–

A number of years ago, Nikon introduced the flagship D3 and changed the face of photography by allowing us to capture images in near darkness.   I remember taking an image indoors late one evening in 2007 and marveling at how clean the image looked at ISO 6400.

Yet, these days when I photograph, I preferentially seek good light, and my ISO requirements with an f/1.4 aperture lens rarely exceed 1600.  Anything more than this, and I’m basically turning nighttime into daytime — which is often undesirable, as it destroys the ambiance of nighttime scenes.

I’ve learned the obvious: good light is good, and no amount of ISO boosting overcomes the disadvantages of poor light or poor lighting.

–

Good light reveals nuances in colours and textures, and generally confers depth to those flat representations of the world we call photographs.

–

That same ISO 6400 image from six years ago, when viewed now with a more critical eye, falls a little short on an aesthetic level, not because the lighting was dim, but because the lighting was poor.

Poor light is not necessarily the same as weak light.  For example, the scant light available after a sunset is “good light”, if one harnesses it properly (with the aid of a tripod and slow shutter speed).  The same thing may be said of incandescent lighting, if it is arranged on your subject in a pleasing way. 

Good light is not necessarily the same as bright or plentiful light.  For example, midday sunlight is often too stark to be desirable for portraiture, but may be perfect if the goal is to capture the interplay of light and shadow. 

Admittedly, high ISO capabilities are desirable for specific applications — for example, astrophotography, where the goal is to “see” the faint light emitted by distant stars but the exposure time is kept to a minimum to “freeze” the stars’ movement (so that stars remain “points” of light in the final photograph).  Or, if the goal is to capture action in dim light, or to record a memory for posterity and lighting considerations are secondary or beyond one’s control, then yes, a high-ISO-capable camera is vital.

If the goal, however, is to create an aesthetically pleasing photograph — even at night — then seek good light.

—Peter.

 

Matteo writes:

“Dear Peter,

I hope all is well with you!

Finally this 2013 is going to an end… I’ve spent this year mostly in London, with little time for photography.

Far from home and committed to work, I’ve been having a hard time developing my ‘artistic’ side.

However, in a strong effort to keep my eyes trained, I’ve dedicated a bit of time to explore film and rangefinder photography.

Now I’m thinking to jump into digital again (time and flexibility are the main reasons), but I have to save a bit before getting a new camera.  I’m very interested in hearing a little more from you about your experience with the new M240.  It seems you don’t consider it on par (sensor wise) with the new [Sony] Alpha7R and Nikon Df, and I’m curious about that.  I’m still a bit puzzled about the available options, as I never had the chance to test extensively an M9 or any of these new models. I think I will stick to film for a little more 🙂 .

—Matteo”

—

Thank you very much Matteo for writing.

Well, it turns out I may have an opinion about the Leica M240… 🙂

As many of the readers of Prosophos.com know, I’ve written much about it:

• The Leica M9 still reigns supreme.
• About the M240… the image quality is a step down.
• The M9 and CCD sensor.
• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013

…And I have even written an open letter to Leica asking for an updated CCD sensor on a future Leica M model.  So far, over 130 individuals have signed it.

However, to answer your question in a concise manner, I’ll note three things I don’t appreciate about the Leica M240 sensor:

1. Colour signature.  The native Leica M240 colour signature is suboptimal for skin tones, and one has to constantly fight against the default settings to achieve acceptable results.
2. Colour Tonality.  Colour transitions are rendered more coarsely by the M240 vs. the M9.  The M9 renders tones in a more subtle and delicate fashion.
3. Microcontrast.  Although the M240 sensor (24 MP) will objectively out-resolve the Leica M9 sensor (18 MP) at 100% magnification, the M240 files as a whole are more “muddy” and “flat” as compared to the more “crisp” and “3D”-like images generated by the M9.  See here for two examples (see various photo-sharing sites, photography fora, and generally the entire internet for more 🙂 …).

–

As for the Nikon Df and Sony A7/A7R, they are not rangefinder cameras, and so obviously cannot provide the rangefinder experience, which is important to me.   Also, being CMOS sensor cameras, they cannot equal the M9 in Points #2 and #3 above.

That’s basically it.  I hope that answers your question Matteo.

Sincerely,

—Peter.

[Incidentally, Matteo has submitted several images to me that will be featured in a not-too-distant Guest Post.]

–

It’s nearing the end of 2013, and the Leica M9/M-E/Monochrom with the venerable CCD sensor continues to provide the best image quality at base ISO in the 35mm (36 x 24) sensor class.

As predicted here.

The Leica M (Type 240) cannot touch it, the Nikon Df comes close, and so does the Sony A7/A7R… but none of these CMOS sensor cameras can equal it.

Don’t believe me?  Please research it for yourself.

And let’s not even mention the whole rangefinder experience, which these other cameras (with the exception of the Leica M240) lack.

So…

If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.

___

Related posts:

• About the M240… the image quality is a step down.
• The M9 and CCD sensor.
• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013

–

As I scanned some of the other photography sites late this evening, and read several initial user reports on Sony‘s new A7 and A7R 35mm interchangeable cameras, I noticed more and more people are conceding that my prediction on September 15, 2012, on the eve of the release of the Leica M240 was true: the M9 and its CCD sensor would prove to be superior at base ISO than any CMOS offering.

Unfortunately, holding this opinion and stating it publicly — repeatedly — has probably strained my relationship with Leica.  Hopefully they’ll eventually come around to seeing my efforts as constructive.  I am, after all, an enthusiast who only photographs with Leica rangefinders and lenses.

Back to the point:  is it any wonder that in June of this year I declared my camera of the year for 2013 to be the Leica M9?  As crazy as it was for me to do, I’m sticking by it.

It’s still not too late to sign My Open Letter to Leica😉 .

—Peter.

Yes, the image quality of the Leica M (type 240) is a step down from the Leica M9.

You have to ask yourself, why did I buy it in the first place, given all my rants about CCD vs. CMOS (and how I prefer the former)?

If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing my open letter to Leica.

___

Related posts:

• The M9 and CCD sensor.
• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013

“Hi Peter,

I love your site and the pictures that you post.  They are a great inspiration for me to get better at being a photographer.  I follow your blog and have been very curious about the M240 and M9 debate, or the CMOS and CCD sensor battle.  I have an M9 and have been thinking about moving into the M240.  Mind you I have only been shooting Leica for about a year now.  But when I see your images and read about what you have to say about the CCD.  Then I don’t want to get the M240 anymore.  Part of the reason why I would like to get the M240 is to be able to use the higher ISO for when shooting at lower light situations.  Anyway, I’m still holding on to the M9.  Any tips on what to do when shooting in lower light with the M9?

Keep up the great work!

Cheers,
Kerwin”

–

Hello Kerwin,

First of all, thank you so much for your nice comments.

Now, to address your questions, which are all excellent…

Yes, I’ve always believed, and continue to believe, that CCD sensor cameras produce images at base ISO that are more pleasing than CMOS sensor cameras.  However, in low light, CCD sensors struggle relative to their CMOS counterparts.

The introduction of the Leica Monochrom did much to close the performance gap, but of course you’re limited to B&W photography when using this camera.

Quite simply then, if you wish to continue to photograph in low light situations using an M9, you need fast (aperture) lenses, like the Summilux (f/1.4) or even Noctilux (f/1 or f/0.95) lenses.  If your subjects are relatively still, then of course a steady hand and slow shutter speed are very useful (as are monopods and tripods, but most of us who shoot rangefinders do not make use of such additional equipment).

It’s also critical to expose properly with the M9 when shooting in dark environments, especially when employing high ISO.  This can be a problem, since I rarely feel comfortable shooting above ISO 1250 with this camera.  Others limit their maximum ISO to 640 and then “push” the exposure up during image post-processing.  I do this frequently.

I said above that your questions are excellent, which is very true.  It turns out, however, that your questions are timely too…

–

I have decided to purchase an M240.

–

I know I will be sacrificing low ISO image quality, in the form of the “crispness” I currently see in my images, but I am willing to give the M240 a try.

Why?

Most of the time, the light in Toronto is poor, as the winters here are long and dark.  Having a camera that can comfortably shoot above ISO 1250 has increasingly become a priority for me.

And, after selling off most of my equipment over the last few days, I’ve decided I don’t want a Nikon D800, or Sony A7/A7R, or an Olympus E-M1, or Fuji X-E2.

No folks, I still want a digital rangefinder (please see the previous post, Rangefinder Cameras)

And as far as digital rangefinders go, there’s still only one game in town.

—Peter.

The longest running CCD poll :), asking whether a brand new CCD sensor should reappear in a future Leica M camera, is still running…

Why am I continuing this?

Because I love the rendering of CCD sensors!  The Leica M9 is like a portable digital mini-medium format camera.

At the very least, CCD sensors offer us photographers an alternative choice.

I’ve noticed a few notable individuals who were initially very enthusiastic about the Leica M240 (CMOS sensor camera) have now changed their tune and are subtly conceding that the M9 image quality at low ISO is superior.

So far, I have just over 400 votes…

—Peter.

–

Related posts:

• Leica M9 vs. M240
• M240: More Thoughts
• Leica M240: Final Verdict
• Leica M9 sharpness vs. Sony RX1R, Nikon D800E, Fuji X100s
• My camera of the year for 2013

I once wrote:

The first manufacturer, other than Leica, who places a 24 x 36 sensor in a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera can count me in as a customer.  I have no doubt that at some point, somebody will do it.

However, the insanely loud shutter on the A7/A7R is a deal-breaker for me.  You can listen to it in this field test video (courtesy The Camera Store) at approximately 5:22 into the video.

The EVF is already dated too.

Too bad.

Still, you have to give Sony credit for shaking the industry.

—Peter.