400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

I don't.

 

 

... there is a strong demand for CCD sensors in M cameras.

Not really. The preference for CCD is based mostly on misconceptions. I do agree that CCD images, at or near base ISO, often look very nice right out of the camera. But this doesn't mean CCD sensors were better. Because you can get the same look, if that's your desire, from CMOS images with just a few mouseclicks ... or automatically if you set up your raw converter program accordingly.

 

So, given that CMOS sensors offer a vast array of advantages, including live view, video, faster read-out speed, wider dynamic range, and better high-ISO performance, I definitely do not want Leica Camera (or anyone) to stick with CCD technology when CMOS is available.

[Kwesi]

Oh no! Michael, thank you so much for delivering this news to us.

 

Quick question for you: if Leica made a new M camera with an updated CCD sensor, do you think only 400 (or 1,000) would purchase it?

 

—Peter.

 

Peter,

I think the issue for Leica is that for a new CCD sensor to be considered sufficiently updated

It would have to perform as well as it's CMOS sibling at ISO 3200. Unfortunately the CCD technology does not permit that.

 

Kwesi

[Advertisement]

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

[Prosophos]

... Because you can get the same look, if that's your desire, from CMOS images with just a few mouseclicks ... or automatically if you set up your raw converter program accordingly..

 

Oh my goodness this could not be further from the truth.

[Prosophos]

Peter,

I think the issue for Leica is that for a new CCD sensor to be considered sufficiently updated

It would have to perform as well as it's CMOS sibling at ISO 3200. Unfortunately the CCD technology does not permit that.

 

Kwesi

 

You are possibly correct. And I thank you for raising a reasonable point.

 

But people need to remember that photography is mostly done at base ISO, even in the dark regions of Canada where I live.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Prosophos

[Prosophos]

 

Just out of curiosity, did you make prints using an M240 before drawing your conclusions?

 

I have no problem with the petition, or with folks having a contrary view. But I do wonder how much is experience based versus long held belief.

 

Jeff

 

 

Hi Jeff,

 

You're a reasonable guy, so I'd like to at least respond to your question. Yes, I have owned an M240 (twice) and used it to create many images. Of course, I printed some of those images too.

 

Here is some of my work with the M240:

 

Leica M (Type 240) | Photographs by Peter

 

 

Part of the reason I value CCD files is because of how they behave during post processing. There are subtleties there that matter to me.

 

I do understand, however, that other people see things differently.

[Kwesi]

You are possibly correct. And I thank you for raising a reasonable point.

 

But people need to remember that photography is mostly done at base ISO, even in the dark regions of Canada where I live.

 

Let's hope that if Leica is able to find a suitable replacement glass sensor cover, the next ME

Will have a CCD sensor housed in an M240 body with all the relevant electronics updated.

Leica's response to the sensor glass issue shows that not only are they very fond of the M9 but they appreciate what the camera has done to put Leica back on the map.

[fore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own neither yet, but have shot both a couple times and have compared files. Honestly, I do like the colors of the M9 over the M240 and I'm not competent enough to perfect LR so I can make them look exactly the same. However, I appreciate the better resolution, LV, brighter screen and battery life of the 240 better. So I'm kinda glad I'm working on getting the funds together right now, as I keep oscillating b/w the pos. attributes of both camera's. Not to mention how bloody impressed I am with the MM's images, simply fantastic. Too many choices

[01af]

... you can get the same look, if that's your desire, from CMOS images with just a few mouseclicks ... or automatically if you set up your raw converter program accordingly.

Oh my goodness this could not be further from the truth.

I'd be willing to prove my point. Do you have a raw file out of a CMOS-sensor camera that you wish it had been taken with a CCD-sensor camera, which you can provide for us for download to play with? Ideally along with a CCD image of the same or a similar subject, for comparison.

 

My claim is this: It's possible to process, with reasonable effort, any picture taken with a CMOS-sensor camera so it will look as if it was taken with a CCD-sensor camera.

[Anusia]

if Leica made a new M camera with an updated CCD sensor, do you think only 400 (or 1,000) would purchase it?

 

How large is the intersection of photographers who have thought long and hard and come to the conclusion that a new and improved CCD-based camera is what they need, and those photographers able and willing to spend as much as Leica would have to ask for? Probably less than 400.

 

A limited edition with an improved CCD and why not depending on demand perception. I got an MM that is just over a month's old because Leica said they will replace the sensor, not wanting to wait for a newer MM to show up ...

[mjh]

Let's hope that if Leica is able to find a suitable replacement glass sensor cover, the next ME Will have a CCD sensor housed in an M240 body with all the relevant electronics updated.

I would be very surprised if the next M-E wasn’t simply the M (Typ 240) with a few cosmetic changes, i.e. an M-E (Typ 240).

 

Leica's response to the sensor glass issue shows that not only are they very fond of the M9 but they appreciate what the camera has done to put Leica back on the map.

This isn‘t about fond remembrances really. It is about caring for your customers and their investment in the M system (and also about Leica caring for their reputation of course). Just because Leica doesn’t try to force their customers to upgrade to a newer model one should not assume they wouldn’t much prefer if their customers made the switch to CMOS anyway.

[Prosophos]

I would be very surprised if the next M-E wasn’t simply the M (Typ 240) with a few cosmetic changes, i.e. an M-E (Typ 240).

 

 

This isn‘t about fond remembrances really. It is about caring for your customers and their investment in the M system (and also about Leica caring for their reputation of course). Just because Leica doesn’t try to force their customers to upgrade to a newer model one should not assume they wouldn’t much prefer if their customers made the switch to CMOS anyway.

 

And I sincerely thank Leica for taking care of its customers. Whether we prefer CMOS or CCD -- or don't give a darn about either -- one thing all of us share is a passion for Leica products.

 

Listen, I know it's a long shot to hope that CCD continues. But I do have that hope, and apparently others do too.

 

Isn't it crazy that many of us are buying new or second-hand M9/M-E/Monochrom bodies with the knowledge that it's "dated" technology and that the sensors may fail. But such is the devotion to the CCD sensor.

 

Are we all suffering from mass delusion? Maybe, but I know how sweet the files from the M8/M9/M-E are. They are different from CMOS files, and I prefer them.

 

We desire CCD sensors in M bodies. And Leica is just the sort of company to make it happen.

 

Most of us would be more than happy if Leica continued on with the same CCD sensor (accompanied by a non-corroding cover glass).

—Peter.

[2wk]

I'd be willing to prove my point. Do you have a raw file out of a CMOS-sensor camera that you wish it had been taken with a CCD-sensor camera, which you can provide for us for download to play with? Ideally along with a CCD image of the same or a similar subject, for comparison.

 

My claim is this: It's possible to process, with reasonable effort, any picture taken with a CMOS-sensor camera so it will look as if it was taken with a CCD-sensor camera.

 

Peter, I think you should take up 01af on his offer, but make it a portrait. Certain shots could possibly be easy to process "the same". But I find portraits are much more difficult to match complex skin tones with CMOS compared to CCD.

 

Over the weekend I was working as a digital tech for a "big time" photographer on a fashion shoot in the studio. He isn't a very technical guy but he booked the latest and greatest equipment... a Phase 645df+ with an iq250 (CMOS) back.

 

As the model was ready and lighting was getting setup, the camera still had not arrived. So, just to get the lighting dialed, I borrowed a Hassy H4X with an iq140 (CCD) from the studio. The lighting looked great and the test shots were coming out fantastic. I got the white balance and color set up quickly and easily on CaptureOne and the photographer was very pleased. Then the new Phase system arrived. We quickly swapped cameras and I attempted to get the colors matched. Not easy. We shot the color checked again and I tried my best to match the iq140 but it just didn't look the same. Everyone on the shoot preferred the look out of the first camera. Simple solution? Use the first camera!

 

Had we been shooting landscapes, it probably wouldn't have been noticeable and the iq250 is a resolution monster. For subtle skin tones I prefer CCD at this point in time.

 

I don't mean to pull things away from Leica land, but I thought the CCD / CMOS comparison was relevant.

[TonyField]

I suspect that there is no intrinsic colour differentiation between CCD and CMOS. Both technologies do nothing more than count the photons hitting each pixel. On the other hand, the colour filter array does affect the colour representation of the RGB components of the light. The filters for the two sensors probably have different characteristics when separating the three colours - I think this is the cause of the supposed differences that people experience - not the CCD or CMOS design.

 

If I were to suggest a change to get "better colour" on a CMOS type of sensor, it would be to change the purity of the colour filter array by changing the colour response of each of the RGB colours. This might mean changing the exact centre frequency of the colour as well as the sharpnes of the colour cutoff (i.e. change the colour purity of the filters). This might have a negative effect on apparent ISO sensitivity.

 

A few years ago, Canon changed the philosophy of the colour filter array on their cameras in an effort to get higher ISO apparent sensitivity and sacrificed colour purity. Even I (with poor colour differentiation ability) could see a difference among my Canon cameras.

 

In effect, the request to Leica should be to deliver better colour, independent of the technology of the sensor. ... or maybe lobby the sensor manufacturer who puts the sensor system together.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TonyField

[BerndReini]

If Sigma could iron out some of the major shortcomings of their cameras, they would be in a league of their own. Their Foveon sensor will wipe the floor with both CCD and CMOS at base ISO. If a fast full-frame size Foveon sensor would ever be put into a Leica body, I would pay a fortune for it.

[jhgnag]

I'm can't say whether or not CCD is better or worse than CMOS, but I do adore Peter's photos and in particular those taken with the M9/M-E.

 

I recently traded for a demo, like new M-E. I was really on the fence between the M-E and 240, but I just couldn't afford the 240 and I really like Peter's M9/M-E photos better. Who knows, maybe I'll wish I had waited for the 240, but at this point, I'm happy with my decision.

 

I've only had it a week, but so far, I'm really enjoying the M9, especially the color in good light.

[TRIago]

Exactly, as I've said here many times. My post only speaks for me. Choices are good.

 

Practically speaking, I prefer the camera with fewer issues (sensor problems, card issues, etc), that's better weather sealed, has longer battery life, is quieter and smoother like my film Ms, and has a better viewing system. Plus, it offers me more flexibility for longer lenses. I still love my M8.2 for pics, but the M is just a better built and more refined machine….and for me, that was enough incentive to buy. [i hate the discreet mode on my M8.2….eventually that awful motor re-cock kicks in…and the M9 still suffers from freezes for some.]

 

I'm amused though that you consider the M "fat" (and "ugly")….size-wise I can't tell the 1mm difference between my M8.2 and M….when I put them bottom to bottom, or top to top, they're virtually identical. But if your perception varies, so be it…no concern for me. Perception is reality….but like I said in the comment you quoted, it sure helps if one actually tries something to see if perceptions change. I tried before I bought….and skipped what others thought…and made prints.

 

Jeff

 

Well, ugly was a mistake from me. The M240 is not ugly.

Is just not as good looking as the M9.

 

Again, I don't agree with you.

 

1) Fewer issues? Let's wait to see if nothing will go wrong with the M240. I hope not, but problems might arrive. We just don't know yet, I'm sorry for that.

 

2) The M240 is not more refined. It is exactly the inverse. To my eyes, the M9 is the more refined machine. The M240 has a lot of stuff getting on the way of the photographer and that's not refinement at all. LV, more complicated menus, more buttons, EVF, not so good image quality compared to ccd, it is too big, and so on... The M9 goes to the point. It is 100% all about the experience. The LCD is bad, but I don't use it to see images, only for the menu - which is amazingly simple. Just love it. Weather sealed? Not needed at all. Longer lenses? I respect folks using the M240 for that, but there are way better machines for this purpose out there - like Canons and Nikons, for instance. Quieter? Again, my M9 goes on discreet mode, so for my use, it doesn't get more quiet than that. The only pro of the M240 over the M9, for my taste, is the battery life. Again, it is all my point of view. As Jeff wrote his point of view.

 

Machines are better or worse depending of what one expect from it. It's so simple to understand. This is a topic for the CCD lovers. If one is not, everybody is gotta respect that. But it gets kind of weird to come here (in this topic) and say the other machine is better because of this, this and that. It is just not true.

I'm sure the M240 is a fine machine. I'd have one as well if I could (in fact, I'd have all the M's if I had the cash). But it would be great keep this topic for the lover os the CCD. I believe there is a topic for CCD x CMOS already somewhere out there.

Edited January 28, 2015 by TRIago

[batmobile]

Its a nice idea and certainly everyone having what they want would be great, but I cannot remotely see it happening. CCD is dying out in the evolution of sensors and this is for the reasons already mentioned. Economics will prevent resurrection, because Leica would be foolish to syphon of R&D funds that could be put into other products with a larger market, even if that product is the only FF M they make.

 

I love my Monochrom, but not because of its CCD. Does it have something special, especially at base ISO? Maybe. Does it matter much in the grand scheme of things? No. We will have to wait for the M240 Monochrom for the comparisons to begin again!

 

As for colour and look, I personally find the Sony sensors in the A7 and A7R rather nice. Colour is spot on, colour depth tremendous and there is IMHO much more to be gained with the additional DR and other merits than would be gained by tiny subjective improvements in base performance and colour on a CCD. The problem is not CMOS. The problem is the quality of the images produced by it in the case of each camera release. IMHO, the Sony sensors show what can be done.

 

As for the OP's assertion that most photos are taken at base ISO, I do not think this is true for a lot of people. In one of the last portfolios I produced, the most used ISO was 800... A CCD would have fallen apart (unless it was the Monochrom).

[jip]

Maybe this is gonna make me step on someone's toes but here it is:

 

There is no difference in look from CCD or CMOS, they can both look the same but straight out of the camera the CMOS file looks flat. But if you use Lightroom you can simply make the files both look exactly the same. So people who claim the CCD files are better are just not skilled enough in Lightroom to make a 'better' CMOS file look great like the not so flexible CCD file straight out of the camera.

 

I have been writing an article about this for a while now with some Lightroom profiles and really this thread makes me want to proof it again. That there is no difference if your skills in the post processing are good enough.

 

I might release the profile for 100 euro, since there are people who would easily spend this money.

[batmobile]

Colour matching two cameras is a bit more difficult, however.

 

Not liking the colour from the M240 does not mean all CMOS sensors are inferior to CCD for colour.

 

Being able to broadly match the generic look of CCD with CMOS at base ISO does not mean a person will not prefer a particular CCD output. After all, it is the sensor plus all the processing that happens before we open the RAW on our computer.

 

I vastly prefer the colour from the A7 and A7R to the M240. Its this that seems to be the problem to me, not the fact that the M240 uses a CMOS sensor.

 

I agree that working on post processing is important, but disagree that getting a perfect match is always possible. I'd go as far as to say that getting this perfect match, for some, has taken over from the central purpose *surely) of taking pictures worth looking at!

 

Maybe this is gonna make me step on someone's toes but here it is:

 

There is no difference in look from CCD or CMOS, they can both look the same but straight out of the camera the CMOS file looks flat. But if you use Lightroom you can simply make the files both look exactly the same. So people who claim the CCD files are better are just not skilled enough in Lightroom to make a 'better' CMOS file look great like the not so flexible CCD file straight out of the camera.

 

I have been writing an article about this for a while now with some Lightroom profiles and really this thread makes me want to proof it again. That there is no difference if your skills in the post processing are good enough.

 

I might release the profile for 100 euro, since there are people who would easily spend this money.

Edited January 28, 2015 by batmobile

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Prosophos]

....So people who claim the CCD files are better are just not skilled enough in Lightroom to make a 'better' CMOS file look great like the not so flexible CCD file straight out of the camera....

 

 

Once again, this is completely false.

 

Have you ever considered that perhaps your eyes are "just not skilled enough" to appreciate the nuances between the two outputs?

 

(Many people, including non-photographers, perceive a difference.)

 

And I'm not only referring to the final outputs, but also to the behaviour of the files under post processing.

 

The fact that you refer to the CCD files as "not so flexible" is rather... curious. Perhaps you are "just not skilled enough" in LR...

 

Maybe a miracle "one-size-fits-all" LR profile approach will cure everything.

 

Then again, like you, I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's "toes".

 

—Peter.