Me and Vivek go back for (almost) decades, and we’ve laid into each other on numerous occasions for one reason or another.

. . . I’m rather mortified that you should think that I’m trying to reinforce the impression that I’m an expert (I’m not).

Ooops (blown it!)
Ah, well this would be the defusing tension that MGrayson eluded to, I suppose. ;).

At any rate, going back to your original rebuttal of Vivek, you are unfortunately incorrect, ALL of the M9 generation sensors will at some point suffer from corrosion, as will the first round of replacement sensors which had the exact same sensor cover glass. This was admitted to me by the tech that received my M9 when I sent it in for evaluation, and this is the reason I decided to take the credit towards an M240 at the time and sold my other M9 to a friend who was willing to wait for the sensor replacement. So in my opinion, buying an MM is a "buyer beware" situation and one should take into consideration that they may have to pay for a sensor replacement at some point in the future.
That being said, I love the MM and for some reason I'm more drawn to it that the M246, maybe because it's the original? Not sure if it's in my head, but I feel the CCD images have a bit more "bite" to them and the grain pattern is a bit more random.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I have had two M246 and one MM1 ...

No doubt about it ... there may be more resolution in the M246 but the MM1 was much more sharp ... easier to attain an analogic capture and representation.

Biggest advantage of the M246 is no sensor issue ... better battery ... and better implementation of the EVF.

Love them both ... may drop the Q for a M246 as it is the only available camera at the moment.

Just trying to avoid buying a Phase Achromatic.

Bob
 

jonoslack

Active member
Ah, well this would be the defusing tension that MGrayson eluded to, I suppose. ;).

At any rate, going back to your original rebuttal of Vivek, you are unfortunately incorrect, ALL of the M9 generation sensors will at some point suffer from corrosion, as will the first round of replacement sensors which had the exact same sensor cover glass. This was admitted to me by the tech that received my M9 when I sent it in for evaluation, and this is the reason I decided to take the credit towards an M240 at the time and sold my other M9 to a friend who was willing to wait for the sensor replacement. So in my opinion, buying an MM is a "buyer beware" situation and one should take into consideration that they may have to pay for a sensor replacement at some point in the future.
That being said, I love the MM and for some reason I'm more drawn to it that the M246, maybe because it's the original? Not sure if it's in my head, but I feel the CCD images have a bit more "bite" to them and the grain pattern is a bit more random.
Well, my real problem with Vivek was saying that it was costing €1500 when actually it was €982.

I quite agree with you about the first round of replacements - there was a point about 3 years ago when they managed to produce new sensors - whether “all sensors will at some point fail” remains to be seen (I’ve talked to technicians too), they may, or they may not, so the best you can say is that I may one day be proved to be incorrect! (My technician might know more than your technician!) :)

But I would say that if you buy a camera which is more than 5 years old you might expect some problems, and at least this one is out in the open, and there is a solution which includes a service (which would cost nearly as much as the sensor replacement).
 

DezFoto

New member
Well, my real problem with Vivek was saying that it was costing €1500 when actually it was €982.

I quite agree with you about the first round of replacements - there was a point about 3 years ago when they managed to produce new sensors - whether “all sensors will at some point fail” remains to be seen (I’ve talked to technicians too), they may, or they may not, so the best you can say is that I may one day be proved to be incorrect! (My technician might know more than your technician!) :)

But I would say that if you buy a camera which is more than 5 years old you might expect some problems, and at least this one is out in the open, and there is a solution which includes a service (which would cost nearly as much as the sensor replacement).
I would agree with you there. I think cameras that had their sensors replaced after September 2015 should have the new sensor and be ok going forward, but there's a grey area there where new cameras were still being sold with the old, defective sensor and cameras that were being repaired under warranty were getting the old sensor. A bit of a mess, but I applaud Leica for owning up to the problem and doing their best to make it up to their customers.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I think the only people who are truly concerned with accurate colour are those who do reproduction photographs of art, otherwise accurate colour is not very appealing.
Accurate color is vital for all photography, especially portraits. Whether I change that color to something else should be my decision not an engineer's. But having the camera reproduce some random palette is not useful if the reason I am photographing something is the colors I am seeing.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I would agree with you there. I think cameras that had their sensors replaced after September 2015 should have the new sensor and be ok going forward, but there's a grey area there where new cameras were still being sold with the old, defective sensor and cameras that were being repaired under warranty were getting the old sensor. A bit of a mess, but I applaud Leica for owning up to the problem and doing their best to make it up to their customers.
Easy to check, as the cameras with the new (fixed) sensor have a different firmware number (can’t remember off the top of my head). I agree though, there was a muddy area around then. But I’m sure that if you’d had the sensor replaced in 2015 with another old sensor, then they’d consider that less than 5 years old.

As for charging - as I understand it, it still doesn’t even nearly cover the cost to them (which is why they’re so keen you have an upgrade) but they did give about 4 months notice that they would start charging, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to charge a proportion of the cost (and only for cameras more than 5 years old).
 

jonoslack

Active member
Accurate color is vital for all photography, especially portraits. Whether I change that color to something else should be my decision not an engineer's. But having the camera reproduce some random palette is not useful if the reason I am photographing something is the colors I am seeing.
Oh Will
The key word in this is “Accurate”, sure, such a thing exists, but only in completely flat, even lighting, with no shadows and no mixing of light sources.

In any mixed lighting situation (which basically starts with anything with a shadow and goes on upward to a normal sunlit scene, where the colour temperature can vary by 4000K). There Is No Truth.

Human eyes are brilliant at doing localised WB adjustment (which cameras still can’t do). But the corollary of this is that we almost certainly all see things differently. So that the colours you are seeing are unlikely to be the colours anyone else is seeing.

For archival purposes - colour needs to be right - but I really think that for any other situation colour just needs to be Good!

. . . And don’t get me on to skin tones! How are the camera companies to get it right when all the pharmacies in Western Europe stock “tanning” cosmetics and all those in the far east stock “whitening” cosmetics!
 

DezFoto

New member
Accurate color is vital for all photography, especially portraits. Whether I change that color to something else should be my decision not an engineer's. But having the camera reproduce some random palette is not useful if the reason I am photographing something is the colors I am seeing.
Well, the irony of that statement is that you've never used a camera that has "accurate colours". And realistically what you're probably concerned with is perceptual accuracy vs true accuracy. You can have a camera and lighting setup perfectly dialled in with your macbeth chart, and still have wildly "inaccurate" looking skin in your portraits as well. It's part of the frustration of digital photography, there's far too many variables involved and the reality is that the engineers have made thousands of decisions before you've even snapped your photo.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
My MM sensor replacement was very recent. The camera was probably around 5 years old. It failed swiftly. From no corrosion to bad in just months. Leica replaced it free. I do not need or want anything else. It does everything I want and need. It remains one of my major creative tools professionally and personally.

I feel Jono does represent Leica to some degree, and in some cases may know things that he cannot reveal due to nondisclosure agreements. This may include proprietary service information that he can hint at but not reveal in detail. Nothing new or unique about this.

It is nice that Leica owners have a voice at Leica even if they decide to not listen to it. As it is, he is a gentleman who presents information in a positive vein which is to be expected. Personally, I still try to separate data from opinion, but Jono also tries to do that himself.

I find other's with a more strident tone tend to state their personal opinion as if it were universal fact ... maybe it is a cultural thing.

- Marc
 

jonoslack

Active member
Well, the irony of that statement is that you've never used a camera that has "accurate colours". And realistically what you're probably concerned with is perceptual accuracy vs true accuracy. You can have a camera and lighting setup perfectly dialled in with your macbeth chart, and still have wildly "inaccurate" looking skin in your portraits as well. It's part of the frustration of digital photography, there's far too many variables involved and the reality is that the engineers have made thousands of decisions before you've even snapped your photo.
I couldn’t agree more . . And isn’t it delightful that there isn’t a solution (first we must agree that we all see the same colour). . . . And it can only be perfectly dialled in with your macbeth chart if there are no shadows and absolutely uniform lighting.

We are forced to contend with “What we Like” . . Which in the context of this thread is rather an accolade for the Leica M9, whose colour seems to be universally liked (even experimentally).
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Here is what I know:

The sensors (M8 onwards) are custom made for leica. Leica chose to forego a plain cover glass as most manufacturers do and instead opted to integrate the UV/IR cut filter directly on a bare sensor. This is to minimize flat glass induced aberrations. This (thinnest glass in the optical path) along with specially designed microlenses on the pixel elements brought the best out of the short flange focal Leica lenses. All this is every bit Leica design. Kodak might have manufactured the CCD sensors.

UV/IR leak, sensor exfoliation and such are all due to this design choice from Leica. They are responsible and not Kodak.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Here is what I know:

The sensors (M8 onwards) are custom made for leica. Leica chose to forego a plain cover glass as most manufacturers do and instead opted to integrate the UV/IR cut filter directly on a bare sensor. This is to minimize flat glass induced aberrations. This (thinnest glass in the optical path) along with specially designed microlenses on the pixel elements brought the best out of the short flange focal Leica lenses. All this is every bit Leica design. Kodak might have manufactured the CCD sensors.

UV/IR leak, sensor exfoliation and such are all due to this design choice from Leica. They are responsible and not Kodak.
Absolutely . . No question. . . The problem was to make a cover glass thin enough that you could use M lenses succesfully (something nobody else has even bothered to attempt - and quite right too, why would they - but Leica had to).

. . But without this experimentation we wouldn’t have a digital M at all, and lots of happy M10 users are a tribute to this (and I still like my M9 and MM).

. . And they’re looking after the M9 and MM users who have sensor issues (I know you don’t think it’s reasonable to charge after 5 years - but here we’ll have to differ)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Well, the irony of that statement is that you've never used a camera that has "accurate colours". And realistically what you're probably concerned with is perceptual accuracy vs true accuracy. You can have a camera and lighting setup perfectly dialled in with your macbeth chart, and still have wildly "inaccurate" looking skin in your portraits as well. It's part of the frustration of digital photography, there's far too many variables involved and the reality is that the engineers have made thousands of decisions before you've even snapped your photo.
Well, since colors don't actually exist, it can only be about perception. But there are standard models for human perception that work very well--hence reproduction photography. And since you recognize that skin needs to be reproduced well, then I imagine you want a certain degree of fidelity. The idea that inaccurate colors are some ideal, even if perceive as more pleasing, is not a great way to work. And this has been true long before digital photography. Digital photography just gives more control over color.
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
UV/IR leak, sensor exfoliation and such are all due to this design choice from Leica. They are responsible and not Kodak.
Leica specified the sensor cover ... Kodak underperformed. Leica accepted responsibility for a poor cover from Kodak ...
and replaced the thing gratis for years. I personally cannot blame Leica for a design choice ... but can blame the one
who implemented the design.

But bottom line ... this is old history ... no one with a damaged sensor has been without warning. My S sensors failed years ago.
Time to move on ...

You love Sony ... we all get it. Personally cannot engage with all the minutiae that their haptics require.

Looking forward to new sensors and imaging that puts all this where it belongs ... deep in the photo history grave.

Not worth the energy emotion nor the bandwidth.

Hope to spend a few precious moments tomorrow stalking the light.

Bob
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I miscalculated that they would continue to sell a flawed product.

I expected the color and moire issues of M9 would be absent in tne MM but did not expect the exfoliating cover glass. I thought they would have learnt from M9 and fixed it (as they are doing now) instead to selling MM with the same cover glass.

Great learning experience, no doubt. :)



jonoslack; said:
. . And they’re looking after the M9 and MM users who have sensor issues (I know you don’t think it’s reasonable to charge after 5 years - but here we’ll have to differ)
 

Shashin

Well-known member
...(first we must agree that we all see the same color)...

...an accolade for the Leica M9, whose colour seems to be universally liked (even experimentally).
Are you sure we don't see the same color? If the color from the M9 is universally liked...

As with most things, what we share is far more than what we don't.

The color checker is a bit of a red herring. It is a useful tool, but even with its limitations, it does not actually show that color is a random response that is simply a matter of taste, although photographers will mix to taste. And I have used lots of color material from Polaroids, slides, and negative films to dye transfer prints and print film. While every material had limitations, they all shared the same aspect in that they reproduce color to the best of their ability. Digital photography is no different--camera companies want to give you an image that reflects what you are perceiving (using a process that perceives color differently from how you eye perceives color). This is why with a group of random images, you would see the commonality among them, not their differences.

I agree color is subjective--it cannot be anything else. But it is not random...
 

Shashin

Well-known member
This is what I like about GetDPI. It is the only place where you can talk about color in a thread about monochrome cameras...
 

JohnBrew

Active member
This is what I like about GetDPI. It is the only place where you can talk about color in a thread about monochrome cameras...
:ROTFL::ROTFL::

So true. The real solution, if you're ok with CCD, is an M8 or M8.2 and convert those images which are suitable to bw. The original Leica digital M punched far above it's specifications. My 2 cents.
 
Top