CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}

[DirkR440]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm looking forward to see a comparison with night shots. That would be interesting.

 

Thanks a lot for your work!

[Doc Henry]

My premise was to see if I could match the result from the CMOS (M240) camera to emulate that from a CCD (M9). Correction was required to do this. And, as I've learned over the years, there is very little point in evaluating "uncorrected" images. All digital files are "corrected" at some point, whether by in-camera processing, demosaicing algorithms, camera proflies, LR rendering, etc.

 

Even in film days, there were differences: chemistry type, balance and temp, replenishment rate, emulsion variations, etc. could make the same film look different. When considering a negative film like Portra, there is infinitely more variability in printing a positive image.

 

I am not arguing that the default color response is different from different cameras. It is, but that wasn't my test.

David, I agree with you that you need to correct digital images with photo software.

I have over 40 years of photography and film behind me exclusively with Leica and I know it well.

The Leica digital age has come with the M8 and I started to photograph in digital. Now I still have my M9.

But even after correction, I am not satisfied with the images, "some" of which are "synthetic"

images or if you want "computer" images (specially "smooth edges"). Even by developing in

print on inkjet printer.

That's why for color I return to film with my two M7 for a more faithful color.

Watch this thread :

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/286747-i-like-film-open-thread.html

 

And thank you for your reply

Best

Henry

Edited February 25, 2015 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

Hi Dave.

 

Thanks for doing this.

 

I posted loads of comparisons a month or two after the M was released and I found that the images were almost identical when corrected for white balance and exposure.

 

The first firmware update corrected the default WB settings and reduced the out of camera differences even further.

 

Your images just confirm my original conclusions ..... basically there is no practical difference in the images produced by the different sensors once processed..... and any perceived differences are probably due to the more compressed DR of the M9 and a fair element of wishful thinking.

 

I had no hesitation in trading in my old M9's for a 2nd M240 body.... the DNG's are much more malleable and processable without generating artefacts and problems in comparison to the M9 ones.

 

.......oh .... and for what it's worth I have just come back from hiking in Tenerife and used the M240 alternately with the Leica T ........ and again I really couldn't pick them apart once processed .... except for the night shots ....... Leica have done a very good job at getting a uniform look throughout the camera range .... and the T holds up very well against the M ... particularly with the 11-23 w/a zoom ..... which is a really fine lens .....

Edited February 25, 2015 by thighslapper

[firststream]

Part 2 coming soon....

 

Thanks for the effort, David! I can't tell the image quality difference between the two camera bodies per your challenge. (I do wish you had added some portrait samples, especially for fair-skinned models. For me, this is where the debate is crucial. I'll wait patiently for part II.)

 

For those who think the results are conclusive, who think colour gamut, image size, etc. has to be even more elaborate, increased, or improved, at exactly what point does this start to matter? Looking at these images, can the difference be so great that: a) one can "just tell" the difference? ; one can sincerely maintain a passionate preference for the M9?

 

Much of the debate has been about how the M240 cannot mimic the colour and tonal renderings of the M9. David has shown us they can (absent skin rendering samples). The M9 faction is strangely silent on the results, and so fight on the field of processing workflow. I'm not sure what that is all about; what do I care about the path to completion, when all I'm interested in is the quality of the final print?

[CheshireCat]

sRGB is actually ideal in this case. Most monitors can only view colors in the sRGB gamut. [...]

Digital photographic printing is closer to sRGB as well. CMYK offset press is much less than sRGB.

 

I have to disagree here.

 

First, you cannot properly compare two different color sensors by removing a big part of the color information. It is like comparing a Porsche and a Ferrari at 50 Mph.

 

And second, we take pictures because we want to capture moments and make them visible to other people now and in the future.

Eventually, all monitors (and probably prints, for the few ones who will still print) will have extended color gamut and high dynamic range, and most people will be amazed when they re-discover their photos in new light and new colors.

I say "most people", because there's still people shooting JPEG and sRGB.

 

Finally, I agree with previous posts pointing out that the comparison is limited to sunny outside shots. Ideal condition for the M9. Which is fine, but this must be perfectly clear in order to prevent people from thinking the M9 is not much different than the M in any condition.

I like sunny outdoor shots with the M9 better than with any other camera... but the M9 has certainly ruined several pictures of mine taken in artificial light, with ridiculous pink/reddish casts on caucasian skin tones that are impossible to remove in post, to the point I converted to B&W out of frustration. Probably not a CCD issue, but an insufficient IR filter.

Looking forward to part 2

Edited February 25, 2015 by CheshireCat

[tom0511]

Very interesting: first many claim the totally different look of CCD images and its color - and as soon as people cant identify the difference they claim its caused by small size of the files.

How many pixel do you need to judge color?

The comparison mirrors my own experience: Differences between M9 and M240 seem to be not that big when looking at real images vs looking into our memory / or imagination.

I allways thought to remember my M9 images had more pop after selling the M9...until I rebought an other M9 and compared it to the M240 and finally selling it again. I even did this twice, but now I am confident that the differences are minor.

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It will be interesting to see what the final results are. I suspect it does prove that camera quality for small jpg's is a not a big issue (I'm thinking iPhone comparison here). I've yet to change my views though.

[jaapv]

Probably not a CCD issue, but an insufficient IR filter.

Which is more effective on the M9 than on the M240...

[luigi bertolotti]

Processed, web sized pics are useless for comparison...

 

Case in point below. These are from (not in this order)

Leica M240 + 50 summilux

Nikon D810 + 50 1.4G

iPhone6 + (PS for background blur)

 

????

its useless...

 

On the psychological side, the one with no cars in background is from the Iphone...

 

(nice ol' K100 !!! I hope that the rear bag comes from my town... )

[jmahto]

On the psychological side, the one with no cars in background is from the Iphone...

 

(nice ol' K100 !!! I hope that the rear bag comes from my town... )

 

Well, I am afraid, you are correct on both....

 

It is indeed Givi.. although it is not my bike. I didn't have the heart to do cheap experiments with my Ducati (I hope Bologna is not far from your town)

[dfarkas]

If your aim is to show how similar jpgs can look on the internet, after adjustment, then sure, it's a worth while test. However, despite difference between the files it does not address one of the main differences: How the files react during processing. Jpgs do not really help in this regard; the end result doesn't say necessarily say much. Video of the process may, though, in some instances.

 

If anything, I'd say that the M240 can take more adjustment in post than the M9, but I'll save my conclusions for my final wrap up where I discuss the steps necessary to mostly emulate the M9 look.

 

On top of that, you are adjusting the files, you are drastically down sampling them, reducing them down to a constrained colour space and compressing them with jpg. These have jpg colour, it and would be inadmissible by the majority of my clients pre press departments. You have discarded the large majority of available data and left it up to a computer to decide what goes and what stays, what is changed to what. What is even left of the original file? The structure, composition and general tonal and colour palette. The rest is a computer painting by numbers.

 

I already addressed the concern of sRGB color space above and why this makes the most sense for web presentation. It isn't "drastically constrained" for our purposes here. Most output, be it on screen or on print is usually less than sRGB. Remember, I'm not using sRGB as my working space, only my output space. Big difference. And my JPG compression is turned way down. My standard output setting from Lightroom is 91/100. I've run print tests at 24x36 inches and have seen no visible difference between 91 JPG, 100 JPG and TIFF. Effectively, this is the sweet spot for JPG quality/size. I've professionally printed gallery exhibition images from JPG output in sRGB. Trsut me, I'm not new to digital imaging and have worked in pre-press and pro lab settings. Heck, I even sat on the technical advisory board for Kodak when they created their first digital printer.

 

Sorry, I don't wish to seem negative, but from my perspective this test does not conclude anything aside from which picture do you like the best. Which will most likely be different on a case by case basis for both cameras.The test is commendable for effort and for it's scale though, at least the pictures are of a good sized spectrum and tonality, enough to see the differences. The Raw files would be another case entirely, though, this defeats the purpose of the guessing game doesn't it?

 

The CCD v CMOS conversation is almost pointless. Leica, or any 35mm camera manufacturer are not going back to CCD in any hurry and CMOS is going to get better with every iteration anyway. The amount of people who would buy the features of CMOS greatly outweigh those who want the CCD for it's characteristics. If you want to see the differences look at the raw files and how they react during processing.

 

Here, we agree. Of course, I learned quite a bit about the two cameras while working with the DNG files during this experiment. Again, I look forward to sharing this information in my formal conclusions.

[dfarkas]

Part 2 is now live. Looking forward to feedback.

 

The Great Debate CCD vs CMOS - Part 2

[Sharpdressed]

Part 2 is now live. Looking forward to feedback.

 

The Great Debate CCD vs CMOS - Part 2

 

Hi David,

really nice work.

It's very interesting and I thank you very much for doing this.

However I think that without a direct comparison (in this Part2) It's very difficult to tell which is which mostly because your M240 shots are post-processed to look exactly as M9 shots and without reference It's really tough cause the difference is really minimal and I think on Part1 It shows only on pure Reds Greens and Blues.

 

FWIW I like both cameras and I think both are able to produce marvellous images.

 

Emanuele

Edited February 25, 2015 by emaxxx

[dfarkas]

Hi David,

really nice work.

It's very interesting and I thank you very much for doing this.

However I think that without a direct comparison (in this Part2) It's very difficult to tell which is which mostly because your M240 shots are post-processed to look exactly as M9 shots and without reference It's really tough cause the difference is really minimal and I think on Part1 It shows only on pure Reds Greens and Blues.

 

Emanuele

 

 

Emanuele,

 

Acutally.... as I stated at the opening of Part 2, I didn't process the M240 shots to look like M9 images. I just corrected them to be pleasing to my eye. That's it. No trickery.

[jmahto]

Part 2 is now live. Looking forward to feedback.

 

The Great Debate CCD vs CMOS - Part 2

 

I liked the pictures inside the submarine. I have taken pictures inside (with my old Canon, not with Leica) and I know how dark it is (with mixed lighting). It will be interesting to know what people think. I was the first to guess... I should have waited to see what other's are guessing.

 

BTW, thanks for the choosing San Francisco for the pics... it always brings a smile (I live in this area).

[Sharpdressed]

Emanuele,

 

Acutally.... as I stated at the opening of Part 2, I didn't process the M240 shots to look like M9 images. I just corrected them to be pleasing to my eye. That's it. No trickery.

 

Ok, my fault. I thought you were applying the same profile as Part1 to resemble the M9 look.

[jaapv]

I really don't care what they were taken with, I rather like the images

[pico]

The whole study is bogus because a web presentation is not what we strive for in quality photography.

.

[BerndReini]

At least he is doing something productive. I appreciate it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

The whole study is bogus because a web presentation is not what we strive for in quality photography.

.

 

I’m sure David would be happy to pay you a visit with his portfolio