dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Share #1 Posted February 24, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Hi dfarkas, Take a look here CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
erudolph Posted February 24, 2015 Share #2 Posted February 24, 2015 Thanks David. What profiles did you use when importing the raws into LightRoom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted February 24, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 24, 2015 Share #4 Posted February 24, 2015 I gave up half way since at some point I was randomly guessing. Looking at the past votes, others are not doing better either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 24, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2015 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 More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 24, 2015 Share #6 Posted February 24, 2015 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 More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted February 24, 2015 Share #7 Posted February 24, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 24, 2015 Share #8 Posted February 24, 2015 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. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 25, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 25, 2015 Good idea but your pics are too small David. Would it be possible to get at least 10MB files? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted February 25, 2015 Share #10 Posted February 25, 2015 Thanks. However, I'm mainly concerned with skin tone renditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 25, 2015 Share #11 Posted February 25, 2015 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 More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share #12 Posted February 25, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share #13 Posted February 25, 2015 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 More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 25, 2015 Share #14 Posted February 25, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugby Posted February 25, 2015 Share #15 Posted February 25, 2015 Do I remember climbing Lombard Street..... having just walked all the way from Fisherman's Wharf, so puffed I can't remember which of the CCD/CMOS shots you show represents what i saw... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted February 25, 2015 Share #16 Posted February 25, 2015 Good initiative! I must admit it was very hard to make a choice, which was not what I expected Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted February 25, 2015 Share #17 Posted February 25, 2015 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 25, 2015 Share #18 Posted February 25, 2015 Look here for my comparison: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/361314-400-leica-photographers-agree-we-love-2.html#post2889875 Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted February 25, 2015 Share #19 Posted February 25, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 25, 2015 Share #20 Posted February 25, 2015 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.