-
John Giolas became a registered member 11 years, 4 months ago
-
David Farkas wrote a new post 11 years, 5 months ago
-
dalethorn started the topic Leica D-Lux – Episcopal Church Interiors in the forum Leica D-Lux 11 years, 5 months ago
Interior/altar of an Episcopal church. I suppose I should be happy with the overall look and maybe even the resolution (12 mp sensor), but I hope someday I can get a camera this size with a higher quality sensor with 24 or more megapixels, for greater detail.
Leica D-Lux, f1.7, 1/60 handheld (burst), ISO 200.

Leica D-Lux, f1.7, 1/60 handheld…[Read more]
-
David Farkas posted an update 11 years, 5 months ago
Working on Part 3 of our CCD vs. CMOS challenge….
-
Gavin became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
S.Y. became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
gustavo bandres became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
dalethorn replied to the topic Leica D-Lux6 G-Star Raw edition. in the forum Gear For Sale 11 years, 5 months ago
Sold the next day.
-
Maryland, USA became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
Gary Benson became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
Kirk Thompson became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
Christof Eichner became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
dalethorn started the topic Leica D-Lux6 G-Star Raw edition. in the forum Gear For Sale 11 years, 5 months ago
Leica D-Lux6 G-Star Raw edition, $575 including shipping to continental U.S.
Camera is like new, carry case has scuffs. Neck strap is new – wrist strap “almost new”.
All original packaging – includes extra genuine Leica battery.
Purchased 25 Jun 2013 from Leica Miami/Dale Photo.
Paypal only, and Paypal address must be ship-to address. -
dalethorn replied to the topic Leica T typ 701 Camera and 18-56 lens for sale in the forum Gear For Sale 11 years, 5 months ago
Not sold – could not get $1500 for the $4000 camera with case and extra battery – donated to a photo club.
-
dalethorn replied to the topic Leica Ultravid (first ed.) 10×42 BR binocular in the forum Gear For Sale 11 years, 5 months ago
Sold for $650.
-
Boston became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
-
David Farkas wrote a new post 11 years, 5 months ago
Make sure you read and vote on Part 1 of the Great Debate: CCD vs. CMOS before venturing on to this test.
In the first installment, I published various sets of images, each containing one shot from the Leica M9 and one from the Leica M (Typ 240). The premise was to see if I could use basic post-processing techniques in Lightroom to make an image captured with a CMOS sensor (M240) match one taken with a CCD (M9). Many have stated that there is a defining “CCD Look” and that it was impossible to achieve this with a CMOS sensor, even with processing. So, I put it up for a vote.
So far, as of this writing, the results have been very interesting. Counting statistical margin of error, almost all of the images are running at a 50/50 ratio or very close to it. Of course, the images I first posted were taken in conditions favoring the M9: natural, directional light at lower ISOs. I didn't want the comparisons to be about dynamic range or low noise or artificial light performance. This was just an exercise to see if there was indeed a “CCD Look” and if such a look was only inherent in CCD-based cameras. Some have requested that I publish images under more challenging lighting conditions and with skin tones.
In this second (and final) round of testing, I'm putting forth a selection of single images shot with the M9 and M240. The test this time is to see if, without a direct comparison, the “CCD Look” can be identified. Please note that I didn't take comparison shots for any of these images. I shot normally, just with two bodies. And, I didn't attempt to match to a particular look. Instead, I merely processed each file to my taste.
Without further ado, please cast your votes below. Yes, I know that there are a lot of images. I wanted to give a wide variety of scenarios to gather the most accurate data possible. Answers for both Part 1 and Part 2 will be revealed, along with my analysis, in Part 3.
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Which camera was used for the above image?
Update (3/9/15): Part 3 is now online. Check out the answers and my analysis.
-
John Thawley changed their profile picture 11 years, 5 months ago
-
John Thawley's profile was updated 11 years, 5 months ago
-
Pitoet Noegroho became a registered member 11 years, 5 months ago
- Load More
































Wonderful exercise and please do more of this type of analysis.
Yes, there are differences. But the images are SO similar after appropriate adjustment that the sensor differences are at most a very insignificant part of the rendering.
G
Yes, I show all the answers and the data collected in Part 3 here: The Great Debate: CCD vs. CMOS – Part 3