400 Leica photographers agree: we love CCD!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are we all suffering from mass delusion?

Probably not all of you, however your sample by petition is so skewed that it is not at all realistic concerning the whole market.

 

We desire CCD sensors in M bodies. And Leica is just the sort of company to make it happen.

At a price that certainly more than the petitioners could tolerate.

Most of us would be more than happy if Leica continued on with the same CCD sensor (accompanied by a non-corroding cover glass)

'Most' is not realistic. Edited January 28, 2015 by pico

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Also Marc Williams ("fotografz"), who does wedding photography and has excellent color sense, has written in other threads here showing with images how he could not achieve the skin tones that he wanted with the M240 (but could with the M9) — indeed he wrote that when adjusting the M240 skin colors to where he wanted them threw other colors completely out of whack.

 

Now this is nonsense. I don't know fotografz...

 

Well, I do, and if Marc Williams questions the skin tones he can achieve with the M240 then I'd tend to listen. And this from someone who is using both CCD and CMOS Leicas and happy with both.

[Advertisement]

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

[NB23]

Well, I do, and if Marc Williams questions the skin tones he can achieve with the M240 then I'd tend to listen. And this from someone who is using both CCD and CMOS Leicas and happy with both.

 

I'm in the business for very long now. 5 years before the Nikon D1 came out. Over 600 weddings. All I know is that ccd was a pita and that cmos revolutionized it. All my colleagues agree. Even the big, big, big names in the wedding workd agree. They give absolutely no sh*t about ccd if they have the choice to get a cnos instead.

 

Again, I din't know marc but i know why cmos is prefered by the wedding folks on the planet.

[bla]

Again, I din't know marc but i know why cmos is prefered by the wedding folks on the planet.

 

Because of the really good high ISO low light capabilities?

You did not by chance read what this discussion is about, did you?

I think in the open letter it was stated that the colour and the base ISO images of CCD are perceived favorably by actually quite a lot of photographers. Try to get 400 people to sign for something concerning a Leica product.

Edited January 28, 2015 by bla

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I'm in the business for very long now. 5 years before the Nikon D1 came out. Over 600 weddings. All I know is that ccd was a pita and that cmos revolutionized it. All my colleagues agree. Even the big, big, big names in the wedding workd agree. They give absolutely no sh*t about ccd if they have the choice to get a cnos instead.

 

Again, I din't know marc but i know why cmos is prefered by the wedding folks on the planet.

 

Dear NB23, the point is I know Marc's work but have no clues to who you are or what you do. Who am I more likely to listen to?

[Prosophos]

Now this is nonsense. I don't know fotografz but prosophos surely falls in the newb category to me. 5 years of shooting experience, photographing within a 200 feet radius around the house, heavily post processed files, relying on dof tricks ... That's really not a definition of a pro, and especially doesn't make him an expert.

Sure, some fine images. As all the others. Yes, we get a sense that he loves his family, but that's hardly a Leica or a lens thing. It's not even a Rolex thing.

 

 

It's amazing what you will find "200 feet" from your house...

 

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/the-passionate-breakfast.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/i-want-to-be-free.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/18.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/231.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/stacked1.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/sunset-portrait-anonymous.jpg

https://prosophos.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/toro.jpg

[Prosophos]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... in the open letter it was stated that the colour and the base ISO images of CCD are perceived favorably by actually quite a lot of photographers. Try to get 400 people to sign for something concerning a Leica product.

 

Bingo. You can't get 400 to agree on a neck strap, let alone something so important.

 

So that fact that 400 (and counting) agree on this issue is remarkable, despite what some people contend.

 

I guess it's easier to be angry and negative... and to sabotage threads.

[01af]

How about a little lesson in logical thinking? Here we go:

 

Observation:

 

• Object A has property X.
  
• The very same object A also has property Y.
  

 

Conclusion:

 

• X causes Y.
  

[bla]

Great, chocolate is brown. Chocolate has a good taste. So brown causes good taste.

 

I hope you do not apply this lesson in logical thinking to your everyday life.

[DigitalHeMan]

Sigh.

 

 

 

I cant believe I'm replying to this topic....

 

 

 

But...

 

 

 

Who cares?

 

 

 

People buy M9s because they're used and are cheaper than an M-240.

 

 

 

.

 

 

Sorry to state the obvious maybe, but many of the M9 users on the forum bought it not because it was cheaper than an M240, but because it was the best (and only) Leica digital rangefinder available at the time.

[mjh]

Bingo. You can't get 400 to agree on a neck strap, let alone something so important.

 

So that fact that 400 (and counting) agree on this issue is remarkable, despite what some people contend.

 

More than 5 years ago, a petition to get Leica to build an R10 garnered the support of 660 people and achieved exactly nothing (as expected). These are all quite insignificant numbers.

[Prosophos]

More than 5 years ago, a petition to get Leica to build an R10 garnered the support of 660 people and achieved exactly nothing (as expected). These are all quite insignificant numbers.

 

 

Right then.

 

Okay, that's that. It's done. Sorry to have wasted your time. I think I will now venture outside (but only within 200 feet of my home).

 

Don't worry, I'll turn off the lights on this thread as I go. See you later. Bye...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(Pssst.... Petition Signers! I think the naysayers are all gone! Let's get back to enjoying this thread and our CCD Leicas!)

[jaapv]

Disclosure: I support THE petition because I feel that everybody has a right to send a request to Leica. Leica can then decide whether it makes sense or not. However there is one myth that has to be debunked. Sensor technology has absolutely nothing to do with colour rendering as a sensor is a monochrome device. The colour rendering is imparted by the formulation of the colour filters in the Bayer filter. If the 240 would have had an ON CMOS the colour would have been exactly the same as the M9. If a hypothetical new CCD would be made by CMOSIS, the colour would be like the 240...

 

So you are basically asking the wrong thing.

Now if you were to ask for an M9 type Bayer filter on a future CMOS M we would be getting somewhere.

Edited January 28, 2015 by jaapv

[Guest]

Now this is nonsense. I don't know fotografz but prosophos surely falls in the newb category to me. 5 years of shooting experience, photographing within a 200 feet radius around the house, heavily post processed files, relying on dof tricks ... That's really not a definition of a pro, and especially doesn't make him an expert...

Well, I do, and if Marc Williams questions the skin tones he can achieve with the M240 then I'd tend to listen. And this from someone who is using both CCD and CMOS Leicas and happy with both.

I've no idea whether Peter (Prosophos) is a professional photographer or not, but that is hardly relevant, when you can clearly see the quality of color on his blog. Similarly, the color work of Marc Williams is outstanding. This is the reason I cited these two as relevant examples of photographers whose views on the color rendition of the M9 vs that of the M240 matter to me. Another one is Charles Peterson, a well-known Seattle photographer whose color sense is outstanding, and who has also expressed, briefly, in a few posts on LUF the same concerns and preference for the M9 vs the M20 color rendition — and who, being good at post-processing, also has not felt that this difference can be equalized by a custom profile for the M240.

 

Agains this, are the thousands of M9 and M240 color photographs that one can see on photo forums all over the web where the M240 pictures often stand out like a sore thumb with their weird yellows and reds. Obviously, not every M240 color photo can be identified as such, and good color can, and has, been achieved with the M240 — but usually not in pictures involving skin tones or ones in which the problem yellow and reds are predominant. Actually, you don't have to go further than the color pictures on the website of Jip van Kuijk ("jip") to see the M240 color rendition that I am referring to — and Jip has asserted that people have issues with M240 color renditions only because they don't have the requisite skill in post-processing to get color with the M240 to look like that of the M9.

 

Now, that fact that only 400 photographers (including me) have signed the open letter on the Prosophos website is not encouraging because, as others have pointed out, this number is hardly significant and not likely to affect the views at Leica — although the people at Leica may be concerned somewhat that some very good color photographers have negative views on the M240 color rendition. It seems to me that the letter would have received many more signatures if it had been put up on LUF, which is the site visited by the largest number of photographers shooting with Leica cameras.

Edited January 28, 2015 by not_a_hero

[Lenshacker]

Like any Black and White film, sensors -whether CCD or CMOS- have their own spectral response that depends on its composition. The spectral response of the detector itself is convolved with the spectral response of the dye used in the color mosaic filter and the IR absorbing filter. Kodak added Indium Tin Oxide to get extended blue response in their detectors. Other manufacturers have their own proprietary chemistry. Very few publish the details. They are not all the same, probably like comparing film from various manufacturers.

 

If the M240 is giving unnatural skin tones, try using an IR cut filter over the lens.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Lenshacker

[Prosophos]

Disclosure: I support THE petition because I feel that everybody has a right to send a request to Leica. Leica can then decide whether it makes sense or not. However there is one myth that has to be debunked. Sensor technology has absolutely nothing to do with colour rendering as a sensor is a monochrome device. The colour rendering is imparted by the formulation of the colour filters in the Bayer filter. If the 240 would have had an ON CMOS the colour would have been exactly the same as the M9. If a hypothetical new CCD would be made by CMOSIS, the colour would be like the 240...

 

So you are basically asking the wrong thing.

Now if you were to ask for an M9 type Bayer filter on a future CMOS M we would be getting somewhere.

 

 

Jaap, thanks for supporting the idea of my petition in principle (if not my petition content specifically, although you are welcomed to sign it ...).

 

I will mention, however, that it's not just about the colour. It's about micro-contrast and tonal transitioning, etc. I don't expect everybody to appreciate the differences, and I certainly do not believe that these differences "make or break" a photo. In the end, content/composition/lighting trumps such superficial considerations. However, if I have the freedom to choose, I'll choose an M9 over an M240 every time.

 

If however the M9 vanished from the face of the earth tomorrow, my next camera of choice, out of all of the remaining cameras currently in production (by any manufacturer), would be the M240.

[batmobile]

The central premise here appears to be that CCD is desirable because of the 'nicer' colour with the M9 compared to the M240. There was a comment made about a wedding photographer just not being able to get good skin tones from the M240. Sure... this is not news. The fact that M240 colour has caused a few wrinkled noses is well-known. What is also well known is that most Canon users take for granted good skin tones, as do Sony A7 users. The Ricoh GR produces beautiful, natural colour and its files have a sparkle one rarely see in a camera.

 

Beautiful colour and sparkle are not particular to CCD. Just shoot some Ricoh GR files and you'll be force to conclude that Leica needs to copy whatever Ricoh did (and that used a CMOS).

 

It would be nice if this petition resulted in everyone being happy and I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but it ain't gonna happen. Importantly, the reason for wanting the CCD's return is fundamentally flawed, IMHO. The problem is this: M240 colour is not universally liked. In fact, by some, it is loathed. I felt the same way about the nasty green files the D800 was kicking out for a while. Horrid, unless your wedding guests are plants. D810 seems to have solved that problem....

Edited January 29, 2015 by batmobile

[Prosophos]

The central premise here appears to be that CCD is desirable because of the 'nicer' colour with the M9 compared to the M240. There was a comment made about a wedding photographer just not being able to get good skin tones from the M240. Sure... this is not news. The fact that M240 colour has caused a few wrinkled noses is well-known. What is also well known is that most Canon users take for granted good skin tones, as do Sony A7 users. The Ricoh GR produces beautiful, natural colour and its files have a sparkle one rarely see in a camera.

 

Beautiful colour and sparkle are not particular to CCD. Just shoot some Ricoh GR files and you'll be force to conclude that Leica needs to copy whatever Ricoh did (and that used a CMOS).

 

The central premise is not just about the colour (the discussion unfortunately veered in that direction when this thread was overrun by the indignant and generally grumpy). Please refer back to my Letter and/or my post immediatley above yours to understand what I mean.

 

With respect to the Ricoh GR, it produces sharp files but not-so-subtle tones. The files look a little cartoonish, but one cannot deny that the output is impressive for such a diminutive package.

 

The CMOS-based camera that has come the closest to producing M9-like files (to my eye) is the Sony A7S. Yes I have owned it and have shot with it (refer to my blog if you want to verify this). Too bad about its ergonomics... I couldn't get past that.

 

Yet, at base ISO the M9 is still superior to all of them. Sorry to be repeating myself.

[jaapv]

Once again I fear I disagree. A higher resolution-higher DR sensor will of necessity have better micro contrast and transitions, regardless of technology. The main difference will again be in the filter array and in this case fewer pixel imbalances.

Added to which a large percentage of photographers, professional and amateur alike, have only the vaguest notion of proper sharpening and contrast handling.

Lightroom is woefully inadequate in that respect.

Processed properly the 240 files will show superior micro contrast and transitions.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

I like my M9 and have learned how to use its files to achieve the results that I want (and in this respect it is very different from the other digital cameras that I own or have owned - inc CMOS sensor ones). Much as I like my M9 I am not averse to eventually replacing it with whatever Leica will produce in RF when I do. However my grouse is that as cameras 'progress' and sensors change, there seems to be little absolute consistency in the way their files have to be processed to achieve the results that I want. So I have to relearn my adjustments which takes (and is a waste of) a considerable amount of time. If I had to shift from CCD to CMOS I would do so without qualms if my workflow remained essentially the same and the results showed no deterioration.

 

From posts here it is clear that workflows do change and yet there are those who argue that there is no inherent difference between the final outputs from either type of sensor. The REAL question which I would like answered is that if this is indeed the case, why does the output workflow have to change?