dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
DxOMark review: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...-sensor-in-Leica-s-latest-rangefinder-perform
Disclosure: I have never owned a Leica M9. I have owned a Leica M8 and was extremely disappointed with it. I would like to consider the new M (240) but I'm still waiting to see what technical reviews will be performed by the various review sites out there.
DxO Mark published their review of the M (240)'s sensor (note - they didn't look at the camera from a usability perspective so please refrain from the usual "but it's the only full frame digital rangefinder out there" / "but what about the Leica experience. . . " type comments
) last week and I'm surprised no one here's made much fuss about it. Especially in light of, for me, two important notes:
And although I'm still waiting to see how the sensor performs under really dirty, ugly, mixed low lighting (such as bars/taverns, motels or banquet halls) the DxO review gets me excited.
All in all, the new M is actually looking to be "not bad" right now. I really want to like this camera even though I know it's pricey. If it is "that good" I may be able to completely ditch the heavy DSLRs for weddings/portraits once and for all...
Cheers,
Dave
Disclosure: I have never owned a Leica M9. I have owned a Leica M8 and was extremely disappointed with it. I would like to consider the new M (240) but I'm still waiting to see what technical reviews will be performed by the various review sites out there.
DxO Mark published their review of the M (240)'s sensor (note - they didn't look at the camera from a usability perspective so please refrain from the usual "but it's the only full frame digital rangefinder out there" / "but what about the Leica experience. . . " type comments
) last week and I'm surprised no one here's made much fuss about it. Especially in light of, for me, two important notes:-
- The beauty here in these tests is the testing that's done against the M (240)'s predecessors as well as the tests against other cameras. This hopefully helps people understand that the CCD vs CMOS debate is not as clear cut perhaps as some may believe.
-
- The second half of this statement is what concerns me the most really. I would hope, since this is a rangefinder camera and therefore "mirror less" that the ability to hand hold shots at lower shutter speeds would assist in attaining some semblance of approximation between the big FF DSLRs and the M if not an "almost" equality when it comes to how the image quality will hold up at these relatively high ISOs.
And although I'm still waiting to see how the sensor performs under really dirty, ugly, mixed low lighting (such as bars/taverns, motels or banquet halls) the DxO review gets me excited.
All in all, the new M is actually looking to be "not bad" right now. I really want to like this camera even though I know it's pricey. If it is "that good" I may be able to completely ditch the heavy DSLRs for weddings/portraits once and for all...
Cheers,
Dave
maclaine
Well-known
I read the review last week as well, but refrained from posting about it since my last M240 thread turned into a pile on about what a terrible person Steve Huff is for enjoying Leica products and how stupid it is for anyone to buy a Leica that isn't 5-50 years old. From a purely technical standpoint, between the DxOmark review and Sean Reid's review, I think it finally buries the nonsense about CCD vs. CMOS. The new M sensor does indeed look better than the M9's, and finally puts it in league with the big dogs of the DSLR world, which, for me, is enough to finally consider pulling the trigger on one.
MCTuomey
Mentor
My first play with M 240 files suggested they were not bad, very much the reverse case to my eyes, so I'm not one of those folks referenced in your subject.
Pretty sure that, once the post work is figured out by all the fine photographers that will buy one, the camera will get its props.
Pretty sure that, once the post work is figured out by all the fine photographers that will buy one, the camera will get its props.
noimmunity
scratch my niche
That would be real watershed for Leica (to get pro wedding photographers on board).
I hope it works out for you. I bet it will.
Thardy
Mentor
So, is the M240 bad because it takes photos like Nikon and Canon, or is it good because it takes photos like Nikon and Canon?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
So, is the M240 bad because it takes photos like Nikon and Canon, or is it good because it takes photos like Nikon and Canon?
That's a very good question.
I personally believe that while the images are obviously digital (and by that I mean "non-film like" - which of course is a completely non-scientific way of describing them) the lens signatures remain the same.
That is, I know my 35mm summilux pre-asph wide open has that "glow" that apparently people talk about. Well the glow remains on a Leica M9 (I did try one out a couple of years back at a local camera store) so I would assume the same glow would appear on the M (240).
So, to me, if it's a digital camera, the images will always look "digital" regardless of camera brand but how those digital images are rendered, I've found, is dependent on glass used and the type/effectiveness of post processing.
If I do get that M (240) I'll be profiling the camera similarly to what I did with the Fuji X-Pro1 - it may not be perfectly exact but it will do for my purposes
Cheers,
Dave
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Thanks Jon.. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping right now that the camera doesn't have some severe faults a la M8 - once bitten twice shy you know.
Cheers,
Dave
Lss
Well-known
What were these severe fauls for you?
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
For people who were not dead-ender Leica partisans, that "debate" ended several years ago. Sony made better CCDs than Kodak ever did, and we all know which way Sony went, except in some somewhat specialized video applications: CMOS.
CCDs can produce lovely images -- I still own and use an old Olympus DSLR with a Kodak CCD -- but for these sorts of applications CCDs just don't make a lot of sense in the second decade of the 21st century. CMOS sensors have just gotten too good too fast, they cost less, they consume less power, and they permit live view and all its attendant advantages. Meanwhile, CCD sensors have not substantially improved in a decade.
Once there are a few thousand M240s out in the field you will stop hearing how they don't want live view on their M's. In one fell swoop it eliminates a huge set of rangefinder disadvantages when one has the time to shoot a bit more deliberately. It makes an M as versatile as a DSLR -- in some ways more versatile.
MCTuomey
Mentor
+1
get past the CCD v CMOS debate, and add to live view some of the other improvements in the M 240 like better sealing, better framelines, quieter shutter, faster buffer - it seems to me Leica listened rather well to its users.
NicoM
Well-known
I don't think that anyone ever thought that the CMOS sensor would be bad, people just thought it would be different from the CCD sensor that they're used to. It is definitely different, but a lot better.
willie_901
Mentor
M8/9 Sensor Technical Question
M8/9 Sensor Technical Question
I an curious about the data path in the M8/M9 cameras.
I recently read that cameras with CCD sensors typically do not employ electronic gain when the photographer increases ISO. For instance, the Phase One P65+, CCD sensor operates this way. Instead, the data from the analog to digital converter are multiplied by the firmware before they are written to the in-camera raw file. As far as I know, the signals from the CCD sensors do not require or benefit from electronic amplification.
Does anyone know if Leica CCD cameras use analog, electronic amplification or only digital multiplication to increase the values written to the raw file when the ISO parameter is increasd?
By contrast cameras with CMOS sensors use either one or two stage electronic amplification in between the sensor and the analog to digital converter in order to increase the signal level when ISO increases. At very higher ISO values electronic amplification is no longer useful, so then the data values from the analog to digital converter are multiplied digitally before they are written to the raw file.
M8/9 Sensor Technical Question
I an curious about the data path in the M8/M9 cameras.
I recently read that cameras with CCD sensors typically do not employ electronic gain when the photographer increases ISO. For instance, the Phase One P65+, CCD sensor operates this way. Instead, the data from the analog to digital converter are multiplied by the firmware before they are written to the in-camera raw file. As far as I know, the signals from the CCD sensors do not require or benefit from electronic amplification.
Does anyone know if Leica CCD cameras use analog, electronic amplification or only digital multiplication to increase the values written to the raw file when the ISO parameter is increasd?
By contrast cameras with CMOS sensors use either one or two stage electronic amplification in between the sensor and the analog to digital converter in order to increase the signal level when ISO increases. At very higher ISO values electronic amplification is no longer useful, so then the data values from the analog to digital converter are multiplied digitally before they are written to the raw file.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Many scientific CCD sensors (e.g., this one which uses a Sony interline CCD, and which was my bread-and-butter camera for several years) do offer control over gain in the pre-amp that precedes the ADC circuitry. I don't know how it's done in CCD implementations for pictorial photography.
CMOS sensors are better suited to on-chip control over things like pre-amp gain simply because it's comparatively trivial to implement the circuitry on-chip. This is one of the several reasons CMOS has all but taken over the imaging world.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Absolutely. Essentially, we're back where we were in the film days. All bodies have more or less the same (superb) sensor tech. It's just as in the "old" days when you could put Kodachrome in a Holga or a Hasselblad. Any good current CMOS sensor in APS-C or FF can produce spectacular images. It's just a matter of getting your PP to the point where you like the tone scale and the color palate.
Differences in PP and technique swamp differences in sensor technology. Anyone who tells you that A D240 sensor is much different than the sensor in an X-E1 or a 5DIII or an NEX-7 or D4 is just being silly. There may be differences when pushed to the extremes of performance, but even those differences will not necessarily map to "image quality" in obvious ways.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
There are already quite a number of pro wedding photographers working with Leica, some on film, but mostly with M8 and M9. If you mean that the Leica M will become as ubiquitous at weddings as white Canon teles at sports games, that will never happen. The average wedding photographer is not as flush with money as he might wish.noimmunity
scratch my niche
Dave,
A purely subjective and personal gut reaction: the M 240 looks to me like the first purely digital Leica M. The M8 and M9 both look like digital adaptations of film concepts. Hence the attraction and the host of problems each has/had.
I just don't expect to see that with the M240.
Cheers, Jon
MikeL
Go Fish
Come on rffers, I need to know what is the best camera. M9 or M240? I only buy best camera, then feel good inside.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
LMAO! Very funny Mike.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Here's the thing - the sad part is - for all the fanboy love and hatred that exists online when it comes to "all things Leica" there is no other option for a full frame digital rangefinder (right now). A true optical rangefinder that is digital does not exist except for Leica.
So, regardless of whether it's a good camera or a sh*t camera - there's no other option for someone who does want a digital rangefinder.
Unless someone can convince Voigtlander or Zeiss to make one . . .
Dave
So, regardless of whether it's a good camera or a sh*t camera - there's no other option for someone who does want a digital rangefinder.
Unless someone can convince Voigtlander or Zeiss to make one . . .
Dave