Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on March 28, 2013, 05:54:47 pm
-
M 240 - overall 84 - 13.3 EV - 1860 ISO
M9 - overall 69 - 11.7 EV - 884 ISO
Whatever discussions there is about their methodology,
knowing the great pictures we all make with the M9 and the Leica glass,
..... the new M seem to be even in a different class, extremely promising !!
-
Great news for the measurebators.
-
A friend of mine shot portraits with the Monochrome version and he found it to be absolutely excellent.
Fell in love with it.
-
It should be borne in mind that the Monochrom is an adaptation of the M9, rather than the new 240. The Monochrom uses the 18 MP CCD sensor of the M9, but without the overlaid color filters, rather than the new 24 MP CMOS sensor of the 240. The differences in the ways these two sensors register the light, and the processing of that information in-camera, will lead to very different testing data, but the Monochrom should be understood in reference to the M9, rather than the newer camera (which I'm really looking forward to seeing results from). --Barbara
-
What I should have said, but didn't say clearly, was that the two sensors in the M9 and the Monochrom should test quite differently for a variety of reasons, but that it is still the M9 that is the reference point for the Monochrom. The 240 is an entirely different animal.
-
Hi,
I think the main benefit is live view. Having better DR (meaning less shadow noise) and better high ISO capability (which comes from reduced shadow noise) is also good.
It is interesting to see that a small firm like Leica could afford developing it's own sensor.
Best regards
Erik
What I should have said, but didn't say clearly, was that the two sensors in the M9 and the Monochrom should test quite differently for a variety of reasons, but that it is still the M9 that is the reference point for the Monochrom. The 240 is an entirely different animal.
-
It is interesting to see that a small firm like Leica could afford developing it's own sensor.
Best regards
Erik
So it is not a Sony sensor after all? I read somewhere that all the top FF sensors are sourced from Sony now.
-
Great news for the measurebators.
...and photographers alike.
-
So it is not a Sony sensor after all? I read somewhere that all the top FF sensors are sourced from Sony now.
The performance at base ISO seems to point to on-chip conversion. It might be an Exmor type, though I think there are other people who have been working on sensors with on-chip conversion. I don't think that Leica had much to do with it. They don't have that much money to bring to the game with the expectation of making it back.
-
So it is not a Sony sensor after all? I read somewhere that all the top FF sensors are sourced from Sony now.
You've got it the other way around. Just about anybody is able to make competitive CMOS sensors except... Canon and Dalsa. ;)
Jokes aside, this sensor was designed by the same guys who had designed the Kodak SLRn sensor. The company was then called fill factory, it is now called CMOSIS.
My understanding is that this company, located in Antwerpen, is a spin off from the research in semi-conductors done in University of Leuven within IMEC. A leading semi-conductor research facility employing 2,000 people worldwide.
http://www.cmosis.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMEC
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Leica contracted with CMOSIS to develop their new sensor. You can find them online. --Barbara
-
Great news for the measurebators.
As long as we cannot go out with it, we can only dream. Measurements are sometimes enough for nice dreams. :)
-
Hi,
No, the Leica M sensor was designed by CMOSIS and is fabbed at ST.
http://www.chipworks.com/blog/technologyblog/2012/10/25/full-frame-dslr-cameras-part-iii-new-entrants-and-look-forward/
There are several makers of CMOS sensors competing with Sony. Sony has probably a small edge in some aspects.
Best regards
Erik
So it is not a Sony sensor after all? I read somewhere that all the top FF sensors are sourced from Sony now.
-
You've got it the other way around. Just about anybody is able to make competitive CMOS sensors except... Canon and Dalsa. ;)
And maybe you can remove Dalsa from that list. For example, it seems that Dalsa has been making CMOS sensors with column-parallel ADC (as with Sony Exmor and CMOSIS and some Panasonic 4/3" sensors and the sensors in all recent Olympus models and in some Samsung video cameras ...) and some also with global electronic shutters --- but so far Dalsa has only made CMOS sensors in smaller formats (aimed at machine vision and high speed video) and in some big, low resolution sensors for X-rays etc.
Here is an article by Dalsa, from way back in 2005: http://www.covistech.com/uploads/DALSA_Datasheets/DALSA_CMOS_Shuttering.pdf
(And my guess is that Canon is by now designing more modern sensors than it currently offers, for coming DSLR models.)
-
A friend of mine shot portraits with the Monochrome version and he found it to be absolutely excellent.
Fell in love with it.
Any chance that might be a certain gerald.d? :)
-
Hi,
The Monochrome is an entirely different camera using the old CCD sensor with no CGA (Color Grid Array).
Best regards
Erik
Any chance that might be a certain gerald.d? :)
-
Any chance that might be a certain gerald.d? :)
No Richard Cartwright in Hollywood.
-
Someone hijacked my thread at the expense of the Monochrom. :)
It is funny, if Nikon or Sigma makes a major improvement in sensor, everyone talks about it in every thread.
If Leica does, with much less resources, people seem to ignore it.
-
It is funny, if Nikon or Sigma makes a major improvement in sensor, everyone talks about it in every thread.
If Leica does, with much less resources, people seem to ignore it.
Boooh... poor Leica! ;)
Now, it is somehow understandable... The new Ferrari hybrid car also affects the life of fewer people than the latest TDI from VW. ;D
Besides, in this case, the Ferrari still isn't performing as well as the 1+ year old VW...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
The new sensor is a splendid addition to Leica, making CMOS technology available to Leica, but the DxO rating of the Leica M (240) still lags the four year old Nikon D3X. So it is a giant leap for Leica but a small step for the photo industry.
Best regards
Erik
Someone hijacked my thread at the expense of the Monochrom. :)
It is funny, if Nikon or Sigma makes a major improvement in sensor, everyone talks about it in every thread.
If Leica does, with much less resources, people seem to ignore it.
-
Eric,
True, since the 80s, they have always been lagging behind the Nikon-Canons.
But I would dare to argue that the Leica glass compensates for a lot.
So, looking forward to try my Summicrons on this new sensor.
-
Hi,
May be, may be not. May depend on what you are doing.
The Nikon D800 has a big resolution advantage, not even the best lenses would compensate for that.
On the other hand, Leica makes a big effort to make their lenses performing well at large apertures. Stopping down eliminates the resolution/contrast advantage of the Leica lenses, most lenses are pretty close at f/8 or so. You know, diffraction, laws of physics.
Third, there has been much development in optics recently. I have seen a couple of publication claiming that the three Sigma macro lenses match any lens made by Leica, for instance.
By the way, once you are past good enough being best may matter little. Can you see any advantage in a correctly made double blind test? If not, does it matter?
DxO-mark is not related to lens, by the way.
My take is that the Leica got much more useful. I'm not sure about the significance of DR, but it seems that the new CMOS sensor is a major step up in image quality and high ISO capability.
Best regards
Erik
Eric,
True, since the 80s, they have always been lagging behind the Nikon-Canons.
But I would dare to argue that the Leica glass compensates for a lot.
So, looking forward to try my Summicrons on this new sensor.
-
Its good for Leica. The files look great and don't break up. Higher ISOs are clean. Nice noise when you get it at 5000 iso.
I had one for three days and decided to pass. The files look like modern CMOS files, which is great, but not what I'm looking for in a Leica. On the whole I prefer the M9, and regret having sold it.
-
Hi,
Can you explain the difference between a CMOS file and a CCD file, perhaps even post an example. A couple of raw files would be really nice?
Best regards
Erik
Its good for Leica. The files look great and don't break up. Higher ISOs are clean. Nice noise when you get it at 5000 iso.
I had one for three days and decided to pass. The files look like modern CMOS files, which is great, but not what I'm looking for in a Leica. On the whole I prefer the M9, and regret having sold it.
-
Hi,
Can you explain the difference between a CMOS file and a CCD file, perhaps even post an example. A couple of raw files would be really nice?
Best regards
Erik
I don't know if the difference is down to CMOS or CCD. I do know that the M8/M9 files are less smooth than the M, sharper, but not crunchy. I'll post some files.
-
Thanks,
Examples are always nice!
Best regards
Erik
I don't know if the difference is down to CMOS or CCD. I do know that the M8/M9 files are less smooth than the M, sharper, but not crunchy. I'll post some files.
-
...all that matters is the ability of the camera to create a valid representation of what you see in the viewfinder when you click the shutter. (And how you define "valid" is a personal thing.) I go back and forth when it comes to technical specs...sometimes I dig into 'em with relish, but just as often I fear I'm wasting time that could be better spent just observing and shutter clicking.
A couple days ago I found an old box of Kodachrome 200 from 1999, mostly containing photos of my dad (now gone) in the prime of his senior years, looking confident and serene. What a lovely color rendition, with its 5 stops of DR, that film had! I miss them both (the film and my dad).
-Dave-
-
...all that matters is the ability of the camera to create a valid representation of what you see in the viewfinder when you click the shutter. (And how you define "valid" is a personal thing.)
A couple days ago I found an old box of Kodachrome 200 from 1999, mostly containing photos of my dad (now gone) in the prime of his senior years, looking confident and serene. What a lovely color rendition, with its 5 stops of DR, that film had! I miss them both (the film and my dad).
-Dave-
It is a curious thing that getting the best technically possible photograph (whatever it means in each case) is usually not the main aim of the photographers even now with better cameras than ever. Colors get squashed, DR is limited, grain is added, vignetting increased, color converted to B&W. Even landscape photographers striving for the maximum resolution and color accuracy increase saturation and manipulate local contrast, among other things. To make pictures "BETTER". Not technically better, but to evoke emotion. Why is a photo made to look like a fifties KodaChrome better than a straight print from a modern high resolution digital camera? I am not making fun, often they look better to me also (my father started to shoot 6x6 slides in late fifties). So there is something going on here/there that pixel peeping alone can not explain, but which is not scientifically studied as much as MTF curves or sensor DR.
Should it be?
-
Hi,
Some stuff has been studied. The color spaces we used are enhanced to compensate for the limited DR of output devices for instance. It is also know that grain enhances perception of sharpness by giving the eye/brain something to focus on.
Much research went into Velvia.
Best regards
Erik
It is a curious thing that getting the best technically possible photograph (whatever it means in each case) is usually not the main aim of the photographers even now with better cameras than ever. Colors get squashed, DR is limited, grain is added, vignetting increased, color converted to B&W. Even landscape photographers striving for the maximum resolution and color accuracy increase saturation and manipulate local contrast, among other things. To make pictures "BETTER". Not technically better, but to evoke emotion. Why is a photo made to look like a fifties KodaChrome better than a straight print from a modern high resolution digital camera? I am not making fun, often they look better to me also (my father started to shoot 6x6 slides in late fifties). So there is something going on here/there that pixel peeping alone can not explain, but which is not scientifically studied as much as MTF curves or sensor DR.
Should it be?
-
Can you see any advantage in a correctly made double blind test? If not, does it matter?
Agree, that's the only thing that matters.
P.S. Same about some nice audio equipment where only my dog can hear the difference in the high tones. :)