400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[Lenshacker]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To re-iterate:

 

In my opinion (and in the opinion of the signatories of My Open Letter to Leica), the M9/M-E/Monochrom/M8 sensors provide superior colours, tonal transitioning, and micro-contrast vs. the M240. The CCD sensors also produce files that are more robust for the purposes of post-processing.

 

To some, the differences are obvious. To others, nuanced. To yet others, non-existent.

 

Some CMOS sensors, like the one in the Sony A7S, come close to performing like the M9 at base ISO (I know because I've owned it), but the edge in my opinion still goes to the M9. Considering the age of the M9 (and M8) sensor, that is quite remarkable.

 

Imagine, if you will, what CCD technology could accomplish if development continued.

 

 

"In my Opinion", and looking at the latest datasheets for CCD performance- I think it is a mature technology. The current performance with regard to "Dark Current", the limiting factor for noise- leaves little room for improvement. The CCD in the M9 has 1/2 the Dark current of the M8, and compared with my 20 year old CCD based Kodak DCS200ir: is amazing.

 

Further improvements with regard to low-light performance, improvements will come from on-chip signal processing. Much more attention can be given to color performance and rendering. BSI sensor technology is exciting, brings back advantages of the CCD combined with on-chip processing.

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

... so we end up with a bunch more moles to chase with our mallet.

 

English not being my first language, reading the International Forum I learn a new expression every day.

 

 

... to summarise the requirement as:

 

Dear Leica, whatever you do and however you do it, please ensure the next M produces better colour than the M (Typ 240), far more acceptable skin tones; and has less banding under pressure.

Amen, brother!

[firststream]

I have neither the M9 or the M 240, but I do have the M8 (CCD) and the T701 (CMOS). Reading through this thread, there are swell arguments for both the 9 and 240. Certainly there are knowledgeable experts here who understand the workings of both sensors far better than I.

 

I share in the request made several times already for DNG portrait files, that we can decide for ourselves - perhaps even discover - whether there is any truth to the notion that one sensor offers superior colour, tone and microcontrast. Absent these files, I took the naïve approach to use the Flickr search engine for M9 portraits and M 240 portraits. As far as I can see both cameras offer sometimes excellent skin tones and rendering, sometimes awful, and sometimes middle-of-the-road.

 

I do not see any substantial advantage in either body/sensor. Leica has probably come to the same conclusion; I doubt Peter's petition will sway them otherwise. Frankly I'm surprised no one from either camp can be bothered to upload any sort of visual proof that the files can be processed to be equal or not.

 

Short of that, why should Leica be concerned about the unsubstantiated opinions of either group?

Edited February 1, 2015 by firststream

[Rick in CO]

To re-iterate:

Some CMOS sensors, like the one in the Sony A7S, come close to performing like the M9 at base ISO (I know because I've owned it), but the edge in my opinion still goes to the M9. Considering the age of the M9 (and M8) sensor, that is quite remarkable.

 

Though I understand that a 40MP 35mm CCD sensor was created after the M9 sensor (I'm not sure for what application) -- which would be interesting in a future M camera -- I personally would be quite happy if all Leica did was fix the cover glass corrosion issue in the current 18 MP chip and then placed it inside an updated M body.

 

First, CMOS sensors are now being marketed towards different and specific applications; ie. the Sony A7 and its S, R, & II variants. CMOS technology is evolving largely due to a marketplace that thinks the CCD to be passe`. If the Sony CMOS comes even close to the M9 CCD, then that is remarkable!

 

Second, a 40 Mp full frame sensor is about the only sure thing that would get me to buy a new digital M camera! If the CMOS could be fine tuned to alleviate its "issues" then would it really be necessary to continue with a CCD? Alternatively, if a 40 Mp CCD sensor is available to be "plugged into" an M9 body, then could that be a fiscally viable and logical route? What might be the drawbacks of a 40 Mp CCD sensor? Canon is rumored to be coming out with a 50 Mp full frame CMOS camera - we will have to see what that entails.

 

Finally, I wonder how difficult it would be for Leica to run a production line with CMOS, CCD and MM (one or the other) sensors? Leica needs to take a bold step forward to re-capture its reputation in the marketplace. I am curiously waiting, but in the meantime enjoying my M9.

[01af]

Frankly I'm surprised no one from either camp can be bothered to upload any sort of visual proof that the files can be processed to be equal or not.

Huh!?

[BerndReini]

There is a difference in your files and if you add skintone to the mix it will be more pronounced.

[Bill Livingston]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took the naïve approach to use the Flickr search engine for M9 portraits and M 240 portraits. As far as I can see both cameras offer sometimes excellent skin tones and rendering, sometimes awful, and sometimes middle-of-the-road.

 

I do not see any substantial advantage in either body/sensor. Leica has probably come to the same conclusion; I doubt Peter's petition will sway them otherwise.

 

I did precisely the same, and am of exactly the same opinion.

 

Some stunning results from both cameras...

[elmars]

Ich had a chance for a comparison of the M9 and the M240. I only imported the pictures in LR (adobe standard), cropped the in the same way, converted the in JPEG and downsised them to the forum rules. First picture ist ever M9, second M240. And did the following changes:

 

Nothing:

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!

Edited February 1, 2015 by elmars

[elmars]

Only white balance:

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!

[elmars]

I made a camera profile with X-rite color checker passport and then did a white balance:

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!

[elmars]

I can see no significant difference. Most influence has the white balance.

 

Elmar

[Rick in CO]

Thanks Elmars! Slightly more sharpness, if no focus difference occurred, and more micro-contrast with the M240. Deeper Blues and yellows and a cleaner red? with the M9. Thats how I see it on my calibrated iMac. Appreciate it!

[Bill Livingston]

Assuming you only have one M9 and one M(240), I think we can guess which camera took the first two pictures...

 

I prefer the second picture of each of your two examples. I am guessing they are from the 240, which doesn't surprise me.

 

I understand this is hardly a controlled or particularly 'scientific' test, but frankly, without a side by side comparison, the differences are insignificant to me. They are there, and there is clearly a difference, but you can make far greater changes in PP than there are between these two. Thank you for posting them. I will be interested in further comments now...

 

Could you get one to be precisely the same as the other in PP? I suspect you could get quite close, but I doubt you could get it precisely the same. But then the same goes for two photographs from the same camera taken one immediately after the other. Small changes in lighting or other variables would give you two dissimilar captures anyway. In fact, a few days ago I took a photograph of a kitchen table with various items on it using my 35 Summicron ASPH and then switched to a friends v4 version and took the same photo. The colour difference appears much greater than between your two pictures. I think that puts it into perspective a little.

 

Life is too short... and I suspect Leica will be of the same opinion.

 

There are more important issues to deal with... not least finding a permanent solution to the sensor issues for all those users of M9 generation cameras.

 

If they manage to find a long term solution with a replacement sensor, the whole solution is likely to be marginally different to the current one anyway.

 

Does that mean you will then raise a petition to NOT accept the permanent replacement solution and to continue using the existing one, despite its possible future failure?

 

As I said again, thank you for posting... very much appreciated!!!

Edited February 1, 2015 by Livingston

[Paulus]

To re-iterate:

 

and by the need (of some) to photograph in the dark. It had nothing to do with quality still photography performed in daylight.

 

For that one application, I'd choose my M9 (and the CCD chip inside of it) every time.

 

I am sorry but should I be offended by this last remark, because I want to shoot colour captures in available light? Look at the info please:

 

Marcel Verbeek, Paul Sips, Hugo Doesburg, William van Barneveld - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

I really don't know if these were possible with the M9. At least, not for me....The M 240 gave me an opportunity to not shoot these in black and white because the noise would be to bad for my taste.

 

Yes I was satisfied " in the daytime" with the M9 but some of us are in difficult situations without a better alternative.

[Prosophos]

I am sorry but should I be offended by this last remark, because I want to shoot colour captures in available light? Look at the info please:

 

Marcel Verbeek, Paul Sips, Hugo Doesburg, William van Barneveld - pauljoostenfotograaf

 

I really don't know if these were possible with the M9. At least, not for me....The M 240 gave me an opportunity to not shoot these in black and white because the noise would be to bad for my taste.

 

Yes I was satisfied " in the daytime" with the M9 but some of us are in difficult situations without a better alternative.

 

I don't think my statement should offend you (was this a sincere question?).

 

I understand the need to have higher ISO capabilities, hence my continual experimentation with different CMOS sensors (including the M240).

 

Please do not be offended, however, when I point out that the majority of the images you linked to display the "tomato face" skin tone appearance. The alternative explanation is that most of your subjects have first degree sunburns (less likely).

[rscheffler]

I think the good news is that Leica sold many, many more M9/M-E cameras than they original expected. Due to this popularity, and following the acknowledgment of the sensor glass corrosion problem, it gives them greater incentive to support/repair/replace the camera and sensor for some time. This means all those in favor of the CCD sensor will have ample selection of M9 cameras for years to come on the secondhand market with the assurance of continued Leica support. The tradeoff seems to be that Leica is going all CMOS with future cameras.

 

At least in this respect, the option to use a CCD sensor remains for as long as the cameras function, despite eventual product discontinuation. Had this been in the analog era, once a film emulsion was discontinued and sold out, that was it. Those shooting film today will never have the chance to use Kodachrome (and other past emulsions), despite having suitable cameras at hand. Yet, those who long for past CCD 'glory' still have a selection of used cameras to buy and try.

 

As someone with about a decade of prepress experience and as an owner of both the M9 and M240, it is my opinion that the M240 can be made to look very, very close to the M9. But there still remain subtle differences. I will not deny that I like the M9's OOC look in some outdoor situations, with certain lenses. But I wonder how much that is the CCD sensor vs. the profile applied to the image by Leica, compared to a change in color/tonality philosophy for the M240...?

[Bill Livingston]

Peter, I am more interested in your comments regarding Elmars' post...

[BerndReini]

IR pollution seems to be the biggest issue with the M240 and skin tones especially under artificial light and Jaap states that he uses IR filters for critical work. Putting a heavier IR filter in front of the sensor is problematic though because it would decrease sharpness (as it already did a little between the M8 and the M9). Leica certainly don't want to go back to making profiles and recommend using IR filters in front of the lens. This was a little bit of a PR and user headache the first time around, so I really don't know what the solution will be.

Edited February 1, 2015 by BerndReini

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[rscheffler]

I understand the need to have higher ISO capabilities, hence my continual experimentation with different CMOS sensors (including the M240).

 

Please do not be offended, however, when I point out that the majority of the images you linked to display the "tomato face" skin tone appearance. The alternative explanation is that most of your subjects have first degree sunburns (less likely).

 

Looking at Paul's link, the indoor photos obviously could benefit from WB adjustment if it's his desire to neutralize the color tint. It was precisely in such situations where my experience with the M9 was that skin tones quickly take on a splotchy, mottled yellow-magenta color separation when WB neutralized, and is generally much less of a problem with the M240.

 

I shot a season of weddings for another photographer with the M9, and he frequently complained about this and other color related 'problems' with M9 files. Our approach is generally available light work, and often the M9 was used in mixed and poor indoor lighting conditions. Last year I primarily shot his weddings with the M240 and his color related complaints were considerably fewer.

 

While I appreciated his complaints about the M9, and it isn't necessarily why I added the M240, I believe he also didn't have sufficient experience with M9 files to fully optimize them. Yet, that said, from my own work with both cameras, there are certainly situations where M240 images are easier to deal with - indoor mixed lighting conditions. For outdoor scenes, IMO, the wider dynamic range of the 'flat' M240 files allows more leeway in post production and still gives me the option to process the files to a higher contrast look reminiscent of the M9, if desired.

 

Funny thing is I remember this being a very similar point of contention about 10 years ago after Canon replaced the CCD-based 1D with the CMOS-based 1D Mark II. Many complained about the softness of the CMOS look, the color...

[Prosophos]

Peter, I am more interested in your comments regarding Elmars' post...

 

It's a good comparison, and I applaud his contribution to the discussion.

 

The colours achieved for both cameras via the white balance calibration are similar under his test conditions, but not necessarily the kind of colours I would be happy with (as an end result).

 

On a related point, the colours out of the M9 are in practice often initially "off" but I can manipulate the files to get the skin tones I like without adversely affecting the overall scene colours.

 

The other thing M9 files do well is hold together when I'm lifting shadows, whereas the M240 files often fall apart under duress (the colours first, then the overall structure).

 

When looking at the original DNG files, the M9 files have a greater crispness. Many believe this to be artefactual, but whatever the reason, it's pleasing.

 

Most of what I've written above has to do with file manipulation, which I always do. If you are the type of photographer who likes to "shoot and print", or apply a VSCO/Nik filter, the M240 might serve your better. If you prefer to shoot primarily landscapes, the M240 might also serve you better. In both cases I state this because of the greater versatility of the M240 relative to the M9.

 

If, however, you photograph mostly people and if you view each image as a unique starting point (from which you custom post-post process) to coax subtle tones, colour differentiation, light, etc., the M9 might serve you better.