Jump to content
Survey Autofocus 05/2024 ×

CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?

dfarkas

By dfarkas
in Leica M (Type 240 / 262)

 Share

Recommended Posts

dfarkas

dfarkas

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After reading a lot of comments debating the merits of CCD vs CMOS (M9 vs M240), I decided to do a comparison of the two cameras. I shot with both at the same time, using the same settings and same lenses. I then used Lightroom to do a rough match of the images using only global slider adjustments. No Photoshop. No adjustment brushes or any other local adjustments.

 

As a final step, I now welcome everyone to take a look and vote on each set of images (there are 19 sets total) to see if you can tell which was taken with the M9.

 

The Great Debate: CCD vs. CMOS - Part 1

 

After amassing enough votes, I will post a follow-up, revealing the answers and how everyone did.

 

At the very least, I think it will be a good exercise to see if we can really see "The CCD Look".

 

Thanks for your help in my little experiment!

 

 

David

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites
dfarkas

dfarkas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Thanks David. What profiles did you use when importing the raws into LightRoom?

 

I used my standard import presets for each camera, which use Embedded for M240 and Adobe Standard for M9. Why use different ones?

 

In my regular course of processing, these were the profiles that worked best for the respective cameras. Embedded for M9 is extremely inaccurate, with Adobe Standard being a vast improvement. There isn't as much difference between Embedded and Adobe Standard for the M240. In most cases, I prefer the look of Embedded, but sometimes portraits benefit from the slightly different color rendition of Adobe Standard. For these test images I didn't mess with different profiles for different images.

 

Hope that clears things up a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jmahto

jmahto

Posted
Posted

BTW, my own experience was that I could make M240 files look exactly like M9's. I kept both of them for a month before selling M9. However I did find a difference in pixel level sharpness. M9 needed almost no sharpness and M240 needed a "little" to match unprocessed M9's. But on web size this difference will not be visible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
andym911

andym911

Posted
Posted

what an unusual post...

you may have considered including a nikon d40 for example as on the web no person can judge better, worse, best.

 

Print is the ultimate test isn't it?

 

Not wanting to be negative but what is the purpose of this?

 

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites
rirakuma

rirakuma

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There's a big thread here debating that CCD is superior to CMOS although I don't think this is a direct response to the thread. I personally think there is a difference between how the M9 and M file behaves but if you process them to look similar its really hard to tell the difference.

 

 

what an unusual post...

you may have considered including a nikon d40 for example as on the web no person can judge better, worse, best.

 

Print is the ultimate test isn't it?

 

Not wanting to be negative but what is the purpose of this?

 

andy

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
pico

pico

Posted
Posted (edited)

When evaluating images, if all we have are monitor presentations then it is a waste. Monitor presentations on a web page are already compromised, unless perhaps they contain a color profile and the browser (Safari, for example) considers it.

.

Edited by pico
Link to post
Share on other sites
NZDavid

NZDavid

Posted
Posted

Well, most of my guesses were in the majority. Even at small size some difference may be apparent. This is quite interesting. A deeper blue, more vivid red, higher contrast -- possibly -- despite finagling the sliders in PP. I'll look forward to see the answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dfarkas

dfarkas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Good idea but your pics are too small David. Would it be possible to get at least 10MB files?

 

You can click on the images for a larger view, but I assume you mean you want to see full-size files. The test isn't to see which is more detailed, or which is sharper. Also, given the resolution difference of the two cameras, the answers would be much more obvious.

 

My real goal was to see if there was some immediately identifiable and recognizable look inherent to CCD files. This has been the assertion from those favoring CCD over CMOS, that it is impossible to produce the same color and tonality. I feel the images are large enough to judge color and tone and not be so big as to bog down the Internet.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
dfarkas

dfarkas

Posted
  • Author
Posted
When evaluating images, if all we have are monitor presentations then it is a waste. Monitor presentations on a web page are already compromised, unless perhaps they contain a color profile and the browser (Safari, for example) considers it.

.

 

Sending prints to everyone didn't seem a very practical option. :)

 

Most of us using digital cameras and processing our own files are used to correcting and judging images on screen. I'd guess that most have pretty decent monitors.

 

Yes, the files do have a color profile, sRGB, which matches most LCD color gamuts fairly closely. And yes, Safari, Firefox and Chrome are color profile aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CheshireCat

CheshireCat

Posted
Posted

Thanks, interesting test.

 

However:

 

- sRGB conversion castrates the color gamut. This is a real bummer, as color is what most people cite as the biggest plus of CCD sensors.

 

- The difference in dynamic range makes it easier to spot the M9 where color differences are otherwise subtle.

 

- The web resolution hides the differences in shadow noise.

 

In any case, if not the evanescent "CCD look", I am confident I have spotted the "M9 look" in most photos. Especially those with the lovely blue San Francisco sky :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
NZDavid

NZDavid

Posted
Posted

Another question is do people prefer the CCD look (assuming they can recognize it)? I preferred most of those I selected as CCDs, even if only marginally. Of course I may be completely wrong. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
Posted

Hi David thank you for this test.

The ideal is that there is no correction :)

With a film like Kodak Portra and M7, I almost do not correct or I do not correct

Erwin Puts had mentioned that the M9 gives a "vivid" color and the M240 a "neutral" color

and I agree with him.

Best

Henry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
jaapv

jaapv

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are two identical threads going on in two forums. please use the one in the M/M9/Monochrom forum. A copy of this thread is merged into the active thread.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/364618-ccd-vs-cmos-can-you-tell-2.html#post2891806

Edited by jaapv
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...