Prosophos Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share #341 Posted February 20, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Precisely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 Hi Prosophos, Take a look here 400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jonoslack Posted February 20, 2015 Share #342 Posted February 20, 2015 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. HI Paul just to get it straight - I'm not denying what you and others are seeing - I just don't believe that it's a function of the distinction between CCD and CMOS. I think there are a number of different reasons, part of which is the quest for higher ISO, part of which the achievement of better DR. I can give good reasons why these could be causing the phenomenon . . but no good reason why the difference between CCD and CMOS could. But hey - as I said, we can go round and round - and now we understand each other's positions pretty well, I guess the only solution is to agree to differ. All the best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 20, 2015 Share #343 Posted February 20, 2015 We'll just have to agree to differ on the cause of the demonstrable difference between the colour in the M9 and M. I don't really know whether the cause is the CMOS sensor technology or filter array and processing, but what I'd like to see with the next M is a little more mid tone separation and micro contrast (without the artifacts that the "clarity" slider adds), less IR sensitivity, more subtlety in the reds and maybe as a result less orange skin tones. And let me also state this again here, I do see the differences between the M and M9, but if I didn't have a perfectly good M9, I could be a happy M(240) photographer. I am in the camp that would rather see improvements in the new CMOS sensor rather than a switch back to CCD. Luckily, this is what is most likely going to happen anyway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 20, 2015 Share #344 Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) HI Pauljust to get it straight - I'm not denying what you and others are seeing - I just don't believe that it's a function of the distinction between CCD and CMOS. I think there are a number of different reasons, part of which is the quest for higher ISO, part of which the achievement of better DR. I can give good reasons why these could be causing the phenomenon . . but no good reason why the difference between CCD and CMOS could. But hey - as I said, we can go round and round - and now we understand each other's positions pretty well, I guess the only solution is to agree to differ. All the best Thanks for the balanced clarification. I do understand where you are coming from. Like you, I am happy to differ. What you say does make some sense and I would be more inclined to agree with you should my experience be different with older CMOS cameras that have not specifically had the same DR and ISO achievements (these still do seem sensor specific in some regards though), should my experience be unique to this system and brand, since Phase One themselves admit that while they have managed to make CMOS sing over and above what they believed they would, that it does not yet compare to their other CCD products in some regards, something which I have experienced first hand. CMOS is a better technology to go with for many reasons, particularly marketability. That is the only factor in this whole deal that seems incontrovertible. Most will take better battery life, faster in-camera operation, live view, motion (that one is an enormous market), higher ISO etc. over the properties I've listed earlier that suit me. I know that CCD is stagnant in those regards but wonder about its potential. I used to be overly pedantic about finer things being perfect, but I have never won over constant and uncontrollable change. If you place too much into one camera, one film, one sensor, one of anything, you only end up disappointed so I tend to make the best of what ever tool is most useful to me, or hold onto what I know works for certain applications for as long as i can, because my energy is better put into taking pictures rather than "learning how a sausage is made". That's for Leica et al to figure out. Edited February 20, 2015 by Paul J 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted February 20, 2015 Share #345 Posted February 20, 2015 That's for Leica et al to figure out. I agree, but sometimes they do need our help (input). As an example of this, I want to point out the IR contamination at the release of the M8, or the overly warm white balance at the release of the M240. I saw both issues after testing demo cameras for one weekend, and how nobody at Leica noticed and/or addressed those issues before the release shows how relevant the input from a large pool of users can be. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 20, 2015 Share #346 Posted February 20, 2015 [...]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. And you love computed GO TO statements. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 21, 2015 Share #347 Posted February 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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?) Jonoslack, I do get the fact that you prefer M240 files, but the one point I'd be very interested to better understand is what inchip processing is being undertaken and if this is indeed responsible for the slightly more evenly sharp impression you get from M240 files, I wish I could find an image that was an early post and showed a scene at a harbour and the image simply looked over sharp and flat, and I see that to a degree in a lot of M240 images. Perhaps something else is responsible, but the M240 files look at least to me too close to files from CMOS images from the other leading brands and there is something seemingly more 'digital' in how they look at least to my eyes. Perhaps Leica could provide some insight here and indeed what their opinion might be to those that do feel that the most obvious answer is the move from CCD to CMOS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markforce Posted February 21, 2015 Share #348 Posted February 21, 2015 Perhaps Leica could provide some insight here and indeed what their opinion might be to those that do feel that the most obvious answer is the move from CCD to CMOS. ...and in the meantime, how about this scientific thread wraps at some point and someone start posting good photographs instead. I mean, good ones, irrespective of any microcontrast-ic sensor differences, and not to make any CCD vs CMOS point any longer, but photos with a focus (pun intended) on composition and inspiration, which had made the M what it is in the first place. Maybe I am just ignorant but ignorance can be bliss.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 21, 2015 Share #349 Posted February 21, 2015 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/361314-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-13.html#post2886711 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 21, 2015 Share #350 Posted February 21, 2015 Perhaps Leica could provide some insight here and indeed what their opinion might be to those that do feel that the most obvious answer is the move from CCD to CMOS. ...and in the meantime, how about this scientific thread wraps at some point and someone start posting good photographs instead. I mean, good ones, irrespective of any microcontrast-ic sensor differences, and not to make any CCD vs CMOS point any longer, but photos with a focus (pun intended) on composition and inspiration, which had made the M what it is in the first place. Maybe I am just ignorant but ignorance can be bliss.... Maybe ...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 21, 2015 Share #351 Posted February 21, 2015 I'd be very interested to better understand is what inchip processing is being undertaken and if this is indeed responsible for the slightly more evenly sharp impression you get from M240 files Frankly I am not observing the effect you describe. Neither do I have an idea how one would go about sharpening raw sensor data, either on-chip or off-chip. Sharpening is a step applied after demosaicing, mostly to compensate for the unsharpness introdued by the interpolation. (Note that there is only so much you can achieve with sharpening – if some part of an image lacks sharpness because it is out of focus, no amount of sharpening would change that.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 21, 2015 Share #352 Posted February 21, 2015 Jonoslack, I do get the fact that you prefer M240 files, but the one point I'd be very interested to better understand is what inchip processing is being undertaken and if this is indeed responsible for the slightly more evenly sharp impression you get from M240 files, I wish I could find an image that was an early post and showed a scene at a harbour and the image simply looked over sharp and flat, and I see that to a degree in a lot of M240 images. Perhaps something else is responsible, but the M240 files look at least to me too close to files from CMOS images from the other leading brands and there is something seemingly more 'digital' in how they look at least to my eyes. Perhaps Leica could provide some insight here and indeed what their opinion might be to those that do feel that the most obvious answer is the move from CCD to CMOS. They have: "Many people think there is a big difference in the touch and feel and the look and feel of the CCD vs CMOS. We think a pixel just renders light or transforms light into electricity. And the look and feel is done in the image processing. On the other hand, the CMOS sensors have a lot of advantages such as video and live view and we therefore think that the CMOS have the future at Leica." - Stefen Daniel, February, 2014 Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 21, 2015 Share #353 Posted February 21, 2015 Then the question becomes how much image processing is applied before the image is stored. This question applies to both on-chip processing, and processing done in the camera firmware. With CMOS, it is possible to apply more processing on the chip, often using hardware implementations of the algorithms. CMOS continued to be improved. If you want to be impressed by CMOS development- google "Bart Dierickx". You will see a lot of work for back-side illumination with integrated microlens arrays and extreme low-noise CMOS sensors. I would like to see Leica leave the processing part of it to the end-user, rather than on-chip or in-camera. 80dB CCD sensor are available, the read-out rate is 5seconds per frame and pixel pitch is 9um. You get a 12MPixel full-frame camera that can take 1 picture every couple of seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #354 Posted February 22, 2015 I made some test with my M9 and a rented M240. All developed in LR5 and with a special x-rite camera profile only for the single photo. After applying the profile, I did a manual white balance. For me there are - after doing this - very little color differences, especially in the skin tones; and only little color shift at high ISO, even at the M9. But: LR develops the M9 photos a little bit darker; I corrected this. And LR develops the white balance different, even with fixed in camera color temperature. These two factors may be the reason, why some members see differences between the two cameras and prefer the M9 CCD. Guess which photos are out of the M9 and which are out of the M240. Studio flash, ISO 200: 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! 4 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240288-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-ccd/?do=findComment&comment=2768720'>More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #355 Posted February 22, 2015 Tungsten light, ISO 1600: 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! 5 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240288-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-ccd/?do=findComment&comment=2768721'>More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #356 Posted February 22, 2015 Cloudy daylight, ISO 1600, crop ca. 1:2, little noise reduction on the M9 photo: 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! 6 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240288-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-ccd/?do=findComment&comment=2768722'>More sharing options...
firststream Posted February 22, 2015 Share #357 Posted February 22, 2015 Thanks for posting these comparisons, and possibly breaking the infinity loop of this thread! I cannot determine which images belong to which system (I have neither M9 or M240). Since you point out the M9 blacks had to be lightened a smidge, and since it appears the first of the two have deeper blacks and more saturation on the colour-checker, as well as deeper blacks in the shadows of the model, then, either: The first pictures are the M9, and you were unable to parallel the blacks of the second without ruining the dynamic range differences seen in the in the colour-checker's frame or... The first pictures are the M240, and the second pictures of the M9 had to be over-lightened in order to match-up the shadows of the model. Does my analysis sound confusing? It should, because I cannot come to any definitive conclusion about which images belong to which system after seeing these images. Jono's observation that the difference lies in the dynamic range has some staying power for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 22, 2015 Share #358 Posted February 22, 2015 Elmars- It would be useful to see the original images posted, straight exports from LR5 of the DNG files from the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #359 Posted February 22, 2015 Elmars- It would be useful to see the original images posted, straight exports from LR5 of the DNG files from the camera. Here they are. Nothing done except converting to JPEG (sRGB). 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240288-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-ccd/?do=findComment&comment=2768971'>More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 22, 2015 Share #360 Posted February 22, 2015 . 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! 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/240288-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-ccd/?do=findComment&comment=2768974'>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