swatch
Established
If people agree with different colour films have their own characteristic, then could different sensors have different characteristic in colour? Colour management is a science, meaning each digital camera manufacturer can produce the same result in colour if they wanted; moreover it will not be happened because manufacturers are doing try and error to find out which one sell the best or establish their own style in colour for their brand ( Leica M240 vs. M11 both are COMS sensors but not the same colour behaviour ) while Fuji don't re-invent the wheel by giving consumers digital stimulation to their colour film like Velvia / Provia etc.).
Don't be rigid as preference for colour could be changed as we develop our artistic hobby or professional in years to come.
Don't be rigid as preference for colour could be changed as we develop our artistic hobby or professional in years to come.
boojum
Mentor
I am not the only person who is very pleased by the color response of the M9/M9-P. Folks who are successful pros and some very gifted amateurs who are technically adept champion the Kodak sensor in the camera. I know that I sure like it. And as I am pushing my cash across the counter I get to choose. Of the cameras I have and have used only my very old Sony Cybershot (2000) has color and definition of this caliber. The CMOS is a very good sensor and getting better but it is not yet as good as the CCD. In my eyes. YMMV.
David Hughes
David Hughes
You are not the only one. I have been using slide film since I was at school (meaning mid to late 1950's) until about 10 years ago when I decided digital was OK and the last two cassettes went into the Leica CL and the Olympus µ-II. So I think a bit before taking the picture as I'm not used to doing repairs after and they are impossible with slides. (That's not strictly true you can make mild corrections to the horizon but it involves careful trimming of the slide and then remounting.) Anyway, the consequence is that I see photo editors as repair kits.
As or raw and jpg's, careful experimentation convinced me that the cameras I use turn out very good prints using the JPG at it's lowest compression. This has been my version of the truth for several years and since I still like and use several "antique" cameras like the Leica Digilux-3 and Panasonic LX5 I've no reason to doubt it.
RAW, imo, takes us into the realms of diminishing returns. If JPG's can score 96% imo then I can't see the point of a lot of fuss and bother and expense to get 98%... More to the point other people looking at my pictures don't seem to notice anything I worry about (sometimes) and might be happy with them printed on photocopy paper for all I know.
Worrying about minor matters and differences is daft. When I'm in Normandy I don't fret because instead of a pint (568cc's) of cider I have to drink 500cc's of cidre.
So my tu'pence worth is to advise you to stop worrying about the M11 and then in due course the M12 and so on. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket then buy a bigger printer and a lot of paper and ink but that's just this old fool's reasoning. Or hire the M11 for a week...
Regards, David
David Hughes
David Hughes
The answer is that hits on website are a measure of popularity and that is not very important. Popularity is what gives us the politicians we have, wars and the clothes kids wear. Need I say more?
Regards, David
I just always find it funny that the DSLRs that use CCD sensors from this generation are not in equally high demand with daily praise on websites.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
On CCD vs. CMOS I have been in the 'can't tell the difference' camp for a good long while: x-ray's 12 years sounds about right. The flip-side of x-ray's comment about "good light" is that the native resolution on these sensors has been really, really good for a while now. So if you had control over (and technical mastery) of your light source, as x-ray has demonstrated, then you could get very good results out of older cameras. For those of us who shoot with available light, the question has always been about the marginal performance of the sensors: low light or high contrast situations that the photographer finds rather than makes.
But Photoshop doesn't care what tech you used to produce your image -- it can manipulate any pixels you give it. So hypothetically, if CCD reds were worse, you could make them more red with the software.
Just for fun, I purchased an Ex+ Canon 20D last month with a 50/1.8 lens. The camera body cost $56, which was expensive for the model with the lowest shutter count body I could find. In terms of my annual hobby expenses this is one notch up from "free." (This was the direct result of a post over on The Online Photographer about older cameras and image quality.) You know what? The 20D images are superb despite being from an 18 year old 8.2 mp chip. Are they the same as images from my Pentax K-1 or Leica M9? Nope. Does the buffer do as well as the Olympus M-1? Nope. But the IQ is just great.
To quote P.L.Travers; "Enough is as good as a feast."
But Photoshop doesn't care what tech you used to produce your image -- it can manipulate any pixels you give it. So hypothetically, if CCD reds were worse, you could make them more red with the software.
Just for fun, I purchased an Ex+ Canon 20D last month with a 50/1.8 lens. The camera body cost $56, which was expensive for the model with the lowest shutter count body I could find. In terms of my annual hobby expenses this is one notch up from "free." (This was the direct result of a post over on The Online Photographer about older cameras and image quality.) You know what? The 20D images are superb despite being from an 18 year old 8.2 mp chip. Are they the same as images from my Pentax K-1 or Leica M9? Nope. Does the buffer do as well as the Olympus M-1? Nope. But the IQ is just great.
To quote P.L.Travers; "Enough is as good as a feast."
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Beating half century old horse is most exciting thing on gearheads side.
This is nothing but another dusty ccd vs cmos. Putting Leica lipstick on it doesn’t change anything.
Just as GRD III is less expensive and no support vs overpriced GR III with nothing special CMOS colours and high iso. M9 vs M11 is totally the same.
Old CMOS vs new CMOS is close to it. It is cloud of seagulls screaming me-me-me how good old cmos in old ff dslrs. Me including
I’m not fan of last m9 sensor. Sensor before was giving me lovely colours and rendering with some older Leitz lenses. After it came with new one. I was thinking they replaced it with odd cmos sensor.
And M11 is absolutely nothing special CMOS. Just working better with RF uwa and this is it.
This is nothing but another dusty ccd vs cmos. Putting Leica lipstick on it doesn’t change anything.
Just as GRD III is less expensive and no support vs overpriced GR III with nothing special CMOS colours and high iso. M9 vs M11 is totally the same.
Old CMOS vs new CMOS is close to it. It is cloud of seagulls screaming me-me-me how good old cmos in old ff dslrs. Me including
I’m not fan of last m9 sensor. Sensor before was giving me lovely colours and rendering with some older Leitz lenses. After it came with new one. I was thinking they replaced it with odd cmos sensor.
And M11 is absolutely nothing special CMOS. Just working better with RF uwa and this is it.
David Hughes
David Hughes
But people only go on websites to moan about old cameras that don't work...
Regards, David
Really? Is that what is happening here?
willie_901
Mentor
Do you mean subjective image evaluation? If so, meaningful comparisons are complex and pointless because subjective image evaluation depends on a large number of variables and different viewers appreciate different characteristics. Everyone's subjective evaluation of perceived image quality is valid only for them. There are a large number of methods that attempt to objectively evaluate rendered image quality and none of them are simple. For example, there is an ISO psychophysical image quality measurement standard [1] that uses three different methods to estimate JNDs (just noticeable differences) for electronic still images.
Objective comparisons are useful. Subjective perceived image quality depends on objective image characteristics. For example, large differences in lens MTF 50 estimates will obvious to practically any viewer. Likewise, large differences in raw data signal-to-noise ratios will influence subjective image-quality evaluation. Objective measurements dependent on SNR are published on Bill Claff's website here. These data are objective since the parameter estimates are computed from statistical analyses of unrendered raw data. This eliminates differences in viewing conditions, demosaicking mathematical models and image rendering parameters (sharpness, noise filtering, color hue, luminance and satuartion to name some). Claff's methods are transparent. Also, the author neither benefits from advertisements nor relationships with camera vendors.
It is important to note these data are intended to compare camera noise characteristics. They do not speak to optical differences in sensor cover glass, the micro-lens array and the color-filter array. In principle these differences are mitigated by in-camera and, or third-party JPEG demosaicking algorithms. However superior image demosaicking becomes less important as raw data SNR decreases. As SNR decreases the uncertainties for the rendered-image, RGB, pixel parameter estimates dominate the loss of perceived image quality.
Photography dynamic range (PDR) is based on the definition for engineering dynamic range. PDR attempts to represent “the dynamic range you would expect in an 8x10" print viewed at a distance of about arms length.” Typically PDR is a lower than engineering dynamic rang by a constant of about 2 EV. A PDR vs ISO plot suggests how raw-file dynamic range can impact subjective, rendered, image-quality impressions. As PDR increases the perceived quality of shadow-region rendering improves (i.e shadow-region signal-to-noise ratio increases).
Input-referred read noise represents the noise level divided by electronic gain. Input-referred read noise is an estimate for the sensor photosites' time-dependent noise levels when the shutter is open. In general, differences in read noise levels become more important as sensor exposure decreases. In terms of subjective, rendered, image-quality impressions, input-referred read noise differences will be most obvious only in shadow -noise regions when camera ISO setting is low. As camera ISO settings increase (sensor exposure decreases) Input-referred read noise will be obvious in all image luminance regions.
These measurements are used to compare time-indepndent noise levels. The color differences between panels is not important because the colors are intended to reveal patterns. The black frame and illuminated frame measurements are made with no light present or a light falling on the sensor respectively. Both Leicas perform well.
For reference, here's the M9 and Canon EOS 1D data. In this example the EOS 1D banding patterns are obvious.
--------
1/ "ISO 20462, A psychophysical image quality measurement standard", 2004.
Brian W. Keelana (Eastman Kodak Company) and Hitoshi Urabeb, Fuji Photo Film Company.
ABSTRACT
"ISO 20462, a three-part standard entitled 'Psychophysical experimental methods to estimate image quality,' is being developed by WG18 (Electronic Still Picture Imaging) of TC42 (Photography). As of late 2003, all three parts were in the Draft International Standard (DIS) ballot stage, with publication likely during 2004. This standard describes two novel perceptual methods, the triplet comparison technique and the quality ruler, that yield results calibrated in just noticeable differences (JNDs). Part 1, “Overview of psychophysical elements,” discusses specifications regarding observers, test stimuli, instructions, viewing conditions, data analysis, and reporting of results. Part 2, “Triplet comparison method,” describes a technique involving simultaneous five-point scaling of sets of three stimuli at a time, arranged so that all possible pairs of stimuli are compared exactly once. Part 3, “Quality ruler method,” describes a real- time technique optimized for obtaining assessments over a wider range of image quality. A single ruler is a series of ordered reference stimuli depicting a common scene but differing in a single perceptual attribute. Methods for generating quality ruler stimuli of known JND separation through modulation transfer function (MTF) variation are provided. Part 3 also defines a unique absolute Standard Quality Scale (SQS) of quality with one unit equal to one JND. Standard Reference Stimuli (SRS) prints calibrated against this new scale will be made available through the International Imaging Industry Association."
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...10-R,suffix=14
I've made the statement in the past that the M Monochrom has the lowest non-uniformity of any sensor that I've used. The low-noise level is amazing. I've looked at the numbers using custom code, but never generated metrics on performance. That- I used to do for digital sensors in the early 1980s.
This table is from the above website, the last two columns are dark signal non-uniformity (DSNU) and Photo Response Non Uniformity (PRNU) is - like Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) - a way of expressing errors in the output from sensors. The lower the value, the better the raw image. I will never sell my M Monochrom, or M9. My M8 is one of the last in the production line. I'll keep it as well. 35 years ago- would have selected the M Monochrom based on the last two columns alone.
It boils down to this: With a Film camera, you could pick the film you want to use.
NOW with Digital, we're back to the original Kodak camera. Buy the camera with film loaded into it, and that will be the only type of film you can ever get for that camera.
Digital- you like the results or not. CCD, CMOS, Color Dye, Spectral Response, Efficiency vs grazing angle, all are fundamental factors of each sensor that you are stuck with forever when using that camera. You can post-process for just about any change you want to make.
OR- just find a Digital Camera that is Loaded with the Sensor that you like and keep it running for as long as possible.
I've made the statement in the past that the M Monochrom has the lowest non-uniformity of any sensor that I've used. The low-noise level is amazing. I've looked at the numbers using custom code, but never generated metrics on performance. That- I used to do for digital sensors in the early 1980s.
This table is from the above website, the last two columns are dark signal non-uniformity (DSNU) and Photo Response Non Uniformity (PRNU) is - like Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) - a way of expressing errors in the output from sensors. The lower the value, the better the raw image. I will never sell my M Monochrom, or M9. My M8 is one of the last in the production line. I'll keep it as well. 35 years ago- would have selected the M Monochrom based on the last two columns alone.
It boils down to this: With a Film camera, you could pick the film you want to use.
NOW with Digital, we're back to the original Kodak camera. Buy the camera with film loaded into it, and that will be the only type of film you can ever get for that camera.
Digital- you like the results or not. CCD, CMOS, Color Dye, Spectral Response, Efficiency vs grazing angle, all are fundamental factors of each sensor that you are stuck with forever when using that camera. You can post-process for just about any change you want to make.
OR- just find a Digital Camera that is Loaded with the Sensor that you like and keep it running for as long as possible.
boojum
Mentor
I am inclined to JPG's, too. They are very good out of the M9. I can fuss around with the DNG's but agree it is diminishing returns. I understand those who do edit raw files and understand wanting to squeeze that last little bit out of the file. And yes the image is a bit more detailed. It is not my greatest priority. I am not a great photographer and do not suspect I ever will be. I do try to improve what I capture and the board helps a lot with that. The bottom line is that it is what I point the camera at which will define the quality and interest if the image.
Normandy. My family is of the insufferable Norman English strain. I like to say we invaded, conquered and then failed. This does not go over too well in the UK. Damned old Anglo-Saxons. LOL Normandy does know what can be done with apples and a drink of their Calvados is always a treat, the odor of apples hovering above the glass. A humble yet noble drink.
As for the M11, no one has yet said the image is better than the M9. End of story. I had hoped it would be better but I do not think CMOS will get there in my lifetime. My M9 with the Amotal is a fine combination. The '57 KMZ J8 is also a good lens on it. I will try to hunt down a nice M9-P as a spare and put the saved money in my pocket where it belongs. It looks like we are entering a recession and I suspect that the prices of used Leicas will start to drop. I can wait. Maybe a Christmas present for myself.
As for getting a bigger printer, well, no. I print very few. And I can send the files off to Costco for 12 x 18's which are done better than I can do them. At US$3.99 each for a 12 x 18 I can get a lot of them for the price of a printer, ink and paper. The good news is that Amazon has a 13 x 19 frame so that the margins of the print are not lost in the 1/2" frame edge. It will not cost me a lot to print my good ones as they are few. ;o)
boojum
Mentor
I am no tech head at all. I can be taught to understand the graphs and charts on sensors but have not been so I rely on the simple test of, "How does the picture look?" My M8.2 and M9 give me images which I think are very good. Even if the content is crap the capture is great. I understand that with digital we have the one "film" loaded at the factory and never the twain shall part. I can diddle around with raw files in post but prefer not to. The camp is divided about M9 JPG quality. I like them and find them very much like the uncompressed raw files so they are accurate in that right. As I have said so often I really like what the Amotal and the J8 do on my M9. That Cooke Amotal has its magic about it. Very sharp but a dreamy softness. That is some trick.
I started this thread to see how the M11 stacks up against the M9 and apparently from reports rather than images it is a second to the M9. This is one of those rare instances when the folks who know things and I agree. Huzzah!
Last edited:
There were photographers that like Kodachrome and were very upset that Kodak discontinued it and brought out Kodachrome II. The story goes that Kodak sent a large supply to this photographer.
I like the M9. Do not really need to know how it compares with the M11. Unless the M9 dies and I cannot find another one, I'll look at the specs of a new camera then.
I still have a roll of Kodachrome in the Fridge. 1958 Kodachrome.
I like the M9. Do not really need to know how it compares with the M11. Unless the M9 dies and I cannot find another one, I'll look at the specs of a new camera then.
I still have a roll of Kodachrome in the Fridge. 1958 Kodachrome.
boojum
Mentor
'58 Kodachrome, eh? I'll really be impressed if you bought that roll when it was new. ;o)
I am well pleased with the M9. I hope this coming recession will drop the prices of M9's and M9-P's and possibly force more onto the market further depressing the prices. I'd like to scoop up a low shutter count, new sensor M9-P. I have two M240's which I do not much use and I may just sell them off. If I can sell them both I can get the M9-P and have a nice bit of cash for a feast or a trip around in the Insight with my canine copilot, and camera. Guess which camera. It is almost like a marriage. If you chose well you will not be looking for a replacement. Nor will she.
Out to Lunch
Menteur
What you really need is an Epson R-D1, R-D1s, or R-D1x. All of them have great CCD sensors and, if and when needed can be serviced by https://www.yelp.com/biz/steves-came...er-culver-city Cheers, OtL
boojum
Mentor
It's an interesting thought, but . . . I am currently dealing with a naughty Pixii. I just shot some test shots with it off my back porch using the Canon 35mm f/2.0. 30 seconds apart of almost exactly the same scene at the same ISO. One was 1/250, the second 1/750. I am trying some more shots but this has me puzzled. And now you want me to deal with Epson. I have tried with the Pixii, it is a trying camera. The blue cast mine had is gone now. How can I explain that? Yikes! No more brands. The damned Leica just works. Hopefully someday the Pixii will work.
The table puts metrics on the performance of the indivisual sensors that show up in the images they produce in some very subliminal ways. When you look at the images produced by the different digital cameras, and films, you tend to "just like" or "tolerate" or "not Like" the results.
Look at the values in the last two columns and compare the M Monochrom, M9, and M Type 240. Huge difference in those fields. They factor into the image produced be each camera. You like the M9, and are not impressed by the M Type 240.
ptpdprinter
Mentor
If you like to look of images rendered by a CCD sensor, use a camera with a CCD sensor. All the rest is just blah, blah, blah.
boojum
Mentor
Brian, I had scanned those columns. Maybe it is just my education but I have a hard time reducing it to a couple of columns of figures. This is notwithstanding those two columns may be just all that is needed to describe what I am looking for. When you get the math right it is all so simple. When you get the math right. I do know I really prefer the M9 over the M240 and also really like the M8.2. And my old, 2000, Sony DSC S70 gives wonderful images with its tiny 7.2 MP sensor. https://flic.kr/p/u4tLyg I have other cameras which give good images with their good lenses attached but that M9 does so well with whatever I hang on it and whatever I put before it. The subject matter may be awful but the image most often is not. I am sure of getting a picture with the A7M III. I am sure of getting a good picture with the M9.
BTW, thanks for the tables. The M9 is plainly the winner on the basis of those figures. And my eyes correlate with those figures. I've gotta find an M9-P, low shutter count, new sensor. That failing, low shutter count and a trip to Jadon Rosado for new cover glass.