Godfrey
somewhat colored
ptpdprinter
Mentor
The link is to another thread in which boojum says he likes the M9 CCD sensor best about 27 times. It is not helpful. A couple of weeks ago boojum said in yet another thread about the M9 CCD sensor that he was going to prove that the M9 CCD sensor was better in almost all cases. We are all waiting on the edge of our seats, but so far nothing.
boojum
Mentor
The link is to Sonnar Brian's empirical demonstrations of measured superiority of the CCD sensor. I guess you missed that. Too bad.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
So you are adopting Sonnar Brian's chart as your proof that the M9 CCD sensor is "better in almost all cases?" Perhaps you could elaborate in your own words how the values in Sonnar Brian's chart prove that the M9 CCD sensor is better in almost all cases.
boojum
Mentor
ptpdprinter
Mentor
What does the "Proton" refer to in the title of the sensor test? How do the photos linked to on Google Drive prove that the M9 CCD sensor is "better in almost all cases"?
Man, just use the Leica you like and stop bickering (or even use another brand). They are all capable of great photography.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I've read all the hooey and repeated the experiments, done a few dozen experiments of my own. Sonnar Brian's "empirical demonstrations" seem to be either the same or modeled on two other persons with an agenda to prove the superiority of their CCD sensor cameras.
IMO, The "measured superiority of the CCD sensor" is nonsense. But as jsrockit said, in paraphrase, 'Just use the Leica you like and stop trying to prove that yours is better than anyone else's. They are all capable of great photography.'
I certainly don't care if you produce splendid, beautiful, satisfying photographs with a box fitted with a Coke bottle bottom lens regardless of what sensor you tape to the back of the box ... I applaud wonderful photographs no matter how they are created. :angel:
G
presspass
filmshooter
It arrived and I have never seen a camera packaged this ornately. I’m sure I violated several Wetzlar coda by not genuflecting and muttering Gregorian chants while prostrating myself before the box, but I just opened it and turned it on. I will get a couple of new cards tomorrow and take it out to see how we bond. One more question - this is for those of you who have an M10 - does it work with a soft release like those made by Tom A? I have one of his small ones on my M8 and larger ones on my film Ms.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...10-R,suffix=14
I did not generate the metrics that I linked to. I do understand the metrics, and they reflect my impression regarding the CCD's in the M Monochrom and M9.
I see no evidence that the website is pushing some sort of biased agenda to prove a CCD is better than a CMOS sensor.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/
I have not generated sensor metrics like those shown in about Thirty Years since I worked on early Digital sensors. Spent the 90s working on Optical Network technology. Had a 622megabit/sec NIC for my DOS computer. I wrote all the device drivers for it, did the whole network stack. The high-speed framing chips in the card were made to my spec. Given the present state of the Internet, seems like a waste of 10 years.
The metrics shown certainly were not generated to try to prove a CCD is better than CMOS. The metrics demonstrate the performance of the sensor in measurable terms. Certain metrics such as collection efficiency vs the grazing angle are not present. The back-side-illuminated CCD in the M9 and M Monochrom are very efficient at collecting light coming in at sharp angles. This is an advantage for fast lenses and wide-angle lenses.
If you want to feel better about the M11, you can see this table on their website:
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Having spent years dealing with Sensor Noise interfering with image processing and pattern recognition algorithms, the performance numbers demonstrated in the table I linked to mean something to me.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/19.......S/abstract
Hard to believe 40 years has gone by so fast. It was a fun project, had my own VAX computer with a RAMTEK image processor. Had an 8x10 Polaroid as a "Computer Camera". Before Dye Sub and high-quality color ink-jet.
As far as consumer-oriented cameras, CCDs are a thing of the past. It's just that I have two of the best ever made.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hi Brian,
I also worked in the development of sensors and such things for JPL/NASA back in the day. I also had a VAX with a RAMTEK image processor, etc etc etc. Yeah, 40 years gone by in the blink of an eye...
It sounds like you were attempting to point out metrics and data for an objective evaluation of the M9 CCD. Which is fine. Others seem to adopting your data as proof of their personal preferences and fantastical notions. The M8 and M9 were certainly equipped with excellent sensors for their day. My 2003 Olympus E-1, with a 5Mpixel Kodak CCD, also has a fine sensor ... there are imaging reasons why I've kept it despite it being a low-resolution antique (to wit: It has an usually heavy antialiasing filter to minimize line-doublings and other artifacts that lends its images a unique look and feel).
What I have now (M10 Monochrom) does a demonstrably better job of what I like to do than any other of my previous camera do, with the sole exception to that being my Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c which the M10-M is on par with (and the Hasselblad is a color camera, which gives me other options). And that's about the end of it for me.
G
I also worked in the development of sensors and such things for JPL/NASA back in the day. I also had a VAX with a RAMTEK image processor, etc etc etc. Yeah, 40 years gone by in the blink of an eye...
It sounds like you were attempting to point out metrics and data for an objective evaluation of the M9 CCD. Which is fine. Others seem to adopting your data as proof of their personal preferences and fantastical notions. The M8 and M9 were certainly equipped with excellent sensors for their day. My 2003 Olympus E-1, with a 5Mpixel Kodak CCD, also has a fine sensor ... there are imaging reasons why I've kept it despite it being a low-resolution antique (to wit: It has an usually heavy antialiasing filter to minimize line-doublings and other artifacts that lends its images a unique look and feel).
What I have now (M10 Monochrom) does a demonstrably better job of what I like to do than any other of my previous camera do, with the sole exception to that being my Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c which the M10-M is on par with (and the Hasselblad is a color camera, which gives me other options). And that's about the end of it for me.
G
rulnacco
Well-known
Bah. CCD vs. CMOS. Leica vs. Nikon/Canon/Sony. Digital vs. Film.
Boooooring.
Sorry, I just think it's a waste of time. I mean, I'm 99.5% sure that (just as it's been repeatedly shown that experienced wine tasters can't actually consistently tell "fine vintage" stuff from supermarket plonk in blind tastings) if you posted 100 photos on the wall, printed up at say 12x18 inches, taken with various cameras, sensors, and scanned film, there's not a single "expert" (particularly anyone here on RFF, where we have unfortunately acquired a bit of a reputation as being populated mostly by old men smelling faintly of wee who take photos of brick walls) who would have any kind of reasonable batting average in saying, "It is my considered and experienced verdict that this photo was taken with a Leica camera using a CCD sensor." I'm sure it would be far less accurate than wine tasting, which despite its demonstrated lack of consistent accuracy, actually has some basis in chemistry.
I completely doubt that we'd see anything more than perhaps a slight, very slight, improvement over random guessing if we actually did such an experiment. The RAW processor you use, your post-processing technique, your personal vision, how you saved your file for printing and how/where you had it printed, have far more to do with what a final, printed image looks like than what camera or sensor you used.
If you like CCDs, fine, use 'em. (As a side note, I use an ancient CCD sensor digital back on my Hasselblad, which *for what I use it for* is great. But a more modern CMOS back that I didn't have to shoot tethered and which had a greater ISO range would allow me to shoot *more* things with the camera. If I could afford it, I'd get the CMOS back, go out and shoot more varied stuff than I do now with the CCD back, and I'd never miss the CCD sensor, given that freedom.)
But even more important is using a camera that is capable of, overall, enabling you to actually get the kind of images you want. Don't be that guy who, essentially, prattles on about how the only way to shoot basketball is with an 8x10 camera because of the image quality. The rest of us are going to look at you like, "What the frack??" And use a camera that you *enjoy* using, which is fun to take out and shoot as much as possible. Then use it to make images that you are proud of, and that other people find interesting and moving. *They* aren't going to care what the technical details of the camera that you use are--the image is everything.
Who cares what kind of camera you used if your images are boring and commonplace? It's not the camera's fault. And conversely, if you make images that are powerful and affecting, *it wasn't the camera/sensor that did it*. It was *you*.
Boooooring.
Sorry, I just think it's a waste of time. I mean, I'm 99.5% sure that (just as it's been repeatedly shown that experienced wine tasters can't actually consistently tell "fine vintage" stuff from supermarket plonk in blind tastings) if you posted 100 photos on the wall, printed up at say 12x18 inches, taken with various cameras, sensors, and scanned film, there's not a single "expert" (particularly anyone here on RFF, where we have unfortunately acquired a bit of a reputation as being populated mostly by old men smelling faintly of wee who take photos of brick walls) who would have any kind of reasonable batting average in saying, "It is my considered and experienced verdict that this photo was taken with a Leica camera using a CCD sensor." I'm sure it would be far less accurate than wine tasting, which despite its demonstrated lack of consistent accuracy, actually has some basis in chemistry.
I completely doubt that we'd see anything more than perhaps a slight, very slight, improvement over random guessing if we actually did such an experiment. The RAW processor you use, your post-processing technique, your personal vision, how you saved your file for printing and how/where you had it printed, have far more to do with what a final, printed image looks like than what camera or sensor you used.
If you like CCDs, fine, use 'em. (As a side note, I use an ancient CCD sensor digital back on my Hasselblad, which *for what I use it for* is great. But a more modern CMOS back that I didn't have to shoot tethered and which had a greater ISO range would allow me to shoot *more* things with the camera. If I could afford it, I'd get the CMOS back, go out and shoot more varied stuff than I do now with the CCD back, and I'd never miss the CCD sensor, given that freedom.)
But even more important is using a camera that is capable of, overall, enabling you to actually get the kind of images you want. Don't be that guy who, essentially, prattles on about how the only way to shoot basketball is with an 8x10 camera because of the image quality. The rest of us are going to look at you like, "What the frack??" And use a camera that you *enjoy* using, which is fun to take out and shoot as much as possible. Then use it to make images that you are proud of, and that other people find interesting and moving. *They* aren't going to care what the technical details of the camera that you use are--the image is everything.
Who cares what kind of camera you used if your images are boring and commonplace? It's not the camera's fault. And conversely, if you make images that are powerful and affecting, *it wasn't the camera/sensor that did it*. It was *you*.
A photographer should pick a digital camera or type of film that gives them the results they like.
An engineer using a sensor for applications such as measuring scene radiance or machine vision needs to understand it on a deeper level. Last piece of code that I got paid to write for this type of application was in 1992. But I still like to keep up with it.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/177626
A couple (3) years ago I was offered my old job back working with the group that continues the sensor development effort at the lab. But I like what I do now better.
An engineer using a sensor for applications such as measuring scene radiance or machine vision needs to understand it on a deeper level. Last piece of code that I got paid to write for this type of application was in 1992. But I still like to keep up with it.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/177626
A couple (3) years ago I was offered my old job back working with the group that continues the sensor development effort at the lab. But I like what I do now better.
boojum
Mentor
I understood RFF to be a place for the exchange of ideas. I enjoy the M9 CCD sensor more than my other camera's sensors. I have posited why and done tests to illustrate this and linked other folk's information which supports this. I have not seen counter arguments with tests or data to refute this. I have seen a lot of personal impressions and opinions. And some veiled ad hominem attacks. Reverting to an ad hominem means you have lost the argument, cannot recover and just want to jeer, "Neener, neener, neener." I understand this and consider the source. On a board like this we are known by what we post. That is our only contact with each other. You may regard me as a horse's ass and that is fine. I just try to be one with manners and good comportment, and facts.
As always, YMMV. And like Galileo after being quizzed by the Inquisition about the Earth rotating around the Sun and being told he was wrong and to recant on pain of death because the Earth stood still and the Sun rotated about it, he is said to have clung to his belief. So, too, do I. In my eyes the M9 CCD is the superior sensor. Dixi.
As always, YMMV. And like Galileo after being quizzed by the Inquisition about the Earth rotating around the Sun and being told he was wrong and to recant on pain of death because the Earth stood still and the Sun rotated about it, he is said to have clung to his belief. So, too, do I. In my eyes the M9 CCD is the superior sensor. Dixi.
Boojum, but why is it important that we think so too? Enjoy the hell
out of your M9 and buy that dream M9-P soon!
Enjoy the hellout of your M9 and buy that dream M9-P soon!
boojum
Mentor
And so I shall, thank you very much.
Ok, you have a good evening now. I am going to drink a beer and look at some photobooks.
Joerg
Dilettant
Nothing better than a Leica thread.
Enjoy
Enjoy
From 12 years ago. In this thread,
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/99210
And, after almost 12 years, Leica has switched to Back-Side-Illuminated CMOS sensors.
The KAF-18500 used in the M9 and M Monochrom is back-side illuminated. Looking at the table on the web-site linked to previously, the M11 sensor metrics in the last two columns are much closer to the M Monochrom.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...r_Heatmaps.htm
Photonstophotos allows you to compare any two cameras in their database. It also allows sorting on selections of columns for sensor metrics. The Leica M Monochrom is "best on the list" when sorting by DSNU and PRNU as a combination. The table and graphics also demonstrate that the M10m CMOS based camera has just about closed that performance difference, and has much higher resolution. The tables also show that the M240 is about the worst on the list when sorting on the same two metrics.
The graphics illustrate how the gap has closed.
This might explain why the M10M came out before the M10R. If my M Monochrom died- I'd pick up an M10M. Which would mean having to write an extra FORTRAN routine to read in the lossless compressed file. The code to read the M Monochrom file is unbelievably easy. Easier than unpacking a UDP packet. Internet Geek Humor.
I spent almost 20 years chasing sources of noise in electro-optic/digital sensors. The CMOSIS sensor used in the M240 and M246 advertised that it brought the photosensitive part of the CMOS detector much closer to the surface in this front-side illuminated device. This means the wiring plane of the sensor is much closer to the photosensitive layer. This can possibly induce noise in the image. New CMOS devices run with lower voltages, meaning less noise will be induced.
I'll be interested in how a Monochrome version of the back-side illuminated M11 performs. I'll also be interested if Leica puts a mode in it to disable using the sensor for metering, ie keep the shutter closed until making the exposure. I'd rather use my hand-held meter than keep the sensor running all the time.The M11 sensor has lots of dynamic range. My Weston Master II that I use with the M3 will be just fine.
Too Funny, looking back 12 years.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/87107
I called Kodak in 2010 and spoke with the engineer about making a monochrome version of the M9, and asked for a quote for 50 monochrome CCDs. Kodak had wanted to do a monochrome version of the M8, as per that conversation. We talked about the DCS760m. The model number of the M Monochrom "just happens to be" 10760. I had people at the Lab ready to order 6 of them. The engineer remembered me from calling up to ask them to make an infrared version of the DCS200, in 1992. I am two for two. At the end of the conversation, the Kodak engineer told me that they were meeting with Leica the next month and would bring up making a monochrome version of the M9. I'm also the person that got RFC1619 rescinded. Fatal error in it that you could transmit a specific bit pattern and cause the clock and data recovery circuit of the SONET/SDH network to fail. One of the IETF members had a coffee cup made for me for the effort.
Photonstophotos allows you to compare any two cameras in their database. It also allows sorting on selections of columns for sensor metrics. The Leica M Monochrom is "best on the list" when sorting by DSNU and PRNU as a combination. The table and graphics also demonstrate that the M10m CMOS based camera has just about closed that performance difference, and has much higher resolution. The tables also show that the M240 is about the worst on the list when sorting on the same two metrics.
The graphics illustrate how the gap has closed.
This might explain why the M10M came out before the M10R. If my M Monochrom died- I'd pick up an M10M. Which would mean having to write an extra FORTRAN routine to read in the lossless compressed file. The code to read the M Monochrom file is unbelievably easy. Easier than unpacking a UDP packet. Internet Geek Humor.
I spent almost 20 years chasing sources of noise in electro-optic/digital sensors. The CMOSIS sensor used in the M240 and M246 advertised that it brought the photosensitive part of the CMOS detector much closer to the surface in this front-side illuminated device. This means the wiring plane of the sensor is much closer to the photosensitive layer. This can possibly induce noise in the image. New CMOS devices run with lower voltages, meaning less noise will be induced.
I'll be interested in how a Monochrome version of the back-side illuminated M11 performs. I'll also be interested if Leica puts a mode in it to disable using the sensor for metering, ie keep the shutter closed until making the exposure. I'd rather use my hand-held meter than keep the sensor running all the time.The M11 sensor has lots of dynamic range. My Weston Master II that I use with the M3 will be just fine.
Too Funny, looking back 12 years.
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/87107
I called Kodak in 2010 and spoke with the engineer about making a monochrome version of the M9, and asked for a quote for 50 monochrome CCDs. Kodak had wanted to do a monochrome version of the M8, as per that conversation. We talked about the DCS760m. The model number of the M Monochrom "just happens to be" 10760. I had people at the Lab ready to order 6 of them. The engineer remembered me from calling up to ask them to make an infrared version of the DCS200, in 1992. I am two for two. At the end of the conversation, the Kodak engineer told me that they were meeting with Leica the next month and would bring up making a monochrome version of the M9. I'm also the person that got RFC1619 rescinded. Fatal error in it that you could transmit a specific bit pattern and cause the clock and data recovery circuit of the SONET/SDH network to fail. One of the IETF members had a coffee cup made for me for the effort.