Pages

▼

Tuesday, May 31, 2022

CCD VS CMOS SENSOR - LEICA M (TYP 240) VS LEICA M9


By Heinz Richter

To this day there are individuals that prefer CCD sensors, like the one in the Leica M9, thinking they are superior to the now widely used CMOS sensors like in the successor of the M9, the Leica M240 or even the Leica M10 and M11.  Whenever a discussion comes up, evaluating the Leica M9 compared to those models,  there will inevitably be comments that claim that the image quality of those two cameras is inferior to the M9, that the CCD sensor in the M9 is superior to CMOS sensors.  Some even go so far as to ask for the return to CCD sensor in future Leicas. 

I personally have never subscribed to that way of thinking at all, as a matter of fact, I have always thought that fundamentally there is no great difference in the way the two different sensors perform. 

I have never had a chance to make any direct comparisons myself, but I am happy to report that this task has been very eloquently performed by David Farkas of the Leica Store Miami.  He took this very subject to task in a three part series in the Red Dot Forum (www.reddotforum.com), titled

“The Great Debate: CCD vs. CMOS”

In the first part, David showed a relatively large number of photos taken of the same subject with both cameras.  He then posted the pictures with no identification, but asked the readers to try to identify which picture had been taken with which camera.
The results were inconclusive with an almost even split of wrong and right answers.

Magenta Tulips - 1    Magenta Tulips - 2
  image 1                                                                                                  image 2
Which image is from the M9

In the second part, David again showed photographs, also without identification.  But this time only one example was shown in each instance, and the readers were asked to identify if the picture was taken with an M9 or Leica M 240 camera.  Again, the answers showed no identifiable ability to tell the two cameras apart.

Finally, in the third and last part, David evaluated the results he obtained.  In his final thoughts he writes:

“For me, and I imagine for many others who couldn’t tell a definitive difference between either the head-to-head match-ups in Part 1 or the individual shots in Part 2, the results of the experiment are fairly clear. To restate: the hypothesis being tested was to see if the CCD look is real, unmistakable and couldn’t be emulated in post processing. To this end, I think I have at least demonstrated that with just a small amount of global adjustments in Lightroom, M240 files could make for some convincing M9 shots. And while I will give credit to the M9 for the great images it is capable of capturing, the M240 is still a better overall system. I would advise against forsaking the usability and image quality benefits of the newer generation CMOS-based camera based on the conviction that the CCD-based M9 offers superior color rendering. As I already mentioned above, the M9 can turn out gorgeous images. This was never up for debate. In fact, for those that absolutely, positively, just adore the look of CCD, and hold the results of this test as even greater evidence of its superiority, then there is good news. Used M9s can be had for around $3,000 and Leica still offers a CCD-based camera brand new, the Leica M-E for $4,995.

But, I do believe that much of the public perceived shortcomings of the M240 look come from its inherent higher dynamic range, the resulting flatter default files, and some users not taking full advantage of both the malleability of the M240 DNG files and the flexibility afforded them in Lightroom. We live in a wonderful time for photography. Our tools in the field and in the digital darkroom are better and more elastic than they’ve ever been. As photographers, our vision is only limited by our own creativity. Perhaps it’s time to put the CCD vs. CMOS debate to rest and just go out and shoot.”

L1001240
Leica M9 or M 240?

It is nice to see someone verifying what I have thought all along.  In the final analysis, the Leica M 240 and its successors, the Leica M10 and M11 are the better cameras.  Not only do they render at least equal results in terms of color accuracy, with their higher resolution, the final image quality is superior, as well as offering a noticeably wider tonal range, wider dynamic range end extended high ISO performance.  The Leica M 240, M10 and M11 are also more capable cameras in other respects, like featuring live view and the electronic Visoflex as an accessory, making close-up photography and photography with long lenses possible.  Also, with the Leica R adapter, the M240 and the M10 are perfectly capable to utilize the Leica R lenses just, as with other adapters, it can be equipped with lenses from a large number of other manufacturers.  While not for everyone, the motion picture capabilities of gthe Leica M 240 need to be mentioned as well.  In addition, there are several other features not found in the Leica M9.

This doesn’t mean that the M9 suddenly is a bad camera.  To the contrary, as David Farkas mentions on several occasions, the M9 is a very capable piece of equipment.  The M240, M10and M11 are simply more capable, part of which is the result of Leica having switched to the CMOS sensor.


For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.

All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      



Buy vintage Leica cameras from 
America's premier Leica specialist 
www.tamarkin.com

 http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-show


Click on image to enlar
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

 

at No comments:

Sunday, May 29, 2022

ANATOMY OF A PHOTOGRAPH



At first glance, this photograph might appear not to be too complicated. However, a considerable amount of thought and planning was required to pull it off.

 

I got the assignment from the architect who was looking for a variety of photographs of his completed project. I made an appointment for the day of shooting, only to find out that a truck load of gravel had been left in the driveway. A new appointment was more successful, and I was ready to shoot. That, of course, also included interior photographs. Those were delayed because after completion of building the house, it had been unoccupied for a while. That resulted of the floors being covered with dead flies and other insects. After a good cleaning, I was able to continue shooting.

 

The weather cooperated and a nice, clear evening was expected. That was necessary because I had planned to shoot the house, with all interior lights on, against the darkened blue sky. That might not appear to be particularly difficult.

 

I had chosen to use a 4x5 camera with transparency film, although any of my Leicas could have been used as well.  One of the difficulties was that, with film, the shot had to be done with one, single exposure. That, in turn, required careful matching of the exposure of the interior of the house with that of the sky. 

One common practice, especially with large format cameras, used to be to take polaroid test shots to determine accurate exposure. I have never subscribed to that practice, instead I have always relied on determining my exposure with a handheld light meter. Besides, in this particular instance Polaroid test shots would not have worked.

 

It was important to get the exposure of the sky just right, not just to match it with the exposure for the interior but also to obtain the right shade of blue. At this time of day, the lighting of the sky changes quite rapidly and a Polaroid test exposure would have taken much too long to give accurate information alone, in addition of changing from the polaroid film holder to a film holder with the transparency film. 

To get the intense blue of the sky, combined with the warm colors of the interior, I decided on tungsten balanced film. That assured an intensely blue color in the sky along with the warm colors of the interior. Even though I used tungsten balanced film, the color temperature of standard, incandescent lighting is noticeably lower than that of the 3200K of the film, assuring a warm color rendition.

 

To assure an intensely blue color in the sky, I decided to underexpose the sky by about one stop. Incident light readings of the interior established the actual camera settings. After that, it was simply a matter of spot readings of the sky, just above the house, to establish the correct moment to expose the film. 

I don’t recall the actual exposure time, but it was long enough to enable keeping the front of the house, including the landscaping, from getting too dark by using an electronic flash, set on manual, and fired several times.

 

A similar shot taken with a Leica Digilux 2

No automatic exposure control or any other of the automatic conveniences found in today’s cameras would have been able to render this shot to any satisfaction. It is still helpful, often even necessary, to have in depth knowledge of photography to be able to accurately work our cameras in out of the ordinary situations.



For other articles on this blog please click on Blog Archive in the column to the right

To comment or to read comments please scroll past the ads below.

All ads present items of interest to Leica owners.

_______________________________________________________________________

EDDYCAM - the first and only ergonomic elk-skin camera strap     
 www.eddycam.com        

      



Buy vintage Leica cameras from 
America's premier Leica specialist 
www.tamarkin.com

 http://www.tamarkin.com/leicagallery/upcoming-show


Click on image to enlar
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography
Click on image to enlarge
Please make payment via PayPal to GMP Photography

 

at No comments: