CCD vs CMOS

[a.noctilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Buying the MD 262 was the right turn for you…!

Same when Philip purchased (= use) Monochrom.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[pippy]

7 hours ago, Anthony MD said:

Buying the MD 262 was the right turn for you…!

I couldn't agree more.

One thing about which I'd like to read more is the settings used by those CCD / CMOS users who have declared a preference for one over the other. Much of the writing seems to be about the 'colour palette' given by the different sensors. How do users select their colour profile? Does everyone shoot DNG and process-out to a particular degree Kelvin? Select a likely target and click on 'White Balance'?

With the MD - as is well known - the camera can only shoot DNG and, as such, will only record in, I believe, 'Auto White Balance'. Very often IMX the camera gets this 'wrong' and there is colour-correction going on in post-prod. This, of course, can occasionally lead to cross-curves when a particular cast cannot be dialled-out without introducing a colour-cast from the opposite side of the Colour-Wheel.

Just a bit of musing...

Philip.

[a.noctilux]

Another non-war of CCD/CMOS user here.

While the colour palettes can be important,

I use CCD and CMOS Monochrom for many years, I hardly see which one is superior to the other.

sometimes I see some subtle "gray" difference between MM9 and M246 with same subject, like when I made duplicatas from colour films.

In my use nothing to worry about.

[pgk]

1 hour ago, pippy said:

One thing about which I'd like to read more is the settings used by those CCD / CMOS users who have declared a preference for one over the other.

As an M9 user I never shot at above base ISO (160) and rely on adjustments in post. I also leave white balance on auto and only shoot RAW. I've been shooting this way since the M9 came out and have got used to adjusting the images to how I want them to look. Perhaps a lot of this is simply being used to the camera and how it delivers images?

[As an aside; this is why I always take 'reviews' of cameras with a large pinch of salt. How can a short time with a new camera ever tell someone just how effective it will be in the long term?]

Edited December 16, 2023 by pgk
typos again!

[Topsy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

As an M9 user I never shot at above base ISO (160) and rely on adjustments in post. I also leave white balance on auto and only shoot RAW. I've been shooting this way since the M9 came out and have got used to adjusting the images to how I want them to look. Perhaps a lot of this is simply being used to the camera and how it delivers images?

[As an aside; this is why I always take 'reviews' of cameras with a large pinch of salt. How can a short time with a new camera ever tell someone just how effective it will be in the long term?]

Likewise, 99% of the time on my M9s I am at base ISO, I do however shoot DNG & JPG but mostly use the DNG with a couple of presets I have in Lightroom one from Thorsten Overgaard for the general starting point and one I have modified myself for landscappes. Sometimes though the JPGs out of camera are fine especially for social media uploading.

[pippy]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

As an M9 user I never shot at above base ISO (160) and rely on adjustments in post. I also leave white balance on auto and only shoot RAW. I've been shooting this way since the M9 came out and have got used to adjusting the images to how I want them to look...

Yes. When I had the M9 I did things exactly the same as you mention and things haven't changed with processing files from the CMOS of the MD.

Partly my own mild amusement about the whole 'absolutism' regarding colour-fidelity is because of how frequently I see small-yet-definite colour-shift in the studio using what should, in principle, be the same pieces of kit. To give one example; if, having used and colour-calibrated with near-enough 100% accuracy(*), the 85mm prime on my DSLR and I change to the 50mm prime I know that I will need to put '+3 Green' to get back to neutral. I can do this with the software used before post-prod so the images shot will all match throughout the session. If I change which soft-boxes - even those from the same manufacturer - are being used it's a case of Start Again from the Beginning.

But what about when shooting out-and-about with the M-D? The colour-temperature during any one day can go from 3000 - 4000K at sunset / sunrise to 5000 - 6500K at noon on a bright day. On a heavily overcast day the temp. can even go as high as 9000K on, say, an overcast yet bright afternoon. Leaving the camera (for those with the option) on AWB is almost certainly the best 'average' choice but the camera doesn't know what the lens is looking at and will be able to be confused by a proponderence of any particular colour within the scene.

There are too many variables to consider when shooting outdoors that any subtle differences in how CCD / CMOS register images that, IMO, any such differences can be ignored as being insignificant.

Philip.

* We're talking +/- 1 or 2 in a scale of 0-255.

Edited December 16, 2023 by pippy

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, pippy said:

To give one example; if, having used and colour-calibrated with near-enough 100% accuracy(*), the 85mm prime on my DSLR and I change to the 50mm prime I know that I will need to put '+3 Green' to get back to neutral.

I learned to adjust every image due to shooting underwater. The varying lightpath between flash units and subject and camera combined with the shiting colour of water means that very few images are of identical colour straight out of camera and consequently, in order to work together as a sequence, each has to be adjusted individually. So I suppose I just got used to it and carried it over into the rest of my photography. Shifts in colour were much more evident on film!

I suspect that CCD images are simpler to work with that those from the latest CMOS sensors simply because they are may be less complex?

[adan]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

.....combined with the shiting colour of water...

Maybe photograph in less, ummm, polluted water? 😉

Might to see if the mods can - adjust - that spelling for you. 

Agree completely otherwise.....

Edited December 16, 2023 by adan

[pgk]

Just now, adan said:

Might to see if the mods can - adjust - that spelling for you. 

😄 And I thought that I'd sorted my spellchecker out😒. Polluted waters don't help - tried full face masks but they you can't see through the viewfinder .....

[jaapv]

I think i'll just leave it - quite delightful typo. 😅

[MikeMyers]

I've been reading similar discussions in other forums, where people are basically saying a CCD sensor captures better color than a CMOS sensor.   Maybe I should use the word "different", rather than "better".

I also remember reading in this forum how there were discussions on how to use Lightroom to capture a CCD "look" from a CMOS sensor camera.

 

In my other world, we are talking about the color differences between a D200 or D2x (CCD) to Nikon's new cameras, D850, D780 (CMOS).

2005 Nikon D200 color, compared to new cameras

Everything else being equal, is CCD still considered superior?

 

Edited April 3, 2024 by MikeMyers
added an example

[otto.f]

4 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

Everything else being equal, is CCD still considered superior?

Yes. But the ISO race implies CMOS, which comes with color corruption starting at the lowest ISO’s and which had also a commercial drive. People seem to need the latest tech, including me alas

[Ko.Fe.]

On 11/8/2023 at 1:11 PM, Anthony MD said:

So much discussion on this subject with more supporters of CCD than CMOS.

CCD supposedly has a more filmic appeal than CMOS.  Is all this attributed to the sensors only or do other factors determine final image rendering…?

"Filmic?"

Not sure what it means in particular.

Film has deeper latitude and dynamic range. (Not "dynamic range" from YT "experts", which is how much they could push from crappy underexposure.)

I'm not seeing M9 sensor to be as good as film on this regard. But M9 sensor gives different looking images at low ISO comparing to M240 and newer. 

From my perspective  M9 sensor gives kind of "cleaner" than typical CMOS images on low ISO. And sometimes here is something which I could only describe as "liquid" in the rendering. No CMOS has it.

Also film has not always ideal colors, white balance. This is where M9 sensor is matching film.  

[MikeMyers]

5 hours ago, otto.f said:

Yes. But the ISO race implies CMOS, which comes with color corruption starting at the lowest ISO’s and which had also a commercial drive. People seem to need the latest tech, including me alas

Sounds like a good reason to have both a new, up-to-date camera with CMOS, and also an older camera with CCD.

If the lighting is adequate, shoot with the old camera, and get the more beautiful colors?

I guess for me, what I need to do is find a nice scene, shoot it with both cameras, and compare them - has someone here already done this?  Curious, would this also apply to my M8.2, with CCD sensor?

[Anbaric]

A lot of people like the look of the images they get out of the M9, but I don't think this shows that CCDs necessarily have some advantage over CMOS sensors. We never see the raw data, of course, only the output of the raw converter we are using. Leica did a good job of making a camera that produced excellent in-camera jpegs, but that isn't just a property of the sensor, but of the whole chain of processing from raw data to finished files. These jpegs were presumably used as reference images when raw converter makers generated 'camera matching' colour profiles for the M9, so the raw conversions also look good. When I upgraded my Nikon D70 (CCD) to a D300 (CMOS) I didn't feel I'd lost anything except noise (images over 400 ISO were actually usable) and I stopped blowing highlights so often.

[pgk]

45 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

I guess for me, what I need to do is find a nice scene, shoot it with both cameras, and compare them - has someone here already done this?

Yes, M9 and A7II. Results are similar, but different. And it really depends what you like. As soon as ISO is increased then shifts occur BUT the M9 files are very flexible and the noise which kicks in during post processing, if you keep ISO at base, can be more 'pleasant' and reminiscent of (but not the same as) film, than the more 'digital' noise from the Sony. Simple tests don't reveal everything though. Suffice it to say that I am fortunate in that I still own and use both cameras and find that both have their strengths and weaknesses. I still like the results from my M9s but they are not suitable for a lot of image making so its really depends on what you are doing and your 'tastes' in colour and noise.

[Alberti]

On 11/10/2023 at 12:39 AM, a.noctilux said:

my own observations:

When my Monochrom (CCD) came from sensor replacement, I didn't believe that the gray/b&w "color" response was not the same as before, so weird that I live for a while with this in mind, then forgot about it.

I had the same impression. The balance was different.

[Alberti]

Some jumped to the new generation of BSI sensors, thing they mimic many physical (nano-architecture) with the CCD. I myself have one of these sensors and I do like the colours very much. But I never compared.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Anthony MD]

On 12/15/2023 at 1:14 AM, overexposed said:

i HIGHLY doubt its a different sensor!

 

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!

Edited April 3, 2024 by Anthony MD

[jankap]

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!