Like film before it, CCD is going away.
The CCD look is going away, like the analogue look which preceded it.
I'm not going to leap into a ccd look vs a cmos vs film or anything debate because like the ten million 35mm vs. medium format "discussions"
those go absolutely nowhere.
Some think they see a difference in capture mediums, some think they don't, some think it doesn't matter.
I just know of life through my experience and have experienced creatives selecting 25 or 15, or 30 something images from our repertoire
that all we're shot with ccd cameras.
It could be that we spent more effort in lighting given the lower iso, (though many were daylight)
It could be that we sharpen ccd images differently.
It could just be that they do look different and in the world of commerce even a slight difference is good.
I know it doesn't matter to anyone but the image maker and sometimes the people paying.
Leica M9's are hard to find and in demand by people that think they see a difference,
others think they don't, but photographer's willing to pay a premium for an older camera would be hard to convince otherwise.
Doesn't mean either views are right or wrong.
Except for creative briefs that don't resonate.there usually isn't a right or wrong in image making for commerce.
In regards to the comment that a certain look is departing, I don't see it exactly that way.
What overall sensibilities I see changing in commercial imagery is two trends.
1. A real life look where there is limited on set production and either light or minimal or maybe
even inexperienced post production, usually due to budget, sometimes because less fussy imagery is considered more believable.
(BTW: I love beautifully constructed, real looking imagery and from experience can say it's one of the most
difficult things in the world to pull off. Just shooting for shooting sake doesn't really do it.)
2. A very effected post production look, with 10x's more effort weighted to the backend, but once again usually due to budget, though not always.
The capture device really is a small part of the process, no matter how many of us are tempted by gleaming new
boxes and promises of new is better than old, regardless of pixel peeping testers, or budget conscious naysayers.
For 5 years and today budget and time are much more compressed in the professional image making world than ever before,
regardless of the medium, regardless of the capture device, regardless of your role, from creative, to writer,
photographer/director/imager maker, to post production team.
As far as medium format cameras moving/adding cmos, that was inevitable, given it allows for higher iso, real live view and
expands the medium format market, which is the goal of any camera maker, whether they sell 20 or 20,000 cameras a month.
The bottom line is really the bottom line. Higher iso, smaller form factors usually make for speedier production and faster
production usually costs less money, at least on the front end.
If the results are better or worse, is the purchase worth it, that's a real judgment call.
What I do find surprising is some of the negative responses on this forum about the Pentax.
People have been quite vocal for an under 10 grand medium format cameras for years and now they have them, or at least one of
them and I'd think the response would have been overwhelmingly positive.
IMO
BC
