What I miss from M9 in my M10

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fear the comparison will start and end with a lot of detracting technical details. There is the difference between 18 and 24 MP. ISO settings for both cameras are not identical etc.

 

Each detail may lead someone to say: If you had done it someway different, you'd see it.  

18 and 24 MP. Do you really think that will show up on anything but exceedingly large prints?

[Tomek]

How about taking a picture with your M10, printing it A3 and then taking a picture of that with an M7 and then scanning the neg?

 

Honestly I don't understand the whole CMOS v CCD (I used to have an M9) thing. I am no expert but isn't the only difference the way in which the data is read from the sensor? Or is there more going on?

 

I liked my M9 images very much but I like my M10 images just as much.

 

I agree. If I want to have real analog feeling I am simply shooting photos using one of my analog cameras (e.g. Mamiya 645 - https://www.flickr.com/photos/big_lynx/4590429698/in/album-72157623443707495/). Then I prepare chemistry and develop films by myself. And this is end of my analog game as I usually scan films to have digital format. The process is long, complicated and very sensitive against many factors. But gives a lot of fun. I also own few digital cameras (including iPhone :-)) but no-one of them is able to generate so big amount of unexpected results as film based camera is.

 

This is also questions of personal preferences - as we see differently tv set based on cathode ray tube, plasma or led.

 

Last but not least - I like pictures of my M10 very much.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ko.Fe.]

more than any other differences it's the CCD sensor versus the CMOS.

There's a look the CCD gives that for me a CMOS cannot replicate, at least not right out of the camera anyway.

 

I own and use in my work a few digital cinema cameras, most have CMOS sensors, one has a CCD sensor and here too there's a difference in imaging that I can see and prefer. For me a CCD sensor is more "filmic" and having decades of experience in using film in both stills and cinema work I can appreciate the difference, for others with perhaps less film "history" I would imagine that they are quite happy enough with the CMOS sensors, and why not.

 

But now it's really a case of no choice because now there's no manufacturer as far as I know using CCD's in either motion picture or still cameras, why that is I'm not sure but it has to be a combination of technical and cost reasons plus the advantage that CMOS sensors have in regards to sensitivity range. 

 

Perhaps that's one reason why the M9, and even the M8, cameras are still holding their used prices quite well, their image quality is still sought after despite the problems that the sensors had in regards to the corrosion issue. As I said in the previous post my MM1 is a keeper and who knows I may even be tempted to try to find a M9 at some time.

 

 

Surprisingly, manufacturers are still using CCD for small, economy P&S. 

Couple of examples:

http://www.sony.ca/en/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-w830#product_details_default

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/en/products/method/gp/pid/41209#_030

[evikne]

I hope the future will bring us a new kind of sensors with the best of both worlds: No corrosion problems, good ISO and dynamic range, and more living, less cold and sterile images :-)

Edited September 12, 2017 by evikne

[jaapv]

I fear less cold and sterile equates with less perfect in the technical mind. You'll have to polish your postprocessing skills, starting from an increasingly flawless file.

[otto.f]

The only thing I miss is wake-up time: faster in the M9, noticeable and decisive in relevant situations.

I can't follow the idea that M9 images are warmer, they are more neutral and the M10 images are warmer, in my workflow at least. But I avoid LR as much as possible and work with C1, DNG Neutral. Sometimes I do a -10 on Saturation with M10 files. So: cold and sterile? Can't see that at all in my M10 images.

I feel much more comfortable with the M10's shutter sound in situations that need silence.

Edited September 12, 2017 by otto.f

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to say my M9 has been gone for 8 weeks getting the sensor upgraded, and I really haven't missed it a bit. It will remain as my backup camera once I get it back, because we have history together....

 

As to images, the M9/M10 difference is not just CCD vs CMOS - there is also that fact that Kodak color engineers did the color filtering for the M9 sensor (along with the rest of it), but not for the M10. And there is so much other data processing that goes into turning electrons off a sensor into an image file to be written to the SD card. And yet again into a picture I like on my computer or in print.

 

I look at some of my favorite M9 shots, and think "Gosh, wasn't that color and tonality special!" Then I look at my Camera Raw settings for those pix, and I had usually made huge changes in the calibration profile, or the WB, or the exposure, or the contrast curve. They weren't "M9 pictures" - they were "M9 pictures as processed by ME!" Mostly after 6-12 months of "experimenting" with the settings.

 

A touch of contrast here, a change in saturation there, a different base daylight WB setting - and I can get the M9 look from M10 files. Just takes some thought and experimentation.

[Tailwagger]

I havent had the pleasure of using an M9... I still covert an MM1, someday perhaps... but I suspect from my experience with the 645D versus 645Z that increased DR plays a role. In the end, you have to crush all that down to a display medium that at best, AFAICT, has about half the range.  Perhaps the more technical can supply facts in this regard, but I suspect that having more data to squeeze into the same space makes for more work in terms of properly adjusting the relationship between shadow vs highlights and everything in between.  At least thats the sense I came away with when working with the two Pentaxes. 

[pgh]

18 and 24 MP. Do you really think that will show up on anything but exceedingly large prints?

It depends on how you define exceedingly large, but it is a different I certainly appreciate in practice. There is more than pure resolution that is relevant when it comes to making the prints. 

I personally print everywhere between 11x17 in and 40x60 in and in all but the smallest sizes appreciate the difference. When I get to 16x24 and up I consider grabbing my Sony cameras to shoot the work if I have the foresight to do so. When it's 20x30 or bigger I'm usually a little regretful if I didn't shoot it on a better sensor. 

 

Also, I think we do a disservice to sensors when we associate their technical abilities with negative terms like cold and sterile. This means the sensors are giving us finer and more accurate detail. If you don't want that, you can use old tech. Personally, I think the best way to use tech is to embrace what it's good at. Free your M10 from having to be the same kind of imaging machine that an M3 was, because it's not. It can do other things, do them better etc. Lot's of times 'character' in an image is just a mask for bland content or technique anyways.

[jaapv]

The difference in linear resolution between 18 and 24 MP is rather small, something like 17%

5212 pixels vs 5952 pixels on the long side. I can hardly call that an earth-shattering increase in resolution.

[Jared]

This is a subject that came up frequently when the M(240) was first released. My problem is with the adjectives used--both the lack of clear meanings behind most of them and the connotations some of them carry. CCD more lifelike? More film-like? What does that even mean? Film-like in terms of grain/noise? Color response? Dynamic range? Highlight roll off? Dynamic range? Which film? Film spans a huge gamut from Techpan 2415 To Fuji Velvia 25 and everything in between. Is more film-like intrinsically better? Or intrinsically worse? More or less digital? Both CCd's and CMOS chips are equally digital at least from a literal standpoint.

 

Nostalgia for CCD vs CMOS seems silly to me. If you love the images your M9 produces, by all means use it. I'm not going to tell you images from an M10 are "better". However, Indon't think there is anything intrinsic in CCD technology that provides a difference in the final output except, perhaps, in noise. Given the current state of the two technologies, CMOS chips produce less read noise, and this is measurable even at base ISO. Personally, Inthink that is a good thing, but you could always experiment with adding a little noise to images out of an M10 or M(240) to see if you like the results better or see if they seem more film-like or real or less clinical or digital.

 

I suspect that most of the nostalgia comes from the fact that many of us had enough experience with the M9 to get the results we wanted in terms of colors, saturation, contrast, highlights, shadow details, etc. and we don't yet have that same experience with the M10. Personally, I vastly prefer the improved dynamic range, high ISO performance, lower noise floor, more accurate colors, and ability to use Live View that I get out of the M10.

 

The M9 was certainly a milestone for Leica and, in my view, showed that they were on the way to saving the rangefinder in a digital world. It was and remains a fantastic camera. But there is nothing I miss aside from my familiarity with it.

[jaques]

i found a similar change when I went from m9 to m240. The m240 images have a somewhat lifeless flat look out of camera- whereas the m9 ones had a vibrancy. I find I have to do more processing with m240- often I was quite happy with the m9 results direct from the camera. when I look back over my past images I miss the M9 image style somewhat. I much prefer the functionality of the m240 though.

[screwmount]

I have recently switched from M9 to M10, and there are many things I love with my new camera that I do not miss from the previous. I do not miss the shutter sound of the M9 that sounded like a rusty slinky. The M10 sounds more like a nice hairdressing scissors – snip, snip :-) The M10 is slimmer and the grip is better. And I don't miss the noisy images from anything above ISO 800. But nevertheless, there is something inexplicable with the pictures from the M9 that I miss. They were in a way more analog, more real, the colors were warmer. Maybe I can call it the "texture". The pictures from my M10 are perhaps a little too perfect? Maybe they are too smooth and polished, just as from most other modern cameras?

 

I'd love to find a way to make the pictures look more like what I got from the M9, so I had the best of both worlds, at least some times. But I haven't yet figured out exactly what it is. Is it the colors, the contrast, or something else? Should I add some noise? Is it possible whatsoever with the Lightroom tools to get something similar?

 

Do others miss anything else?

 

Just go on with the M9 ...

[evikne]

I think the best thing I can do is to continue experimenting in Lightroom until I find something that suits me, although I have used to process my images as little as possible. I prefer a natural and unedited look. But I love my M10 and I will never go back!

[pgh]

The difference in linear resolution between 18 and 24 MP is rather small, something like 17%

5212 pixels vs 5952 pixels on the long side. I can hardly call that an earth-shattering increase in resolution.

No, of course it's not earth shattering, but there is a practical difference in prints that, in my opinion, do not qualify as "exceedingly large" 

The dynamic range of the sensor also helps yield better prints, in my opinion. The differences are not staggering, but they are at increments that I find to be of practical benefit. But again, if I'm going to be printing at any decent size I'll probably try to shoot with my Sony. I enjoy using the M more, though. 

[arno_nyhm]

(...), there is something inexplicable with the pictures from the M9 that I miss.(...)

 

son: you just miss the good old times. that's got nothing to do with the M9. it is the same thing as people looking back on their analogue pictures and missing something of the M3 in their pictures with the M9.

 

my Grandfather used to say: "leicas come and go. but the pictures remain." wise man he was.

[otto.f]

son: you just miss the good old times. that's got nothing to do with the M9. it is the same thing as people looking back on their analogue pictures and missing something of the M3 in their pictures with the M9.

 

my Grandfather used to say: "leicas come and go. but the pictures remain." wise man he was.

Right. Plus statistics count here. The amount of photo's made with the M10 is just smaller than what you've with M9 thus far, so there's less chance for M10 to have delivered images that stay in your mind

[adli]

I have to say my M9 has been gone for 8 weeks getting the sensor upgraded, and I really haven't missed it a bit. It will remain as my backup camera once I get it back, because we have history together....

 

As to images, the M9/M10 difference is not just CCD vs CMOS - there is also that fact that Kodak color engineers did the color filtering for the M9 sensor (along with the rest of it), but not for the M10. And there is so much other data processing that goes into turning electrons off a sensor into an image file to be written to the SD card. And yet again into a picture I like on my computer or in print.

 

I look at some of my favorite M9 shots, and think "Gosh, wasn't that color and tonality special!" Then I look at my Camera Raw settings for those pix, and I had usually made huge changes in the calibration profile, or the WB, or the exposure, or the contrast curve. They weren't "M9 pictures" - they were "M9 pictures as processed by ME!" Mostly after 6-12 months of "experimenting" with the settings.

 

A touch of contrast here, a change in saturation there, a different base daylight WB setting - and I can get the M9 look from M10 files. Just takes some thought and experimentation.

 

 

Hi

 

I am sure that you are right that it is possible to achieve M9 look from the M10, but most of the times I try, the files looks kind of "processed". I also had a look over some of my M8 files here the other day, and the colors in the M8 files seems to have a kind if "pop" right out of the camera. No way I can replicate that with standard import settings for the M10 files.

 

Not going back though, the M10 has a lot of advantages over the M8/9, not to mention having more stable electronics....

[Printmaker]

 - why is everbody complaining about the M9 shutter Sound. I find it remarkably soft. I like it much more than the thin M10 sound.

 

I love the M10 shutter sound but in a very noisy room, the sound of the M9 (Monochrom) shutter is very reassuring.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pico]

Perhaps that's one reason why the M9, and even the M8, cameras are still holding their used prices quite well, their image quality is still sought after despite the problems that the sensors had in regards to the corrosion issue.

 

Frankly, I doubt any buyer can tell, or care about the differences between CCD and CMOS.

 

We could begin a thread about psychological, impressionistic driven opinions. 

.

Edited September 18, 2017 by pico