uhoh7 Posted February 26, 2015 Share #81 Posted February 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) My goal was to see if there was a "CCD Look" that was unattainable, even with processing. This has been the assertion from those favoring CCD sensors. So, I wanted to see how close I could come to matching the corrected output from an M9. I see very little value in comparing uncorrected images. I don't even look at default out-of-camera images in LR. I apply my presets for different cameras with adjustments dialed in for tone, color and sharpening on import. This leaves me with very little correction to achieve the final look that I find pleasing and allows for easier selection of images as well. As soon as you touch a slider image clarity suffers. Some of my favorite M9 shots are straight out of the camera. No 240 shot can be edited to match one like that. That's why both the 28 cron and 50 lux are such different lenses on the 240. I think anyone who prefers 240 output should own one. But the sensor technologies are very different. I'm not that interested in editing contests, though I respect that others may be, in fact the less editing the better, for me. I think it's pretty clear the 240 files take more tweaking, at least for my friends who have them. But needless to say, wonderful images can be made with either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Hi uhoh7, Take a look here CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mirekti Posted February 26, 2015 Share #82 Posted February 26, 2015 After amassing enough votes, I will post a follow-up, revealing the answers and how everyone did. Can you distinguish between different users? Some might be guessing, and some might really see it. If you just take the average result than... ...and maybe you should have added an option "I cannot tell" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 26, 2015 Share #83 Posted February 26, 2015 As soon as you touch a slider image clarity suffers. Some of my favorite M9 shots are straight out of the camera. No 240 shot can be edited to match one like that. That's why both the 28 cron and 50 lux are such different lenses on the 240. I think anyone who prefers 240 output should own one. But the sensor technologies are very different. I'm not that interested in editing contests, though I respect that others may be, in fact the less editing the better, for me. I think it's pretty clear the 240 files take more tweaking, at least for my friends who have them. But needless to say, wonderful images can be made with either. Totally wrong. The M240 files do not need more "tweaking" any more than the M9 files need more "tweaking" to look like the M240. The error is in the premise that the M9 files look better. They do not. But, the M240 files can look like the M9 files with more PP where the M9 files can never look like the M240 files. The M240 files have too much dynamic range and much better color depth at high ISO for the M9 to ever look like the M240, no matter how much you PP. You can dumb down an M240 file to look like an M9 file, but you can't up-res, up-dynamic range or up the color depth of an M9 file to look like the M240. I am sorry, but this is just the fact of the march of technology and some here want to believe that their choice of an older and inferior technology is better. You don't have to justify your CCD, just enjoy it. But, can we get over this whole deal about the "look" of the CCD is somehow better than the newer M240? It is just not a premise that has been shown to be true... unless better means noisy high ISO with low color depth, lower resolution, and low dynamic range. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted February 26, 2015 Share #84 Posted February 26, 2015 As soon as you touch a slider image clarity suffers. Some of my favorite M9 shots are straight out of the camera. No 240 shot can be edited to match one like that. That's why both the 28 cron and 50 lux are such different lenses on the 240. I think anyone who prefers 240 output should own one. But the sensor technologies are very different. I'm not that interested in editing contests, though I respect that others may be, in fact the less editing the better, for me. I think it's pretty clear the 240 files take more tweaking, at least for my friends who have them. But needless to say, wonderful images can be made with either. I agree with the last point 100% But my experience has differed. The M240 files are often fine without adjustment. But then we have to define adjustment, don't we? If you have a default for your camera in LR or ACR it is going to make adjustments if you define adjustments as anything that moves a slider off center. My personal definition of "adjustment" is whether and how much I need to tinker with the defaults after the image opens up. And there I have to say three things: (1) many M240 images require nothing but the default; (2) most of my M240 mages require no changes at all regarding color; and (3) when you do need to make adjustments the M240 is more forgiving. As only one example, opening up shadows and/or bringing out highlight detail is far easier on the M240. Does this make the M240 "better"? No. Just different. Nor are we talking about CCD as "better", obviously. I think both sets of David's images show that we are not talking about "better". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 26, 2015 Share #85 Posted February 26, 2015 The only prominent difference (in my eyes) is that noise signature is better in M9 *but* the noise appears at lower ISO than M240. Therefore for the *same* ISO, M240 is better but behaves differently (worse) when pushed compared to M9. But it is not an advantage for M9 since noise appears early. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted February 26, 2015 Share #86 Posted February 26, 2015 Thanks for the images David, very nice, however I prefer and opted for the M240 as after all it was bought for it's versatility such as being able to use my R lenses etc. Otherwise well done. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 26, 2015 Share #87 Posted February 26, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for the images David, very nice, however I prefer and opted for the M240 as after all it was bought for it's versatility such as being able to use my R lenses etc. Otherwise well done. Ken. LOL . Cool remark in a heated debate among hairspliiters, pixel-peepers, CCD-jihadists and CMOS blue helmets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 26, 2015 Share #88 Posted February 26, 2015 Hi David,really nice work. It's very interesting and I thank you very much for doing this. However I think that without a direct comparison (in this Part2) It's very difficult to tell which is which mostly because your M240 shots are post-processed to look exactly as M9 shots and without reference It's really tough cause the difference is really minimal and I think on Part1 It shows only on pure Reds Greens and Blues. FWIW I like both cameras and I think both are able to produce marvellous images. Emanuele I think all of these are the M240, there were a lot I did stop half way down. This could be different processing. Oops stuck my neck out again Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted February 26, 2015 Share #89 Posted February 26, 2015 I just voted randomly to see if I could get the right result without even looking at the images. Interestingly I seemed to be in the majority 50% of the time. Seriously though, these results are not significant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 26, 2015 Share #90 Posted February 26, 2015 Which is more effective on the M9 than on the M240... I doubt it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 26, 2015 Share #91 Posted February 26, 2015 You can dumb down an M240 file to look like an M9 file ... but you will never achieve the peculiar M9 "magenta zombification effect" on human faces in some kind of artificial light Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 26, 2015 Share #92 Posted February 26, 2015 I doubt it. In that case you are the only one.... This has been discussed extensively on this forum over the years and is a common complaint. By M240 users.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 26, 2015 Share #93 Posted February 26, 2015 Well, David, I have liked more this 2nd part... trying to guess on one image is better than comparing... I voted not to all the pics (60-70% around) , but where I voted my opinion has been coincident with the majority except in one case... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted February 26, 2015 Share #94 Posted February 26, 2015 LOL . Cool remark in a heated debate among hairspliiters, pixel-peepers, CCD-jihadists and CMOS blue helmets Thanks Otto. Frankly I couldn't care less about the CCD and the CMOS debate both will capture beautiful images in the right hands. Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 26, 2015 Share #95 Posted February 26, 2015 I think all of these are the M240, there were a lot I did stop half way down. This could be different processing. Oops stuck my neck out again Harder to tell with just one image of each scene. Two of the images had a unique M9 image size ratio, the rest had the M240 ratio. But- this parameter could easily be modified in post-processing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 26, 2015 Share #96 Posted February 26, 2015 Harder to tell with just one image of each scene. Two of the images had a unique M9 image size ratio, the rest had the M240 ratio. But- this parameter could easily be modified in post-processing. If you have to look at the image size or ratio you've answered the test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firststream Posted February 26, 2015 Share #97 Posted February 26, 2015 I agree. That's really stepping outside of David's challenge to us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Fanatic Posted February 26, 2015 Share #98 Posted February 26, 2015 The whole study is bogus because a web presentation is not what we strive for in quality photography.. Pains me to say it, but that's bollox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted February 26, 2015 Share #99 Posted February 26, 2015 If you have to look at the image size or ratio you've answered the test. I agree. That's really stepping outside of David's challenge to us. No- looking at the differences in frequency content between the M9 and M240 answers the question of whether there is a difference in the CCD vs CMOS look. In this case, an M9 vs M240 look. Some users state the M9 images have more "pop" to them, and the M9 files show more frequency content. But without two images to compare, it is impossible to determine what is different about the image content from the two cameras. This is why I posted the my guesses for the first set, and not the second set. I could be totally off-base, I'll know when the answers are provided. Besides, David could easily have changed the image dimensions to throw this measurement off. 5) M9- Two Guys. 6) M9- Sign A good test would be the one linked to earlier, where the scene is static and the cameras are held in position. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/326647-m240-vs-m9.html The M9 image in the linked to image above is slightly smaller than the M240 image, but required more space on disk to store. This usually means more frequency content. The image is decimated in size, which averages out noise. So something else is going on. From threads on this forum: 1) From Elmars test with the M240 and M9 with lens detection turned off on both cameras, the M240 showed more vignetting. In general, CMOS sensors have steeper dropoff with illumination angle. This means the coefficients used to restore the image are larger compared with the CCD. This might affect frequency content. 2) The M240 shows higher levels of IR contamination. 3) The M240 high-ISO images show more banding than the M9 and M8 pushed to the same ISO levels. Several users of both M9 and M240 have stated that more post-processing is required for the M240 images. My personal belief: put an IR cut filter on the M240, should save a lot of trouble. The IR contamination could also be responsible for the difference in frequency content. It would be like getting a weak out-of-focus image under the visible image. That would be like blurring the image. That would reduce "pop". I would prefer an explanation to the differences rather than pretending that there are none. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 26, 2015 Share #100 Posted February 26, 2015 ^^^ With web sized images, it is not possible to analyze high frequencies and IR contamination defocusing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.