boojum
Mentor
Good faith warning about the sky: we are a coastal community subject to onshore breezes and rapid weather changes. The look of the sky cannot be counted on as a constant. It is variable. Also the two posted images are JPG's which means that they have been through in-camera correction, in-camera correction in two different cameras. The two posted images are just "suggestions" while the DNG's are "fact."
Here are Google Drive links to the tests where the images can be viewed without needing to be downloaded. These are the images which are better used to evaluate the images and there possible differences. Thank you.
Again, the lens progression is 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, lens opening f/2.8, f/5.6, f/f11. ISO 200, uncompressed DNG with no in-camera lens correction. I believe these are as raw a DNG as can be produced by the M9 and the M240.
Keep in mind that after each three shot group the lens had to be changed for the next three shot group with a new lens and so on for the four lenses. Then the first camera had to be removed from the tripod, replaced with the second camera, first lens attached and the three shots groups repeated for the four lenses. This takes time and the atmospherics will change slightly.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...vj?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OserqhHlhaySfAAWBU-SGpPNCmBQJbvj?usp=sharing
Here are Google Drive links to the tests where the images can be viewed without needing to be downloaded. These are the images which are better used to evaluate the images and there possible differences. Thank you.
Again, the lens progression is 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, lens opening f/2.8, f/5.6, f/f11. ISO 200, uncompressed DNG with no in-camera lens correction. I believe these are as raw a DNG as can be produced by the M9 and the M240.
Keep in mind that after each three shot group the lens had to be changed for the next three shot group with a new lens and so on for the four lenses. Then the first camera had to be removed from the tripod, replaced with the second camera, first lens attached and the three shots groups repeated for the four lenses. This takes time and the atmospherics will change slightly.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...vj?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1OserqhHlhaySfAAWBU-SGpPNCmBQJbvj?usp=sharing
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
That’s what I thought, but what I was really saying was that the two photos appear essentially identical - at least to me.
boojum
Mentor
Well, you see that is the sticking point with the argument, the almost inconsequential difference between CCD and CMOS. It is almost like the Medieval question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Only the unimportant can be so important. I do see differences in color saturation in the JPEG's and in the definition of shadows. The CCD was f/5.6 at 1/750 and the CMOS was f/5.6 at 1/500, camera selected in each case. The stark superiority of one over the other is not so evident. Both have good color but, as I said, I think one has better color and shadow definition.
I never thought this crap would ever be important to me and wonder now why it is. In a more honest vein it is fun and it is interesting, at least for me. Have you viewed the DNG's?
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I looked at the DNGs and had a hard time comparing them because I couldn't look at them side by side, and they took some time to load as I moved through the series. To the extent that I could remember what they looked like as I went from one to the next, I didn't see a great deal of difference. If they were my photos, I would have adjusted all of them in LR to something I thought looked better anyway. I know you like to shoot JPGs. I've never met an image that can't be improved, so I think the SOOC image is only the starting point. But that's another discussion. As I mentioned awhile back, if you like the JPGs coming out of your Leicas with CCD sensors better than other cameras, by all means use them.
boojum
Mentor
Thanks for chiming in. This is a test of sensors. To get the most accurate example of the sensor output the uncompressed DNG's, devoid of any in-camera lens correction, yield the most accurate example of sensor output, SOOC. NB, these DNG's are DNG's not JPG's. Please be clear on that. Also, I believe it is possible to download the DNG's from Google Drive so in that way you can view them side buy side on your computer. Let me know if you are stuck here and I will walk you through it.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I don't feel like spending any more time on it. Liking one or the other is a matter of preference.
boojum
Mentor
True, but knowing the difference is a matter of fact.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
It is not really a surprise to me that different cameras with different sensors (different manufacturers, different technologies, different sizes, different resolutions) introduced several years apart produce different images.
Is that the point you were trying too make? Are you surprised? Did anyone suggest otherwise?
boojum
Mentor
As I spelled out more than once the cameras were the Leica M9 and the Leica M240. In case you are not aware of this, the M240 is the successor to the M9 and the point at which Leica transitioned from CCD to CMOS in M series sensors. The are contiguous in the Leica model series. I picked them for that reason: the closest in software, hardware and construction. Let me make clear to you that the M9 and M240 were not years apart. They were contiguous, that is, there was no gap between them.
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I am examining the long-running discussion about whether the CCD is, indeed, the better sensor. I did not originate the discussion but have sought to add data to construct conclusions from. I regret this purpose has not been served in your case.
As you have expressed as much comment and interest as anyone in this perhaps you can suggest a better course of action to resolve the contention over which sensor is the better. I welcome your input and thank you in advance.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
There's no absolute "better" ... better requires a frame of reference, either a performance standard or something else. CCD sensors can perform very well, albeit what's available with CCD sensors in recent/current cameras are somewhat limited with respect to features (like Live View, etc), resolution, and sensitivity. CMOS sensors can also perform very well, and what's available with CMOS sensors recently have both enormous resolution, dynamic range, and sensitivity ... never mind oodles of features.
Is a modern/recent digital Leica CL with its 24Mpixel APS-C CMOS sensor "better" than a near 20-year-old Olympus E-1 with one of the best Kodak-made CCD sensors made, that cost about the same new? I can't answer that. All I can really say is that both make lovely photographs for me when I take advantage of their strong points and work around their weaknesses.
G
"Equipment is transitory. Photographs endure."
Vasquez & Leota - Sunnyvale 2010
Olympus E-1 + 11-22/2.8-3.5
ISO 100 @ f/5.6 @ 1/80 second @ 22mm
St. Swithun Church Madonna - Swindon, Great Britain 2019
Leica CL + Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8
ISO 12,500 @ f/2.8 @ 1/8 second
ptpdprinter
Mentor
You will never resolve the issue of which is "better", the 18MP 5212x3472 CCD sensor, which was manufactured by Kodak, in the M9, which was introduced in 2009, or the 24MP 6000x4000 CMOS sensor, which was designed by CMOSIS and manufactured by STMicroelectronics, in the M240, which was introduced in 2012. They each have their fans for different reasons.
boojum
Mentor
Let's agree to disagree.
I believe that a series of tests with these two cameras will be interesting. I believe there are differences and that one sensor is the better in almost all cases. But that is what the future tests, taken with this one, will show. Yes, it is possible to cull wonderful pictures taken with different sensors and different cameras and lenses. I will see if I can support my contention that there is one sensor which will consistently return better results using the same lens as the other sensor. And that is where we seem to differ, so, again, let's just agree to disagree.
I believe that a series of tests with these two cameras will be interesting. I believe there are differences and that one sensor is the better in almost all cases. But that is what the future tests, taken with this one, will show. Yes, it is possible to cull wonderful pictures taken with different sensors and different cameras and lenses. I will see if I can support my contention that there is one sensor which will consistently return better results using the same lens as the other sensor. And that is where we seem to differ, so, again, let's just agree to disagree.
boojum
Mentor
I will test and let the evidence tell its story. I programmed computers for a long time and we all held that one test was worth a thousand opinions.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Wouldn’t you rather be taking photographs with your new Pixii ll camera.
boojum
Mentor
And I am. Check the Pixii group on Flickr.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
Will the criteria for the sensor test be objective or subjective? If objective, what test equipment will you be employing in your evaluation? If subjective, you do not need to prove your preference. I will concede at the outset that you believe the output of the CCD sensor in the M9 is "better" than the output of the CMOS sensor in the M240.
One quick question: how many images will you be presenting to establish that "one sensor is the better in almost all cases"? It seems to me that there are a lot of different cases, so demonstrating that one sensor is the better in almost all cases may require a lot of images.
Speaking of testing computers, I have a little experience programming computers too. And I am not exaggerating when I say I have a little experience. I can prove the IBM AT keyboard is the better keyboard in almost all cases. It goes clickity-clack.
One quick question: how many images will you be presenting to establish that "one sensor is the better in almost all cases"? It seems to me that there are a lot of different cases, so demonstrating that one sensor is the better in almost all cases may require a lot of images.
Speaking of testing computers, I have a little experience programming computers too. And I am not exaggerating when I say I have a little experience. I can prove the IBM AT keyboard is the better keyboard in almost all cases. It goes clickity-clack.
So, how about Cyanotypes?!
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I have seen some lovely cyanotypes, and have made a few myself, but they are clearly not the better in almost all cases. When I finish up my proof that the IBM AT keyboard is the better in almost all cases, I'll set about proving I am right about cyanotypes too.
Why would anyone want to prove that the CCD sensor in the M9 is better in almost all cases than the CMOS sensor in the M240? Let's say Team CMOS wins. Is anybody on Team CCD going to sell their M9 and buy an M240?
The next thing you know someone is going to try to prove that Keds are better in almost all cases than PF Flyers, and there is sure to be a big fight on the playground.
boojum
Mentor
I intend to do more tests. Sunlight and time rule my hours here. If you have waited this long for tests I am sure you can wait a little longer. And, as I suggested before, as you have such an interest in this please suggest how it can be better. Thanks.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/40/messages/51.html
ptpdprinter
Mentor
I’d suggest you re-read Godfrey’s post.