CCD vs. CMOS DEBATE: A Potential Insight

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many of us are aware that there's been passionate debate regarding CCD vs. CMOS sensors.  When it comes to flesh tones I'm mostly on the CCD side of the argument.  Many contend that it's all a matter of PP.

 

Since purchasing my Monchrom type I, I've been enthralled by the flesh tones it produces.  I've often visited the Monochrom photos posted on this forum, and glad to see there are two threads now, one for Type I (M9) Monochrom shots, and one for the later Type II (M246 version).  Both produce stunning results.  I recently purchased a Sony A7RII to replace my Canon DSLR.  The fact that I could use my M lenses on this camera was a big plus. To my surprise, when I converted SONY color shots of people to B&W, I was amazed by the results.  These were outdoor shots in natural light, and far better than I ever anticipated. 

 

Recently I used the SONY for an indoor shot with Incandescent/Florescent light in the space, and I was pleased with the color results, but when I tried a B&W conversion, it looked pretty crappy.  No amount of PP was going to produce what I would have gotten with my Monochrom Type I.  So, I've gone back to look at the CCD and CMOS Monochrom shots on this forum, especially of people indoors, and I believe that's where I see the greatest difference.  I think I'm finally hitting the nail on the head. The CCD sensor to my eyes seems to produce more convincing flesh tones, closer to film, than CMOS sensors, especially indoors where no studio lighting is used, and no sunlight is involved.  I'm wondering if anyone else has made this connection? 

 

In the next few days, I'm going to take some indoor people shots comparing my new SONY to my Monochrom (Type I) using my 50mm ASPH LUX lens, at the same ISO.  I suspect the Monochrom Type I will produce images, with greater tonal depth.  This won't be a scientific test, just something to see if my hypothesis is heading in the right direction.  Outdoors, I have to admit, It's become very difficult to see any significant difference between the Sony CMOS images converted to B&W, and the Monochrom Type I images.  I'll share the results in the next few days for those who may be interested, and again, this is not a scientific endeavor.  I can't say I've ever seen any testing focused on B&W tonal depth and richness when comparing the two types of sensors, in an indoor situation.  

 

Cheers!

[david strachan]

Thanks Wilfredo, will be interesting.

We miss you in the M8 Forum.

cheers..

[wilfredo]

Thanks Wilfredo, will be interesting.

We miss you in the M8 Forum.

cheers..

Thank you.  I miss the old M8.  It was precisely the way it produced B&W images in PP that attracted me to that camera. 

[wilfredo]

This photograph by ABPhoto, I believe is a fine example of the strength of the Monochrom (Type I) when shooting under crappy indoor florescent lighting conditions.  The skin tones lhere look convincingly real.  You will have to scroll down to where it reads: Candid at corporate event at 6400 ISO 35 lux FLEl."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188046-leica-monochrom-type-1-shots-post-them-here/page-24

 

Let me concede from the get go, that my hunch may be wrong; I will see what my own tests reveal.

[EoinC]

Just be aware, Wilfredo, that, in converting the Sony colour images, much is dependent upon how the colour channels are adjusted.

[Jeff S]

 You will have to scroll down to where it reads: Candid at corporate event at 6400 ISO 35 lux FLEl."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188046-leica-monochrom-type-1-shots-post-them-here/page-24

 

 

 

Not anymore...  http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188046-leica-monochrom-type-1-shots-post-them-here/?p=2236717

 

Jeff

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, my hypothesis I suspect is flawed.  I took these two shots this evening under boring florecent kitchen light, and the CMOS on the Sony to my eyes performed better than anticipated.  Both shots were done at ISO 2000 using the 50mm LUX ASPH @ f/1.4 .  I don't think I would have gotten such close results using my former Canon DSLR.  I still have a preference for the Leica Monochrom (type I) image, but to be honest, it's a very thin margin of difference to me at this stage.  I suspect the crappy B&W conversion I mentioned earlier was probably due to a high ISO setting.  I did minimal PP on both these images, and whatever I did, I did the same for both.

 

So which one is which?  In alphabetical order  the first image was done with the Leica Monochrom (type I) and the second image was done with the Sony A7RII.

 

Cheers!

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!

[Jeff S]

I always need to make prints (under varying shooting/lighting conditions and paper/print sizes) before I can draw any conclusions.  Screen shots of my own files never tell the full story.  YMMV.

 

But towards that end, there are myriad variables in the print workflow beyond the camera that can influence desired renderings.  Many cameras (and lens combinations) these days can produce terrific files for use in a disciplined print workflow. I spend more time thinking about differences in camera viewfinders, ergonomics, control interfaces, etc.  It's clear, though, that the Monochrom cameras (both versions) are special for those requiring high ISOs.  

 

These are good times for photography....and printing.  Choices for all.

 

Jeff

[wilfredo]

It will be interesting to compare actual prints. The experimentation will continue.

[david strachan]

Skin tones and fine textures look very good on both images. 

I find it hard to tell any difference at all, as they both have different lighting due to the slight movement of the faces.

 

Wilfredo, won't moving processing sliders work differently for different file types (Leica and Sony), even though the movements are the same amount?

 

cheers..

[wilfredo]

Skin tones and fine textures look very good on both images. 

I find it hard to tell any difference at all, as they both have different lighting due to the slight movement of the faces.

 

Wilfredo, won't moving processing sliders work differently for different file types (Leica and Sony), even though the movements are the same amount?

 

cheers..

I suspect they would work differently, but others more technically oriented can better answer that question. I'm just pleasantly amazed at the progress with CMOS sensors. Alhough I always managed some great B&W conversions with the Canon DSLR, the Sony is far more superior.

 

BTW, I purchased a TechArt AF adaptor to use with M mount lenses on the Sony, and I used it for the second shot. It's quite a thrill to experience AF usung the 50mm Summilux.

 

Cheers!

[IWC Doppel]

Whilst I can 'understand' the PP/printing can remove the sensor differences. I am not totally convinced or bought into this. Years ago I tried really hard to match an M240 image to the M9, I never quite got there and they ultimately have a different look. One 'nail I hit' was the appreciation that graduation within the blacks to dark greys were more pleasing with the M9 (To my eyes)

 

If it takes more than a few minutes in LR to adjust an image to be pleasing I move on in any case 

 

In summary if it takes ages to torture an image to get it how you like, you've probably bought the wrong camera

[Jeff S]

There are dozens of things one can do to increase workflow efficiency and effectiveness.....profiles, pre-sets and default settings, better learning LR tools and options for global and localized effects, papers, ink sets,  and lots more. It's no different than darkroom days....except the tools have made things more flexible and convenient.

 

I also use ImagePrint (IP10) as an external editor to LR, which makes soft proofing and printing a breeze, and which lays down inks better than Epson's own driver.  Switching from the Epson 3800 to the P800 also resulted in deeper blacks, better tonal transitions, etc.

 

Printing was never easy or plug and play.  But for the person who cares about the fine details, there are many dozens of techniques and materials one can employ to achieve the look they want (including the all important display lighting and framing/glass options).  And the hardest part remains beyond any of that....simply a good eye and good judgment, i.e., knowing how, when and where to employ the many options.

 

Of course one must start with a picture that's worth the time and effort.  When that happens, I spend all the time I need.  Different strokes, indeed.

 

Jeff

[derleicaman]

I have always loved the rendering of my M9, and since acquiring the MMv1, I do most of my photos with it. I have some minor pre-sets I use to tweak the images as a starting point. I also use Silver Efex Pro in PP some of my images.

 

Look at David Farkas' Red Dot Forum for a comparison he did of the two Monochrom sensors.

[Jeff S]

I have always loved the rendering of my M9, and since acquiring the MMv1, I do most of my photos with it. I have some minor pre-sets I use to tweak the images as a starting point. I also use Silver Efex Pro in PP some of my images.

 

Look at David Farkas' Red Dot Forum for a comparison he did of the two Monochrom sensors.

 

He was also surprised how well the M240 fared in his comparisons...  http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/bw-iso-showdown-leica-m-monochrom-typ-246-vs-m-monochrom-m9-vs-m-typ-240/

 

And that's before any basic PP adjustments.  I'm not surprised at all.

 

Clearly, the Monochrom cameras serve best for very high ISO needs, but otherwise the M240 can perform superbly in a disciplined b/w print workflow.  As can an M8, M9 or Monochrom.  I just happen to prefer the use of color channels in PP....for me it's more about the bayer array (and possibly IR filtration and lack of AA filtration) than CCD vs CMOS.

 

Jeff

[Soden]

Hmm, to me it all boils down to rolling shutter. It's normal here to have a digital back drop for weddings, concerts and even in nightclubs. Never had any issues with my M9, but after I "upgraded" to M240 I have had to battle each shot to get some sense of the background. It's awful to have a nice pic of the bride and groom but the background is a striped mess.

 

I'm considering getting a M9/M with the new sensor to supplement my M240/246.