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?{merged}. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share #2 Posted February 24, 2015 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...
garysamson Posted February 24, 2015 Share #3 Posted February 24, 2015 Thank you David for all your effort in creating this camera comparison of the M9 and the M240 sensors. As my subject matter is mostly portraits, I wish there was just one example comparing closeup portraits and how each camera renders flesh tones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted February 24, 2015 Share #4 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...
Lenshacker Posted February 24, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 24, 2015 I would like to see a comparison of the IR leakage of both cameras. An image taken with each camera of a Wii light bar or Infrared remote control should give a good indication. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share #6 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...
dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted February 24, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you David for all your effort in creating this camera comparison of the M9 and the M240 sensors. As my subject matter is mostly portraits, I wish there was just one example comparing closeup portraits and how each camera renders flesh tones. I have a couple portraits for Part 2..... stay tuned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share #8 Posted February 24, 2015 I would like to see a comparison of the IR leakage of both cameras. An image taken with each camera of a Wii light bar or Infrared remote control should give a good indication. I felt that the theory I was testing was to see if there was a definitive "CCD Look" that could only be achieved on a CCD sensor, or if it is possible to use simple post processing to get the same look from CMOS. While I am certainly curious as to IR leakage on different cameras (more than just the M240 and M9), I think it would be the subject of a different test. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted February 24, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 24, 2015 I do see the point, in a way. For me after a glass of wine and an old iPad, I think nearly all M9 shots are image 1, there I've stuck my neck out I did pick a couple of 2's and some were gut n guess Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 24, 2015 Share #10 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 #11 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...
Jon Warwick Posted February 24, 2015 Share #12 Posted February 24, 2015 I do see the point, in a way. For me after a glass of wine and an old iPad, I think nearly all M9 shots are image 1 After a few glasses of wine and a 27" iMac, I think I saw a few that were more likely to be M9 (they looked less flat ..... and typically my vote seemed to match the majority for those ones), but for others I was really guessing and couldn't see any clear difference at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 24, 2015 Share #13 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 #14 Posted February 24, 2015 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 #15 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 #16 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 #17 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 #18 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...
uhoh7 Posted February 25, 2015 Share #19 Posted February 25, 2015 I then used Lightroom to do a rough match of the images using only global slider adjustments. David Sorry, but this obviates the entire point. The 'rough match' compromises the output of both sensors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfarkas Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share #20 Posted February 25, 2015 Sorry, but this obviates the entire point. The 'rough match' compromises the output of both sensors. My goal was to see if there was a "CCD Look" that was unattainable, even with processing. This has been the assertion from those favoring CCD sensors. So, I wanted to see how close I could come to matching the corrected output from an M9. I see very little value in comparing uncorrected images. I don't even look at default out-of-camera images in LR. I apply my presets for different cameras with adjustments dialed in for tone, color and sharpening on import. This leaves me with very little correction to achieve the final look that I find pleasing and allows for easier selection of images as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.