It's not about CCD or CMOS

Rodrigue Zahr · Feb 13, 2015

Elliot H said:
Rodrigue Zahr said:

the M240 reminds me of my 5DMK-III.

Click to expand...

or anything Nikon

I forgot Nikon, sorry

--
I don't take a picture unless the picture pokes me and asks me to do so.

Leica Rangefinder "M9" Review:

Rangefinder System. Rediscovering photography!

So, here I am again with a new post, that this time it's not about a new Leica camera but rather about a new-to-me camera system; The Rangef...

rodriguezahr.blogspot.com

Leica XVario Review:

Leica X Vario Review after 3 delightful months of ownership.

I did all my best to convince myself to use one of these small to medium size compacts instead of my DSLR but honestly I couldn't. I ju...

rodriguezahr.blogspot.in

Marathonianbull · Feb 14, 2015

uhoh07 said:
To me the 240 is inferior:

sensor (totally different)

weight (M9 is already too big)

flare (M240 will flare more than M9 with same lenses--why? Sensor box design? I don't know)

colorcast with ZM (can't correct even the ZM 35/2 with any code)

why would I pay an extra 2k for that?

But that's just me...

Well, that settles it for me - if true regarding the ZM 35/2 (!?)

Jono Slack · Feb 14, 2015

HI there Irakly

I hope you're well - long time no speak

Irakly Shanidze said:
I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

That's why I'm not here too

Irakly Shanidze said:
the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

I still don't believe the difference is anything to do with the CCD/CMOS - after all, sensor's don't register colour - only light. The Colour is all to do with the Bayer filter and the demosaicing - Seems like a red herring to me - whether you like the colour better on an M9 to an M240 is quite a different matter (I'd disagree with you there as well, but of course it's entirely subjective).

Irakly Shanidze said:
P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

Of all the cameras I've had I think I've liked the A900 colour best - subtle and delicious. Sony do it well though.

All in all though I'm with the original poster - 'fidelity' is such a nebulous concept - just go with the one you like.

all the best

Jono Slack

Jonathan Slack Photography

www.slack.co.uk

Jono Slack · Feb 14, 2015

Hi there Ulrich

I hope you're well

Dr. Ulrich Rohde said:
But like a painting, set by the painter, the photographer have all the leeway to tune the picture as he likes, forget the reality. So, do not shoot the messenger but keep shooting creative pictures with your hardware (camera and lenses). The only critique I have about this posting is that no one shot within seconds (same light) the same scene with an M9, M240 or other, with the identical settings .

I've done this - with lots of different scenes and in different lighting as well, but it's not very enlightening, it seems to me that in the end, as you say, it all boils down to what you like and what you don't like. Of course, one can shoot exclusively colour charts in controlled lighting . . .but that isn't very interesting!

If you're going out into the big wide world with your camera everything changes - then I challenge anyone to come up with any kind of sensible definition of 'colour fidelity'.

all the best

-

Jono Slack

Jonathan Slack Photography

www.slack.co.uk

Dr. Ulrich Rohde · Feb 14, 2015

Yes, very true

sgoldswo · Feb 14, 2015

Rodrigue Zahr said:
Rodrigue Zahr said:

I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

Click to expand...

Jono Slack · Feb 14, 2015

sgoldswo said:
Rodrigue Zahr said:

sgoldswo said:

I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rodrigue Zahr · Feb 14, 2015

sgoldswo said:
If we are debating CMOS sensors, I can't really talk to Canon sensors with authority, but the rendering of colour (and thus the image quality) from the M240 is very, very different to the Nikon and Sony cameras that use the Sony designed sensors.

The M240 has weaker DR and high ISO, but superior rendering of graduations of colour (that doesn't mean colour is more accurate, but the M240 captures colour detail in a way I've not really seen from a high res sensor except for the one used in the D810). Part of that is the exceptional ability of Leica and Zeiss glass to render microcontrast - part of it is the delicate way the sensor treats colour. It's weakness is the red channel (and to a lesser extent magenta), which can blow spectacularly, but I have a LR preset to help control that.

Assuming the next M is CMOS only though, what I would really, really love to see is a low res (exceptional high ISO) version and high res (exceptional base ISO version).

Zephir 750 · Feb 14, 2015

Rodrigue Zahr said:
You said an interesting thing here. It's about the camera that inspires you to shoot with and to shoot more. In my case it's the M9 that triggeres the inspiration not the M240. Everuthing about the M9 reminds me of a Leica film camera, everything about the M240 reminds me of my 5DMK-III.
Unless Leica comes with a new M with no LV and No video and a sensor with some character, I'll be using an M9, ME or an MM... Anything that has a CCD in it.
--
I don't take a picture unless the picture pokes me and asks me to do so.

Leica Rangefinder "M9" Review:
http://rodriguezahr.blogspot.com/2014/09/rangefinder-system-rediscovering.html
Leica XVario Review:
http://rodriguezahr.blogspot.in/2014/01/leica-xvario-camera-to-fall-in-love-with.html

Yes, well said, I concur with Rodrigue Zahr: that's exactly the way I feel too. Personally, I'd rather buy a Sony A7II/A7R than the M240.

Nonetheless, these comparisons seem to me of little or no avail as Leica shall eventually end up replacing CCD sensors with CMOS' in the next iteration of the MM and M-E :-(.

Regards

Zephir 750 · Feb 14, 2015

Rodrigue Zahr said:
Rodrigue Zahr said:

I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

Click to expand...

sgoldswo · Feb 14, 2015

Jono Slack said:
sgoldswo said:

Rodrigue Zahr said:

Jono Slack said:

I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Irakly Shanidze · Feb 14, 2015

LOL, long time no talk indeed.

Now I do not need a British visa, we can our old idea come true

janlu · Feb 14, 2015

Conceptually i think your thought is very right .... as i find especially clever the observation about colors fidelity from Jono .

Btw , on a personal and "subjective" note i don't think it's a matter of color , colors can be corrected in a way or another .... i think it's more a way like the image is printed on the sensor ....

Think about different printers , personally i would like all the improvements of the M240 , but it really doesn't "print" like the M9 to me , neither on the screen or on paper ... personal preference of course.

On another note the M9 doesn't have the battery , the responsiveness or the High Iso of the M240 etc.... and the DR is way inferior also if i have to say the M240 only gain DR in shadows , the rendering of highlights of the M9 is a lot better to my taste ... as the pure pitch black

So at the end you are right , everyone enjoy what he prefers and suits him better .

The important thing is to express our photography with the tool we like more .

So , you did a very good point Simon !!

Btw , i will take your two posted shots as the joy you had in taking them .... as i understand what you wanted to point out .... if i have to speak only about IQ , it's difficult to tell , as the second one looks like a bit HDR to me ...... so not a fair "IQ" comparison with a such different PP , scenery and light .

Both are nice compositions , framing-wise

Regards , Gianluca

--
Nothing to explain.....

sgoldswo · Feb 14, 2015

uhoh07 said:
It's a totally different technology of capture. If that's just a nuance to you, and you want a 240, why not?

To me the 240 is inferior:

sensor (totally different)

weight (M9 is already too big)

flare (M240 will flare more than M9 with same lenses--why? Sensor box design? I don't know)

colorcast with ZM (can't correct even the ZM 35/2 with any code)

why would I pay an extra 2k for that?

Nearly missed this one. You are well entitled to prefer whichever rendering "does it for you" (that's the point of the post), but why do you think you cannot correct ZM lenses on the M240?

The ZM lenses are exactly the same as my M9, no better, no worse on my M240. I've taken lots of photos with the ZM 35/2 and I've not been unduly troubled with colourcast at all. In what conditions does this this colourcast manifest?

I've seen no evidence at all in my use of the M240 that it is more prone to flare, so if you can clarify that one it would be welcome too.

uhoh07 said:
But that's just me. I see nice work from the 240, and would not try to tell others which to prefer, and why, which is essentially what "it's not about the CCD or CMOS" is saying.

sgoldswo · Feb 14, 2015

Marathonianbull said:
uhoh07 said:

To me the 240 is inferior:

sensor (totally different)

weight (M9 is already too big)

flare (M240 will flare more than M9 with same lenses--why? Sensor box design? I don't know)

colorcast with ZM (can't correct even the ZM 35/2 with any code)

why would I pay an extra 2k for that?

But that's just me...

Click to expand...

Well, that settles it for me - if true regarding the ZM 35/2 (!?)

I don't think so - not when coded as a Summicron-M 1:2/35. I've just looked at a number of photos taken with the ZM 35/2 on the M240 and I can't see any evidence of cast when coded. Have never seen any greater incidence of flare in the M240 either.

Dr. Ulrich Rohde · Feb 14, 2015

I saw some reflection in the TriElmar but not in the M240, interesting observation. As far as color is concerned, the manufacturer set this and at the end you all agree on this.

Godfrey · Feb 14, 2015

Irakly Shanidze said:
I am absent here because even the very topic of the discussion reminds me a sinister "what is better, canon or nikon?"

the fact that CMOS sensors are not as good when it comes to color reproduction as CCD, in my opinion, is a temporary problem, and sooner, or later the solution will be found. It must be found simply because CMOS technology is superior in so many ways. For now, I will keep shooting M9.

P.S. as for color fidelity, sony a7R so far impressed me the most. i wish it had less buttons and no shutter lag

I have a Sony A7 body that I use mostly with Leica R lenses. Yes, it's color fidelity is much much better than the M9. The sensor matches well with SLR lenses too, so it's a win as a digital body for R lenses. It's a bit of a clunky camera in use, however, but eh? I put up with that in order to have a good sensor and decent viewfinder for the R and also my Nikkor lenses. The M9's lack of AA filter does make it about as sharp in resolution as the A7, despite the lower Mpixel count.

The user experience, however, is totally different from a rangefinder camera. The A7 handles more like a mid-range SLR than a RF.

G

JJJRRR768 · Feb 14, 2015

Wonderful photos, makes me miss my infrequent visits to the UK.....

Bender73 · Feb 14, 2015

A CCD sensor is not the same as a CMOS and it is a joy to shoot with both. I find CMOS sensors all the "same." Meaning they all look great, especially at high ISO. A CCD sensor has a dirty edge to it and far closer to film. Better and worse.

The M240 is too "Nikon" for a Leica IMHO. Of course I would love one, but I would always keep an M8 or M9 in the stable too.

uhoh07 · Feb 14, 2015

Godfrey said:
Godfrey said:

I've heard this same tale of CCD über CMOS superiority from people since the M240 was first announced. I'm terribly sorry, but it makes no sense at all to me. I've taken dozens of M240 raw files from other people and made them match the color palette of the M9 in ten minutes.

Click to expand...

G

You will never make the 50 Lux or 28 Cron perform the same on the 240. Many have tried.

As to your editing your way to M9 color palette...one of the things I love about the M9 is how nice it can do with very very little editing.

Any time I have to tweak a color palette, I think....there goes another precious few minutes of life.

Ten minutes on an image...yikes! For me that's agony. My favorite is the image which comes out just the way I like it...untouched.

I think I did spend 20 seconds on this one:

And yes, dedicated 240 shooters report increased flare compared to M9, with various lenses, including APO 50.

If that's not an issue for you, and I think many are fine with it--or oblivious, great, but it's something shooters should know before leaping.

Godfrey said:
I have a Sony A7 body that I use mostly with Leica R lenses. Yes, it's color fidelity is much much better than the M9. TG

Sorry could not disagree more. I have many thousands of frames with both A7 and A7r and many lenses. Now I have a A7.mod.

Sony color is not close to M9 with modern Leica or Zeiss glass. Quite muddy in comparison, and RAW files are atrocious, lossy and a night mare in comparison to M9 RAWs which are very friendly for me in Lightroom.

Of course M9 is very sensitive to light source and color and WB will vary, but so is the A7, perhaps more so. For daylight work I have never seen a digital camera with better color fidelity than the M9 and many others feel the same way.

It's not about CCD or CMOS

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts