Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If Leica worked with whoever were to add one stop to the colour CCD, maybe went to 25Mp and updated the camera engine, I would buy one.

 

I won't buy an M240, I simply prefer the CCD look :cool:

 

It's like having a conversation about historic paints verses colour matched modern. They ain't the same and don't look the same. The technical guys will endeavour to say you wont notice, but you DO :o

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

IDC Doppel - Just curious, do you print your pictures? Or, are you a monitor photographer. No dis, I just know that 99% of photographers don't print very many of their pictures and that is ok. This is a thinly veiled question of whether you like the CCD for monitor or prints.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems crazy to spend the tons of money for Leica-M digital cameras and lenses and never print, but I suppose some people do just that. In that case it's consumerism, ain't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

IDC Doppel - Just curious, do you print your pictures? Or, are you a monitor photographer. No dis, I just know that 99% of photographers don't print very many of their pictures and that is ok. This is a thinly veiled question of whether you like the CCD for monitor or prints.

 

Rick

 

The nice thing about prints from M240 files is that people of all skintones can look perpetually tanned - you know, that healthy orange glow. Sometimes a little too sunburned, but hopefully that will be dealt with in a future "no sunburn" firmware upgrade to the menu.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The nice thing about prints from M240 files is that people of all skintones can look perpetually tanned - you know, that healthy orange glow. Sometimes a little too sunburned, but hopefully that will be dealt with in a future "no sunburn" firmware upgrade to the menu.

 

You prefer the CCD look of everyone having a W.C. Fields pink nose and red cheeks, and let's not even go to skin tones in tungsten light or at anything over base ISO. No further comments here other than what I posted above in post #254. Just me, I'm happy Leica is going into the future with CMOS rather than CCD. Been there done that with my M8 and M9.

 

Rick

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

CCD's continue to be developed and used for scientific applications. CCD development for Astronomical use here-

 

https://www.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol16_no2/16_2_09Burke.pdf

 

And older overview of CMOS and CCD here-

 

https://classes.yale.edu/04-05/enas627b/lectures/EENG427l07DigitalImaging.pdf

 

On Technology intro to CCD's here:

 

http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/AND9188-D.PDF

 

This CCD Sensor from Dalsa is 24MPixel and has a 71dB linear dynamic range, 3dB higher than the one used on the M9.

 

https://www.teledynedalsa.com/imaging/products/sensors/area-scan/FTF6040C/

 

You can download the data sheet.

 

Just to add- Buy a Monochrom and completely avoid these issues with white balance and bizarre colors. You can always buy a Color Wheel with true color separation filters on it. Or buy three Monochroms and an RGB beamsplitter. Be just like Technicolor. Minolta made a digital camera that did that. It was big.

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

The nice thing about prints from M240 files is that people of all skintones can look perpetually tanned - you know, that healthy orange glow. Sometimes a little too sunburned, but hopefully that will be dealt with in a future "no sunburn" firmware upgrade to the menu.

 

Not with decent postprocessing....I suggest you send me one of these “problem” DNGs so I can see the issue on an actual file...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another request- if anyone with an M240 also ownes a Wii game console: turn the Wii on, shoot a picture of the Light Bar without an IR cut filter over the lens, post the result here. That will give a good indication of the amount of IR contamination. From reading the description of the Skin Tones: it sounds like the same complaints people had with the Nikon D2h and D1. Some photographers solved the problem using IR cut filters, others changed color profiles.

 

This is with the M9:

 

16122245975_e8ba633370_o.jpgM9_1

 

ISO160, 1/4th sec, 50mm C-Sonnar at F1.5.

Edited by Lenshacker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not with decent postprocessing....I suggest you send me one of these “problem” DNGs so I can see the issue on an actual file...

 

Yes "decent post-processing" is required. You are absolutely correct... I have no knowledge of decent post-processing, so therein lies the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I doubt very much. I really am interested in this skin colour problem, so I would like to get to the bottom of it.

Disclaimer - I do use IR cut filters.

Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, on another note...

 

This thread was started to inform people of My Open Letter to Leica.

 

There are currently 540 signatures of support for an updated CCD sensor in a future M body.

 

Will it happen? Probably not. But why not try?

 

I know a little bit about images, and about post-processing. My preference is for the output of the M9 over the M240. Anyone who has the same beliefs can sign it.

 

That's all really.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I doubt very much. I really am interested in this skin colour problem, so I would like to get to the bottom of it.

 

Well, thanks for your vote of confidence (sincerely).

 

I'm currently on my 3rd M240 and trying IR filters on the lenses. With some effort, I can beat the tomato skin look out without adversely affecting the other colours.

 

Yet, the skin tones are still not as pleasing as my M9 shots. I know this to be true to this day. However, I have taken this (producing better skin tones) on as my personal challenge to "unlock" the M240's potential. This will definitely be a long term project. At least for me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes "decent post-processing" is required. You are absolutely correct... I have no knowledge of decent post-processing, so therein lies the problem.

 

This is quite common. Many users use jpeg. The M gives pretty raw RAW files and a knowledge of PP is required to get the most out of any M file. That is the beauty of the M RAW files.

 

I really liked my M8 and M9. Last weekend I printed a wonderful picture, shot in the metro at Spagna, Rome from my M9 (taken in 2011). I just don't see the difference when printed in any of the images from my M cameras. And, I bet nobody could tell looking at prints of mine what camera I used... M8 or M9 or M240.

 

Tempest in a teacup.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is quite common. Many users use jpeg. The M gives pretty raw RAW files and a knowledge of PP is required to get the most out of any M file. That is the beauty of the M RAW files.

 

I really liked my M8 and M9. Last weekend I printed a wonderful picture, shot in the metro at Spagna, Rome from my M9 (taken in 2011). I just don't see the difference when printed in any of the images from my M cameras. And, I bet nobody could tell looking at prints of mine what camera I used... M8 or M9 or M240.

 

Tempest in a teacup.

 

Rick

 

Yes, "Tempest in a teacup", of course.

 

Thanks.

 

I shall also try shooting DNG instead of JPG. That's a great tip.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...