400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the CMOS sensor can do everything that the CCD can, why is it that the workflow has to change so significantly?

I don't feel the workflow changes significantly.

 

It is, and always was, not easy to make one camera's colour rendition match another camera's—this always requires painstakingly tedious fiddling with colour profiles, no matter if it's two different CCD cameras, two different CMOS cameras, or one CCD and one CMOS camera. Once you have good profiles, however, matching colour rendition is a snap. And in real life, the match usually doesn't need to be perfect; pretty close often is close enough.

 

The other point is the microcontrast/detail/three-dimensionality complex. It may sound too simplistic but in my opinion that's just a matter of subliminal noise. To add some of that when required is just a few mouseclicks. To add it to hundreds of files quickly is what batch processing is for, so again: just a few mouseclicks.

[Lenshacker]

The specific formulation of the sensor contributes to spectral response, color dye used in the mosaic array contributes to the spectral response, and the IR absorbing glass contributes to the spectral response. The S8612 glass in the M9 has environmental issues, but it is more efficient at absorbing IR than the cover glass of the M240 - as I've read on this forum. Jaap states he uses an IR cut filter over the lens with the M240, usually not necessary with the M9.

[pgk]

It is a misconception that post processing is a one size fits all.

I don't feel the workflow changes significantly.

One size certainly does not fit all, and, workflow changes depending on many factors even for one camera, which is why I find it tedious and frustrating to have to 'learn' a new camera - and again I would reiterate, why can a manufacturer not maintain consistency if, as has been said, it is possible to achieve very similar results in post processing (which to be honest I am still far from convinced about)? If there is no 'real' difference between CCD and CMOS, then consistency should be possible, unless of course its not that simple......

[TRIago]

Because the filter array is different the output is different.

It is a misconception that post processing is a one size fits all. You would not be surprised if you had to adapt your darkroom procedures to different films to get the same results

The M8, M9 and M240 all have different array filters?

[Jeff S]

In reading some of the above, I'm amused by the short memories of some here concerning early color issues with M9, even including lots of concern over skin tones. The forum was buzzing every bit as much over M9 colors as with the M 240. The issue was not CCD versus CMOS.

 

Jeff

Edited January 29, 2015 by Jeff S

[BerndReini]

I heard from someone at Leica that they tried to get the color signature of the M240 as close as possible to that of the M9, and I agree that since both shoot DNG, and Leica ships their cameras with Lightroom, they should be the ones to be able to get them as close as possible, not the user in post-processing.

 

So unless I was misinformed and Leica did not intend to match the M240 to the M9, then we can assume that what we have with the current firmware us the closest match that Leica can come up with. Whether one is better or worse is a different question, but I have not read a single opinion of someone who bought the M240 as their first digital Leica because they did not like the colors and "look" of the M9 files at base ISO.

[Anusia]

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.

 

If there is a new monochrom in CMOS to compare with my MM, I might be interested to see how many can actually pick the differences out of 10 sets, for now I will never know ....

[Anusia]

Leica is certainly more concerned by the reality of demand. I am certain they know more about that than we can.

 

I am certain they know better than us ....

[Anusia]

More than 5 years ago, a petition to get Leica to build an R10 garnered the support of 660 people and achieved exactly nothing (as expected). These are all quite insignificant numbers.

 

If it did it will be a different story, its a horse behind the cannon approach ....

[BerndReini]

But Jip, that's not necessarily important that the M240 files are more flexible. If people like what they get from an M9 and want to achieve exactly that look, then why should they have to spend a lot of effort trying to get that out of a supposedly more flexible system.

 

A few years ago, when Kodak came out with their new fine grain low ISO Ektar negative stock, I took a 4x5 photograph of a very colorful scene on both the new Ektar and my favorite E100 slide film, which was about to be discontinued.

 

After a long time of trying to tweak the scan of the negative film in a Photoshop to look like the scan of the slide, I got fairly close, but I still preferred the rendition of the slide film. Now I also thought about the fact that I would never even have this ideal rendition to compare it to if I hadn't shot the slide as well. My conclusion was that I would probably be happy with the rendition of the negative, but I would not switch until I absolutely had to.

This is exactly how I feel about the M9. I like what I get from it and I hope it will be supported for a long time. Why is there anything wrong with that? And as far as the fine art expert and the flexibility of the CMOS file goes: I have exhibited quite a bit, and no gallerist or fine art expert has ever commented about the non-flexible nature of my CCD sensor either. I am not making fun of you, I am just saying that a lot of photographer like using the tool that gets them exactly the result they are after, even if that seems restrictive to others.

 

If latitude was so important, why did so many great photographers shoot slide film over negative?

Edited January 30, 2015 by BerndReini

[Anusia]

The CMOS vs CCD debate has become much like the film vs digital debate. Each is a case of one technology being different from the other. With the "right amount of processing", people can make a digital file look like film. With the right amount of processing, you can make an M240 file look like an M9. A lot of people would rather spend time shooting with the technology that gives them results that they like without spending a lot of time processing it. Otherwise- we would never have a market for the M Monochrom.

 

The difference between CMOS and CCD sensors is "in the noise".

That's really funny to an optical engineer.

 

I believe in making money, I won't even say I used an MM for the job ....

[batmobile]

But the A7S and Df sensors are CMOS. Therefore its not a CMOS issue. It a 'colour and look I like' issue.

 

I remember when AGFA went under after I had dialled in on all their films and papers, I was all bent out of shape. I then switched to Ilford and they went under. I switched to Efke and Adox. Then Ilford came back. End result? I learnt to make damn good prints no matter what and, while I had my preferences in emulsion and developer, nobody who views my prints cares. Now, years down the line, I don't either. I can see how it distracted me from the business of taking compelling photographs. Thankfully I had the time back then...

 

I've had a look over your photos and IMHO there is nothing in there that needs a CCD, or one camera nuance over another. This is not an insult, by the way, but recognition that the precise sensor look is not a major part of what you have going on.

 

FWIW, I don't particularly like the look of M240 colour. Does it put me off buying one? Yes, a little (more work and hassle), but do I attribute it to the CMOS issue? No. How could I when I love the colour from my A7 and A7R?

 

Leica made a major leap from CCD to CMOS with the M240 and, had they not done it (and recognised the need to move with the 'high-ISO' times in general), they would probably be in deep trouble and your petition would end up unread (the irony, eh?). I am sure the M240 successor will have the colour more to people's tastes out of the box.

 

 

Honestly, I don't mind if the files come out of a sausage maker, as long as they look good and behave well under manipulation. Then I'm happy.

 

The M9 sensor provides that, the A7S and Df sensors do that, and film does that.

 

In the digital realm, the M9/M-E/M8 would be my first choices because they do that the best at base ISO.

 

Ooops, I'm repeating myself.

[250swb]

All this thread reveals is that 400 people need to go on a post-processing course. Surely Leica could organise that instead of making a new camera?

 

Steve

[Lenshacker]

All this thread reveals is that 400 people need to go on a post-processing course. Surely Leica could organise that instead of making a new camera?

 

Steve

 

 

That is a ridiculous thing to state. All it means is some people prefer the M9 over the M240, or simply do not see enough of a difference to spend $7K on a new camera.

 

For me: the M9 and M Monochrom feature scientific-grade CCD's in a consumer camera, the best of CCD based hand-held cameras.

 

The M240 is a first-attempt at a full-frame CMOS sensor in a rangefinder camera. For a CMOS camera, the High-ISO is poor. Several owners have reported issues with banding at ISO3200. There is more IR bleed, which means you need to use IR cut filters or be prepared to change post-processing based on the scene content and lighting used. I'm sure CMOSIS will improve the sensor with the next release of a CMOS based full-frame rangefinder. The M240 is not it. If the CMOSIS CMOS detector was as good as that in the Nikon D4 and Df- that would be enough to make me want to buy one.

 

One example of an M240 owner switching back the the M9:

 

From the Leica M9 to the Leica M240…and Back to the M9 By Ashwin Rao | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

I bought the M Monochrom after the M240 was announced, have been very happy with the M9. It gives the results I like.

 

If you like the M240, great. If you like the M9, great. I assure you, I like the M9 and will stick with it - and I certainly know how to do image processing.

 

Currently there is an APS-C sized BSI detector. It will be interesting to see if a full-frame BSI detector makes it's way into a Leica M. The sensor geometry should lend itself to M-Mount lenses.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Lenshacker

[01af]

I heard from someone at Leica Camera that they tried to get the color signature of the M (Typ 240) as close as possible to that of the M9 ...

Sounds plausible to me.

 

While the two colour signatures are not identical, they sure are similar. You can see they share the same DNA, so to speak. Both got reds that are too blue, blues that are too red, and all colours badly over-saturated to different degrees, mostly blue. That's why blue skies always look so radio-active in digital M pictures. People with no refined sense of colour—i. e. the majority—appreciate those gaudy bigger-than-life colours. Yuk!

[Prosophos]

All this thread reveals is that 400 people need to go on a post-processing course. Surely Leica could organise that instead of making a new camera?

 

Steve

 

Yes, yes, of course. We all need to take a Leica course.

 

Your insight proves particularly embarrassing to me:

 

Thank you Tom Smith, Leica Akademie. | Photographs by Peter

[pgk]

While the two colour signatures are not identical, they sure are similar.

A file's viability and flexibility is not simply about its colour rendition, its about tonality too and the ability to deal with the extreme highlights and deepest shadows and so on. 'Learning' a new camera is as much about understanding its limitations and what can be achived as much as it is about colour. I can take shots with both my M9 & M8-2 that I wouldn't with my Canons, and vice versa of course. Workflows and post processing are a necessary evil, which I would rather not have to undertake, but which are now an absolute essential. And FWIW I still have my copy of Photoshop 4, which is now nearly 20 years old, so I have a little experience in its use (though I would not profess to be an expert).

[JCophoto]

I have compared both M9 and M240 pictures of the exact same subject (a portrait in a Leica store with mixed lighting) and did not like what I got from the M240 out of camera raw. The skin tones were off, the reds from the Leica neon were orange-ish. I have conducted this test twice (early and late 2014).

 

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to make the M240 file look like the one from the M9 and could not achieve satisfying results. I was not interested in tweaking both files so that they look exactly the same (I did not want to change the color rendition of the M9 file). What I wanted was to get the M240 file to look like the M9 one. I could not.

 

Does it mean I suck at post processing? Well, maybe (although I like to think I have the basics covered). But I did not get into photography to spend more time on a computer; I am doing that all day long at work and could not imagine wasting my free time behind a screen.

 

So, I need my camera to give me the color rendition I want directly (well, I know that won't be the case, but it needs to be at least close). The M9 does a perfect job at this. The M240 does not. Hence, I passed on Leica's latest body.

 

I fully support Peter in his initiative and signed his letter (BTW, thanks for your perseverance). I love rangefinder cameras and I want Leica to keep manufacturing one that suits my needs (although if changing the color filter is all that is required, that's fine by me).

 

On a different note, with the money I saved by not upgrading to the M240, I bought myself a nice used Hasselblad 503 and enrolled in a B&W film course; I am loving every minute I spend in the quiet atmosphere of the darkroom, far away from my computer.

 

Cheers

Edited January 30, 2015 by JCophoto

[NB23]

Leica is extremely lucky to have customers with a magical thinking disorder.

 

Bad lens with all kinds of aberrations? = magical glow= master= magical thinking

 

Bad M8 with no IR filtration? = "yeah but Leica wanted to give control to the end user"= "yeah but Magnum is B&W mostly"= "yeah, the M8 is a BW sacred monster" = transforming a shitty camera that was 2 generations behind when it came out into a "great master's" tool= magical thinking.

 

M9 with weird color shifts and still not enough IR filtration, cracking sensor, slouchy slumpy camera, all kinds of defects, corrupts files like no other, just can't use it efficiently without having 25 extra batteries in your pocket, of which 22 loat their charge by 50% just because it was in contact with air= "yeah but Leica designed its sensor to be as close as Kodachrome as possible" (no jokes, this was yet another BS statement from magical thinking customers)= "and its a CCD sensor, that's just better at base iso"= magical thinking.

 

New Zeiss 35 f1.4 is better than the Lux asph 35 fle according to all the reviews out there= "yeah but Leica is still better. Don't ask me how I know, it just gotta be" = magical thinking.

 

And so on.

 

I own the M8 and M9 since new. I didn't use the M9 for the first 2 years. It just sat there losing value. Such a huuuge PITA to use. The M8 as well. Can't shoot 2 images in a row without something possibly freezing. Countless lost images, countless hair lost as well.

 

Leica digital is just an endless sea of BETA products. Now we read that the M240

Colors are the worst of all digital cameras on the market?

What? Isn't there a Leica guy supposed to copy Kodachrome colors for Leica cameras?

 

Well, no. That was a myth.

 

All about Leica is a myth in this digital age.

 

Actually, Leica's luck is its customers and their magical thinking.

 

Watch this: the next M11 (M360 or whatever it will be called to sound cool by the magical thinkers) will be yet another fiasco. But the customers will support it. There's nothing like the Leica customer. Magical thinking fixes everything, magically.

Edited January 30, 2015 by NB23

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

Leica is extremely lucky to have customers with a magical thinking disorder.

 

.....

 

I own the M8 and M9 since new. I didn't use the M9 for the first 2 years. It just sat there losing value. Such a huuuge PITA to use. The M8 as well..

I think that I see what you mean;).

 

To put it very simply; your experience does NOT mirror mine. My cameras have been used since I bought them and the only frames I've lost have been down to very flattened batteries - actually the same is true of my Canons.