Jump to content

400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!


Prosophos

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Right so let's put two images that have been processed next to each other and ask a fine art specialist if he know which one is CCD and which CMOS. It is for a fact certain that the M9 files are less flexible than the M240 files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so let's put two images that have been processed next to each other and ask a fine art specialist if he know which one is CCD and which CMOS. It is for a fact certain that the M9 files are less flexible than the M240 files.

 

What's the point? If you like your M240 so much, I don't understand why you have to be in this topic talking about it. This is for the CCD lovers, it's not that hard to understand.

If you want to debate CCD vs CMOS, use the search to find a topic with that subject.

Don't you think it makes sense?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica is prepared for reasons of prestige and marketing to make M60 basically M (typ 240) with rear LCD removed it would make more sense to fit CCD sensor and electronics into M240 shell. Such camera would be significant improvement on M9/ME/MM; list of improvments is long and well known like quiet shutter, more accurate RF, body sealing, stronger tripod socket, superior battery, of course it would be without LV/EVF which is of course CMOS technology.

It would be good if Leica gets permanent fix for corroding CCD sensors, than classic would become legend and not some disposable piece of digital junk few years down the road.

I am M9P & M user, my preference is M as a camera but love low ISO files produced by M9.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

As a matter of fact, I have. And I hereby repeat my request for you to provide us with an example where said "nuances" exist, so we can evaluate our eyes' skills and compare them to yours.

 

 

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

So do I. But I don't perceive any differences which are actually rooted in sensor technology. I just perceive differences between cameras' outputs—which can be eliminated through appropriate processing. So in the end, there is nothing to be found in images from CCD sensors which cannot be had in images from CMOS sensors just as well. No intrinsic advantage in CCD sensors ... but a lot of intrinsic disadvantages (no live view, poor high-ISO performance, etc.).

 

Some will say, well, the additional effort required for CMOS images to make them look like CCD images is a point in favour of CCD. But in my opinion, that's a foolish point of view because the effort required can be made as small as applying a custom profile, script, or action. Just a mouseclick or two.

 

 

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

At this point, you're losing me. What is "behaviour of files under post-processing" supposed to mean? Flexibility? Resilience? Malleableness? Effort required to come up with the desired final result? In all these points, I am seeing the advantages on the CMOS side of things ... or at the very least, no disadvantages.

 

 

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

I'm afraid I stepped on yours. My apologies, I didn't mean to offend you ... much less as I always adored your photographs. Still I disagree with your opinion about the alleged virtues of the CCD sensor technology—and particularly after your open-letter campaign it is important to me to raise my voice in order to make it clear that not everybody agrees with you and your 400 friends.

 

Let's have a little quiz. I show you two pictures (umm, magnified crops from pictures, actually), taken with the very same lens on a Leica M9 and a Leica M (Typ 240), and you tell me which you like better, and why.

 

 

Here's the full frame, with a red frame indicating the crop:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Here's the crop from the picture above:

 

 

And finally, the crop from another capture of the same picture, taken from the same point of view with the same lens on the other camera:

 

 

Both crops have been processed individually with Adobe Camera Raw. Remember, the question is not, "What picture was taken with which camera?" It also is not, "How many differences can you spot?" ... there are many minor differences, but that's not the point. The question is, "Which do you like better?" or alternatively, "Which do you think will give the nicer print?" (assuming we want to print big size).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you made one single comparison pair under terrible light and featuring a rather dull motive so which conclusions do you expect others should draw from that? No one said every image of the CCD would be better...

 

Just look at all the wonderful m8, m9 shots on the forum. That was with the oh so disadvantaged ccd.

 

To say it could all be done by profiling... well there's many threads about the beautiful leica colours and the leica look everywhere, if that was so easy to achieve in pp what is that all about then?

 

Finally for the third time you are comparing apples and oranges here. I'm certain a state of the art CCD could be very good indeed, the main drawback is that CCDs are more expensive. And with Leicas being so cut-me-own-throat cheap, there is no way they could do a new CCD sensor without making the camera so much more expensive. Like they did with the m60 for instance...

Edited by bla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can easily fool someone into getting photos from the M and M9 at base ISO mixed up if I am the one doing the processing. However, I can not get the two exactly the same. So, unless you processed the files to purposefully fool people, the top one is the M9 and the bottom is the M240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...here 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...

If you follow the link that Peter (Prosophos) provided you can see that he is very good at portraiture and sensitive to skin color; it's also clear that he knows a bit about working with Lightroom. As he states, he has tried the M240 twice, i.e., buying it twice and selling it twice because he couldn't achieve the skin colors that he wanted.

 

Also Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who does wedding photography and has excellent color sense, has written in other threads here showing with images how he could not achieve the skin tones that he wanted with the M240 (but could with the M9) — indeed he wrote that when adjusting the M240 skin colors to where he wanted them threw other colors completely out of whack.

 

It simply is not true that you can achieve the same color rendition, particularly for skin tones, from the M240 and the M9 if you're "skilled enough in post processing". Making this obviously false assertion does not create much credibility for your article that you refer to.

Edited by not_a_hero
Link to post
Share on other sites

400?

 

Not even 4000?

 

I'd think that somewhere around 15,000 Leica would start listening.

 

But to the point: this CCD thing is totally useless. CMOS rocks on so many levels. Besides, people don't even see a difference where CCD is supposed to be so much better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh.

 

I cant believe I'm replying to this topic....

 

But...

 

Who cares?

 

People buy M9s because they're used and are cheaper than an M-240.

 

In 2 years, people will buy the M-240 because they're cheaper than the M-340.

 

And so on. And so forth.

 

To the pictures above, I cant tell which one is from which. I will say, however, that the top one seems to have a bit more contrast than the bottom one, but that can just be my monitor as well. Since you say you used the same lens on the two cameras, I'm just going to state that the top photo is from the -240. Total guess.

 

I should also state that everyone is going to see slightly different colors on different monitors.

 

Pointless to compare, in my opinion. Unless you were doing high-ISO tests, where the -240 will probably beat the M9.

 

IMO, 240 is the better camera. For ME. And for thousands of other people I'm sure. I shoot low-light a lot, so the better ISO performance is helpful. Again though, I never used an M9. But, I bought the 240 because it was newer, better, and had the ISO performance.

 

As for live view, I never thought I would use it, but I DO use it. Quite a lot in fact, for certain shots. Without it, I would have missed out on certain aspects of photography with this system.

 

To the topic author: if you really care so much about your sensor, and want to prove it, accept the above poster's picture challenge. If you don't, then you have no ground to stand on, in my opinion. Don't make claims you wouldn't attempt to backup.

 

That said, if you do, I suggest the both of you put up a separate thread with both portrait, low/high ISO comparisons, and landscape shots. I'd do it myself, but I don't have an M9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

A few years ago, one would have got the impression that everyone was clamouring for CMOS sensors. Obviously these sensors were so much better than CCDs in all respects and Leica would fall behind if they did stick to outdated CCD technology etc. etc.. But as a matter of fact these CCDs were not quite as bad as many made them appear to be. If you knew your way around a raw converter and its noise reduction settings you could even get really good results at high ISO settings, and with the M Monochrom, noise isn’t really an issue anyway, regardless of the ISO setting.

 

But while there is no need for the M9 or MM photographer to feel like a second-class citizen in the world of digital photography, that doesn’t mean that CCD-based camera development could go on forever. Just look at where most the research and development in sensor technology is headed – there just isn’t that much being done in CCD imaging technology for photographic purposes. And frankly I doubt that CCD sensors could be much better than they are now; their development appears to have reached a plateau. Nearly all development work right now is CMOS-based (and the most active area of research is sensors for mobile phones).

 

So if you are looking for a CMOS sensor for a new camera, technological improvements are something that just happens; you don’t need to do anything to make it happen. If you are shopping for a sensor now, you will be offered a better sensor than, say, two years ago, and you don’t even have to pay for those improvements – well, as a matter of fact you do, but given the extremely large number of sensors sold you won’t notice.

 

If you were looking for some noticeable improvement in CCD technology, on the other hand, you would probably need to pay for the R&D costs incurred, and you would pay dearly. Whether it would be worth the price is open to doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Michael that the development of CCD sensors has reached a plateau. There are simply not enough players in the game. I work with professional cinema cameras and I use one of the last CCD cameras out there. There are no new CCD cameras on the market for film and television and CMOS sensors are the norm.

 

That being said, I still use a P25 digital back, which is very limited in its ISO capabilities, but renders with unbelievable color and "bite."

 

So again, every new Leica should be based on CMOS technology, but please fix the corrosion issue and keep the current CCD sensors around for as long as someone manufactures them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always been told that if others can't do it it doesn't mean you can't either.
To paraphrase: I have always been told that if others can't see the color difference doesn't meant that you can't either. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you made one single comparison pair under terrible light and featuring a rather dull motive ...?

The alleged differences between CCD and CMOS don't depend on how much you like the motive. Moreover, it was just a test anyway ... albeit originally not intended as a test of CCD vs. CMOS. Instead, I just wanted to see if there is any perceptible difference between the two cameras with regard to the detail rendition near the corners with this particular non-M wide-angle lens (which, by the way, is the Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-W 24 mm 1:2 at f/5.6 on a Novoflex adapter). Still, this is the only pair of pictures that I happen to have at hand where exactly the same subject was taken with both cameras.

 

If you don't like the pictures then you're invited to provide us with a better pair.

 

 

... so which conclusions do you expect others should draw from that?

What's wrong with your reading comprehension? I tried to make it very clear that I don't expect any conclusions from you (or anyone). I just asked which one do you like better. Obviously, you don't have a preference—which also is a valid answer, and precisely proves my point.

 

 

So, unless you processed the files to purposefully fool people ...

I processed the files to make them look virtually the same as closely as possible, using Camera Raw as the only tool. The purpose was not to fool anyone into confusing the two but to show that you can make the one basically look like the other, to prove that the other hasn't anything to it that can't be had with the one as well.

 

 

... the top one is the M9 and the bottom is the M (Typ 240).

Sigh. I didn't ask to you say which picture came from which camera. Instead, I'd like to know which do you like better?

 

 

As he states, he has tried the M (Typ 240) twice, i. e. buying it twice and selling it twice, because he couldn't achieve the skin colors that he wanted.

Fair enough.

 

There sure are differences in the two cameras' colour renditions—and of course you may like the one better than the other. The fallacy therein lies in the misconception that this was a CCD vs CMOS thing. It's not. It is just a matter of camera profiles provided by Leica Camera and/or Adobe ... or by whoever. If you don't like what you see then make your own custom profile. Selling a camera because you don't like the colours is like selling a car because it has run out of fuel ...

Edited by 01af
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Not. I just can't get behind a CCD. Even though to date I happily own an M9, my confidence in the present and future is CMOS because it has great flexibility. It has yielded far more to image engineering, firmware solutions.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you follow the link that Peter (Prosophos) provided you can see that he is very good at portraiture and sensitive to skin color; it's also clear that he knows a bit about working with Lightroom. As he states, he has tried the M240 twice, i.e., buying it twice and selling it twice because he couldn't achieve the skin colors that he wanted.

 

Also Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who does wedding photography and has excellent color sense, has written in other threads here showing with images how he could not achieve the skin tones that he wanted with the M240 (but could with the M9) — indeed he wrote that when adjusting the M240 skin colors to where he wanted them threw other colors completely out of whack.

 

 

Now this is nonsense. I don't know fotografz but prosophos surely falls in the newb category to me. 5 years of shooting experience, photographing within a 200 feet radius around the house, heavily post processed files, relying on dof tricks ... That's really not a definition of a pro, and especially doesn't make him an expert.

Sure, some fine images. As all the others. Yes, we get a sense that he loves his family, but that's hardly a Leica or a lens thing. It's not even a Rolex thing.

 

In all seriousness, CMOS has been rocking solidly ever sknce it came out. Weddings, sports, fashion, wildlife... All the awards, all the very best shots on the planet have consistently been shot with cmos cameras.

As a matter of fact, there are many better photographs shot with digi canon rebels then those made with a serious leica. I have consistently been amazed at the quantity of low quality imagery that has come out of Leicas on various forums, when compared to DSLRs. But that's another story for another day.

 

Cmos has been ruling the scene ever since the beginning. Nikon was sinking until they went CMOS. D2h, d2x, d200, poir files, noisy as hell while the 5D was running the show, rings a bell?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the CCD sensor of the M9 or in this case even the M8 is always compared to the CMOS sensor of (in the case of M240 not quite) state-of-the-art cameras. Obviously a much newer camera has a better sensor.

 

The comparison is made because the two products exist. It is all the owners and verbose, impressionistic would-be owners can discuss.

 

At the time of arrival the Leica CCD cameras could hold their own quite well. So why assume that a new, top tech CCD wouldn't be better if as has been shown the M9 at base ISO can be as good as the M240?
Subject and time warp in that statement. When the CCD was popular was then. This is now when CCD development for miniature formats outside of scientific applications has practically stopped. CMOS has advanced considerably due flexibility and especially due to the economics of demand for motion, greater flexibility and lower power consumption.

 

And people do like the M8 as well. Much more than other cameras of that generation which crumble to dust in long forgotten drawers... Just my two cents.
Numbers needed for support of that assertion.

.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. I didn't ask to you say which picture came from which camera. Instead, I'd like to know which do you like better?

 

Sorry, I must have exhausted you with my comment. I simply didn't want to fuel the fire over the CCD vs. CMOS debate, simply state that I do see a difference. And I do see a difference in a tiny little degraded JPEG posted online viewed on my laptop. I would certainly see it on the original file on my calibrated Eizo display. So since you want to know what that perceived difference is for me, here it goes: the bottom photograph looks more flat, the mid tones are less separated, so solid objects are not as clearly differentiated from each other (branches to sky, grass from the curb, side of the curb from top of curb etc.). There is a steeper contrast curve in the mid tones in the top photograph (film has an even steeper mid tone curve). The bottom photograph looks more linear in contrast. You could try to apply "clarity" in LR, which does look more artificial though.

 

So for this reason, I like the top photograph better. But the difference is subtle, so if I didn't have a direct comparison, I could live with either one. the reason I chose not to get the M240 is that not knowing which photographs I was working with, I was applying a lot more tweaking to the M240 files than the M9 files. This may be due to a preference I have developed over many years of using the M9.

 

So I hope I didn't exhaust you even more with this answer, but I prefer the top image, and I don't care which camera it was made with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...