There's just something about CCD sensors...

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have really enjoyed the colors that my M9P (and M8) gave...   especially in mixed lighting.  I'm usually pretty casual about those kinds of things, and I usually don't pay a lot of attention to what I shot which images with,  but I was going through some of my older images this weekend and was looking at files from my Olympus E1s from almost ten years ago.  I noticed immediately that they had the same ethereal color palate that my M9P shows, and the more of them I looked at, the more impressed I was with how the E1 handled color way back then.   Very Kodachrome-looking hues.

 

I'm more than familiar with the CCD/CMOS debates, and this post thread isn't intended to re-ignite them.  I just thought it interesting that the very things I liked about my M9's images were also present in the Olympus E1's.

 

Here's just one example taken with the Olympus E-1 that shows those marvelous colors...  I never realized the same palate with the E3 or E5... or the Panny GX-1 or even my current X-T1.    Perhaps the M240 comes closer, I've only held one briefly...  but I sure like the images from those CCD sensors.  

 

opera house bridge by Roger H, on Flickr

[Advertisement]

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

[DandA]

I wholeheatedly agree with your assessment. Its not all CCD sensor cameras either but many of them. I've been shooting digital from the earliest days of the behemoth Nikon/Kodak hybrid CCD based FSLRs. My guess is not only by virtue of being CCD, but associated electronics that contribute.

 

Some of the current crop of CMOS sensor based cameras have gotten better or close but often times I find unattrative color balances rears its ugly head, especially with either ruddy skin tones or excessive casts of yellow. Thats now to say CCD is always perfect under all lighting conditions.

 

What I find interestig is many posts saying they were able to adjust their M240 files to match the output of the M9. How many posts does one find in saying they desired to match the output of their M9's to that from a M240? .

 

Again its subjective and all about ones preferences.

 

Dave (D&A)

[tobey bilek]

I think a lot has to do with what the photo engineers do when designing the camera.  

 

I have D200 and D3 nikons.   200 is CCD and D3 is CMOS.   I liked the D3 so much I bought a second one.  D200 is ok, but not special.  My D800 & 750 have nice color,  but the colors are kind of flat and that leaves room for processing.  All can be improved with picture control in all the cameras. 

 

M8 colors are all screwed up even with the ir/uv filter.   I have looked at multiple copies and the are all that way and mine has been Leica serviced.   My M9p  has much more natural and realistic color.  This caused me to learn to profile cameras with Adobe Profile Editor.  The 9 got even better and the 8 made a radical improvement but still did not catch the M9.

 

The profile editor has only so much power.  I tried to match a mint condition collapsible Summicron with V4 both on the same M8.   Not the same.

 

I am anxious to try a 240 or 262 some day.

[DandA]

In some of your examples, it should be kept in mind that the D200 was a APS sized sensor and also quite a different class of camera (and price range) than a D3. Design goals including output was also constrained by componenets and time spent tweaking each of these also due to cost constraints. I agree though the D200 color was subpar while the D3 was good.

 

I loved the M8 in many ways but as you pointed out, there are very distinct differences between a M8 and M9 color output regardless is UVIR filters are employed or not. Profiling does go a long way to correcting things.

 

Dave (D&A)

[adan]

The Oly E-1 uses a Kodak CCD (KAF-5101C), little brother to the M8/M9 sensors.

 

My bet is, it has more to do with Kodak engineering the color filtration (Kodachrome-25-like, as you say) and color palette/tone curves, than CMOS vs. CCD as such.

 

That "cyany" look is a definite "fingerprint." Reminds me of my old Canon FD SSC SLR lenses on K25.

 

It is also my impression that "chasing ISO" - which has been contemporaneous with the switch to CMOS sensors - has resulted in the use of less-dense, "less pure" Bayer separation filters, which, of course, let more light through, but don't differentiate and saturate colors as well.

 

The Leicas and early Olys all have good color - and weak high-ISO performance.

[hepcat]

 

The Leicas and early Olys all have good color - and weak high-ISO performance.

 

You know, they only have weak high-ISO performance in terms of later cameras.  Coming from film as my reference, their ISO performance is just fine, and for me those rich colors in every day shooting are more important than high-ISO performance.   

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leicas and early Olys all have good color - and weak high-ISO performance.

 

A bit like Kodachrome really . How did we survive with fixed film ISOs I wonder. Depending on what you do good low ISO performance has a lot going for it.

[hepcat]

 How did we survive with fixed film ISOs I wonder. Depending on what you do good low ISO performance has a lot going for it.

 

High ISO performance is really, for the most part, a tempest in a teapot.  People don't want to be bothered with learning good technique or buying large-aperture glass... so they clamor for high-iso performance.  If you shoot your digital camera like a film camera,  and  have good technique and large aperture glass, the need for using ISO 1200 and above is a rare occurrence. 

[Luke_Miller]

I went the fast glass route when I started my event shooting.  My CCD sensor bodies did not perform well much over ISO 800 - 1000.  With f1.4 and good technique I could indeed get a shot that was properly exposed, in focus, and relatively noise free.  When I moved to the CMOS bodies I was then able to utilize much higher ISO settings.  I shot in the same venues, but used that ISO performance to buy shutter speed and smaller apertures.   That allowed me to reduce the number of shots lost to subject motion and focus errors as well as provide more context to the shot by having more of it in focus.

 

I love my fast lenses and still enjoy shooting them wide open.  But now I do it for aesthetic reasons rather than because that is the only way to get the shot.

 

Regarding the CCD vs CMOS color differences - I just never noticed it when I changed sensor technology with my Nikons and now with my Leicas.  Not saying it doesn't exist - just that I don't see it.  My M8.2, M9, and now M-240 shots look the same to my eye in Lightroom since I profiled them using the same gretagmacbeth color card.  Hated the look beforehand.  They always looked good in Capture One though.

 

 

[adan]

Well - I regularly pushed Tri-X to 3200 or thereabouts. And push the M9 to 4000 or so if needed. Pictures don't stop happening (and people don't stop gesturing) just because the sun goes down - at least, not if you're committed 24/7.

 

But I'm willing to work around that, for the M9/Kodak color when the light is good.

 

M9, 75 f/1.4, 1/60, ISO 2500 "pushed" in raw development to 4000 equivalent.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hepcat]

I went the fast glass route when I started my event shooting.  My CCD sensor bodies did not perform well much over ISO 800 - 1000.  With f1.4 and good technique I could indeed get a shot that was properly exposed, in focus, and relatively noise free.  When I moved to the CMOS bodies I was then able to utilize much higher ISO settings.

 

I love my fast lenses and still enjoy shooting them wide open.  But now I do it for aesthetic reasons rather than because that is the only way to get the shot.

 

 

Well - I regularly pushed Tri-X to 3200 or thereabouts. And push the M9 to 4000 or so if needed. Pictures don't stop happening (and people don't stop gesturing) just because the sun goes down - at least, not if you're committed 24/7.

 

But I'm willing to work around that, for the M9/Kodak color when the light is good.

 

M9, 75 f/1.4, 1/60, ISO 2500 "pushed" in raw development to 4000 equivalent.

 

Thanks to both of you for your thoughts.  Don't get me wrong, usable higher ISO speeds are convenient... I'm just saying that not having them available isn't the end of the world.  The techniques that got us shots using film still work nicely with digital sensors...  especially when the sensor gives as nice color rendition as the M9 does.   And adan, that's some nice low-light work there! 

 

It's just takes a different technique from shooting in brighter conditions.  

[Luke_Miller]

It's just takes a different technique from shooting in brighter conditions.  

 

I agree. And higher ISOs are not a free lunch.  Whether CCD or CMOS the best dynamic range and color accuracy are found at lower ISO settings, which is why I use indirect flash frequently in low light settings.

 

I used to visit my command's Photographers Mate and talk cameras and photography.  I appreciated his training and experience.

[hepcat]

I agree. And higher ISOs are not a free lunch.  Whether CCD or CMOS the best dynamic range and color accuracy are found at lower ISO settings, which is why I use indirect flash frequently in low light settings.

 

I used to visit my command's Photographers Mate and talk cameras and photography.  I appreciated his training and experience.

 

I didn't think much about it at the time as I was 19 and had the world by the tail but looking back, the education given by the Naval School of Photography was probably one of THE best educations in photography that could be had at the time.  

 

I've given some thought to why I don't care so much about the latest advancements in higher ISOs, auto-focus and camera automation in general.   I don't need it.   I don't really need any of it.  It might be nice to have, but I don't need it.  That may sound arrogant or trite, but it's the truth.   When you and I learned the craft, we learned how to work with the equipment we had.  Tri-X, at iSO 400  was about as fast as it got.  Sure, you could push it to 3200 and have a grainy but usable image...  but mostly you shot at 400.. maybe 800 tops.  

 

So, you worked on technique. You learned how to make sale-able images of black cats in coal bins at night using ISO 400 film.   You learned to balance flash with ambient light.  You learned the judicious use of large apertures in trade for shutter speed.  If that failed, you learned how to hand-hold 1/4 second when you needed to. You learned how to expose transparency films and the differences between Kodachrome and Ektachrome.  THOSE are the techniques that a photographer knew that would bring back the image every time.   Those were the things that distinguished the working photographer from the amateurs.  Those were the skills that photographers were hired for that other folks just couldn't do.    If you were serious about the craft, you learned those things, and they distinguished your work from the snapshots of others.

 

Today, pretty much anyone can take snapshots of black cats in coal bins at night if they're willing to part with a little cash to get the body and lens that will do that for them.  They don't even need to learn how to focus as the camera has a light that comes on to do that, and another little pop-up flash to light the room automatically.  Unfortunately, it may be a shot that looks like it was taken by Nan Goldin, but you'll have a shot of your black cat in the coal bin at night.  

 

For me, there are two parts of making an image... first is finding and framing the image...  and the second is the cognitive part of making the image mine.   Setting the camera to record the image the way I want the viewer to see it...  knowing what I'm getting on the film or sensor...  and knowing how I'm going to tweak it in the darkroom or Lightroom for the viewer to see.   THAT, to me what being a photographer is all about...  and cameras that do autofocus/autoexposure take away much of the soul of an image, in my opinion.   It's too tempting to set the camera on auto and go with what the programmer says is "right."   There's a time and place for snapshots... don't get me wrong...  and I do that too... and I use my iPhone as well...  but I certainly don't get the sense of satisfaction that comes with making an image with a real camera; ether digital or film.

 

Oh my...   I'm sorry this turned into a rant...  <Rant OFF>

[Luke_Miller]

There's a time and place for snapshots... don't get me wrong...  and I do that too... and I use my iPhone as well...  but I certainly don't get the sense of satisfaction that comes with making an image with a real camera; ether digital or film.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience.  Using a real camera is what draws me to my Leica Ms and why I keep a couple of my film Nikons.

[uhoh7]

It's funny because in the great CCD vs CMOS debates, some of the CMOS champions are like: "CCDs are dead man! Old technology!"

 

Not in astronomy, where cooled monochrome CCDs rule the roost. Here is a little introduction:

 

http://www.wexphotographic.com/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-astrophotography-using-ccd-systems

 

They do great great color and other performance enhancements with their MM-like monochrome CCDs using a variety of filters

[microview]

 

 

 

Today, pretty much anyone can take snapshots of black cats in coal bins at night if they're willing to part with a little cash to get the body and lens that will do that for them.  They don't even need to learn how to focus as the camera has a light that comes on to do that, and another little pop-up flash to light the room automatically.  Unfortunately, it may be a shot that looks like it was taken by Nan Goldin, but you'll have a shot of your black cat in the coal bin at night.  

 

 

 

 

Or will you? Won't the flash send the cat shooting out of the coal bin and into the darkness???