Lenshacker Posted February 18, 2015 Share #281 Posted February 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In-Camera JPEG kind of throws away the potential of any digital camera with more than 8-bits per pixel. I've never used it on the M9 or M Monochrom. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Hi Lenshacker, Take a look here 400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted February 18, 2015 Share #282 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Don't you think differences in JPEG engines have something to do with your observations? Peter just forgot to explicitly flag his remark as sarcasm. My preference is for the output of the M9 over the M (Typ 240). If you only had said that from the beginning ... Anyone who has the same beliefs can sign My Open Letter to Leica. That's all really. Except it's not. You're still confusing the difference between M9 and M (Typ 240) with the difference between CCD and CMOS. To prefer the M9's output for its look, colour balance, and tonal rendition is fine. To worship the CCD sensor as a fetish is not. Edited February 18, 2015 by 01af 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #283 Posted February 18, 2015 Don't you think differences in JPG engines have something to do with your observations? Do you seriously believe I'm shooting JPG? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 18, 2015 Share #284 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Double post deleted. Edited February 18, 2015 by 01af Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #285 Posted February 18, 2015 If you only had said that from the beginning ... Except it's not. You're still confusing the difference between M9 and M (Typ 240) with the difference between CCD and CMOS. To prefer the M9's output for its look, colour balance, and tonal rendition is fine but to worship 'CCD' as a fetish is not. Except the output of other CCD sensor-based cameras reaffirms my beliefs. I'm not debating it with you because I see it and trust my eyes. Some of the hard-core tech people in this thread tell me there are good technical reasons behind my observations, but even if that weren't the case, I'd still come to the same conclusion. Because you don't see it, you want to label it a "fetish" that I "worship". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 18, 2015 Share #286 Posted February 18, 2015 Except the output of other CCD sensor-based cameras reaffirms my beliefs. Sure ... while ignoring the outputs of other CMOS sensor-based cameras which contradict your beliefs. I'm not debating it with you because I see it and trust my eyes. It's not what your eyes are seeing but your ideas about where those differences are coming from. Because you don't see it, you want to label it a "fetish" that I "worship". I'm almost sure that I do see what you are seeing ("almost" because you keep being vague about what you're actually seeing, despite my ongoing request to show some explicit examples). So I can understand your preference—even though I don't share it. I just cannot understand why on Earth you're so stubbornly attributing your preference to sensor technology. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 18, 2015 Share #287 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Sorry - The irony detector was on the blink at the time Edited February 18, 2015 by jaapv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted February 18, 2015 Share #288 Posted February 18, 2015 Except the output of other CCD sensor-based cameras reaffirms my beliefs. I'm not debating it with you because I see it and trust my eyes. Some of the hard-core tech people in this thread tell me there are good technical reasons behind my observations, but even if that weren't the case, I'd still come to the same conclusion. Because you don't see it, you want to label it a "fetish" that I "worship". Hi there I absolutely see the difference with cameras with CCD based sensors and CMOS based sensors . . . In fact, I absolutely see the difference between ALL cameras. . . which lead me to ask myself wether it was the CCD/CMOS which caused the difference (or other factors). A little thought reminded me that the sensor itself is only registering the light differences . . . it's the Bayer filter and the Demosaicing which is affecting the colour. With respect to the M9/M240 differences, sadly, most people made up their minds in the very early days when there was a problem with the AWB - that was fixed ages ago. The differences however still survive. For instance, the M9 files have more 'zing' to them - but I don't think that's to do with the sensor technology, it's a function of the reduced dynamic range. . . . In fact I think that much of the perceived difference between CCD and CMOS is because CCD sensors usually have less dynamic range - but that's a bad thing, because you can always reduce the dynamic range . . . but you can't increase it! Like O1af I actually prefer the quality of the files from the M240, and I'm certain I can do more with them in PostProcessing (but that's just a matter of taste). What I'm also certain of is that this is not a function of CCD/CMOS technology, and were you successful in getting Leica to go back to CCD technology, you would lose much and gain very little - fortunately I'm sure there's no chance of it. All the best 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #289 Posted February 18, 2015 Hi there ...In fact I think that much of the perceived difference between CCD and CMOS is because CCD sensors usually have less dynamic range. All the best "Hi there", ...You couldn't be more wrong. "All the best". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 18, 2015 Share #290 Posted February 18, 2015 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 I'm an Epson 3880 man, most of the time HM Museum Etching, Epson CPNatural, HM German Etching and Fotospeed Nat textured. Mostly B&W, although all properly profiled to my epson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 18, 2015 Share #291 Posted February 18, 2015 Hi there I absolutely see the difference with cameras with CCD based sensors and CMOS based sensors . . . In fact, I absolutely see the difference between ALL cameras. . . which lead me to ask myself wether it was the CCD/CMOS which caused the difference (or other factors). A little thought reminded me that the sensor itself is only registering the light differences . . . it's the Bayer filter and the Demosaicing which is affecting the colour. With respect to the M9/M240 differences, sadly, most people made up their minds in the very early days when there was a problem with the AWB - that was fixed ages ago. The differences however still survive. For instance, the M9 files have more 'zing' to them - but I don't think that's to do with the sensor technology, it's a function of the reduced dynamic range. . . . In fact I think that much of the perceived difference between CCD and CMOS is because CCD sensors usually have less dynamic range - but that's a bad thing, because you can always reduce the dynamic range . . . but you can't increase it! Like O1af I actually prefer the quality of the files from the M240, and I'm certain I can do more with them in PostProcessing (but that's just a matter of taste). What I'm also certain of is that this is not a function of CCD/CMOS technology, and were you successful in getting Leica to go back to CCD technology, you would lose much and gain very little - fortunately I'm sure there's no chance of it. All the best The dynamic range is I suspect not linear in respect of sensors or eyes. I spent years setting up projectors in home cinema, it's all about the 0-10 IRE coming out of black but not losing the base black or clipping. I suspect the look is less easily mapped to one metric called dynamic range. I also suspect some of the in chip processing has an impact on the look. I just see it like it or I don't. I then do try to understand the why, but won't change my judgement if I can't ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 18, 2015 Share #292 Posted February 18, 2015 "Hi there", ...You couldn't be more wrong. "All the best". Well, about being wrong... DR M9 : 11.7 DR M240: 13.3 (source: DxO) I am fairly certain that it is not Jono who has it wrong:rolleyes: 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosophos Posted February 18, 2015 Author Share #293 Posted February 18, 2015 Well, about being wrong... DR M9 : 11.7 DR M240: 13.3 (source: DxO) I am fairly certain that it is not Jono who has it wrong:rolleyes: Oh please. About the measurement that's known as the "dynamic range"? No, he's not wrong. But that's not what I was referring to... I'm referring to erroneously using that to explain the differences in the rendering. I'm very surprised that I have to explain that to you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 18, 2015 Share #294 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Peter, as you know I have every sympathy for your crusade, but in this thread we have seen the most knowledgeable members of this forum, like Michael, technical writer for LFI, Johnathan, prominent beta tester for Leica, Olaf, Chief Pundit of this forum, Andy Piper, Stefan Daniel, head Honcho of the Leica M division quoted ,and many others, to explain that any differences you may see are not down to sensor technology, but a number of other things. The only difference you may see is a different noise character, as the CMOS has a more even per pixel output, easily cured in Photoshop by adding noise. As Jono explained there may be an OOC microcontrast difference caused by a lower CCD DR, again, easily changed in Photoshop. All the rest like colour character is solely down to different dyes in the Bayer filter, different IR filter and different processing/interpolation algorithms in the camera. Your basic assumption is wrong and has led to the wrong conclusion. Edited February 18, 2015 by jaapv 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 18, 2015 Share #295 Posted February 18, 2015 Peter - In light of the fact that Leica has no intention of going back to CCD technology, maybe, a more fruitful approach, would be to write a letter to Leica describing the exact differences that you like in the M9 output and request Leica to incorporate these characteristics into the image processing done in the next generation M. Rick 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 18, 2015 Share #296 Posted February 18, 2015 Does anyone have links to the Datasheet for the CMOSIS sensor used in the M240? It would be interesting to see the spectral response curve and other specifications such as dark current and saturation signal. Efficiency with regard to illumination angle is listed for the M9 sensor, and also the Dalsa sensor linked to previously. The latter would have a problem with the M-Mount, it lists efficiency down to 30degree illumination angle. Figure the far corner of the sensor is 21mm from the center, that works out to a source illuminating the far pixel needing to be 36mm above the center of the sensor. This is very simplified, just wanted an example to try to get the problem across. CMOSIS has some interesting articles on BSI sensors for the scientific market. Jaap: if you do not have a Wii, almost any TV (or any optical) remote control will do for an IR contamination test to compare the M240 and M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 18, 2015 Share #297 Posted February 18, 2015 I'm an Epson 3880 man, most of the time HM Museum Etching, Epson CPNatural, HM German Etching and Fotospeed Nat textured. Mostly B&W, although all properly profiled to my epson. Thank you for your reply. But, you didn't answer my question of whether you liked the M9 output for monitor or prints? Are you judging it by monitor or print, or both. And, what is it that you see? I print a lot, as well, and sometimes big 44" and I profile my own papers and calibrate the printer often and have a color matched workflow etc. etc. and I don't see differences between prints of my M cameras, when printed. I do see differences in how I PP and I suppose that if I did no PP and just printed the output of the M8, M9, and M240 there would be obvious differences. But, that is not a reality of working in PP to achieve the look I want for the print. Often I make test strips like I did when wet printing and I look at the different PP strips in the light they are going to be displayed and make choices in PP for specific prints. My point being, the print is never anything like what the output of the camera hands off to me. I just can't understand what it is people see from different cameras other than color hue differences in, say, skin color and most of this can be equaled out in PP. But, I will admit some of it is not possible to completely change in PP, like the differences seen in skin tone between the Sony-look and the Leica IR contamination artifacts. Even then, they are so small as to be insignificant, to me. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted February 18, 2015 Share #298 Posted February 18, 2015 I'm very surprised that I have to explain that to you. I am still waiting for your explanation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 18, 2015 Share #299 Posted February 18, 2015 Does anyone have links to the Datasheet for the CMOSIS sensor used in the M240? It would be interesting to see the spectral response curve and other specifications such as dark current and saturation signal. Efficiency with regard to illumination angle is listed for the M9 sensor, and also the Dalsa sensor linked to previously. The latter would have a problem with the M-Mount, it lists efficiency down to 30degree illumination angle. Figure the far corner of the sensor is 21mm from the center, that works out to a source illuminating the far pixel needing to be 36mm above the center of the sensor. This is very simplified, just wanted an example to try to get the problem across. CMOSIS has some interesting articles on BSI sensors for the scientific market. Jaap: if you do not have a Wii, almost any TV (or any optical) remote control will do for an IR contamination test to compare the M240 and M9. I don't need to. I found out the hard way that the 240 struggles with IR under strong tropical light with high IR and the M9 less so. I am not interested in quantification, I just slap on filters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 18, 2015 Share #300 Posted February 18, 2015 Comparing the spectral response of the two sensors would give a more definitive answer with regard to color rendition of the sensor versus need for post-processing. It would be nice to compare with the M9 and M8 curves. Those are published. It would be nice to quantify the IR contamination for the sake of the OP's main issue with M240 skin tones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now