I actually liked the look of the M10P pictures a lot better! The color tone just seems more pleasing. I'm glad Leica is still tweaking their color science to improve.
Of course, I got it right. The M9-P has not that yellow tint the M10 has, overall I think the raw editing of the Kodak sensor has more colour information than the newer cmos sensors. I also think that the user interface and controls are better on the original digital Ms (M8/M9). I don’t need such nonsense as liveview on a rangefinder body.
I love my m9 ccd sensor! It may suffer in low light situations but when there is sufficient lighting, the colors are beautiful and even in bnw it’s amazing
I’ve been taking photos since 1994, and I love slide film, colour and b&w, even I used to shoot Agfa Scala which was gorgeous b&w slide film. I’ve always shot film, and at the same time bought and sold many digital cameras from nearly most brands. The only digital camera to me that has a beautiful slide film look and can balance artificial light and ambient light and doesn’t look bland, is the M9 straight out of the camera jpegs. I ended up buying 2. If it wasn’t for the M9, I would probably take photos with an M6, M3 or MP. Even the b&w’s are nice.
M10P wins for me. That said an M9P is still a lovely thing. Interestingly I guessed wrong. Very enjoyable review. If I was going Leica used the top camera would have to be an M10-R black paint edition.
M9 for me all the way. Got mine with old but good / zero corrosion sensor for around 1/5 of the budget of even a used M10/P - something you forgot to mention. Been shooting all around the world with it for over 10 years now, zero issues, but I grew up with an M2/35 cron and that same cron is now on my M9.
I can see more obvious difference between CCD and CMOS when I use raw. CCD raw straight out of camera is organic and filmic for my taste that's why I love it.
Thanks for the comparison! These types of videos never get old. Browsing KEH awhile back I came across an EX+ M9 with the box, papers, battery, and charger for $1500 but exempt from their warranty. The ad said nothing about sensor corrosion, but my suspicion was correct that it indeed had very mild corrosion after receiving it and taking a few shots of the sky. I sent the camera to Kalori Vision and had the cover glass replaced for $1k. $2500 invested and couldn’t be happier. Try the accessory baseplate grip that fits the M8 and M9 series. I absolutely love how much more confidently the camera handles with that accessory. Cheers!
It looks like the M10 has better AWB, that makes sense as it’s a much newer model. If possible, set them all to 5000K to shoot in day light, the result will be more interesting.
Can’t understand photographers that says “only applies to jpeg” or “if you shoot raw you can make any color” No and NO!!! If you have a great RAW you can make ideal color in one second. If you have “sony” raw - you need to work hard with the file. M9 raw files are perfect as well as jpegs. It is always a great surprise to bring photos on m9 at home and to see how it is! Like a film. On a ccd sensor it is always great on rear screen but nothing on computer. And I am not talking about “all in photographer’s hands” or something like that. I am want to say that CCD is mush mush better. Stellar!! In terms of bw or color picture. And not only m9 leica. M8 as well. Ricoh digitals as well. Old cheap digicams are better picture quality than new sony crap)))
Great video! I have an M9P now and agree with you that the current M10s are more user-friendly and practical, especially for users at my age whose eyesight is not as good as used to be. Eventually I will have to replace the M9P with a camera with a large bright EVF and probably autofocus.
I chose the left a few times just because the composition was better and I couldn't force myself to unsee that aspect. Such as the sun beaming in over the umbrella, or where the people with the bikes were in the frame. I chose the "right" more often, though, when I was judging primarily by color rendition, skin tone, white balance, etc. It actually bummed me out, because I would see in multiple photos that the photo on the right had such clearer and more vibrant colors with more of a "real" or maybe a "modern pop" to them, and the photos on the left often looked muddier and more vintage, so I thought "awww damn, I bet the camera on the right it the M10 with a CMOS". Then I saw just how much more accurate the white balance was in several photos (shockingly so) that I, again, thought "with such a clear and decisive advantage in white balance, the photos on the right MUST be from the M10". I have always loved CCD but haven't used it in years. I start to assume that my love of CCD is likely just nostalgia and doing a side by side comparison against modern CMOS cameras would be depressing. So, imagine my surprise and delight when I found out that the camera on the right was the M9 with a CCD!
@@hellatightdude M9 photos have weird cast. The point of camera is to produce the most accurate thing and then add filters, instead of trying to bake them in and working randomly. Not many people like those weird aesthetics.
@@MJ-uk6lu it’s funny you say not many people like it because M9’s seem to have a serious cult following. Not disagreeing with you though. I think some people really like a camera that has a built in aesthetic to it, maybe that’s why Fuji’s sell so well too, some people just like cameras that have that built in look to their files, whether it be film recipe modified-JPEGs or M9 DNGs. I happen to prefer the M9’s look to the M10 quite a bit.
I do have and use regularly an M9P and an M10r. The M9’s sensor, and the S2, are special and the color is fantastic. You don’t know better until you have one of those, because Leica’s color with CMOS is excellent. In medium format I use a Fuji GFX 100. It is an excellent camera, very versatile and with 16 bit color. Still, the S2, much more difficult to use and in a narrower range of situations, beats the Fuji by a lot. Kodak’s CCD sensors have a lot of limitations, starting with noise and a very limited ISo capability. But the color is superb
For noise use DXO PhotoLab Deep Prime. There is DXO PureRaw but it was less features. Even restores loss of color due to high ISO. I export to DNG so I can still edit in any other editor I want.
Actually me too! I did this video just out of curiosity. In fact I’m thinking about doing a comparison between the m9 and ektatchrome (which is said to be the inspiration for the Kodak sensor in it)
I love my M8 and M9P, I wouldn't dare to trade them for an M10... And you are right, an M9-P with sensor replaced costs more these days than an M 240 or M 262, and once the M11 is announced, the "basic" M10 will keep going down in value while the M8 and M9s are only going up.
Just came across this one, Jimmy. I watched and kept a running tally-a funny thing happened. I chose 8 shots for left and 9 for right, but one of those was a real toss up for me (I liked both almost equally). So I guess the moral for me: the sensor doesn’t matter, only the execution of the vision. Thanks for killing CCD interest for me; I’m certain overall a M10 or M11 will be the best camera, as it will allow easier execution of my vision. :)
4:26 The M9 always will have purer color, the problem is that the Auto White Balance of the M9 is a bit crazy sometimes (perhaps not in the same level of the modern ones). If you set your WB with a grey card, it will always beat any CMOS sensor. CCD has the advantage of producing better color separation. In the M10 we can see color contamination (green or yellow tint spread out)
Wow, I was planning on upgrading to the M10 now that the M11 has come out and prices are starting to drop, but after watching this video I think I will just hang on to my M9 till one of us dies. Thanks for the video!
You can tell its CCD for the simple fact that old sensors had CFA with better blue response, while modern sensors have much higher green response in the colour spectrum. This is ideal for mixed shooting, while old CFA which dictates what colour reaches the sensor tend to favour sunny light.
JPG and saturation is on. The difference between that cameras maybe can be attributed to difference in algoritms? I have heard that the CCD is made to mimic the Kodacolor colors
As a daytime, outdoor, sunlight or light overcast shooter the M9 works great for me. Don't need high ISO but occasionally use it for B&W to get the grain effect. The colors just look more natural to me (and I am mostly a JPEG shooter)> Rear screen is not an issue as I usually turn mine off to get more of the film "surprise" factor of not knowing exactly what I have captured till I get back home. And of course mine, with a replaced ID16 sensor was 1/2 the price of the cheapest m10 I could find. Left me the budget to grab an M Monochrom too, also with a replaced sensor.
With Leica M, it's not about "which is technical superior". It's about with shooting experience and which look do you prefer. For me, the M9 is the preferred camera. For the camera with the superior specs that simply delivers, I stick to my boring Sony A1.
The M9 shots were clearly identifiable due to clipped hilights (lower dynamic range) and better out of camera colors. The better colors have nothing to do with the CCD, but actually depend on a more precise auto white-balance algorithm in the M9. You can get same or better colors with M10: just shoot raw and apply a nice custom color profile.
CCDs are a lot sharper and colours are nice. i think. after using nikon with ccd i started disliking fotos coming out of oly sony pentax with cmos which are cameras i have used. I think photo engineers knew this, thats why it took longer for cameras to adapt to cmos. but the market wanted higher iso. never used a leica. but i do know i enjoyed editing or just keeping fotos before than today
Been a m9p user for 5 years then sold it to fund a canon 1DX MKll. But I miss shooting with the rangefinder so I got the m10. Always curious about the difference between m10 and the m9. I thought the left photos were from the m9p but was pleasantly surprised that it came from the M10.
I agree with you, the M10 is a more sensible purchase. A used M9P with a replaced sensor certified by Leica costs almost as much as a used M10. When I browsed the photos taken by the M9 on Flickr, I just didn't see that film look claimed by others. To me, the closest things to film are the 1st and 2nd generations of the Sigma Foveon sensor. Even the latest Quattro has lost that mojo due to its more Bayer-like color subsampling arrangement. If one wants the film look, just get a M6 and shoot film. I have heard the color science of the M9 CCD sensor was modeled after Ektachrome which is still available today. You can tell from that magenta bias of the skin tones. Just for fun, can you compare Ektachrome against the output of the M9 to prove this theory?
Thanks for the comment, Eric. That would be a fun video indeed! But I mostly shoot color negative and actually haven’t used ektsrchrome yet so I’m eager to try it out!
CCD does have more color. CMOS sensors were a downgrade in image quality to trade off for more speed, battery efficiency and cheaper manufacturing cost. What we got instead was higher unnecessary megapixels on FX and DX sensors. The pixel pitch of these sensors is nearing smartphone territory. What you want is big photosites (+6um), updated amplifiers and 16bit color depth. Anyone ever saying you don't need 16bit and 14bit is enough haven't seen a Hasselblad H6D file or an Arri Alexa LF file which has different type of CMOS sensor all together. Maybe with stacked sensors we'll see CMOS surpass CCD. Anyone who can't tell the difference. Just take a jpeg photo of the same scene, the go in LR and turn up SATURATION on both files as well as Exposure, you see the difference immediately. Editing a CCD jpg is like editing a CMOS raw file.
Yeah definitely. The Kodak sensor in it was rumored to draw inspiration from the ektarchrome slide film. I'll probably do a comparison between the two one day if you guys are interested :)
@@JimmyCheng The M9 colors were based on Kodachrome 25, just like the monochromes are based on Tri-X. Go figure Leica knows what photographers actually like.
@@FirePhoenixAudio ah so it's Kodachrome? I've never shot Kodachrome before but I heard it's actually b&w film, only colored during the development process?
I chose all M10-P photos. M10-P has warmer colors which I like more. I think M10-P colors looks more Kodak Portra 400 than M9-P which was made by Kodak :D Seems like M9P has magenta shift. BTW can I ask where can I get the straps you are using? Is there any website? Thank you.
Thanks for the content. I personally like the M9 color better it is unique and reminds my of the Kodak film. I don't like post processing much so it would assist in simplifying the process ... for me.
some more rich colors in some photos.. however I found myself liking left OR right depending on the image.. I think some of this difference and yellow tinting we see is definitely AWB.. really a factor in this test in my opinion.. Thanks for the video
Yeah you’re absolutely correct. In my day to day use I tend to shoot DNG so this is merely for those who are curious about jpg performance . The m10 tend to have warmer tones when set to awd(and I assume that’s what ppl would use in combination with jpgs). But again, you do see difference aside from color when viewing the original file on a large screen. The m9 is surprisingly “sharp” considering it’s down in terms mps.
was expecting the left to be the CCD since it's hyped up so much and I vastly preferred its colour and clarity. well, this has put any worries to rest about sensors for me!
Reminds me of the differences between Kodak and Fuji 35mm film. Left: more yellow in the skin tones, more Kodak like Right: more magenta in the skin tones, more Fuji like
Wow, I totally thought that the pleasing and natural fall off of highlights and the general film-like tone of the pictures on the left must be taken with an M9, given how much people parrot the film-like qualities of M9 CCD. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it's actually M10-P. M9 highlights seem too harsh to me.
"Filmic look" is not just about warmth- that's for color negative films. Unless you have shot color slide films, you may have not noticed that. M10 is more like color negative films, while M9 renders more like slide films. For that look, M8 and M9 are very good and rare.
this is a great video. But you can see the AWB of the M9 is not as accurate as the M10. Images tend to get greenish and bluish tint. You would get a better comparison if you do one with correct white balance.
I much more prefer M10. But honestly it's mostly because it was way warmer and thus looking more realistic, nicer. M9 produced some very clinical shots with some extreme bluish tinges, it tried to add some warmness by adding a lot more pink, but it just looked bizarre. M9 also tend to oversaturate greens. I wish that this test had controlled white balance, but at face value M10 looked better.
The debate about CCD vs. CMOS color shows that most people just use out of the camera JPEGs, as it has been well demonstrated that the so-called M9 color can be produced from M240 photos with some basic post processing.
I like the photos on the left that colours are more balanced. The photos on the right look more contrast but mostly cast to blue. People like M9 camera maybe the colour of the photo is a bit like slide photo. Personally I still prefer the M10 image colour
I call BS on the “filmic” look of the CCD. I’ve had both; it’s the manufacturer’s color profile that makes the difference. It’s clear to me that when someone says that a CCD looks like film has never actually shot film extensive enough.
Sooc joeges with AWB don't tell so much. I always prefer to see differences when the WB and tint is the same that's where you see the true difference..
Nobody shoots JPEGS on an M9, unless they don’t understand it. All the magic from an M9 happens in post because the palette from the M9 is so rich, especially in skin tones in daylight. I had one from new and I so want another one. But I also love the M10 for moody forests with muted colours. These need little in post. But how’s this! I just picked up a Pentax K10D with CCD and the colours out of that are extraordinarily rich and like a box of 72 Derwent colour pencils to play with in post. So, the moral of this story is JPEGS are like MP3 - ho hum. RAW and post is where the magic happens with CCD.
The result differences are more obvious than I thought. I shoot jpeg and I owned M8 and M240. I prefer CCD result in natural light, otherwise, it tends to mess up colour balance.
Wow. I was going to get an M-E (typ 220) in case my M8 breaks in the future but after seeing the over-saturated greens (SOOC) of the M9 I might just keep using the M8. 谢谢，还帮我联系了中文！
Shooting jpeg with AWB was such a disadvantage. You since you mainly shoot raw you should’ve known this. Kind of a weird comparison would’ve loved to get a more in depth analysis of the actual RAW data. Since that’s really what we’re talking about here. The jpeg and awb is just based on the current processor of the time which will always be weaker.
Liked the M10 images much better. Much more natural. Sold my M9 bc of the terrible skin tones and colour weirdness. The M9 was a terrible camera to use. Still use my M9M for the IQ, but it's a nightmare. RIP M9! Bring on the M11.
I've been shooting M9 and M Monochrom (CCD) exclusively for the last 6 months and won't go back, or should I say forward. This is enough technology for me, and the results are good enough.
@@JimmyCheng and also about leica. Does leica m240 really have an issue about pixel mapping and how about m240p? sorry for asking so much. i'm consider about having my first leica between m9,m9p,m8,m8.2, or 240
I am currently looking to buy a used Leica M9 titanium with some real use marks on it but the price is 2k so its a good way to get myself into leica and i really really love the look of the leica m9 and the colours it can produce. Plus then i can safe some money to get a good leica lens
I’m also surprised. With all the videos talking about the more filmic look of an m9, the m10 had for me definitely the most filmic look. I assume that white balance was set to automatic in both cameras ? I would be interested to know the kelvin values of the pictures. Is m10 perhaps systematically showing a higher kelvin value ?
man the M9 is just a bit cooler and has bit more darker reds, you could do a preset in 10s for the m10 and you get basically the same colors, plus all the other benefits. So people saying the colors are soo much beter on ccd; are you seeing something I don't? Not to say that for it's age the M9 can still produce amazing pictures (still the same amazing pictures when it came outt).
Some photos the M9 had a better look and some others the M10 had better colors. If you shoot RAW I guess i doesn't really matter. Just tweak colors to taste.
I preferred the m10p colors and rendering but that's my personal preference. I tend to shoot raw though too so I guess in the end it doesn't matter too much. Great video though! Thanks for sharing.
Well my two pence .. I learned photography back in the early 70s Tri X and Pan film.. Digital cameras and the lack of facilities killed photography for me. Then I discovered the Fuji cameras and I was back on the horse. Fuji is trying to give back some of the old school feeling. But the autofocus and HD look of the CMOS images were not doing it. Earlier this year I purchased an M9 with a replaced sensor and wow.. The B&W DNG right out of the camera is just beautiful. I have bought a couple of vintage Canon lenses and a nice Voigtlander 35/1.4 and I feel like a photographer again. I can't compare to M10 but the CCD of the M9 compared to the CMOS Fuji in B&W is the whole story..
thank you for your comment sir Roger. Yeah I have totally agree with you on this one. The high market price for m9 even with the ccd issue is a good proof of the magic of ccd!
@@ockie50 I assumed every one knew that. But to clarify. I create Virtual Copies in Lightroom and convert to B&W. Just apply basic Adobe Monochrome preset.
M10 is better in every way. For me, it's the first digital Leica that actually works, and the first to have sensible colour as well. That's before we even talk about body size, ergonomics, speed, etc.
I can understand your thoughts. But then it’s really up to me and the software’s interpretation. If left unedited, the files would be very flat. If edited, It would be a comparison of latitude of the files which always favours the new sensor because each generation has higher dynamic range.
In the digital age Leica is dead. Apart from their incredible lenses, the bodies are hot garbage. I've used an M9 and .. holy crap the worst digital camera I've ever used. You can't, with a straight face, defend Lecia in 2022. My Sony a100 STILL takes better pics than either of these overprices and overhyped pieces of Euro trash (made in Asia of course).
I actually liked the look of the M10P pictures a lot better! The color tone just seems more pleasing.
I'm glad Leica is still tweaking their color science to improve.
Good to see some split opinions here 😜
Of course, I got it right.
The M9-P has not that yellow tint the M10 has, overall I think the raw editing of the Kodak sensor has more colour information than the newer cmos sensors.
I also think that the user interface and controls are better on the original digital Ms (M8/M9).
I don’t need such nonsense as liveview on a rangefinder body.
Yup, M9 color is unmistakable, I love how deep the colors are. Sometimes in artificial light it goes crazy, but you can always tone it down.
I love my m9 ccd sensor! It may suffer in low light situations but when there is sufficient lighting, the colors are beautiful and even in bnw it’s amazing
I’ve been taking photos since 1994, and I love slide film, colour and b&w, even I used to shoot Agfa Scala which was gorgeous b&w slide film. I’ve always shot film, and at the same time bought and sold many digital cameras from nearly most brands. The only digital camera to me that has a beautiful slide film look and can balance artificial light and ambient light and doesn’t look bland, is the M9 straight out of the camera jpegs. I ended up buying 2. If it wasn’t for the M9, I would probably take photos with an M6, M3 or MP. Even the b&w’s are nice.
It’s indeed “magical” when compared to most cmos sensors out there.
M10P wins for me. That said an M9P is still a lovely thing. Interestingly I guessed wrong. Very enjoyable review. If I was going Leica used the top camera would have to be an M10-R black paint edition.
M9 for me all the way. Got mine with old but good / zero corrosion sensor for around 1/5 of the budget of even a used M10/P - something you forgot to mention. Been shooting all around the world with it for over 10 years now, zero issues, but I grew up with an M2/35 cron and that same cron is now on my M9.
That’s crazy good deal man. It usually sells for about 1/2 of the m10p. Congratulations 🥳
I can see more obvious difference between CCD and CMOS when I use raw. CCD raw straight out of camera is organic and filmic for my taste that's why I love it.
M9/M9-P hands down. A quick second-rate image vs a maybe slower first-rate image? Silly question. Do you want quality or quantity?
Thanks for the comparison! These types of videos never get old. Browsing KEH awhile back I came across an EX+ M9 with the box, papers, battery, and charger for $1500 but exempt from their warranty. The ad said nothing about sensor corrosion, but my suspicion was correct that it indeed had very mild corrosion after receiving it and taking a few shots of the sky. I sent the camera to Kalori Vision and had the cover glass replaced for $1k. $2500 invested and couldn’t be happier. Try the accessory baseplate grip that fits the M8 and M9 series. I absolutely love how much more confidently the camera handles with that accessory. Cheers!
It looks like the M10 has better AWB, that makes sense as it’s a much newer model. If possible, set them all to 5000K to shoot in day light, the result will be more interesting.
Can’t understand photographers that says “only applies to jpeg” or “if you shoot raw you can make any color”
No and NO!!!
If you have a great RAW you can make ideal color in one second. If you have “sony” raw - you need to work hard with the file.
M9 raw files are perfect as well as jpegs.
It is always a great surprise to bring photos on m9 at home and to see how it is! Like a film.
On a ccd sensor it is always great on rear screen but nothing on computer.
And I am not talking about “all in photographer’s hands” or something like that.
I am want to say that CCD is mush mush better. Stellar!!
In terms of bw or color picture.
And not only m9 leica.
M8 as well.
Ricoh digitals as well.
Old cheap digicams are better picture quality than new sony crap)))
Thank you so much. I was so relieved when you said which one was which. I much prefer the M10 pictures.
Great video! I have an M9P now and agree with you that the current M10s are more user-friendly and practical, especially for users at my age whose eyesight is not as good as used to be. Eventually I will have to replace the M9P with a camera with a large bright EVF and probably autofocus.
Keep it for the occasional “i want that ccd look” moment 😜
I chose the left a few times just because the composition was better and I couldn't force myself to unsee that aspect. Such as the sun beaming in over the umbrella, or where the people with the bikes were in the frame. I chose the "right" more often, though, when I was judging primarily by color rendition, skin tone, white balance, etc. It actually bummed me out, because I would see in multiple photos that the photo on the right had such clearer and more vibrant colors with more of a "real" or maybe a "modern pop" to them, and the photos on the left often looked muddier and more vintage, so I thought "awww damn, I bet the camera on the right it the M10 with a CMOS". Then I saw just how much more accurate the white balance was in several photos (shockingly so) that I, again, thought "with such a clear and decisive advantage in white balance, the photos on the right MUST be from the M10". I have always loved CCD but haven't used it in years. I start to assume that my love of CCD is likely just nostalgia and doing a side by side comparison against modern CMOS cameras would be depressing. So, imagine my surprise and delight when I found out that the camera on the right was the M9 with a CCD!
Me too!
Great comparison! You've earned subscription. Keep up the good work with awesome contents to come!
Thank you so much for your support!
I much preferred the photos from the m10 over the m9. The m9 just seemed to have really cold photos which messed with skin tones.
Not just that, but leaning heavily on pink/purple also on green casts.
That’s funny, I significantly preferred the M9 photos over the M10. You know what they say about opinions!
@@hellatightdude M9 photos have weird cast. The point of camera is to produce the most accurate thing and then add filters, instead of trying to bake them in and working randomly. Not many people like those weird aesthetics.
@@MJ-uk6lu it’s funny you say not many people like it because M9’s seem to have a serious cult following. Not disagreeing with you though. I think some people really like a camera that has a built in aesthetic to it, maybe that’s why Fuji’s sell so well too, some people just like cameras that have that built in look to their files, whether it be film recipe modified-JPEGs or M9 DNGs. I happen to prefer the M9’s look to the M10 quite a bit.
I do have and use regularly an M9P and an M10r. The M9’s sensor, and the S2, are special and the color is fantastic. You don’t know better until you have one of those, because Leica’s color with CMOS is excellent. In medium format I use a Fuji GFX 100. It is an excellent camera, very versatile and with 16 bit color. Still, the S2, much more difficult to use and in a narrower range of situations, beats the Fuji by a lot. Kodak’s CCD sensors have a lot of limitations, starting with noise and a very limited ISo capability. But the color is superb
For noise use DXO PhotoLab Deep Prime. There is DXO PureRaw but it was less features. Even restores loss of color due to high ISO. I export to DNG so I can still edit in any other editor I want.
Nice video. I don't shoot any digital these days but I much preferred the look of the M10-P files. 🤷🏼♂️
Actually me too! I did this video just out of curiosity. In fact I’m thinking about doing a comparison between the m9 and ektatchrome (which is said to be the inspiration for the Kodak sensor in it)
Still waiting for that m9 vs ektachrome video
After watching the video I found I prefer the look of the images on the CMOS. Wouldn’t have known unless I saw this video
I love my M8 and M9P, I wouldn't dare to trade them for an M10... And you are right, an M9-P with sensor replaced costs more these days than an M 240 or M 262, and once the M11 is announced, the "basic" M10 will keep going down in value while the M8 and M9s are only going up.
Just came across this one, Jimmy. I watched and kept a running tally-a funny thing happened. I chose 8 shots for left and 9 for right, but one of those was a real toss up for me (I liked both almost equally).
So I guess the moral for me: the sensor doesn’t matter, only the execution of the vision.
Thanks for killing CCD interest for me; I’m certain overall a M10 or M11 will be the best camera, as it will allow easier execution of my vision. :)
4:26 The M9 always will have purer color, the problem is that the Auto White Balance of the M9 is a bit crazy sometimes (perhaps not in the same level of the modern ones). If you set your WB with a grey card, it will always beat any CMOS sensor.
CCD has the advantage of producing better color separation. In the M10 we can see color contamination (green or yellow tint spread out)
Wow, I was planning on upgrading to the M10 now that the M11 has come out and prices are starting to drop, but after watching this video I think I will just hang on to my M9 till one of us dies. Thanks for the video!
I’m glad you enjoyed the video! Yes the m9 is definitely a unique camera that I’ll never part with 😜
You can tell its CCD for the simple fact that old sensors had CFA with better blue response, while modern sensors have much higher green response in the colour spectrum.
This is ideal for mixed shooting, while old CFA which dictates what colour reaches the sensor tend to favour sunny light.
JPG and saturation is on. The difference between that cameras maybe can be attributed to difference in algoritms? I have heard that the CCD is made to mimic the Kodacolor colors
M10 looked more like what I like. Surprised myself I thought left one was M9.
As a daytime, outdoor, sunlight or light overcast shooter the M9 works great for me. Don't need high ISO but occasionally use it for B&W to get the grain effect. The colors just look more natural to me (and I am mostly a JPEG shooter)> Rear screen is not an issue as I usually turn mine off to get more of the film "surprise" factor of not knowing exactly what I have captured till I get back home. And of course mine, with a replaced ID16 sensor was 1/2 the price of the cheapest m10 I could find. Left me the budget to grab an M Monochrom too, also with a replaced sensor.
With Leica M, it's not about "which is technical superior". It's about with shooting experience and which look do you prefer. For me, the M9 is the preferred camera. For the camera with the superior specs that simply delivers, I stick to my boring Sony A1.
Great video Jimmy! Keep 'em coming
Thank you! I will.
is there any chance you were able to share the comparison raw photos so i can have a look at them in lightroom? any help would be really appreciated
CCD look is unique so it will vary from person to person. I prefer the M9 look but like using the SL with M lenses
OMG, this is the first time I got a real sense of how fantastic the M9 color is. Greatly better than M10.
The M9 shots were clearly identifiable due to clipped hilights (lower dynamic range) and better out of camera colors. The better colors have nothing to do with the CCD, but actually depend on a more precise auto white-balance algorithm in the M9. You can get same or better colors with M10: just shoot raw and apply a nice custom color profile.
CCDs are a lot sharper and colours are nice. i think. after using nikon with ccd i started disliking fotos coming out of oly sony pentax with cmos which are cameras i have used. I think photo engineers knew this, thats why it took longer for cameras to adapt to cmos. but the market wanted higher iso. never used a leica. but i do know i enjoyed editing or just keeping fotos before than today
in good light condition, m9p just awesome. Nice video.
Been a m9p user for 5 years then sold it to fund a canon 1DX MKll. But I miss shooting with the rangefinder so I got the m10. Always curious about the difference between m10 and the m9. I thought the left photos were from the m9p but was pleasantly surprised that it came from the M10.
I agree with you, the M10 is a more sensible purchase. A used M9P with a replaced sensor certified by Leica costs almost as much as a used M10. When I browsed the photos taken by the M9 on Flickr, I just didn't see that film look claimed by others. To me, the closest things to film are the 1st and 2nd generations of the Sigma Foveon sensor. Even the latest Quattro has lost that mojo due to its more Bayer-like color subsampling arrangement. If one wants the film look, just get a M6 and shoot film. I have heard the color science of the M9 CCD sensor was modeled after Ektachrome which is still available today. You can tell from that magenta bias of the skin tones. Just for fun, can you compare Ektachrome against the output of the M9 to prove this theory?
Thanks for the comment, Eric. That would be a fun video indeed! But I mostly shoot color negative and actually haven’t used ektsrchrome yet so I’m eager to try it out!
CCD does have more color. CMOS sensors were a downgrade in image quality to trade off for more speed, battery efficiency and cheaper manufacturing cost. What we got instead was higher unnecessary megapixels on FX and DX sensors. The pixel pitch of these sensors is nearing smartphone territory.
What you want is big photosites (+6um), updated amplifiers and 16bit color depth.
Anyone ever saying you don't need 16bit and 14bit is enough haven't seen a Hasselblad H6D file or an Arri Alexa LF file which has different type of CMOS sensor all together.
Maybe with stacked sensors we'll see CMOS surpass CCD.
Anyone who can't tell the difference. Just take a jpeg photo of the same scene, the go in LR and turn up SATURATION on both files as well as Exposure, you see the difference immediately. Editing a CCD jpg is like editing a CMOS raw file.
Nice one, Jimmy. The colour differences are quite apparent. The CCD reminds me of slide film a bit.
Yeah definitely. The Kodak sensor in it was rumored to draw inspiration from the ektarchrome slide film. I'll probably do a comparison between the two one day if you guys are interested :)
@@JimmyCheng Definitely interested!
@@JimmyCheng The M9 colors were based on Kodachrome 25, just like the monochromes are based on Tri-X. Go figure Leica knows what photographers actually like.
@@FirePhoenixAudio ah so it's Kodachrome? I've never shot Kodachrome before but I heard it's actually b&w film, only colored during the development process?
@@JimmyCheng This is correct. All Kodachrome films are essentially multi-layer b&w film and the colors were added during the development phase.
absolutely M9/M9p for me as it is an unique one. If i need smoother functioning i will pick Fuji/Canon instead of the M10 or m240
Yeah same here. Modern Leica M is becoming less and less unique.
Thanks for your content it was very nice to listen to you
I got it right. The M9 has these deep colors that are just unique.
I chose all M10-P photos. M10-P has warmer colors which I like more. I think M10-P colors looks more Kodak Portra 400 than M9-P which was made by Kodak :D Seems like M9P has magenta shift.
BTW can I ask where can I get the straps you are using? Is there any website?
Thank you.
I bought it from cam-in on Taobao, not sure if they sell it on Amazon or eBay.
Thanks for the content. I personally like the M9 color better it is unique and reminds my of the Kodak film. I don't like post processing much so it would assist in simplifying the process ... for me.
Which one I should get as my first leica? M240 or m9???? Or m8
Prefer M9, more natural colours, Interestingly M10 pictures seem to have have a more vintage look compared to M9 due to yellow tint
some more rich colors in some photos.. however I found myself liking left OR right depending on the image.. I think some of this difference and yellow tinting we see is definitely AWB.. really a factor in this test in my opinion.. Thanks for the video
Yeah you’re absolutely correct. In my day to day use I tend to shoot DNG so this is merely for those who are curious about jpg performance . The m10 tend to have warmer tones when set to awd(and I assume that’s what ppl would use in combination with jpgs). But again, you do see difference aside from color when viewing the original file on a large screen. The m9 is surprisingly “sharp” considering it’s down in terms mps.
@@JimmyCheng thanks for reply =)
was expecting the left to be the CCD since it's hyped up so much and I vastly preferred its colour and clarity. well, this has put any worries to rest about sensors for me!
I'm glad it helped.
Reminds me of the differences between Kodak and Fuji 35mm film.
Left: more yellow in the skin tones, more Kodak like
Right: more magenta in the skin tones, more Fuji like
Totally agreed!
Wow, I totally thought that the pleasing and natural fall off of highlights and the general film-like tone of the pictures on the left must be taken with an M9, given how much people parrot the film-like qualities of M9 CCD.
I was pleasantly surprised to find out that it's actually M10-P.
M9 highlights seem too harsh to me.
"Filmic look" is not just about warmth- that's for color negative films. Unless you have shot color slide films, you may have not noticed that. M10 is more like color negative films, while M9 renders more like slide films. For that look, M8 and M9 are very good and rare.
this is a great video. But you can see the AWB of the M9 is not as accurate as the M10. Images tend to get greenish and bluish tint. You would get a better comparison if you do one with correct white balance.
Is the M9 repainted? The top is so shiny!
Nah it’s just some random protective film
to bad it's AWB would love to see them on the same kelvin since the AWB can affect the colors
I have and love an Olympus e400 with a Kodak four thirds sensor, so of course I knew which was the M9, and I really want one 😭 love the punchy colors
any chance you could share the RAW files?
I much more prefer M10. But honestly it's mostly because it was way warmer and thus looking more realistic, nicer. M9 produced some very clinical shots with some extreme bluish tinges, it tried to add some warmness by adding a lot more pink, but it just looked bizarre. M9 also tend to oversaturate greens. I wish that this test had controlled white balance, but at face value M10 looked better.
The debate about CCD vs. CMOS color shows that most people just use out of the camera JPEGs, as it has been well demonstrated that the so-called M9 color can be produced from M240 photos with some basic post processing.
I like the photos on the left that colours are more balanced. The photos on the right look more contrast but mostly cast to blue. People like M9 camera maybe the colour of the photo is a bit like slide photo. Personally I still prefer the M10 image colour
Well my choice was even more a dinosaur! I did get a M8 and as a prime B&W shooter I love it!
I call BS on the “filmic” look of the CCD. I’ve had both; it’s the manufacturer’s color profile that makes the difference. It’s clear to me that when someone says that a CCD looks like film has never actually shot film extensive enough.
wouldnt comparing the raw images be a much more accurate idea of what the sensor puts out!?
The shadow detail in the M10P seems much higher, I didn't expect that!
Sooc joeges with AWB don't tell so much. I always prefer to see differences when the WB and tint is the same that's where you see the true difference..
這一集是我最鍾意看的，因為兩個機型我都有，真心希望知道和看到其他師兄對兩款機使用的評價，非常之感謝🙏！
谢谢！也希望你可以分享自己的使用感受：）
Nobody shoots JPEGS on an M9, unless they don’t understand it. All the magic from an M9 happens in post because the palette from the M9 is so rich, especially in skin tones in daylight. I had one from new and I so want another one. But I also love the M10 for moody forests with muted colours. These need little in post. But how’s this! I just picked up a Pentax K10D with CCD and the colours out of that are extraordinarily rich and like a box of 72 Derwent colour pencils to play with in post. So, the moral of this story is JPEGS are like MP3 - ho hum. RAW and post is where the magic happens with CCD.
left side camera has better color (usually warmer white balance) but also whites are more pure white without any magenta tone
How come you haven't make a video about your Df ? Some people say the Df sensor gives unique colors too, unlike other Nikon cameras.
actually, no. It gives a relatively dull look, but in return, its raw file has got amazing dynamic range, especially considering its age.
The result differences are more obvious than I thought. I shoot jpeg and I owned M8 and M240. I prefer CCD result in natural light, otherwise, it tends to mess up colour balance.
M10 has a warmer awb. This tested whether people liked a warmer or cooler image
Wow. I was going to get an M-E (typ 220) in case my M8 breaks in the future but after seeing the over-saturated greens (SOOC) of the M9 I might just keep using the M8. 谢谢，还帮我联系了中文！
M10 has better skin tones and a softer color. I thought the m9 was on the left, I was routing for it, but the m10 was nicer.
Shooting jpeg with AWB was such a disadvantage. You since you mainly shoot raw you should’ve known this. Kind of a weird comparison would’ve loved to get a more in depth analysis of the actual RAW data. Since that’s really what we’re talking about here. The jpeg and awb is just based on the current processor of the time which will always be weaker.
Two camera's auto wb is quite different, with the mp9 is quite bluish, and should be corrected.
I liked the 9 on all but 3 or 4. The warm golden 3 or 4 I liked the 10 best.
2 or 3 I had no choice.
I vote the 9.
I prefer the m9 overall as well :-)
Liked the M10 images much better. Much more natural. Sold my M9 bc of the terrible skin tones and colour weirdness. The M9 was a terrible camera to use. Still use my M9M for the IQ, but it's a nightmare. RIP M9! Bring on the M11.
Indeed, the m9 ccd is overhyped.
White balance is different. Otherwise pretty much the same, maybe right is more saturated
I've been shooting M9 and M Monochrom (CCD) exclusively for the last 6 months and won't go back, or should I say forward. This is enough technology for me, and the results are good enough.
Does your camera have sensor corrosion issue?
No it’s replaced with the new stack in Germany
@@JimmyCheng and also about leica. Does leica m240 really have an issue about pixel mapping and how about m240p? sorry for asking so much. i'm consider about having my first leica between m9,m9p,m8,m8.2, or 240
I am currently looking to buy a used Leica M9 titanium with some real use marks on it but the price is 2k so its a good way to get myself into leica and i really really love the look of the leica m9 and the colours it can produce. Plus then i can safe some money to get a good leica lens
I’m also surprised. With all the videos talking about the more filmic look of an m9, the m10 had for me definitely the most filmic look. I assume that white balance was set to automatic in both cameras ? I would be interested to know the kelvin values of the pictures. Is m10 perhaps systematically showing a higher kelvin value ?
And I have both cameras by the way
good clip, thanks
M9 is way more pleasing to me, the M10 seemed like it was going through some Fuji recipe
man the M9 is just a bit cooler and has bit more darker reds, you could do a preset in 10s for the m10 and you get basically the same colors, plus all the other benefits. So people saying the colors are soo much beter on ccd; are you seeing something I don't? Not to say that for it's age the M9 can still produce amazing pictures (still the same amazing pictures when it came outt).
The original m9 file can sometimes appear to be sharper or cleaner despite the mp deficit
WB was all over the place which made it harder. Mostly still got it right
The M9 looks a lot like slide film, with deeper tonality and a reddish cast compared to the M10.
Very good video. Currently, m9 is trading for about 5000$ in Japan. I can't buy it.
Wow that’s outrageously expensive man
M9 better in my opinion, The colour more accurate and so deep.
I always thought M10 had cooler AWB seems the M9 had even cooler AWB, atleast to my eyes…
Some photos the M9 had a better look and some others the M10 had better colors. If you shoot RAW I guess i doesn't really matter. Just tweak colors to taste.
Right side or m9p is much more natural in terms of color tones...ofcourse it is much better
I preferred the m10p colors and rendering but that's my personal preference. I tend to shoot raw though too so I guess in the end it doesn't matter too much. Great video though! Thanks for sharing.
thank you for your comments!
Well my two pence .. I learned photography back in the early 70s Tri X and Pan film.. Digital cameras and the lack of facilities killed photography for me. Then I discovered the Fuji cameras and I was back on the horse. Fuji is trying to give back some of the old school feeling. But the autofocus and HD look of the CMOS images were not doing it. Earlier this year I purchased an M9 with a replaced sensor and wow.. The B&W DNG right out of the camera is just beautiful. I have bought a couple of vintage Canon lenses and a nice Voigtlander 35/1.4 and I feel like a photographer again. I can't compare to M10 but the CCD of the M9 compared to the CMOS Fuji in B&W is the whole story..
thank you for your comment sir Roger. Yeah I have totally agree with you on this one. The high market price for m9 even with the ccd issue is a good proof of the magic of ccd!
B&W DNGs ??? The RAW (DNG) files coming out of the M9 are in COLOUR. You can set the output to B&W but that means JPEG format only.
@@ockie50 I assumed every one knew that. But to clarify. I create Virtual Copies in Lightroom and convert to B&W. Just apply basic Adobe Monochrome preset.
The CCD is 10x better, not even close
M10 is better in every way. For me, it's the first digital Leica that actually works, and the first to have sensible colour as well. That's before we even talk about body size, ergonomics, speed, etc.
completely agree with you.
Wow first I think M9 but all I choose is pic from M10P.
Hard to compare the WB was different
The comparison would be more meaningful if the dng files were compared not the jpegs.
I can understand your thoughts. But then it’s really up to me and the software’s interpretation. If left unedited, the files would be very flat. If edited, It would be a comparison of latitude of the files which always favours the new sensor because each generation has higher dynamic range.
In the digital age Leica is dead. Apart from their incredible lenses, the bodies are hot garbage. I've used an M9 and .. holy crap the worst digital camera I've ever used. You can't, with a straight face, defend Lecia in 2022. My Sony a100 STILL takes better pics than either of these overprices and overhyped pieces of Euro trash (made in Asia of course).
Some photos look better M9P and other look better from the M10P.