Will Leica Ever comeback to CCD parallel with the CMOS?

[mottykytu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The biggest reason for chosing CMOS over CCD is Reliablity and Cost (time, money)

but do you think Leica will ever offer special edition of the RE-ISSUES M9 that have all M11 feature but have a CCD Sensor ?

[Doc_P]

I wouldn't bet on it... As great as the idea is: Leica as niche provider has development resource allocation changes ?

• Will the revenue recover the development expenses ?
• Will the same effort invested in the SL4, Q4 or S4 bring more revenue ?

[Dazzajl]

Sadly there are more issues than reliability and cost. Readout time, battery consumption, processing power and complexity of chip architecture are all stacked against anyone making new CCD sensors. Which is all really sad, as like you, I’d love to see a camera combining a CCD chip with more modern tech. 

[pedaes]

Never say never - but no.

[wda]

Not as a niche product,  I fear.

[Einst_Stein]

extreme unlikely

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The big improvement that came in with CMOS sensors was liveview - a major reason for choosing CMOS over CCD.
(I read that CCD can do liveview, but much more slowly than CMOS).

[Einst_Stein]

I guess potentially CCD might use less (read/write) periphery per pixel while CMOS need full X-Y read/write periphery. When the pixel is shrinking, usually the logic read/write circuits do not shrink as fast. Meaning, CCD may have more pixel per unit area.

To speed up read/write time (for live view?), CCD could choose to divide the area into smaller sub-zones (sub-row and sub-column), but wold not as fast as per-pixel R/W CMOS.

Per pixel performance (sensitivity, color depth, etc.) should be  about the same. 

The question is, any compelling benefits to revive CCD? if not, then the semiconductor scaling trend would favor the more popular (CMOS), the less popular, once drops out of the competition, would never catch up. 

Edited June 2 by Einst_Stein

[jankap]

+1

There must be something mystical in the abbreviation CCD. The use of film gives a different result to the image, if you look close enough.
But CCD and CMOS give both images, that are areas of pixels, horizontally and vertically. Like the map of some modern towns.😀
At most, additional details selected by the manufacturer, regardless of the technic, can give a difference. The choice of the filters in front of the pixels, for instance.

Edited June 2 by jankap

[evikne]

What about a Foveon sensor? Wouldn't that be just as attractive? And perhaps a little more likely at some point in the future?

[jankap]

They are "almost" ready. Why they aim at 60Mp, is for me a mystery.

https://photorumors.com/2025/04/19/sigma-still-committed-to-foveon-they-are-now-almost-at-the-final-stage-of-technology-development/

[jaapv]

All the features of the M11?  No - many of them are linked to CMOS technology and impossible on a CCD sensor.

[BernardC]

17 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I read that CCD can do liveview, but much more slowly than CMOS

A lot of video cameras used CCDs, so liveview and video should be possible.

I've read that the CCD process used older tech that was less cost-effective at scale than CMOS. It's a similar situation to plasma televisions, where it's not worth investing in new production equipment because it isn't cost-competitive or energy efficient, even if a small segment of the market might prefer their imaging properties.

[erudolph]

Perhaps coincidentally, just this past week I read the obituary for the Bell Labs scientist who shared the Nobel for conceiving of the CCD.

[evikne]

17 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

(I read that CCD can do liveview, but much more slowly than CMOS).

I don't want liveview.

[BWColor]

Will this move make them money..unlikely..

[Einst_Stein]

7 hours ago, evikne said:

What about a Foveon sensor? Wouldn't that be just as attractive? And perhaps a little more likely at some point in the future?

It might seem vertical color separation makes more sense than horizontal separation. Horizontal cut the light (efficiency) to 1/N where N depends on the color filter pattern. Vertical separation gets the 100% of the raw light for the top layer, take away the color it wants, and let the rest of light passes down.  The amount of light got by the lower layer he lower layer depends on the filter's transparency efficiency. 

Here the top layer is the layer facing the light.  

But the fundamental challenge is the planer properties of semiconductor processing. It would take more effort to access the lower layer elements.  With Back-lighted sensor, vertical color operation is likely to loose more light efficiency for the lower layers.  Will ever vertical color separation catch-up? Never say never, but unlikely, given the money put into the investment.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I don't want liveview.

No EVF? You will be ignored by any camera makers who are working on new cameras, including Leica. 

[Pelu2010]

Why not use an M8 or M9?

You have the look of the CCD and can improve the size with Photoshop if needed for larger prints.

The only thing I would like to see is:

Support for older cameras

An upgrade of the battery and processor to eliminate the lag cameras experience and increase the number of images per battery charge.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[evikne]

10 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

No EVF? You will be ignored by any camera makers who are working on new cameras, including Leica. 

I just want an M-D model. I don't want any screen at all.

Edited June 2 by evikne