Is the CCD Skin tone difference noticeable? I am just contemplating which camera to buy with limited budget. If there's a noticeable difference I will get a used IQ1 or P45/65 back or even a Hassy. Otherwise I may go for 645Z or 5Ds.
Is H5D much better than H2 body in terms of focusing? Not talking about True Focus here.
All around, I feel CCDs just give you better color, regardless if it is skin tones or building materials (I shoot architecture and interiors). I just always get a sense of smoothness when working on a file from a CCD camera as opposed to a CMOS. Even at 200 or 400 ISO. I know some will disagree, but I just never like the color a CMOS sensor gives (although I am curious about the new Leica S2 since Leica advertises as a 16-bit CMOS, a first of its kind).
However, if you are working at 200 or 400, you better nail it with the exposure and lighting, because you have little meat in the file for anything else beside noise reduction. (Pretty much at that ISO pick adequate noise reduction or pushing/pulling the file, not both.)
To me color is paramont, everything else is secondary. But I work slow, plan and light all of my shots so I need as little work in post as possible, and I have the clients who allow me to do it.
For others, better ISO performance may be a priority, or something else a CMOS does better. In that case, the Pentax would be best (unless you need to use a tech camera or leaf shutters, like me too).
If you really need leaf shutters though, then I would assume you are the type of shooter who plans and lights your images. If that is the case, to me it just does not make sense to spend the money on a P1 system and not buy a CCD base back. (With a tech camera, I will concede that for some a CMOS based back would be better.)
Poll
