For several weeks now, I’ve been running a poll, asking:
“Should Leica bring back a new CCD sensor in a future M model?”
Since the poll’s inception, the majority of votes have been for “Yes“.
In fact, the “Yes” vote has been consistent at 62%, with the remainder of the votes split equally between “No” and “Don’t Care“.
Well, today there was a sudden spike in traffic to Prosophos.com and now the results look very different, with the “Yes” and “No” votes split almost equally.
Hmmm….
I had intended to write an open letter to Leica, once the votes exceeded a thousand, requesting they pursue advancements in CCD technology for future M cameras.
Now it seems, somebody has intervened….
Nonetheless, I’ll continue to ask the question:
—Peter.
Prosophos 
Simple question Peter. Does the voting prevent one from voting more than one time from the same browser? If not, then it would be easy for one to run the tally up with either selection.
But then……
Duane, I tried to vote again and the first vote was computed (please Peter -1 “yes”). I tried again and the second wasn’t — I guess probably the poll reads a cookie in the browser. Someone worked on…
Strange is the minimum to say. Very hard to believe suddenly about 400 votes appear only (or mostly) for the “no” option. By chance I’ve saw the results this morning and was exactly like you said, the total votes about 650, 62% “yes”. VERY SAD this intervention — WHY??
Why? Good question Luiz.
I can’t help but think somebody was being embarrassed by the results.
Peter, obviously someone or some people have decided to change the distribution of votes. I believe that one can vote as many times as they please from one site and this may be the problem. You might want to check it out. But it would appear that the poll is no longer valid. George
George and Duane, I don’t believe you can vote multiple times from one site.
I just cleared the cache in my Safari browser each time and was able to run the count from 477 to 480.
Bingo!
Thanks Duane.
It depends on how you setup your polling on the site. If you enable block for repeat voting (cookie or IP), then any repeat votes should not be counted.
I’ve checked out Polldaddy.com and you’re correct John. However, to place restrictions, I’d have to “upgrade” my account.
Peter, I sincerely believe the open letter still valid. Just count the genuine votes up this morning.
Agree!
Peter,
why not start a second poll from scratch and this time more “secure” ?
Cheers,
Jean-Marc .
Thanks Jean-Marc, but at this point it’s not my intention to do this all over again. As far as the unadulterated results are concerned, 62% of the readers here want an updated CCD sensor in a future Leica M model. Only 20% don’t want it, and 18% don’t care.
Hmm… Definitely suspicious. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a program that allows for repeated votes (I don’t think it would be that difficult). I’m interested on how many votes there were yesterday and compare to today.
Last, my life is extremely busy and I have to wonder why anyone would want to waste their time voting multiple times (I’m being serious).
gage
Yes, I agree. It is a very petty thing to have done.
Gage, you are doing wonderful things with your M240 and I wish great success for Leica with this camera. It’s just that some of us have a preference for CCD sensor based cameras, and I was hoping to document the level of interest.
By the way, you seem to be enjoying your S2 (I can’t help pointing out: it’s also CCD 😉 ).
Thanks Peter. Yes, the Leica S does have a CCD and I’m perfectly happy with it. I would also say that the images appear sharper compared to my images with my M240. My point is, I have to wonder if it is the CCD that allows for this?
gage
Well, the per-pixel sharpness of the M9 is greater than on the M240, so…
I would agree!
Very odd individual (if it was one person) to do such a thing. I was in a Leica dealer today enquirying about something and by chance he told me of 2 M240s he had sold that both parties were bringing the camera back in to be sold.
This is in NO way me saying anything at all against this camera. As you’ve mentioned Peter, Gage and others are putting out some excellent work with it. But it does reinforce what I am noticing more of….people selling this camera not long after owning it. Now that is a very very general observation and each person may have specific reasons. I just find it a bit odd considering how hard it is to get in the first place!
I know we are referring to anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence, but your observations Andrew are consistent with my experience.
Ergonomically, the M240 is an improvement over the M9. But, at base ISO, I prefer the image quality of the M9. I predicted I would, and maybe I biased myself, but I don’t think so because I’ve ALWAYS preferred CCD cameras.
Now, most people won’t notice any difference, and that’s okay.
—Peter.
i started a thread in the leica forum where i try to explain why i reverted back to the m9 after a week with the m240. it created quite a stir, and some people mentioned your blog. it could be that a bunch of m240 defendors came over and voted like crazy for “their” super camera. it basically came down to people saying how i could dare to even say that i prefer the m9, and that the m240 files were better, they would just need more “post processing”. and that the raw pics of the cmos look flatter because of the higher dynamic range :). right…
each to their own, to me the m9 is a tool that i love so much. sometimes i just photograph things to see how they look rendered rendered through the ccd. keep up the good work Peter.
Thanks Marc.
And regarding that forum, it doesn’t surprise me. The immaturity level there, with a few exceptions, is high.
I forgot to mention… when I first starting posting my views on the M40 a year ago, one of the moderators from that forum attempted to post a nasty comment on this site, and I didn’t allow it.
He then went back to his forum and boasted about his attempt, on a pre-existing thread linking to my site. Shortly after, he quietly deleted his own comment when a few level-headed people (thank goodness there are a few mature ones there) in that same thread pointed out that my views were more than reasonable.
Marc, it is generally true that when RAW output of files with a expanded or very wide dynamic range (DR) from a digital camera are first opened, they can and do appear flat when compared to a file with more limited DR. These expanded DR files can often appear to be somewhat lifeless and only with appropriate post processing, do they “come alive” and their sometimes imagew capture advantage gets appreciated. It brings to mind the Fuji Line of “S” (Such as S2 and S3) DSLR’s from quite a few years back with their octagon or non traditional shaped pixels, resulting in an expansive dynamic range when compared to other DSLR’s at the time. The RAW output from those cameras were often flat and needed considerable work.
With all this said, it’s still my opinion that it doesn’t account for many of the other differences we see in the output of the M9 vs. M240, especially at base ISO. As I expressed earlier, the M9 files often ellicit a visceral feeling upon viewing, a depth that I often don’t see in an M240 image. Almost organic in nature in terms of it being anything but lifeless and that’s why up to now I have favoried the M9 output, even though I admire other attributes of the M240.
WIth so many other companies coming out with cameras nipping at the heals of the Leica M, I would think Leica would want to design a line of CCD based M cameras as an alternative to their current CMOS ones. It would differentiate the companies product and offer a unique alternative. Each of these two different M cameras (one CCD based the other CMOS) would have their own advantages to funtion, capabilities and of course output and would give their legion of fans a unique choice. In some ways akin to the Sony A7 and A&r, even though there, it’s mostly about resolution. I think Leica has a unique opportunity to explore this option.
Dave (D&A)
100% agree Dave! That has been my view right from the point the M240 was announced. They now have offered choice in their product line. I see both the M9 and M240 as just different products. They still do that have that opportunity with the ME, though is this a stop gap to assist in the “transition” to CMOS? Who knows.
As Peter is mentioning, perhaps a bit of tweaking of the CCD technology and design they could market these product parallel. However I am sure there are some commercial reasons this is not an “ideal” way forward and suspect it will be based on economies of scale and return on investment with regard to development costs.
That’s the nature of most online polls. It is almost impossible to get trustworthy results.
Btw this obviously also points out that the votes in favour of the CCD can be just as easily been tampered with. Maybe some forgot the already voted every time you brought up the poll, or maybe many people have a pc at home, one at work, a mobile phone and an ipad, and maybe they felt strongly enough about the issue that they felt it would not harm anybody to give some extra votes to a good cause…
If I were Leica I would not be too impressed by an online poll, but much more in the general replies to your posts and your posts themselves, as well as the general statistics of your website traffic.
Maybe you should just write your open letter and let us underwrite it with name and e-mail adress?
Pieter wrote:
“Maybe you should just write your open letter and let us underwrite it with name and e-mail address?”
——
I’ve thought about doing it that way with the exception of including the email address (I don’t want the signatories to get spammed).
So, out of interest… If I wrote a letter to Leica asking them to keep CCD alive, how many of you out there would at least “sign” it with your name?. And, if you are willing to sign it, how many of you would enlist others to sign it?
Thanks,
—Peter.
I would. Even as I have a M240 with which I’m satisfied (I knew what I got into when I bought it ) I would like Leica to go back into developing CCD sensors. I believe it needs to now that the market for small size FF CMOS camera’s belongs largely to Sony now.
I don’t have any friends to enlist. Well plenty of friends… Just none involved with using Leica’s. 🙂
Agree with Pieter, the endorsing replies are stronger than just numbers.
Count with me Peter to sign in and the to enlist at least 1 guy. The other one to enlist would Jean-Marc who commented here, so no need.
And friends around to enlist for sure 🙂
I will, Peter!
I would.
I would . Count me in! Am about to buy a M9 to go along with my M8 …
Peter, don’t know how many others I could get, but I’m certainly willing to sign a letter in support of the CCD. George
It is sad if the voting was altered in an attempt to unfairly change the results simply to extend ones point of view of whether they want Leica to continue to explore the use of CCD or not vs. CMOS in their cameras. No one gets a prize for having their opinion validated and if nothing else, maybe lets leica know a bit of their users would possible like them to exploare this avenue in the future. We’re all here to share our views, whether they converge in agreeement or not. Thats how we all learn and grow and ultimately are presented with better more deirable products in the future.
Personally I’d love Leica to come out with an updated M-E/M9, with at east having the new quieter shutter, possibly weather sealing and a few other features of the new M240. Whether they can improve high ISO performance in a CCD based camer may or may not be possible presently but that would be icing on the cake, but the other M240 features I just mentioend are certainly within the relm of possibilities now.
Dave (D&A)
I believe they improved the new S’s ISO though its limit is 1600. That’s all I’d like to have is a clean file to ISO 1600. The new shutter and updated rangefinder. The faster card reader is a big plus too.
Duane, I couldn’t agree more. These additions would certainly be most welcome and would refine and contribute greatly to an already superb camera. I’m not sure if the improvement in high ISO performance in the Leica S is due to new noise reduction algorithms or circuitry or combination of the two. How much further they could take this in the currently designed M-E/M9 is an unknown.
Dave (D&A)
I researched a little last night and the new S has the same sensor as the S2 but they made improvements to the circuitry to get more out of the sensor.
I own the Leica S, I will say the ISO 800-1600 is useable and better than the M9.
Thanks Gage.
I think Leica had to make improvements in the original S2 high ISO performance when they introduced the 5, since even the Pentax 40 MP 645D had quite excellent ISO 1000 and higher at the time.
Dave
Their going to have to do it again soon with all these dSLR and mirror less cameras that are shooting at 36mp and having similar quality.
Yes or No. People who shoot 40MP medium format cameras like the 645D generally shoot on a tripod at base ISo for best quality, regardless of the light as opposed to shooting hand held under low light.Therefore a good ISO 1200 or higher is actually sufficient for this type of camera. Besides it’s also CCD which ditingushes itself from the 35mm and mirrorless 36 MP cameras.
Dave (D&A)
Makes you kind of wonder how much more could be gotten from the M9 sensor if they did the same?
Btw, out of interest who is now overseeing/producing the Kodak CCD sensor? Is it still Kodak?
I think this is the company that controls the Kodak CCD technology now:
http://www.truesenseimaging.com
Thanks Duane!
I would be willing to sign the letter, Peter, and agree that endorsing replies are stronger. But no one cares what I think. I don’t even know if I care what I think.
I would take Pieter’s suggestion further and say that particular endorsements are stronger still. There are many here whose talent, experience and objectivity qualify you as the “honors class”. A letter from such a group might be just the ticket to ask Leica to do its own poll to get a statistically larger sample size for the inquiry. Leica has the most comprehensive list of M 240 and M9 owners. Owners of both cameras (current and/or former) would be, I think, the ideal contact list. The poll would be a larger sample size than any one site could offer, would be experienced buyers/users (not just rationalizing a recent big ticket purchase), and the users would have (presumably) first hand experience. I expect that Leica is set up to circumvent “poll-trolling”. And, I think they have a department or two at the company who do this for a living. You know….get paid and all.
The other advantage? Peter, you could get your blog back to doing what you presumably enjoy doing more…sharing life’s little moments. “Sharing life’s little surveys” probably is low on the bucket list.
Here’s another potentially bad idea.: Gather up a small group (again… from the cool kids’ table) and ask for a meeting with a Leica team (not from the sales department) to discuss the prospects for sensor development and their own perspective on the imaging performance of the CMOS sensor on the M 240. Perhaps there are even technical accommodations that can still be made to “boost” the M 240 with its CMOS sensor into a more faithful artistic and light capturing performer.
Your site would be an excellent platform to share a summary if it was deemed appropriate. (It won’t be.)
Lastly, I hope that Leica has already reached out to you, Peter, and to others of you who are visitors here and masters in your own right. “Exit interviews” are a vital source of information and guide for future innovation and improvement. At least they are supposed to be. These conversations are often more productive and candid “off line” for reasons I can appreciate. I hope they are happening.
Gents, I too am happy to sign. I think there may be an overlooked treasure in the 30 megapixel full frame CCD sensor developed by Kodak 2-3 years ago. Perhaps there is merit in Leica starting there.
In spite of buying (and selling) so much gear to try out and enjoy the experience, I continue to hold onto my M9P and haven’t yet felt compelled to even try the M240. Yet, I’m very curious to try the Sony A7r with Leica lenses; have to tinker and stay occupied until that next CCD sensor shows up in an M body!
Peter,please don’t give up on the M240. Keep shooting it and I guarantee you will change your mind about the image quality. I have both the M9 and the M240 and I feel the new M is a far superior camera to the M9 including having superior image quality. Lou Degennaro
Dear Louis, I appreciate your sincere thoughts, but I have to trust my eyes. Accordingly, the M240 is no longer with me — I am happy and fortunate to have an M9 again and I’m once more creating the kind of images I am proud to call my own.
I think the person(s) who messed up your poll were just keyboard warriors who really need to get a life. They (the rationalist ones) just wanted to teach you (the superstitious one) a lesson. Of course if you did this to them, they’d hold up your actions as the necessary product of a deluded mind. But they can do it to you, because they know they are rational and you are not. They just do.
In the more serious worlds of physiology/medicine and psychology, the ones who believe that they are the rational ones will do as much as they can, with religious fervour, to mock and silence those who hold views that are considered ‘irrational’ or ‘superstitious’. Free speech and expression do not belong to those who do not subscribe to philosophical materialism. You’re only allowed to express your views if your views are compatible with (alleged) orthodoxy.
There are people who see your views as superstitious, because you refuse to accept that the CMOS is superior. You’re a CMOS denier! Well enough of that. Your opinions are just as valid as the next man’s. I hope my comments were not out of order.