–
So far, after 125 votes, I’m surprised to see the overwhelming majority of you do want a CCD sensor in a future Leica M.
(By the way, you may still vote.)
Most of the internet fora discussions would have you believe that opinion is evenly split, or perhaps favours the new Leica M(240) and its CMOS sensor.
I know that the sample size of this poll is extremely small, and there may be selection bias at play (i.e., those who follow this blog may be biased towards favouring CCD sensors) — which makes the results tenuous at best — but the results are intriguing.
Perhaps things will equalize as more votes are cast.
—Peter.
Prosophos 
To me, it’s hard to commit to which I prefer in final form, i.e., the print. I have never seen a print from the M240, so, I can’t really compare the two in how I want to judge. However, when viewing on the monitor, the difference is subtle but to me. I see a “snap” with the M9 (maybe the “special sauce”) that I don’t see with the M240 which seems a little “smooth.” It’s not a bad thing, just not the same. I’m not sure if it’s post-processing technique or if it’s native to the CCD vs. CMOS sensors. That being said, I prefer the M9 output from what I’ve seen so far by exploring online, and I do appreciate the M9 prints. It may be my bias as well; I also prefer E6 (maybe the M9) to C41 (maybe the M240). Now that Fuji as ceased production of Provia 400x (one of my favorites), I think I may start looking at going digital more seriously, and am leaning toward the M-E. I’d be curious if anyone else thinks similar to me in the way these 2 cameras render.
Thanks again everyone, and especially Peter for providing this forum.
“…So far, after 125 votes, I’m surprised to see the overwhelming majority of you do want a CCD sensor in a future Leica M. …”
Is it really such a surprise that most of the people who enjoy your work, who follow your thoughts, have similar thoughts and feelings? This poll does not have a random mix of people responding to it. It polls a bunch of people who are predisposed to agree with your viewpoint.
You’ve hammered on your podium about this over and over again since the new M was announced. Other well-respected photographers with their blogs have disagreed with your viewpoint. I bet if they polled their audience on the same question, most of their respondents would agree with them too.
Remember, there are “…lies, damn lies, and statistics.” 😉
I’m an M9 shooter and fully agree with Godfrey. This poll would have been far more meaningful if you had taken the time to present two or three sets of images taken with both the M9 and M240 (same conditions, lighting, lenses and so on). How any intelligent person can form such firm views by considering images from different cameras shot in disparate conditions is beyond me.
Godfrey and Walt,
I’ve allowed your comments to be posted to add some “flavour” to the proceedings, but please be forewarned that any further comments along these lines will not be tolerated. Not because you both have views that differ from mine (others have posted dissenting views in other posts without issue), but because:
1. Godfrey: You basically repeated the preemptive qualifications I raised in my post (specifically, about the validity of the statistics secondary to potential sample bias, small sample size, etc.), but failed to quote that portion of my comments in your response. In other words, you added nothing to the discussion and are seemingly being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Note, this is not the first example of this behaviour on your part on this site and thus far I’ve been extremely accommodating.
2. Walt: Your backhanded insult about the (lack of) “intelligence” of those who hold a view that differs from yours, and your erroneous assumptions about how the other respondents have come to form their opinions have no place here.
I’ve worked hard to foster a trusting environment on this site, and I will uphold it. In other words, I will not hesitate to ban individuals who behave like boorish guests.
—Peter.
Some things are best left unsaid, though I would like to qualify and support one of your comments Peter in response to Walt.
Walt, I think you’ll find most people who follow this blog are enthusiasts of photography and in their own right have already seen many different types of files from different sensor types, including the M240. Those that voted (I don’t think there would be any other reason to vote unless you were interested!) would have taken this into account. And in a very simple way, if you disagree you will have said “No” or “Don’t Care”.
I very nearly said “Don’t Care” based on the fact that the world is full of great photographers using all sorts of tools and sensors (film and digital). That would have been a philosophical vote on my part.
However in the spirit of the poll, as one of those people who enjoys seeing where technology is taking us in photography, I simply said yes to the M9 sensor. I don’t own either the M9 nor M240.
The main things is Walt (and I’m sure agree) we all love photography and see the world differently.
Yes, Andrew, but you do own the Monochrom which has a modified M9 sensor ;).
As for voting for the M9 sensor, I wasn’t so much interested in looking to the past with this poll, as I was in looking to the future. Specifically, the future possibilities with CCD. This is why I wrote, in my original post:
Knowing I still prefer the “dated” M9 CCD to any other sensor that’s out there right now (Foveon has always been interesting to me, however it still feels like it’s in the beta stage), I’d be curious to see what a latest-generation CCD sensor could do now.
Will Leica reintroduce one in a future M body? Probably not… I’m under no illusions.
Thanks Andrew once again for a well-reasoned post.
—Peter.
All I can say is that I’ve always shot CMOS (albeit with anti-alias filter) and never knew what I’d been missing. But ever since I got an M9 I’ve started realizing how much a better image is achievable with CCD. It’s the same quality we often like about iPhone cams or good point and shoots, sharp and vivid and amazingly clear, but done much better and in RAW and in a Leica body. I never want another camera.
Having said this I’m also hearing good things about the new CMOS sensor, namely richer color and more flexible files. For me the jury is out until I try the new one. Of note I did vote to keep CCD sensor in Leica because I think it’s good sometimes to be different, and since Leica M has always been a little ‘different’ I would love for them to show us what’s possible with CCD when everyone else has taken the route of CMOS.
Excellent post, thank you Raed.
Apologies if I ruffled a few feathers. My point was that it seems that almost all that praise the M9 over the M240 have never shot the latter nor compared images shot by both in the exact same conditions.
On the other hand, there are some very capable professional photographers that have directly compared both and and concluded that there is little, if any difference.
Kristian Dowling, a respected name in the Leica community, writes in his very detailed and thoughtful review on the M240 that after post-processing the two can be made to look identical:
“Colors are every bit as great as previous cameras, but with a slight shift towards the warmer side, which is not a bad thing, just slightly different. If M9/P and M-E users prefer they can shift towards blue and magenta slightly to achieve almost identical results. Below you see images straight from camera at ISO 200, daylight preset, and then adjusted in Lightroom to look identical.”
Here’s a link to Kristian’s M240 review: http://kristiandowling.com/blog/2013/5/3/leica-m-typ240-user-review
Ming Thein presents an interesting perspective in his review of the M240. http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/02/22/2013-leica-m-typ-240-review/
Ming suggests that the sensor in the M240 does not behave like a traditional CMOS sensor. It seems to achieve the tonal response of a CCD while offering the latitude and low noise of a CMOS sensor.
I value these opinions because they were formed after spending time with both the M9 and M240.
Thank you Walt for that more thoughtful response.
If Leica stopped making M-E models, and all the used M9/M8 cameras disappeared tomorrow, I would get the M240… it’s the closest thing to an M9.
As I’ve stated previously, the M240 sensor has more dynamic range and higher ISO capabilities – so in those ways it is superior to the M9 sensor.
However, at base ISO, the M9/M-E CCD renders in a unique way. In other words, I disagree with the contention that M240 files can be made to look like M9 files… they can’t. Some know what I’m talking about, some don’t. That’s okay.
And I say this holding Kristian and Ming in high esteem. In fact, both photographers have been featured on this site.
And notice that Ming, in the article you reference, concedes that the M240 sensor has “some of the tonal response” of a CCD. Notice how carefully those words were chosen.
Finally, as I’ve also written several times in the past, none of this CCD vs. CMOS silliness matters with respect to creating memorable photography. But since we currently have a choice when it comes to the cameras we use, I’ve made mine.
—Peter.
Thanks Walt. I think we’d all agree regarding some of the technological advancements the M240 brings.
I have read both of these reviews at the time of writing and follow both of these talented photographers very closely. I speak with Kristian regularly also as he lives in my home town Melbourne and have attended training with him and continue to seek advice. In fact he would be the biggest influence in my own photography of late. I agree and confirm 100%, he does think the M240 is a definite improvement.
However on the other hand I have also seen just about every image Kristian wishes to publish since he started using it and I can say to my eye and personal preference, I’m struggling to see the comparison to the M9 and this includes B&W images. I have not told him that because it’s not really that important. He also knows A LOT more than I do about these types of things, granted. Regardless I also know it is not so important for him when he produces his work, around this particular rendering aspect….he values other things over this so hence he’ll just state overall it’s a big step forward for Leica, which it is is when looking at the whole picture (excuse the pun :-)).
All that said though PP plays a large part depending on the photographer and Ming will be different from Kristian from Peter from you or I.
I wonder why it must be, according to Walt, that Kristian is right but Peter is not. Could it be the other way around? Absolutely! But I’m not saying it is or it isn’t. Appeals to authority are asinine and are worth precisely ZERO.
I do not have a strong opinion – I do wish for choice, though, and I think Peter is doing no bad thing by banging the CCD drum. I am unimpressed with the tendency towards homogeneity to which lots of photographers seem to want us to adhere. I do not want to adhere to a system where I must only use what is economical for two or three Japanese manufacturers to make (even though I love my Sonys). And I don’t appreciate the notion that I must use only lenses made by the OEM, even if they’re mediocre.
Homogeneity only makes sense if everything is excellent. It is not, so we mitigate that with variety and choice.