Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: alifatemi on April 24, 2016, 02:11:41 pm
-
hi, with recent advancement in CMOS MF DB, I wonder if anyone compare picture quality of them together, say, Phase one 80Mp with Phase one new 100; Some people always used to say colors were better with CCD sensors compare to CMOS. Is it the case with new hi res CMOS too? any difference at all? Upgrading from CCD to CMOS, won't I regret to lose my excellent color quality of CCD? I got PhaseOne iq3 80 and planning to move to their 100.
-
hi, with recent advancement in CMOS MF DB, I wonder if anyone compare picture quality of them together, say, Phase one 80Mp with Phase one new 100; Some people always used to say colors were better with CCD sensors compare to CMOS. Is it the case with new hi res CMOS too? any difference at all? Upgrading from CCD to CMOS, won't I regret to lose my excellent color quality of CCD? I got PhaseOne iq3 80 and planning to move to their 100.
Maybe you should say what sort of subject is in front of the camera
-
I have always felt much of how a given array looks is as much a function of the algorithms being used to process the data off the array.
I'm curious to see what others feel and hope someone has done a true test to advise their findings!
Some of it is addressed recently in this chaps post:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=109798.0
Jack
-
Thousands of owners have been working for nearly 2 years with CMOS equipped backs from Phase, Leaf, Hassy and Pentax and I haven't noticed any negative report about CMOS colors being inferior. Phaseone has also clearly stated with the release of their 100mp that color was most important for them and that they considered their CMOS backs to be at least as good as the CCD backs before them.
My personal takeaway is that the previous talks about CCD colors being superior were not grounded in reality but more of marketing nature, just like DR talks before them. At least they were not about CCD being inferior as a technology, but more about the full imaging chain.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My personal takeaway is that the previous talks about CCD colors being superior were not grounded in reality but more of marketing nature, just like DR talks before them.
Correct. Besides minor possible differences in the CFA transmittance, colors are mainly the result of the profiles. There is no reason to believe that Phase One would put in less of an effort for their future moneymakers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, and what are the latest commercial offerings really like? All CFAs are not equal. There are engineering tradeoffs to be made in each set of pigment choices. I am seeing rather mediocre green discrimination in the published A7RII images.
Correct. Besides minor possible differences in the CFA transmittance, colors are mainly the result of the profiles. There is no reason to believe that Phase One would put in less of an effort for their future moneymakers.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes, and what are the latest commercial offerings really like? All CFAs are not equal. There are engineering tradeoffs to be made in each set of pigment choices. I am seeing rather mediocre green discrimination in the published A7RII images.
Edmund,
You are assuming that it's due to the CFA's and that it's not caused by, or correctable by, the profiles (BTW which profiles?). Any independent confirmation, or just speculation?
I have little difficulty in modifying the default Profiles in Capture One, by using its Color Editor and saving to a modified ICC profile.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The differences are all in the shooter and their processing. Remember, the differences between the Phase and Hasselblad implementations of the same chip come down to color science. Their goal is for you to have identical images shot with different backs side by side and unable to see the difference. Both companies did well in this regard, to the point that high-iso from the CMOS has replaced other innovations (Sensor+, for example).
-
In the early days CCD had the better specs (fill factor, full well spec, s/n ratio, …) but over the last decade(s) CMOS has made huge incremental improvements, not in the last place due to the implementation of multiple on chip A/D converters (not feasible with CCD). I think CMOS is the way to go.
-
Most people who have access to both CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs are busy shooting to be on forums and providing test images, only to be ridiculed down by a dozen folks with a dozen agendas.
-
“…. CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs”, really? That’s the same as saying a Ford and a Toyota have similar specs, referring to the fact that they both have 4 black wheels. Mind you, a CCD is a very different device than a CMOS sensor. On the other hand …. there are indeed people thinking a Ford is equal to a Toyota, so I guess you’re right ;)
-
It's more like two Fords but one's a bit faster than the other. Which is nice if you need it - otherwise you don't need it and you can drive with it just as well as with the other.
-
“…. CCD and CMOS backs of similar specs”, really? That’s the same as saying a Ford and a Toyota have similar specs, referring to the fact that they both have 4 black wheels. Mind you, a CCD is a very different device than a CMOS sensor. On the other hand …. there are indeed people thinking a Ford is equal to a Toyota, so I guess you’re right ;)
leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.
-
leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.
I could explain more of the differences between CCD and CMOS, like the by you mentioned 50Mp Hasselblad ones, but all of a sudden I lost all appetite. I'm not writing this for *me*, you know.
Bye bye.
-
Hi,
Two fundamental differences between CMOS and CCD are that CMOS generally offer good live view and good high ISO capability while CCD does not. If you need any of those, the systems are quite different.
On the other hand, both CMOS and CCD are photovoltaic devices that use a colour filter array to supply colour to a monochromatic image. In that sense they are very similar.
Best regards
Erik
leave the snark at home where it belongs.
I am talking about say, a 50MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Hasselblad, or a 40MP CCD and 50MP CMOS from Phase/ leaf, for example.
-
From a IQ standpoint, I don't think it matters. Both CCD and CMOS deliver the goods when wielded by capable hands.
-
All CMOS and all CCD are not equal. At the moment "CMOS" in this forum means just one sensor from Sony corp with one CFA. The last CCD generation of MF has Kodak and Dalsa chips with their own CFAs, and the previous Kodak chips have a completely different CFA, I believe.
There are also texture differences due to fundamentally different noise reduction.
How do people here who have moved to Sony feel about the results?
Edmund
From a IQ standpoint, I don't think it matters. Both CCD and CMOS deliver the goods when wielded by capable hands.
-
How do people here who have moved to Sony feel about the results?
Edmund
I think that's the most important question that hasn't been answered so far. You always hear people talking about how happy they are with their ISO performance but the rest..
-
I think that's the most important question that hasn't been answered so far. You always hear people talking about how happy they are with their ISO performance but the rest..
To be fair, it takes a lot of cool to be able to state that you don't like the results from a camera on which you just spent 40,000 US$...
But that was also the case with CCDs. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To be fair, it takes a lot of cool to be able to state that you don't like the results from a camera on which you just spent 40,000 US$...
But that was also the case with CCDs. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
This is why smart buyers book a demo before they spend 40k.
That was the case with CCDs too.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Synn and @AlterEgo - chill kids or I will get snarky too
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
@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.
-
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" ;D ...
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.
-
Hi,
Sony CMOS on P1 and CMOS on Sony are with some probability essentially the same. The MFD sensors are larger than the 24x36 mm sensors and that gives some advantage, at least under ideal conditions.
If files from Phase One using C1 are compared with Sony files processed in LR it should be kept in mind that C1 uses a lot of noise reduction and sharpening by default. LR/ACR have very little of each at default settings.
With the IQ3-100 MP, the sensor can produce DR in excess of 14-bits. Nikon and Sony sensors presently only use 14 (Nikon) or 13 (Sony) bits. So the IQ3-100MP does offer a small but possibly relevant advantage in DR over it's lesser brothers.
Best regards
Erik
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.
-
@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.
Yes, and that is what I would have like to see for MF cameras. Only qualifier: for that comparison, all pictures were taken under the same light.
-
the devil is in "compare the colours" ;D ...
I don't find this part to be a devil.
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.
You don't understand. I am not interested to find out which camera has better color accuracy. I am just interested to find out whether two cameras from the same maker, one with cmos and one with ccd, will give the same results.
-
Sony CMOS on P1 and CMOS on Sony are with some probability essentially the same. The MFD sensors are larger than the 24x36 mm sensors and that gives some advantage, at least under ideal conditions.
Of course not. Even between two Sony cameras, you don't have the same color filter array. The same Sony cmos used in a Sony camera and in a Nikon camera give completely different results. I don't expect Phase One, Pentax or Hasselblad to use the same color filter arrays either.
-
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.
For some reason "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS" feel that they are giving away something valuable for free if they point a camera out the window and put the Raw file on Dropbox.
I think this is a foolproof way to distinguish a pro from an amateur: The pro always makes sure you pay :)
Edmund
-
I am just interested to find out whether two cameras from the same maker, one with cmos and one with ccd, will give the same results.
and how you plan to eliminate color transform part from a raw converter for example ?
-
Sony CMOS on P1 and CMOS on Sony are with some probability essentially the same.
but not the same CFA
from DT raws = http://postimg.org/image/bhxtviycl/
one 'd say that P1s CFA are more selective = hence better saturation with the min amount of color transform involved
(http://s26.postimg.org/bhxtviycn/IQ3100vs_A7_R2.jpg)
-
but not the same CFA
from DT raws = http://postimg.org/image/bhxtviycl/
one 'd say that P1s CFA are more selective = hence better saturation with the min amount of color transform involved
(http://s26.postimg.org/bhxtviycn/IQ3100vs_A7_R2.jpg)
eh? could you post the raw files somewhere so that one can look at them with rawdigger?
-
Hi,
It is from Digital Transition's tests.
Best regards
Erik
eh? could you post the raw files somewhere so that one can look at them with rawdigger?
-
moved here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=110166.0
-
and how you plan to eliminate color transform part from a raw converter for example ?
Why would I need to do that?
It seems that we do not understand each others. I have a CCD camera, an Hasselblad H4D-50. I like the colours I get out of it with Phocus. I don't get the same pleasing colours with, say, my Nikon.
Before I jump to, for example, an H6D-100c, I would like to know if it will give me the same colours. So I want to try the two cameras side by side on various subjects and under various lights and see if I get the same colours.
-
It seems that we do not understand each others. I have a CCD camera, an Hasselblad H4D-50. I like the colours I get out of it with Phocus. I don't get the same pleasing colours with, say, my Nikon.
Hi,
The gist of some of the comments is, that the different rendering is not a CCD vs CMOS issue, but mostly a profiling issue. Silicon is silicon, and the effect of a chosen CFA (assuming for normal photography) is in practice of secondary importance compared to the effect of a profile. There are of course other reasons why colors differ, like lens coatings, etc., but none as important to the 'final look' as the profile.
Before I jump to, for example, an H6D-100c, I would like to know if it will give me the same colours. So I want to try the two cameras side by side on various subjects and under various lights and see if I get the same colours.
So, if you are using canned profiles, instead of making your own matched color rendering profiles for different cameras, I indeed suggest you compare what Hasselblad / Phocus have made of the 'Hasselblad look' and if it differs between the H4D-50 and the H6D-100c. If it differs, then it is more likely to do with the profiling, and as such can also be solved through profiling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
Agree with what Bart says. I would just add that it is my impression, based on what I read, that Hasselblad takes great care to achieve similar and good colour on their different backs.
Best regards
Erik
Hi,
The gist of some of the comments is, that the different rendering is not a CCD vs CMOS issue, but mostly a profiling issue. Silicon is silicon, and the effect of a chosen CFA (assuming for normal photography) is in practice of secondary importance compared to the effect of a profile. There are of course other reasons why colors differ, like lens coatings, etc., but none as important to the 'final look' as the profile.
So, if you are using canned profiles, instead of making your own matched color rendering profiles for different cameras, I indeed suggest you compare what Hasselblad / Phocus have made of the 'Hasselblad look' and if it differs between the H4D-50 and the H6D-100c. If it differs, then it is more likely to do with the profiling, and as such can also be solved through profiling.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The gist of some of the comments is, that the different rendering is not a CCD vs CMOS issue, but mostly a profiling issue. Silicon is silicon, and the effect of a chosen CFA (assuming for normal photography) is in practice of secondary importance compared to the effect of a profile. There are of course other reasons why colors differ, like lens coatings, etc., but none as important to the 'final look' as the profile.
I agree that silicon is silicon and that the results should be the same if CFA, profiles and lenses are the same.
I also agree that the profile gives the final look.
I do not agree that the effects of the CFA are of secondary importance, in particular when the illuminant varies.
I am quite sensitive of the effect of lens coatings on color and find these to be very difficult to compensate with profiles, because they are not global.
So, if you are using canned profiles, instead of making your own matched color rendering profiles for different cameras, I indeed suggest you compare what Hasselblad / Phocus have made of the 'Hasselblad look' and if it differs between the H4D-50 and the H6D-100c. If it differs, then it is more likely to do with the profiling, and as such can also be solved through profiling.
I am not going to make profiles to solve a problem which I can avoid by not buying a new camera. I have a camera with colors I appreciate. If the new model does not have the same colors, I won't buy it. It is a much simpler solution.
-
Why would I need to do that?
It seems that we do not understand each others. I have a CCD camera, an Hasselblad H4D-50. I like the colours I get out of it with Phocus. I don't get the same pleasing colours with, say, my Nikon.
Before I jump to, for example, an H6D-100c, I would like to know if it will give me the same colours. So I want to try the two cameras side by side on various subjects and under various lights and see if I get the same colours.
Go for it. Only realworld trials will tell you what you need to know.
I wouldn't expect the "same" colors, if the CFAs are different, that is physically impossible. (*). But you may get colors you like.
Think of it like choosing a film - some one likes, some one doesn't.
Edmund
(*) No existing consumer sensor satisifies the Luther-Ives conditions. People who claim two different CFAs and substrates can be *perfectly* matched by a profile are delusional.
-
-DNG Profiles built for for each using Adobe DNG Profile Editor
...
The idea with this was to apply the same processing chain to both images using colour profiles generated from the actual images.
and the base profile for Adobe DNG PE was ? because Adobe DNG PE starts not from scratch - hence the processing chain is the same but w/ that caveat
in C1 example above I used ICC profile = "no color correction" for both cameras, etc to make it more the same processing colorwise
-
Hi,
I don't know.
I may repeat the experiment using DCamProf…
Best regards
Erik
and the base profile for Adobe DNG PE was ? because Adobe DNG PE starts not from scratch - hence the processing chain is the same but w/ that caveat
-
Reverting to the original point of this thread and the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, I understand there is doubt whether CMOS sensors can handle wide-angle lenses as well as CCD sensors can. I also understand tilts and shifts may be more limited with CMOS sensors than with CCDs.
Roger
-
I wonder if PhaseOne IQ100 CMOS got anti aliasing filter on it. Anybody please?
-
I don't believe any Phase CCD or CMOS back has an anti aliasing filter, for sure the CCD IQ1 and 2 did not. Pretty sure the 100MP is the same.
Paul C
-
I've pixelpeeped IQ3 100MP shots and if it has an AA-filter it's the weakest in history :). Aliasing can be observed in the same way as other sensors without AA-filter. However with this tiny pixel size you only get significant aliasing in very special circumstances.
-
Hi,
No AA filter for sure! But it probably has "gapless" microlenses. With microlenses we have more of area sampling and less of point sampling and that reduces aliasing somewhat.
Best regards
Erik
I wonder if PhaseOne IQ100 CMOS got anti aliasing filter on it. Anybody please?
-
Reverting to the original point of this thread and the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors, I understand there is doubt whether CMOS sensors can handle wide-angle lenses as well as CCD sensors can. I also understand tilts and shifts may be more limited with CMOS sensors than with CCDs.
Roger
This is not so much CMOS vs CCD technology, but the fact that CMOS sensors of today have smaller pixels than yesterday's CCDs and thus get the even more issues with tech wide crosstalk. You need to go back to Kodak CCDs like on the P45+ which was made with light shielding between pixels and without microlenses to have something that really worked well with tech wide lens design.
I think you could make light shields also with CMOS and certainly remove the microlenses, but that's not just how sensors are made for cameras these days regardless of CMOS or CCD. You need microlenses for better ISO performance (and somewhat for reduced aliasing but that's less of a problem), and light shields probably makes construction more complicated and may force a reduction of photo diode size, reducing full well capacity and thus DR. I don't think sensor manufacturers are prepared to make such trade-offs today. Everyone tests for DR and ISO, almost noone tests for angular response.
My guess is that the next generation of sensors may could have better angular response if the pixel size would stay the same but that will be canceled out by a further reduction in pixel size to get more megapixels, which is what's selling cameras, not tech wide compatibility. As a result the tech wides will fade away in the high end commercial segment, but will stay for a long time among users of legacy stuff as long as the older back electronics will hold up.