400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[DandA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Peter, I may have missed your posting and would be very interested to learn the reasons for your decisions. I am a big supporter of the M9 and its CCD and associated components ouput but also ise Nikon when the job calls for it. Thanks as always for sharing your photographic thoughts and a happy, healthy new year to everyone.

 

Dave (D&A)

[Prosophos]

Peter, I may have missed your posting and would be very interested to learn the reasons for your decisions. I am a big supporter of the M9 and its CCD and associated components ouput but also ise Nikon when the job calls for it. Thanks as always for sharing your photographic thoughts and a happy, healthy new year to everyone.

 

Dave (D&A)

 

Thanks Dave.

 

I'll spare you reading through the various posts in the blog and just summarize by saying that it was a combination of factors, one of them being I wanted/needed more reach (telephoto) for my kids' sporting activities.  The other big reason I can't divulge (yet), but there are a few hints provided here (scroll down to the commentary): 

 

http://prosophos.com/2015/12/15/ccd/

 

As most here know, my preferred type of camera is a rangefinder, so inevitably I'll be back to photographing with one at some point.

 

As for the M9 specifically, I still find its files to be the best for skin tones, micro-contrast (though I think the SL may have bridged this), and tonality.

 

Nikon's tweaking of the Sony sensor in the D810 has produced the most pleasing skin tones of any current CMOS sensor (again, short of the M9, but acceptable to my eye).  In contrast, the latest Leica CMOS offerings still suffer from "the tomato face syndrome" (my term) but are at least improved over the M240 output.   Skin tones aside, the output from the SL is otherwise phenomenal.  This makes me quite optomistic about the next M.

 

—Peter.

[Advertisement]

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

[DandA]

Thanks ever so much Peter for taking the time to explain. Telephoto use and havimg to shoot fast moving low light performing arts as well as sports has me reachimg for the Nikon. As often said, each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

 

I too look fkr great improvement in color output from future Leica camera releases as the SL and even the Q has shown dramatic gains in this area. I also agree with your assessment of the D810's output. Skin tones were never Nikon's strength in the digital era.

 

Dave (D&A)

Edited January 1, 2016 by DandA

[M.Dong.Bill]

First of all, I am a film Leica user. So I know the big difference between film and digital. I also know the relatively little difference between CCD and CMOS. 

 

In my opinion, the DSP is the most important thing to digital camera. The M9 has better color and B+W performance than M-P, because it has better gama correction (DSP) which makes it approaches to film.

 

The CCD and CMOS is just the words and the title for the difference, the DSP is actually the core. M9's CCD is the flagship sensor of Kodak, a most traditional and biggest company in photography and film-making. Kodak know how to make color vivid, but not Leica. The M9 has so vivid color is all because of Kodak, since Leica do not know how to deal with very difficult and patented electronic and computer science things. Leica is perfection in mechanic and optic.

 

To conclude, you and other 400 Leica lovers should write letters to Kodak, rather than Leica. To tell Kodak to develop new and better CCD or CMOS sensor with better color and detail. And thrust that Leica will only use the best thing on the market, Kodak will be the only choice. 

 

You guys just want better COLOR, not the CCD. Isn't it?

[CheshireCat]

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).

 

 

Indeed the "next M-E" is now here and is called M Typ 262. (had to check the date of your post, it was 2015 ).

 

It is CMOS for good reasons. Manufacturers don't change technology when building a low-cost version.

CMOS is a superior technology, and most users are not able to see the difference at low ISO between a CCD and a CMOS straight out of camera, let alone after applying an M9-like color profile.

Everyone is able to see the difference at high ISO, and will like the CMOS much better.

Edited March 8, 2016 by CheshireCat

[CheshireCat]

In my opinion, the DSP is the most important thing to digital camera. The M9 has better color and B+W performance than M-P, because it has better gama correction (DSP) which makes it approaches to film.

 

 

If it is DSP, then it can be done in pp on the raw file using Lightroom or similar software.

[Prosophos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After all of these years, I'm still receiving emails from people who want to sign the Open Letter to Leica.

 

Amazing when you think about it.

[jaapv]

First of all, I am a film Leica user. So I know the big difference between film and digital. I also know the relatively little difference between CCD and CMOS. 

 

In my opinion, the DSP is the most important thing to digital camera. The M9 has better color and B+W performance than M-P, because it has better gama correction (DSP) which makes it approaches to film.

 

The CCD and CMOS is just the words and the title for the difference, the DSP is actually the core. M9's CCD is the flagship sensor of Kodak, a most traditional and biggest company in photography and film-making. Kodak know how to make color vivid, but not Leica. The M9 has so vivid color is all because of Kodak, since Leica do not know how to deal with very difficult and patented electronic and computer science things. Leica is perfection in mechanic and optic.

 

To conclude, you and other 400 Leica lovers should write letters to Kodak, rather than Leica. To tell Kodak to develop new and better CCD or CMOS sensor with better color and detail. And thrust that Leica will only use the best thing on the market, Kodak will be the only choice. 

 

You guys just want better COLOR, not the CCD. Isn't it?

Err...Kodak does not exist any more in the sensor business, nor was the Leica sensor a flagship product, it was just an adaptation of one of many products in Kodak's catalog.

[Prosophos]

Update:  I now have 621 signatures on My Open Letter to Leica from photographers/enthusiasts/artists.

 

—Peter.

[FTL]

You guys just want better COLOR, not the CCD. Isn't it?

 

Actually, even though I do like the M9 colors much better than the M240 (possibly one of the worst color palettes by default of most current cameras for my taste), it has been shown over and over that with modern digital magic you can make any color scheme you like.  I don't want to spend any time "working" to get a picture I like so I will say there is still value in getting the colors out of the M9 by default.

 

What most people don't ever spend any time at all talking about is the noise pattern.  ALL images have a noise pattern, even at base ISO, it is just less obvious.  The fact that the 9 CCD uses only on DAC for all pixels (rather than a bank of DACs as with most CMOS sensors) makes the noise pattern "uniformly random" if you understand what I mean.  The DACs in a CMOS bank each have different analog anomalies and these differences are readily seen on images, most often in the form of distinguishable "lines" of noise.

 

The following link, from an article singing the praises of CMOS over CCD because of lower overall noise level had the exact opposite effect on me.  I look at the two images and ask myself "at very low levels of noise, where the pattern is over the picture but not destroying it, which noise pattern would I rather have?".  The answer, for me, is an overwhelming "I'll take the CCD noise EVERY time".  The pattern noise from the CMOS is detrimental to the feel of the image.  Different people will perceive things differently so not everyone will feel the same way I do.  But there you have it.  The overall FEEL of the CCD image of the M9, including default color palette noise pattern and probably other attributes that I'm not even aware of produce images that I prefer greatly to those of the M240.

 

Here is the article link I was referring to:

http://info.adimec.com/blogposts/what-can-you-do-with-4-electrons-of-read-noise-now-from-a-cmos-industrial-camera-%E2%80%93-half-of-that-of-a-ccd

[ramarren]

I never found the colors out of the M9 JPEG engine to my liking at all. The auto white balance is particularly awful. I turned off JPEGs entirely and processed only raw files when I had it. 

 

The M/M-P typ 240 produces much more pleasing and accurate white balance and colors at all ISO settings, with less noise, more dynamic range, and more sensitivity as well. It has a better B&W jpeg setting as well. The SL typ 601 is even better than that, although the M/M-P typ 240 has more control in the B&W JPEG options. 

 

With any of these cameras, I can get what I want from raw exposures very easily. 

 

I've looked at and worked with thousands upon thousands of exposures from all three cameras. If you find there's some useful difference to the CCD's rendering, or prefer the off-balance, poor white balance, and skewed color palette, more power to you: enjoy it. I don't. 

[FTL]

I never found the colors out of the M9 JPEG engine to my liking at all. The auto white balance is particularly awful. I turned off JPEGs entirely and processed only raw files when I had it. 

 

The M/M-P typ 240 produces much more pleasing and accurate white balance and colors at all ISO settings, with less noise, more dynamic range, and more sensitivity as well. It has a better B&W jpeg setting as well. The SL typ 601 is even better than that, although the M/M-P typ 240 has more control in the B&W JPEG options. 

 

With any of these cameras, I can get what I want from raw exposures very easily. 

 

I've looked at and worked with thousands upon thousands of exposures from all three cameras. If you find there's some useful difference to the CCD's rendering, or prefer the off-balance, poor white balance, and skewed color palette, more power to you: enjoy it. I don't. 

 

To be honest, I've never seen a JPEG out of my M9 (or any other of my cameras) so that may explain the difference in opinion, but you ignored the main point I made which was not at all about color.  In any case, it doesn't bother me in any which way, people should use what they like and it's good that we don't all like the same thing.  It cost me a LOT of money to have to go back to the M9 after "trading up" to the M240.  It wasn't a decision I made lightly; I'm not rich.  So I would hope that you can believe there is a difference to ME.  As for the comments about off-balance, skewed color etc.  it is your opinion.  That doesn't make it fact.  I find the white balance of the M240 too yellow (using DNG, I just don't use JPEG) and it annoyed the hell out of me to constantly have to fix it; gladly, I no longer need to.

[DezFoto]

To me "Accurate Colours" and "Pleasing Colours" are rarely the same thing. I went from M9 to M240, but still have my original M8, which, when combined with IR filters, still gives the most pleasing colours (to my taste). Colour is more of a personal preference thing, as I have yet to see a digital camera that gives "accurate" colors straight out of the box anyway (the original x100 probably came closest in jpg mode). Two cameras can have the exact same sensor and give completely different colour and contrast curves, and that all comes down to what pre-programmed curves the camera's software bakes into the raw files. White Balance is a guestimated profile based on tests by the engineers and not an absolute on any camera. 5500k looks different on Nikon, Canon and Leica cameras, and as anyone who travels knows, an accurate daylight balance differs depending on where you are on the planet and what time of year it is. For me, I found the M9's color profile to be a better starting point for the look I like than the M240, but I'm learning to live with the M240's default colors (but I do have to process them more than M9 files).   

 

All that being said, the way CCD and CMOS sensors read light and turn it into a digital signal are slightly different and so the results are slightly different. A really easy way to see a difference is to take a photo of a scene with blue LED lights in it with an M9 and an M240 and you'll see how they handle light differently. 

[DwF]

I am back to the M9. I'd sold my first one a while back. I am thrilled to have this "new" one. So nice working with Leica glass on a real Leica M body.

[BerndReini]

I haven't tried digging up the post, but the very first comparison photo between the M9 and the M240 on this site right before the M240 was released was a cityscape with a cloudy sky. Now I have to add that this was before the terribly warm initial white balance of the M240 was fixed with a firmware update. When I saw that photo, I remember thinking two things: first, I hope they fix these colors, which they did partially, and second, the 6mp increase in resolution is easily negated by the inherent "bite" of the M9s CCD sensor.

 

I wasn't one of the people who thought that the M240 was terrible, but a trade in worth 3-4k dollars it was not. I feel the same about the Monochrom. I bought my MM1 the week the M246 was released saving $3,500 over the M246. That is A LOT of money.

[ramarren]

To be honest, I've never seen a JPEG out of my M9 (or any other of my cameras) so that may explain the difference in opinion, but you ignored the main point I made which was not at all about color.  In any case, it doesn't bother me in any which way, people should use what they like and it's good that we don't all like the same thing.  It cost me a LOT of money to have to go back to the M9 after "trading up" to the M240.  It wasn't a decision I made lightly; I'm not rich.  So I would hope that you can believe there is a difference to ME.  As for the comments about off-balance, skewed color etc.  it is your opinion.  That doesn't make it fact.  I find the white balance of the M240 too yellow (using DNG, I just don't use JPEG) and it annoyed the hell out of me to constantly have to fix it; gladly, I no longer need to.

 

 

Well, I don't agree with you about the noise pattern either. So let's just leave it at that and disagree amiably. 

 

I was very happy when I traded the M9 for the M-P, it reinvigorated my joy in Leica equipment, and I'm still delighted with it. Add the SL, which gives me a proper  body for use with my R system lenses, and between them it's pretty much everything I had in cameras before the tumult of the digital paradigm shift hit. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by ramarren

[jonoslack]

Well, Each to his Own.

 

I still have my M9 and my original MM, and they still get used occasionally . . and of course I recognise that the colour is fairly different from the M240 . . but I still don't think it's a function of any inherent distinction between CCD and CMOS . . certainly an inherent distinction between the sensors of the M9 and M240 . .  but that's not the same thing.

 

So I can't see that bringing back a CCD would bring back the look, but it would certainly bring back some of the disadvantages of CCD.

[Prosophos]

Well, Each to his Own.

 

I still have my M9 and my original MM, and they still get used occasionally . . and of course I recognise that the colour is fairly different from the M240 . . but I still don't think it's a function of any inherent distinction between CCD and CMOS . . certainly an inherent distinction between the sensors of the M9 and M240 . .  but that's not the same thing.

 

So I can't see that bringing back a CCD would bring back the look, but it would certainly bring back some of the disadvantages of CCD.

 

 

 

Jono, I'm going to consider the emphasized portion above as progress. 

 

The next step is to convince you that the differences go beyond just colour. 

 

I am being sincere... and I thank you for your civility. 

 

Peter.

[Prosophos]

Update:  Over 650 passionate photographers have signed this letter.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[DezFoto]

Update:  Over 650 passionate photographers have signed this letter.

 

Glad to hear it, but that's not likely to do much to sway Leica into developing a new CCD sensor, unfortunately.