400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Jono.

 

For what it's worth, I've never had any issues with you and my apologies if my comments were harsh.

 

I know you agree that there are differences in the files that cannot be resolved with post-processing, but you have to admit there are many in this forum that have gone on record as saying otherwise. Some have even claimed it's just a simple WB issue that can be resolved in a few key strokes. As you acknowledge, it's more than that.

 

I'm on my 3rd M240. Why? I love its haptics. It's truly a pleasure to use.

 

I'm learning to live with its output. I don't think I'll ever get it to where I like it, but I've accepted that.

 

Hi Peter

I'm sorry if I sounded defensive / grumpy (I'm an old man, and grumpiness tends to impinge )

My M240 is my comfort zone - I love the files - much more than those of the M9, which I always found difficult in low light - but it took a while - not helped by the fact that the WB in the early firmware wasn't right.

 

To be fair, I don't think you can make files from any camera look like those from another in post processing (at least I can't . . . but I think it's a bit sad to try)! I like to look at the files from each digital camera rather like a new film stock - there are advantages and disadvantages and it's best to play to the new advantages.

 

But, in the end, for me, the haptics you speak of make it worth playing to the advantages of the M240 . . . .

 

I'm going to Wetzlar next week, and believe me, I will be talking about this thread . . . (even if I won't be advocating a return to the CCD! )

 

It's clearly possible to get it right (have you seen a single complaint about the colour in the T?)

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

Interesting! Trip to Wetzlar? Care to share? or perhaps not ...

 

Nice post, Jono. I liked the M9 output as it felt like Kodachrome to me. Now I have CMOSIS output (WB and all the other issues with the M(240) are irrelevant to my M60 ), and as you say - it's a new set of files to learn. They will have their strengths and their weaknesses, but I have learned they are different to what I've had so far.

 

As an aside, do you have any recommendations as a starting point? My post processing is chaotic - I slide the adjustments around in LightRoom with little discipline ...

[jonoslack]

Interesting! Trip to Wetzlar? Care to share? or perhaps not ...

It's about car mileage John - last time I went it was at 44,444 before that 33,333, 22,222 and 11,111 . . . it's at 55,000 right now, so it's clearly time to go again.

 

Nice post, Jono. I liked the M9 output as it felt like Kodachrome to me. Now I have CMOSIS output (WB and all the other issues with the M(240) are irrelevant to my M60 ), and as you say - it's a new set of files to learn. They will have their strengths and their weaknesses, but I have learned they are different to what I've had so far..

 

I don't talk to people who have an M60 (sob - I want one)

As an aside, do you have any recommendations as a starting point? My post processing is chaotic - I slide the adjustments around in LightRoom with little discipline ...

 

I'm not terribly good at LR . .and I don't think the colour needs adjusting, except, sometimes, in low light, with old faces . . changing the red channel - slightly reducing luminance and slightly increasing the hue (towards yellow and away from pink) .

 

. . . . shoot using sunshine WB in daylight and tungsten in artificial - at least, that's what I do, I like level playing fields.

[IkarusJohn]

I have no WB control ...

 

Initially, I thought this doesn't really matter because I don't get any JPGs, but then I realised that it does have an impact on how the raw file is processed. Logically, I thought the camera would just be set at 5500 Kelvin, but not so. Each image seems to have an auto WB setting, which reduces the level playing field. I find this very odd.

 

I'm hoping that the files are sufficiently flexible that it doesn't matter. I don't imagine accepting any file without processing, so setting white balance in LightRoom is the first adjustment I make. That said, I would prefer the WB to be set at one setting for all files ...

 

I would ask someone at Leica Customer Service, if I knew who to ask. I don't expect many (any) firmware upgrades, but I would like them to give the option of setting WB at one setting - I don't really mind which. 5500K has some logic.

 

Cheers

John

[jonoslack]

I have no WB control ...

 

Initially, I thought this doesn't really matter because I don't get any JPGs, but then I realised that it does have an impact on how the raw file is processed. Logically, I thought the camera would just be set at 5500 Kelvin, but not so. Each image seems to have an auto WB setting, which reduces the level playing field. I find this very odd.

 

I've had this discussion with Leica about the M60 (I brought up the problem). You should be able to apply a WB in Lightroom on the import -

 

It really doesn't have an impact on the RAW file (apparently) so that AWB is obvious (for those who want it) but you can over-ride it without any penalty

I'm hoping that the files are sufficiently flexible that it doesn't matter. I don't imagine accepting any file without processing, so setting white balance in LightRoom is the first adjustment I make. That said, I would prefer the WB to be set at one setting for all files ...

 

See above - I think you can specify this on the import (and set the WB to 5500k - if not, you should be able to do it as a batch afterwards (I'm using LR now, but my real expertise is in Aperture).

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks Jono - I've often wondered about the extent to which white balance affects the raw file. I always subscribed to the view expressed by Thorsten Overgaard that it was best to get the most accurate settings at the time of exposure, rather than making such fundamental adjustments in post.

 

I will look at LightRoom. I guess there is little difference between the software making a standard adjustment on import (which I then change) and my just making the appropriate adjustment once the files are loaded. I guess my concern is that the more you play about with the files in post processing the greater the risk that you introduce new issues like artefacts.

 

I found with the M9 that initially I got very strange under-exposure and colour balance - maybe it just looked strange because I wasn't used to it. Over time, the exposure and colour balance improved and required less adjustment. I'm hoping that the same thing will happen once I've used the new camera a bit more.

 

Do you have a standard file you use on import? If so, I'd like to look at your adjustments. I know you use Aperture (you know you'll be forced into LR once Apple ditches Aperture, don't you - that FaceBook/Instagram/iPhoto interface just on't cut the mustard), but I would like to get some idea of what you do as standard.

 

I will pay with changing the red channel - slightly reducing luminance and slightly increasing the hue (towards yellow and away from pink) as you suggest.

 

Regards

John

[TonyField]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As Jono has clearly indicated, each camera made is effectively a new batch of film with it's own unique characteristics.

 

I can easily "prove" that the best camera ever for out of camera colour was the Fuji S1 Pro - of course, a 3 MP CCD camera that had the sensor "twisted" by 45 degrees.. The colour (and B&W converted) images were incredibly smooth and delightful with the right amount of "presence". I have never duplicated this exact quality with post processing on my M9 or many Canon and Nikon cameras that I have gone through.

 

The M240 was the first Leica I tested that came close to the Fuji "quality". I would dearly love to change my M9 for an M240 ... my M9 had to be repaired twice for serious sensor problems (wish Leica had a reasonable "upgrade" service )

 

Actually, that is not quite true ... My 4 M-series film bodies could achieve the Fuji colour quality when I shot Fuji slide film. :)

 

YMMV

[jonoslack]

Thanks Jono - I've often wondered about the extent to which white balance affects the raw file. I always subscribed to the view expressed by Thorsten Overgaard that it was best to get the most accurate settings at the time of exposure, rather than making such fundamental adjustments in post.

Well, I used to think that too - and I still think that a base to work from is good - but I don't think anything is fundamentally changed in RAW if you get the wrong WB.

I will look at LightRoom. I guess there is little difference between the software making a standard adjustment on import (which I then change) and my just making the appropriate adjustment once the files are loaded. I guess my concern is that the more you play about with the files in post processing the greater the risk that you introduce new issues like artefacts..

I don't think so

 

 

Do you have a standard file you use on import?

 

No - but I don't have an M60, so I can elect to shoot daylight WB (or whatever) in camera.

I know you use Aperture (you know you'll be forced into LR once Apple ditches Aperture, don't you - that FaceBook/Instagram/iPhoto interface just on't cut the mustard), but I would like to get some idea of what you do as standard.

 

This year I'm using LR (at one point in January I was shooting with 4 cameras, and Aperture only recognised one of them, whereas LR recognised all of them - but I've not converted my Aperture libraries, as I still have hope that Photos will develop - and there's no hurry -

I will pay with changing the red channel - slightly reducing luminance and slightly increasing the hue (towards yellow and away from pink) as you suggest.

 

It's worked for me - when it's needed

 

Bedtime!

[jonoslack]

 

I can easily "prove" that the best camera ever for out of camera colour was the Fuji S1 Pro

 

You are actually completely wrong - it was the Sony A900

[01af]

You are actually completely wrong—it was the Sony A900.

As a matter of fact, both of you are completely wrong. The best digital camera ever, in terms of colour reproduction, was the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D ... excellent viewfinder and ergonomics, too. Definitely better than the Sony Alpha 900. Unfortunately, the Dynax 7D had slow and inaccurate auto-focus.

 

And, by the way ... the Dynax 7D sported a CCD sensor ...

Edited February 20, 2015 by 01af

[jdlaing]

As a matter of fact, both of you are completely wrong. The best digital camera ever, in terms of colour reproduction, was the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D ... excellent viewfinder and ergonomics, too. Definitely better than the Sony Alpha 900. Unfortunately, the Dynax 7D had slow and inaccurate auto-focus.

 

And, by the way ... the Dynax 7D sported a CCD sensor ...

 

:-ppppppppppppp

 

Olympus E-1.

[Prosophos]

Hi Peter

I'm sorry if I sounded defensive / grumpy (I'm an old man, and grumpiness tends to impinge )

My M240 is my comfort zone - I love the files - much more than those of the M9, which I always found difficult in low light - but it took a while - not helped by the fact that the WB in the early firmware wasn't right.

 

To be fair, I don't think you can make files from any camera look like those from another in post processing (at least I can't . . . but I think it's a bit sad to try)! I like to look at the files from each digital camera rather like a new film stock - there are advantages and disadvantages and it's best to play to the new advantages.

 

But, in the end, for me, the haptics you speak of make it worth playing to the advantages of the M240 . . . .

 

I'm going to Wetzlar next week, and believe me, I will be talking about this thread . . . (even if I won't be advocating a return to the CCD! )

 

It's clearly possible to get it right (have you seen a single complaint about the colour in the T?)

 

Thanks Jono, you are a class act...

[01af]

Olympus E-1.

Umm ... yeah, good stuff too. But only five megapixels (as opposed to six)

[jaapv]

As a matter of fact, both of you are completely wrong. The best digital camera ever, in terms of colour reproduction, was the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D ... excellent viewfinder and ergonomics, too. Definitely better than the Sony Alpha 900. Unfortunately, the Dynax 7D had slow and inaccurate auto-focus.

 

And, by the way ... the Dynax 7D sported a CCD sensor ...

Actually my favorite is the Digilux2. Woops...another CCD....

[Prosophos]

Actually my favorite is the Digilux2. Woops...another CCD....

 

(laughing!) You better be careful Jaap, you have latent CCD tendencies and will be assimilated...

[Rick]

I'm going to guess that I'm the only M8 user writing code in FORTRAN to process the M8 images, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

I'm sure you are right. You can likely assume you are the only one writing code for the M8 in FORTRAN. You must be one scientific oriented nerd and I salute you.

[BerndReini]

Phase One P25. Big CCD with large pixel sites, incredible color.

[Paul J]

I'm perplexed by what seems an unnecessary clashing of horns over something as subjective as preference and perception. These are the two things, after all, by which photography is made with, and each experience them differently.

 

Consider that most adjustment is to taste and each person judges these adjustments by their own sensory perception. It's something they adjust until they *feel* it is right. Everyone experiences and arguably physically sees these things differently from one another so there is no right and wrong.

 

It is also, not simply the final result but the perception of the reaction curve during the process of variable adjustment. Lens manufacturers have a hard time creating auto-focus systems that work reliably and comparably, between different camera bodies because focus algorithms are different for each body. I would suggest that the difference in sensor architecture results in similar differences with software adjustment. On top of this, we all have different ways of adjusting. Colour and contrast do react differently in different methods of adjustment because the code for each of these tools and methods are different.

 

With all respect, I don't feel that anyone here is entirely qualified to ultimately answer. I don't even believe there is an ultimate answer because technology has not yet standardised, although it is getting closer. Even amongst the creators of these technology, the argument persists. You certainly can not arrive at an argument by comparing two cameras alone.

 

Anyone telling me that my experience is invalid is incorrect. Until I find a CMOS sensor that reacts like a CCD, I am pro CCD. Ultimately this is irrelevant. I don't believe we have a choice, the industry has certainly chosen CMOS as the most usable technology and I believe we will see the differences between CCD and CMOS get smaller with every generation.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

I believe we will see the differences between CCD and CMOS get smaller with every generation.

 

Seems like we're back to square one!

We'll just have to agree to differ on the cause of the demonstrable difference between the colour in the M9 and M.

 

Added to which, until someone can properly define this difference between CCD and CMOS we can't judge whether it's getting smaller with every generation.

 

Not much point in going round the block again.

[Paul J]

Added to which, until someone can properly define this difference between CCD and CMOS we can't judge whether it's getting smaller with every generation.

 

It's not always so easy to put experience into words (we do after all use photos for that ) but I have tried.

 

My experience of the two is this. It's not just the colour of images with CCD but the tonal separation, the colour differentiation, and the dynamics and inter-relationship of these properties through a wide range of adjustment and in all tonal zones.

 

It is not simply the final result but the way these properties react during the process of adjustment. So posting jpgs is pointless. Video of the process may help, however.