Jump to content

400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!


Prosophos

Recommended Posts

OP...and the rest of the 400 photogs...post your comparison pix of M9 vs M240 to back up your clam. If you can't back it up, move on with new tech and let go of the old tech.

 

The CCD would have to be *a lot* better than the M240 as the M240 is not anything to write home about as-is with its sensor. I think you are stuck in camera fondling fantasy land. But since I never used a M9, I only used MM's and M240's, I am ignorant on the subject.

 

If you want to get petitions going then send one to Fuji to make a $2500 28mp Leica rangefinder knockoff or send a petition to Leica to hire Fuji to make its sensors.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled LV and video on my M240 (menu option) and the IQ is as good or better than my (CCD based) M8.2 as well as the M9 I tested. So, I get a better RF camera….quieter, better RF and more robust…with no sacrifice in my print quality.

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry to break the news but nobody cares about the perceived needs of 400 photographers. A camera built for 400 (or 1000) customers would have to be ludicrously expensive and I rather doubt those 400 photographers would be prepared to pay that price.

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to break the news but nobody cares about the perceived needs of 400 photographers. A camera built for 400 (or 1000) customers would have to be ludicrously expensive and I rather doubt those 400 photographers would be prepared to pay that price.

 

Please define ludicrous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of CCD sensors in daylight and keeping the CCD sensor alive doesn't mean that Leica have to develop new CCD cameras. Just fix the sensor glass issue on the current CCD sensors and keep the M-E and MM in production and supported parallel to the new CMOS offerings. What is so wrong with that?

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled LV and video on my M240 (menu option) and the IQ is as good or better than my (CCD based) M8.2 as well as the M9 I tested. So, I get a better RF camera….quieter, better RF and more robust…with no sacrifice in my print quality.

 

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.

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? 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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled LV and video on my M240 (menu option) and the IQ is as good or better than my (CCD based) M8.2 as well as the M9 I tested. So, I get a better RF camera….quieter, better RF and more robust…with no sacrifice in my print quality.

 

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

 

1) The IQ might be as good or better to you. Not to me. I don't need high ISO or better DR or whatever else because honestly, to my eye, in low ISO, the CCD has the edge.

 

2) Quieter. I give you that, but so what? I use my M9 on discreet mode, so it makes no difference at all to me. So the M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

3) Better RF - I give you that as well. But so what? All my M's viewfinder are fine. M3, M6 classic and M9. So it makes no difference at all to me, again. The M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

4) More robust. True? I guess. But so what? My M3 and M6 are still working pretty damn fine, and who knows what's gonna happen in a few years to the M240? Problems might arrive at some point. So the M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

There you have it. It's all relative, personal preference. And to me, none of the bells and whistles of the M240 are enough to justify it over the M9. Simply because it's image quality - in low ISO - to my eye, doesn't look as good as the CCD.

 

The M240 is also fat and ugly. The M9 is way more sexier of a camera and that, to me, counts a lot. That's one of the reasons I use Leicas. But you see? It's my personal point of view, yours might be different.

 

Is the M240 better for some people? Maybe. That's why we all have plenty of options out there.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to break the news but nobody cares about the perceived needs of 400 photographers. A camera built for 400 (or 1000) customers would have to be ludicrously expensive and I rather doubt those 400 photographers would be prepared to pay that price.

 

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.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say... 400 is not much.

 

I like my M-240. It has a nice sensor. I print a lot of my photos. Never used an M9, but I'm not one for the technicalities of how a camera makes its image anyway; besides I'd rather worry more about my glass than the sensor.

 

Get your petition up into the tens of thousands, then it might cause a little noise. But, get them into the hundreds of thousands, THEN you can possibly get somewhere. I would start with Fuji though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The IQ might be as good or better to you. Not to me. I don't need high ISO or better DR or whatever else because honestly, to my eye, in low ISO, the CCD has the edge.

 

2) Quieter. I give you that, but so what? I use my M9 on discreet mode, so it makes no difference at all to me. So the M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

3) Better RF - I give you that as well. But so what? All my M's viewfinder are fine. M3, M6 classic and M9. So it makes no difference at all to me, again. The M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

4) More robust. True? I guess. But so what? My M3 and M6 are still working pretty damn fine, and who knows what's gonna happen in a few years to the M240? Problems might arrive at some point. So the M240 won't do anything better here to my use.

 

There you have it. It's all relative, personal preference. And to me, none of the bells and whistles of the M240 are enough to justify it over the M9. Simply because it's image quality - in low ISO - to my eye, doesn't look as good as the CCD.

 

The M240 is also fat and ugly. The M9 is way more sexier of a camera and that, to me, counts a lot. That's one of the reasons I use Leicas. But you see? It's my personal point of view, yours might be different.

 

Is the M240 better for some people? Maybe. That's why we all have plenty of options out there.

 

 

I'll add that 2, 3, and 4 can be incorporated into a future M body with an updated CCD sensor (whether it's an entirely brand new sensor, or an improved - non-corroding - version of the current one).

 

It's issue #1 that seems to polarize.

 

Still, whether one prefers CCD or not, I just don't understand why any enlightened individual would be against more choice?

 

Are M240 owners that insecure in their choice of camera that they need to enter into positive threads like this and rain on our parade?

 

—Peter.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has more to do that technology must continue to be used and improved upon; I'm certain that Leica put in the new sensor into the new M, rather than the old, for good reasons.

 

Beyond that, sensors will not last as long as a film camera; they will get replaced every four or five years (at least for me). Personally I tend to wait a couple generations before upgrading digital products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There you have it. It's all relative, personal preference.

 

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

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define ludicrous.

 

Like the prices Leicas typically asks for collector’s items. The problem is that while there are some people out there with enough spare change to buy the occasional limited edition, even without any intention to use it for photographic purposes, it is much harder to sell a limited edition to a bona fide photographer. They either don’t have that money or they know better than to spend it foolishly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Or put it this way: If you were in charge of the R&D budget of some sensor manufacturer, would you rather spend it on developing improved versions of sensors that are much in demand, or on some sensor of which you expect to sell, like, 1000 copies? How much would you have to ask for that sensor to make it worthwhile?

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...