CCD vs CMOS

[AlterEgo]

This is why smart buyers book a demo before they spend 40k.

why do you need to book a demo to find out about raw files (this is about "CMOS" vs "CCD" topic - not about operation of new backs in general) ?

vendor (dealer) for that money is expected to just give you all the necessary raws for free so that you can play with them as much as you want w/o booking anything, no ?

[synn]

why do you need to book a demo to find out about raw files (this is about "CMOS" vs "CCD" topic - not about operation of new backs in general) ?

vendor (dealer) for that money is expected to just give you all the necessary raws for free so that you can play with them as much as you want w/o booking anything, no ?

Some of us prefer to actually use the cameras in question in the sort of situations we use them in to shoot the kind of images we shoot, before making a decision.

Because for us, it's the whole package that matters, not some random files or test charts.

[AlterEgo]

Some of us prefer to actually use the cameras in question in the sort of situations we use them in to shoot the kind of images we shoot, before making a decision.

Because for us, it's the whole package that matters, not some random files or test charts.

as we all know from Canon marketshare,

but for the narrow purpose of this particular topic you do not need to pay somebody to shoot yourself ... that is if you really understand what to check in raw files and vendor supplies (as it should) the relevant target shots... 

[synn]

as we all know from Canon marketshare,

Because we are discussing 35mm DSLRs here...

 Have you ever owned/ currently own or are you planning to own a medium format digital camera?  Do you have any experience working with one?

If the answer to both of these is "No", find somewhere else to argue and someone else to argue with.

[Joe Towner]

DT went and did an amazingly large test shoot with a large number of backs, both CMOS and CCD, within the Phase system, and Sony/Canon as well.  If you ask Doug nicely, he may even share them with you.  https://digitaltransitions.com/massive-still-life-shootout/ 

Generally speaking, folks are loving their CMOS backs, and the current gen of CMOS is actually a lot better than say 4-5 years ago when the CCD color comment was more accurate. 

I'd like the OP to speak up again, otherwise this thread is running off topic and down hill.

[Doug Peterson]

DT went and did an amazingly large test shoot with a large number of backs, both CMOS and CCD, within the Phase system, and Sony/Canon as well.  If you ask Doug nicely, he may even share them with you.  https://digitaltransitions.com/massive-still-life-shootout/ 

You don't even need to ask nicely, or ask at all. There is a link on that page to have the links sent to you automagically.

[Christopher Sanderson]

@Synn and @AlterEgo - chill kids or I will get snarky too

[AlterEgo]

DT went and did an amazingly large test shoot with a large number of backs, both CMOS and CCD, within the Phase system, and Sony/Canon as well.  If you ask Doug nicely, he may even share them with you.  https://digitaltransitions.com/massive-still-life-shootout/ 

I know and downloaded some back then and that was exactly the right move where the dealer provides the raw files... great service !

[eronald]

As usual I applaud Doug's remarkable professionalism and helpfulness. Phase is lucky to have him.



In an ideal world, we should all be complaining about Dealer Doug and thanking fellow photographers like Synn for sharing their raws as enthusiqstically as their opinions.

Edmund

You don't even need to ask nicely, or ask at all. There is a link on that page to have the links sent to you automagically.

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes, absolutely!

CI also offers some good stuff…

Best regards
Erik

I know and downloaded some back then and that was exactly the right move where the dealer provides the raw files... great service !

[synn]

As usual I applaud Doug's remarkable professionalism and helpfulness. Phase is lucky to have him.



In an ideal world, we should all be complaining about Dealer Doug and thanking fellow photographers like Synn for sharing their raws as enthusiqstically as their opinions.

Edmund

I have "Enthusiastically" shared plenty of full resolution images here for the pixel peeping crowd.
When was the last time we got anything other than text from you, Edmund?

[Gigi]

To address the gorilla in the room, not mentioned, this is a subject that has had heated, and endless, discussion before. At the risk of arrows, a brief summation might be put as follows:

- early CMOS did not equal the rendition people were getting from CCD. Whether that was the sensor, its size, the A/D conversions, lenses, or software remains unclear.
- middle generation CMOS (say up to 2-3 years ago) got better, but there was still a difference
- current generation CMOS, both on 35DSLR and MFDB, is much much closer, and offers significant ISO advantages.

Some say there is little or no difference, others still see something separating the two. Of course, lenses and other things can factor in here, but there is no doubt the gap has diminished. Very difficult to say if its significant or not; depends on many many factors.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have "Enthusiastically" shared plenty of full resolution images here for the pixel peeping crowd.

thank you so much for sharing unprocessed raws, Synn... unless those were not actually raw files, which is what matters for the narrow subject of this topic.

[synn]

thank you so much for sharing unprocessed raws, Synn... unless those were not actually raw files, which is what matters for the narrow subject of this topic.

I will share RAWs to those who request them of me, in private, if I feel that it's a genuine request. I have no inclination to put them out in public, least of all for people who are only around to complain and have nothing to give in return to the community except their worthless opinions.

[AlterEgo]

I will share RAWs to those who request them of me, in private, if I feel that it's a genuine request. I have no inclination to put them out in public, least of all for people who are only around to complain and have nothing to give in return to the community except their worthless opinions.

fair enough, Synn... thank you for acknowledging that what you shared for public were not in fact the raw files but rather the results of your skillful conversion & postprocessing, otherwise some readers might get confused

[synn]

fair enough, Synn... thank you for acknowledging that what you shared for public were not in fact the raw files but rather the results of your skillful conversion & postprocessing, otherwise some readers might get confused

Considering that I have said as much with each image I have shared, the only people who might get confused are the ones who are not able to read.

[landscapephoto]

I find it particularly frustrating that this simple question was never answered, while the test would be quite simple: take the two cameras, point them at various subjects under different lights, output the files and compare the colours.

I would be interested in natural subjects, not color checker charts: a simple landscape with plants (I am very sensitive to greens), maybe flowers and some skin tones. The lights should be: exterior in the sun, exterior cloudy and flash. Everything at base iso.

[JoeKitchen]

I find it particularly frustrating that this simple question was never answered, while the test would be quite simple: take the two cameras, point them at various subjects under different lights, output the files and compare the colours.

I would be interested in natural subjects, not color checker charts: a simple landscape with plants (I am very sensitive to greens), maybe flowers and some skin tones. The lights should be: exterior in the sun, exterior cloudy and flash. Everything at base iso.

I have been told by those who have shot CCD, CMOS on the P1 back and CMOS on the Sony's that on the P1 backs, both of the files are very nice. 

The files from the Sony's are nice, but not as robust or as nice.

[siddhaarta]

@landscapephoto: There has been an interesting test on this topic on the Reddotforum: http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/

It is not MF but compares the CCD Leica M9 with the CMOS Leica M240. A lot of direct comparison photos made with the same lenses.

[AlterEgo]

I find it particularly frustrating that this simple question was never answered, while the test would be quite simple: take the two cameras, point them at various subjects under different lights, output the files and compare the colours.

the devil is in "compare the colours"    ...

I would be interested in natural subjects, not color checker charts

well, you can try for a start shot two different (pigments wise) targets chart properly, build a profile off one, do conversion of second and get witin 1-2 dE2K for all patches as measured by your spectrometer (many passes, averaged, lamp restored before each pass and drift controlled during each pass)... then may be, may be you are qualified to judge the color conversion precision for natural subjects beyond simple exclamations or adjectives... otherwise it is a matter of taste mostly.