Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think the issue is interesting. We'll find out what Leica does. In considering the MM, one issue that relates to this is the red pixel performance. With B&W landscapes being my main target, red filtration is often needed. Between the blue sky and the red filter factor, a red-filtered sky, particularly with wide angle lenses and at the corners, gets rather rough with the M9. Obviously, a red-filtered MM would be much better -- 4 times the pixel and no pixel amplification. However, assuming the M10 has more pixels, some of the gap between the M9 and the MM would be narrowed. A CMOS chip might further narrow that gap. A CMOS chip might have a lower noise "red" image than a CCD because the red-filtered pixels would be amplified (to offset the filter factor) at the base of the pixel, cutting out a major source of the noise relative to CCD systems. If the M10 goes this route, that might almost eliminate the MM advantages for my blue sky issues. Unfortunately, this level of testing is virtually never done in the reported reviews. In fact, my comparisons of my Canon 5D2 v. the M9 suggest that the reviews mostly miss the difference in shadow noise totally. What I saw, even at native ISO, was a huge difference in shadow quality -- way beyond what any review I read suggested. So, for me, the discussions and comparisons of the chip types are relevant in terms of my deciding issues of how and when to spend my limited funds. The bottom line, however, will be real world performance for the types of shooting I like to do. Paul www.PaulRoark.com