CCD vs CMOS

[jmkays]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forum members have expressed their views on this, but has Leica provided an official response explaining why CCD was used in the M9 when most pro cameras today use the CMOS sensor? Wonder if it was a form factor consideration? Had to be challenging to find any FF sensor that would perform in such a restricted physical space.

[vanhulsenbeek]

A search could be useful! This Forum has a good search function

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jmkays]

And if you're that adept at searching posts, no doubt you could have replied with a link in the time it took you to post a sophomoric response.

[jaapv]

It is very simple - the acceptance angle of CMos sensors is smaller than the maximum incidence angle of wideangle lenses that have the short register angle used in rangefinders, even with the Kodak/Leica shifted microlens technology. So they are unusable for a rangefinder. The RD1, with its 1.5x crop sensor was plagued by vignetting problems. It would have been unacceptable for 1.3x like the M8 and impossible for full frame on the M9. And the image quality at base ISO is better on CCD sensors. The reason many other manufacturers use CMos sensors is that they are considerably cheaper to make, and have lower power consumption. There are fewer heat problems, so they can be used for live view and EVF applications, which are of no interest to Leica. For instance Canon has its own CMos sensor factory, and no capacity to produce CCD sensors. Medium format backs use CCD sensors for quality reasons.

Edited March 21, 2011 by jaapv

[jmkays]

Thanks, mate. Ran a few searches here and came up with threads on pro & con of the two sensors, but not Leica's position.

[3rdtrick]

Thanks Jaap,

That begrudged CCD was one of the selling points of the M9 to me. I was very disappointed when Nikon caved in and dropped the CCD sensor. I still look back on my D200 images and often thinking of trading my D300 for a D200... I am pleased with Leica choosing the CCD and hope that they continue it for the M10, well maybe not then I won't have to have it...

Pete

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks Jaap,

That begrudged CCD was one of the selling points of the M9 to me. I was very disappointed when Nikon caved in and dropped the CCD sensor. I still look back on my D200 images and often thinking of trading my D300 for a D200... I am pleased with Leica choosing the CCD and hope that they continue it for the M10, well maybe not then I won't have to have it...

Pete

My feeling exactly. If Leica drops the CCD the alternative had better be something spectacularly good, not one of the run-of-the-mill CMos sensors we see today.

[larryk34]

I'd always prefer that Leica stick with CCD sensors. What's interesting to me is how much the CMOS sensors will be improved in the other cameras over the next 2-3 years, especially the Panasonic G cameras that take Leica and other lenses. Right now, their sensors do not do justice to the Leica lenses. They still work well, but the image quality is far from the M9. But they're improving. Will the day come when the CMOS sensors will match the Leica M lens quality? For under $ 1000 or so. The GH2 sensor is already much improved. If the G3 or GH3 is substantially better, then I might replace my G1 with it. I carry the G1 for backup and telephoto purposes. But sometimes I think the cropped/zoom image from the M9 with the 50mm lux is just as good or better than the zoomed ones on the G1. Don't forget. Leica also uses those Panasonic sensors in cameras of its "own." This always looks like a great technology race to me and a trick to get us to put more gadgets on the shelf or in the basement with our old computers.

[Alnitak]

It is very simple - the acceptance angle of CMos sensors is smaller than the maximum incidence angle of wideangle lenses that have the short register angle used in rangefinders, even with the Kodak/Leica shifted microlens technology. So they are unusable for a rangefinder. The RD1, with its 1.5x crop sensor was plagued by vignetting problems. It would have been unacceptable for 1.3x like the M8 and impossible for full frame on the M9. And the image quality at base ISO is better on CCD sensors. The reason many other manufacturers use CMos sensors is that they are considerably cheaper to make, and have lower power consumption. There are fewer heat problems, so they can be used for live view and EVF applications, which are of no interest to Leica. For instance Canon has its own CMos sensor factory, and no capacity to produce CCD sensors. Medium format backs use CCD sensors for quality reasons.

 

Jaap,

 

This is the first I have ever heard of angle of incidence as a factor in this decision. Do you have some more detail on this that you can point me to? I'm interested in learning more about this.

[phancj]

I am just curious how much of the better image quality is attributed to the lack of an AA filter, better image processing algorithms, better lenses of leica etc than just the mere comparison between the 2 sensors?

 

Of course we will not know for certain unless we have 2 exact cameras using the 2 types but I would be very interested to know just what is the aprroximate magnitude of advantage of having a CCD over CMOS.

 

CJ

[AlanG]

If the Kodak CCD sensors are so much better than CMOS sensors, then why haven't other camera manufacturers been using the same or similar Kodak CCDs with or without AA filters to make full frame 35mm or 1.3x cameras?

Edited March 22, 2011 by AlanG

[phancj]

I believe I read that cmos is less expensive so accord higher margins for makers. Also noise apparently is better controlled in cmos.

However top-of-the-line stuff normally still use CCDs so probably image quality is better.

[zlatkob]

If Leica drops the CCD the alternative had better be something spectacularly good, not one of the run-of-the-mill CMos sensors we see today.

CMOS isn't always second best. Erwin Puts wrote this about the Nikon D3X (which has a CMOS sensor): "The Leica M9 is quite close to the Nikon D3x in definition and resolution, but Nikon photographers do not need to fear that the M9 will dethrone the D3x as the reference camera for state of the art quality. Stunning as the M9 pictures are, they must be put in context and then the Nikon D3x images are just better."

 

The D3X also easily leads among full-frame cameras on DxOMark's sensor rankings, with the highest overall score. It ranked first for color depth and dynamic range (among full-frame cameras). I'm not a Nikon user, but with such high honors from Erwin Puts and DxOMark, it appears that Nikon must be using phenomenal CMOS sensors.

Edited March 22, 2011 by zlatkob

[AlanG]

I believe I read that cmos is less expensive so accord higher margins for makers. Also noise apparently is better controlled in cmos.

However top-of-the-line stuff normally still use CCDs so probably image quality is better.

 

By "top-of-the-line" I presume you mean medium format backs. Are there any CMOS sensors available in those larger sizes to compare them? I don't know what a Kodak full frame sensor costs but it seems odd to me that only Leica is using them in a typical 35mm camera when they are readily available to all.

Edited March 22, 2011 by AlanG

[phancj]

YEs, I mean the mf backs.

 

I feel the M9 images are in a class of its own....thats why I asked the earlier question of how much the better image quality is attributed to the sensor choice, and how much to other factors. We simply cannot ignore the extent of advantage from leica lenses and image processing.

 

I read that 35mm sensors are cheaper in cmos.

 

CJ

Edited March 22, 2011 by phancj

[Bert N]

There is a good review here of techniques to correct the chief ray angle to minimize vignetting due to oblique incident light. The argument that CCD technology is better than CMOS is simply incorrect. Modern CMOS imagers offer lower noise, lower power, much higher frame rate, freedom from image smear, antiblooming, on-chip ADC and CDS circuitry. CMOS devices are also much more radiation tolerant than CCDs. Note that the cost to produce CMOS devices is relatively lower than CCDs in high production volumes, but the initial development costs are actually much higher, especially for custom designed sensors, so I'm not sure if Leica can afford to introduce a new CMOS based M camera because of their relatively low production volume.

 

Jaap,

 

This is the first I have ever heard of angle of incidence as a factor in this decision. Do you have some more detail on this that you can point me to? I'm interested in learning more about this.

[Artichoke]

and his Compendium is a very useful resource

CMOS isn't always second best. Erwin Puts wrote this about the Nikon D3X (which has a CMOS sensor): "The Leica M9 is quite close to the Nikon D3x in definition and resolution, but Nikon photographers do not need to fear that the M9 will dethrone the D3x as the reference camera for state of the art quality. Stunning as the M9 pictures are, they must be put in context and then the Nikon D3x images are just better."

 

The D3X also easily leads among full-frame cameras on DxOMark's sensor rankings, with the highest overall score. It ranked first for color depth and dynamic range (among full-frame cameras). I'm not a Nikon user, but with such high honors from Erwin Puts and DxOMark, it appears that Nikon must be using phenomenal CMOS sensors.

I disagree with him here

I had the D3X for about a year before getting my M9

I use it now almost exclusively for long telephoto photography (birds & bugs) & macros of flowers, though with my Viso I have using the M9 more often now as well

the differences between the two cameras are so great as to make any comparison specious

that said, the M9's files seem at least the match of those from the D3X, from my experience with both cameras

curiously I prefer the M9's color rendering and the difference seems greatest at higher ISOs and its tonality in wide dynamic range photographs

I was delighted when I learned the M9 would use a Kodak CCD & I hope Leica continues this productive partnership

Edited March 22, 2011 by Artichoke

[diogenis]

If the Kodak CCD sensors are so much better than CMOS sensors, then why haven't other camera manufacturers been using the same or similar Kodak CCDs with or without AA filters to make full frame 35mm or 1.3x cameras?

 

Like who?

Canon has its own cmos production in place. Obviously there were reasons to invest in cmos. Price seems to me the most important one. Then its that power consumption thing that further implies more price cuts. If you were a big player like Canon what would you chose?

Judging by their place now, they were surely right, they sell far more cameras than Leica, but it's also true that Leica has the best camera

[Washington]

I do agree with jimkay as a link is soooo easy to provide …I have been frustrated many

times by this ‘’go and do it yourself'' thing when just being helpful is just as easy.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Linsengericht]

The reason many other manufacturers use CMos sensors is that they are considerably cheaper to make

 

For small quantities, CCD is much easier to design and more cost efficient.

CMOS sensors are much more complex and only cheap if manufactured in very large quantities.

 

There are fewer heat problems, so they can be used for live view and EVF applications

 

The reason why CCD can not do live view is readout speed. The inherently serial read out method of the charge coupled device limits the read out speed. CMOS can read out and process many pixels in parallel and thus be much faster. Also, CMOS can read out a subset of pixels if needed. CCD by design can not do that.

 

For instance Canon has its own CMos sensor factory, and no capacity to produce CCD sensors.

 

The underlying technology for CCD is simpler than CMOS. They could build CCD if they wanted, but they want CMOS for good reasons.