I understand the advantages of CMOS sensors, particularly if you are shooting sports or street photography or concerts, but for lots of landscape and architectural photography, I am not sure that those advantages are all that important.Putting aside some very bogus comparisons that mix together many other differences along with the sensor type, this seems to be the only remaining argument against switching from CCD to CMOS: that its advantages are less important in some case than others. But with some clear upsides to CMOS and no real downsides, the change seems inevitable, and the recent adoption of CMOS by Leica, Phase One and Hasselblad along with the total abandonment of CCDs in all other systems in 35mm format and smaller should make it clear which way the wind is blowing.
With the introduction of CMOS sensors into the medium-format world, what does the future look like for CCD sensors?
In your view, is there a CCD look or is it something that is vastly overvalued?
Is CMOS in your future or are you one of the photographers who is not so impressed with the latest CMOS medium-format sensor offerings?
What is your view in general about the impressions of other photographers about the CMOS sensors? Is the problem only the price? Do you predict a good future or a serious flop of the new equipment?
It doesn't seem that CCDs have any advantage over CMOS, possibly except astronomical applications where they are cooled with liquid nitrogen.
Well, except they are made in larger sizes… Also, it may be that they may work better with large beam angles, but that may also change.
Where can you see ISO 100 short exposure files from IQ250?
I don't think Pentax is the right comparison, and high iso and long exposure files should not be the base to compare the best that that back can do.
I don't believe there is a real difference in colors between CCD and CMOS.
CCD has an advantage right now in having very large sensors available.
If they could make 100MP 53x40mm CMOS sensors at reasonable cost, I don't think they would be introducing new CCD backs after that.
In the link that you provided the downloads are dead.
Can you please provide other links to pages where you can download raw files of ISO 100 images with full studio lighting?
The only short exposure ISO 100 image I could find did not look very good.
I'm not really in the market for a new back right now.
I saw one example of an outside shot jpg that looked pretty Canonny to me. I'm mot sure I can find it again.
But that doesn't interest me - I will wait until somone releases studio shots of ISO 100 still objects, hopefully alongside IQ180/280 ISO35, so we can compare best/best.
Thanks for your input Eric. I was told by a senior MF back designer a few years ago that CCDs and CMOS don't differ re colour. As you say, it's the CFA and other factors.
Time to put that myth to bed.
Michael
Michael,
There are two different questions:
1. Is *ideal* CMOS different from ideal CCD?
2. Is *real* CMOS different from real CCD.
You say no to 1.
Regarding 2, My impression is that most *existing* CMOS implementations have been more strongly digitally filtered than their CCD counterparts, and the result is bad skin tone (the plastic wrap look). Maybe the new Sony CMOS is closer to clean. Obviously, CMOS can do a lot more tricks, but a CMOS chip that has warmed from liveview is going to be much noisier than a cold CCD ... in the real world.
Edmund
The ideal look is not important.
What is important is the real look under best conditions.
You can also make comparisons under harsh conditions, but then they apply only to those specific conditions.
The models you quoted are not best of breed, so I would not use them to come to a conclusion.
P45 is using the old Kodak sensor, and we know very well that the DALSA sensors produce better images.
We also know that the IQ/Credo produces better images than P/Aptus, so that is what needs to be compared.
Comparing 5-6 years old technologies maybe gives us a picture of what was right then, but we want to know the answer that is applicable today, considering what the relevant companies are actually making.
I believe the plastic wrap look is a result of exaggerated noise reduction, not of naturally low noise in CMOS.
When you are comparing a Canon image to a Leaf image, you are not only comparing CCD to CMOS, but also the two companies very different approaches to noise reduction and general rendering.
If Doug would feel generous, he could release to us a couple of images by IQ CMOS and IQ CCD using controlled lighting and the lowest ISO each back does, and then we will know what is best right now.
You you please show me where those files are available?
I don't see the point in comparing iso 1600 - it's pretty much a foregone conclusion CMOS will be better.
What I would like to know is how IQ iso 35 compares to CMOS iso 100, both properly lit.
Meaning - is there any loss moving to CMOS under the best conditions?
1. These files are pushed!
2. This is a comparison intended for noise aspects.
3. Screen capture is not a complete file.
If you want to settle this discussion, you need one jpg (save as jpg 12) from each back, no pushing or any modification, under the best conditions - in studio lowest iso perfect lighting.
This gives you the baseline - the best from one back compare to the best from the other back.
After that you can compare pushing or high iso or highlights or lowlights or any other extreme that you like.
But where is the best image from 1, and the best image from 2 - each in its own jpg?
I would expect a studio photographer to get the lighting right in most cases, so you want the "best" comparison, but also you want to know what happens if you don't get the best lighting - that is a second and different comparison. I'm seeing only the second comparison.
If I went only by the second comparison, I would buy a Canon (until now, maybe now they can beat Canon).
Not everyone is shooting in studio in perfect lighting, that is the easiest case for any camera. Anyway these are the best comparisons I have seen between the IQ series backs.
The point Doug was making is that these files are available on request to his clients only, meaning not for the clients of the other guy.
Also the file posted is a compound jpg from several different exposures.
I think a couple of 1-1 jpgs posted here would put this argument to rest.
In a way, this whole discussion is irrelevant.
Phase and Hassy killed CCD.
They overpriced their product and underinvested in new chip and body developments, taxed their customers like a monopolist and pressured their chip suppliers for the best price. The suppliers reacted by recycling their existing designs as far as they could take them without major reinvestment.
During the same period, Sony used the money from their sensor foundry to create a fountain of new chips which are actually drop-in modules, and are used by the whole industry - nobody was stopping Dalsa and Kodak from going the same way.
As a result we have a super-modern CMOS all-singing all-dancing design fighting it out with geriatric 5 year old MF CCDs. There is no state of the art all-digital MF CCD with on-chip A/D available - in fact one can argue that Phase and Hassy wanted there to be none because it would have been a drop-in camera. Set me right if I'm wrong. I for one believe that MF-CCD was a perfectly good technology that was pushed into irrelevance by greed.
Edmund
Hi,
It doesn't seem that CCDs have any advantage over CMOS, possibly except astronomical applications where they are cooled with liquid nitrogen.
Well, except they are made in larger sizes… Also, it may be that they may work better with large beam angles, but that may also change.
Best regards
Erik
Phase is not a charity organisation [...] I am amazed that they could survive
I don't think it makes a very big difference to phase/hass where they get their sensors - other than how much they pay for them, of course. If the sensor is good and the price is good, they will take it. Why should they, or us for that matter, care whether CCD lives or dies? Is there anything special in CCD that isn't in CMOS? (I don't know)
If A/D is on chip or on board, does that make a difference for the end user? (I don't know)
I'm sure what you said about putting the money back into r&d is correct - but what does it matter? Phase is not a charity organization. In their market segment, I am amazed that they could survive and continue to pay salaries to their employees and provide support for their clients. Almost all other MF firms went under. Let's agree that keeping the company alive is a pretty good goal. Some investors gut the company, sell off the ingredients and ho home.
Is the only reason there is no AD on chip CCD, that they didn't invest the time in r&d?
Other than the location of the AD, is there any other reason CCD will produce a different image than CMOS? Maybe the famous differences everybody are talking about, come from the different ADC?
Regarding ADCs, they just take an analogue signal like 10 micro volts and convert in a number. There are only two ways to do it, correctly or not.
Is the only reason there is no AD on chip CCD, that they didn't invest the time in r&d?
Other than the location of the AD, is there any other reason CCD will produce a different image than CMOS? Maybe the famous differences everybody are talking about, come from the different ADC?
I don't understand this stuff as well as many of the posters here, but I really feel that CCD has been the victim of underinvestment while CMOS has been pushed relentlessly by the Japanese for a variety of reasons, one of which is the low power consumption at standby - power consumed during use is proportional to frequency.
Usually a working technology can be perfected, and I think that it is sad to see CCD imagers abandoned when the replacement is not really a substitute.
Phase and Hassy killed CCD.Firstly, AFAIK, MFD camera and back makers account for only a small fraction of the demand for CCDs from their sensor suppliers, with those CCDs developed mainly for other market like medical, scientific, industrial and military uses. So I doubt that Phase One or Hasselblad have much influence of the development of CCDs, and they can hardly be blamed for the industry-wide slow-down in or abandonment of CCD development. Note that many other sensor makers like Sony and Panasonic moved away from CCDs to active pixel CMOS sensors, and one cannot blame Phase One and Hasselblad for that abandonment of CCD development.
They ... underinvested in new chip and body developments ... and pressured their chip suppliers for the best price. The suppliers reacted by recycling their existing designs as far as they could take them without major reinvestment.
During the same period, Sony used the money from their sensor foundry to create a fountain of new chips which are actually drop-in modules, and are used by the whole industry - nobody was stopping Dalsa and Kodak from going the same way.
As a result we have a super-modern CMOS all-singing all-dancing design fighting it out with geriatric 5 year old MF CCDs. There is no state of the art all-digital MF CCD with on-chip A/D available - in fact one can argue that Phase and Hassy wanted there to be none because it would have been a drop-in camera. Set me right if I'm wrong. I for one believe that MF-CCD was a perfectly good technology that was pushed into irrelevance by greed.
Firstly, AFAIK, MFD camera and back makers account for only a small fraction of the demand for CCDs from their sensor suppliers, with those CCDs developed mainly for other market like medical, scientific, industrial and military uses. So I doubt that Phase One or Hasselblad have much influence of the development of CCDs, and they can hardly be blamed for the industry-wide slow-down in or abandonment of CCD development. Note that many other sensor makers like Sony and Panasonic moved away from CCDs to active pixel CMOS sensors, and one cannot blame Phase One and Hasselblad for that abandonment of CCD development.
Instead, it seems that the older CCD approach to image sensors has simply matured to the point that there is little room for further progress. Except that is by adding features like on-sensor amplification -- which is the defining feature of "Active Pixel Sensors", commonly known as CMOS sensors (but known in the trade as APS!).
Secondly, what advantages do you claim that CCDs have over active pixel CMOS sensors that would make it worth trying to improve them rather than going with the industry-wide trend to active pixel sensors? The single biggest disadvantage of CCDs is their greater read noise, which is related to the fact that the charge from each photosite is moved to the corners of the sensor without amplification, using a succession of thousands of hops of the charge from one photosite to the next, first down a column of photosites to the edge, and then (far faster) along the edge to a corner. Active pixel CMOS sensors instead move the signal directly from a photosite to the edge of the sensor in a single step via a voltage signal, and this is done with amplification: the charge on a photosite is mapped to a proportionately larger change in a sense capacitor at the bottom of the column. This amplification (when combined with DCS) is the key to the lower read noise and high dynamic range of active pixel sensors. Doing ADC at the bottom of each column is a subsequent improvement, but even without that, Canon's older technology CMOS sensors with their off-board ADC win easily on low noise and DR over CCDs.
The only way I can see usefully adding on-chip ADC to a CCD is doing it in column parallel style, but that still has the problems associated with the thousands of hops of the unamplified charge signal down the column. How would that be better than the active pixel sensor approach?
Uh, Erik, I know you were trying to simplify, but, if that was your aim, I think you succeeded altogether too well. As somebody who's put together a lot of analog/digital systems, I can testify that no ADC is perfect. There are static and dynamic errors, and they are often noisy, so that error has both a stochastic and a predictable component. Even a perfect ADC has an error of plus or minus half the least-significant bit, and practical ones, especially in the rarefied atmosphere of 14 bits, have more. When I have modeled cameras, I often use mean ADC errors of 0.5 to 1.5 LSBs, in addition to the worst-case half-LSB theoretical error.
That aside, you're doing a great job of explaining complex things very well in this thread, as usual.
Jim
Wow, lots of technical stuff I don't understand.
If CMOS can be done better, than sure, lets have it. Only I want to see the same or better quality of color as we get with a CCD; so far I haven't.
Hi Jim
A question: It seems that the Nikon cameras having Sony sensors are "low ISO DR kings", the D3S and D4 have external converters and very high ISO capability but cannot achieve the same DR as the Sony sensors. My impression is that the only explanation is that the sensors give very clean signal, but the ADCs have significant noise. So the clean signal from the CMOS sensor is going to variable gain amplifiers, increasing amplification reduces shadow noise, but pushes some of the signal beyond ACD range. Would the ACD be 14-bit "clean", those sensors would also excel with low ISO DR. Is that correct?
It's my understand that all modern Nikon cameras are using a Sony Sensor, as Nikon does not have a fab plant like Canon. It's my understanding Nikon has never produced a sensor, even back to the D1 in 1999. I may have this wrong.
The sensors in the D4, D4s may have tuned more to the high iso than producing the low iso DR.
Paul
Thanks for making that point, I have very limited knowledge of electronics. Well, I have limited knowledge about most of things ;-)
The point I tried to make is that ADCs just convert a voltage into numbers. Clearly there is noise and un-linearity, but I would guess that any of that would apply to low signal levels (that is shadows/darks) and the quality of the ADC plays a much smaller role on mid tones where the sampled analogue signal is quiet strong. So I don't think that "MFD magic" comes from better ADCs.
A question: It seems that the Nikon cameras having Sony sensors are "low ISO DR kings", the D3S and D4 have external converters and very high ISO capability but cannot achieve the same DR as the Sony sensors. My impression is that the only explanation is that the sensors give very clean signal, but the ADCs have significant noise. So the clean signal from the CMOS sensor is going to variable gain amplifiers, increasing amplification reduces shadow noise, but pushes some of the signal beyond ACD range. Would the ACD be 14-bit "clean", those sensors would also excel with low ISO DR. Is that correct?
If A/D is on chip or on board, does that make a difference for the end user? (I don't know)The primary difference between CCDs and active pixel CMOS sensors is not where the A/D is done: Canon for example still uses off-board ADC, like all CCD cameras do.
With the introduction of CMOS sensors into the medium-format world, what does the future look like for CCD sensors?
In your view, is there a CCD look or is it something that is vastly overvalued?
Is CMOS in your future or are you one of the photographers who is not so impressed with the latest CMOS medium-format sensor offerings?
What is your view in general about the impressions of other photographers about the CMOS sensors? Is the problem only the price? Do you predict a good future or a serious flop of the new equipment?
An interesting aspect of large CCDs is that they are sold in different quality levels depening on how many pixels that are broken -- more broken pixels, cheaper sensor. Yes, your digital back probably has a few, a part of "calibration" is to map out the broken pixels which then are interpolated by neighboring working pixels.
I don't know if CMOS sensors are sold in the same way, and if that limits yield.
I think they have a look to them. But my experience is limited.
With the introduction of CMOS sensors into the medium-format world, what does the future look like for CCD sensors?
In your view, is there a CCD look or is it something that is vastly overvalued?
Is CMOS in your future or are you one of the photographers who is not so impressed with the latest CMOS medium-format sensor offerings?
What is your view in general about the impressions of other photographers about the CMOS sensors? Is the problem only the price? Do you predict a good future or a serious flop of the new equipment?
:o I buy about 4 drives a year, but then some shoots only involve 20 frames, I am yet to break/replace a shutter.
The primary difference between CCDs and active pixel CMOS sensors is not where the A/D is done: Canon for example still uses off-board ADC, like all CCD cameras do.
Instead most basic difference is that an active pixel CMOS sensor reads out each photosite by transferring the signal directly to the edge of the sensor, and amplifying it in the process, which helps to reduce the effect of subsequent noise in the analog electronic signal path. I see no good reason why anyone remains nostalgic for the older, slower, noisier, unamplified approach of a CCD. In particular, Ronald's idea of a CCD with on-chip ADC might be viable, but it would not address the primary disadvantage of CCD's.
On the other hand, most recent active pixel sensor designs [Sony EXMOR, recent Panasonic 4/3" sensors, the Aptina sensors in Nikon One cameras, the CMOSIS sensor of the newest Leica M, etc.] also then do the ADC on the sensor, and in fact do it with an ADC unit at the end of each column of photosites, and this early ADC seems to help further with noise reduction, by avoiding the need for the analog signal to be transferred along the sensor's edge and beyond.
CCDs might be better suited to small volume products: apparently, once a basic CDD photosite is designed, it is relatively easy to lay out sensors of various shapes and sizes using that photosite design, whereas each different shape and size of active pixel CMOS sensor requires more new design work.
With the CCD cameras I've owned and still use, I see a difference, our crew sees a difference, our retoucher sees a difference, when client's select images from our portfolio about 70% are from CCD images and since more than half of what we show is from cmos cameras, that's interesting.
I know the assistants see a difference because they all ask to borrow the contax/phase and now the leica and they don't ask unless they really want something.
Though except for certain situations, I'm off the ten billion iso, 600 frames a set squirrel wheel.
Due to budget and time restraints I got into that but 400 frames of junk is 400 frames of junk. I'd rather have 20 good options that work.
I'm also off the we'll fix it in post style of working. That only goes so far and post production should be a part of the beginning creative brief, not a band aid to fix something.
To me CCD cameras work great in post processing.
Whether the look comes from a filter array, the convertor or the sensor I don't really care. I just know what I see and I see it from the cropped sensor M8 to the p21+, p30+, Aptus 22 and the Leica S2.
In fact I bought the Leica because I knew cmos was coming and I thought I should get in while there was still something left to get.
A great byproduct of the S2 was how well it handled HMI and even LED lighting. We do a lot of parallel productions with motion and stills and usually my cmos camera files look washed out and thin with hmi lighting, the ccd has bit and color.
All of the samples I've posted from the S2 were continuous lighting, mostly hmi.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/leica_s2.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/la_per_innerwear_1.jpg)
and this is the original crop
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/la_per_innerwear_2.jpg)
This was a one off from the same session with the oly em-1 and it's pretty it worked, but it's a much more fragile file than the Leica and much more difficult to separate colors.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/yel_vs_skirt_oly.jpg)
Anyway, we shoot a lot of images, This is 9 months of master raws
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/2013_lacie_1tb.jpg)
and I stopped counting numbers when we crossed the 300 terabyte count. (which obviously covers a number of years). though I based my opinion ONLY on my experience.
I don't know or care how other photographers get their results, that's none of my business.
But let me be clear, that doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I'm right for me. We all work differently, we all have different end agendas and obviously different opinions.
IMO
BC
Actually, I think I'll probably also buy one of the old CCD Pentaxes or a Leica S when the prices have fallen.
I think your fine with what you have, given what you shoot.
I don't think your going to see a Lecia S anything or a Pentax 645 drop that much in price. The people that use medium format generally have no issue lighting a scene or using a tripod.
Also you didn't factor in the price of lenses.
Actually, if I worked only for pleasure i'd buy another M8 or two M9's a few lenses and never look back, because they do about everything I would need for personal work. For commerce things like tethering come into play.
IMO
BC
Nothing stops a CCD design from adding an on-chip AD at the end of each half line or half column, on chip or off chip.
Actually, if I worked only for pleasure i'd buy another M8 or two M9's a few lenses and never look back, because they do about everything I would need for personal work. For commerce things like tethering come into play.
Nothing stops a CCD design from adding an onchip AD at the end of each half line or half column, on chip or off chip.Yes, as I said in my comments that you quoted, your idea of a CCD with on-chip ADC idea might be "viable", but as I also said, earlier ADC is not the main reason that CMOS is stomping over CCD by almost every measure, and was not relevant at all to the way that Canon's CMOS gave it dominance over competing DLSRs when they were still using CCDs. Instead, it is the noise and DR advantage of early on-chip amplification in active pixel sensor designs.
Existing designs have 4 readouts, I believe.
Yes, as I said in my comments that you quoted, your idea of a CCD with on-chip ADC idea might be "viable", but as I also said, earlier ADC is not the main reason that CMOS is stomping over CCD by almost every measure, and was not relevant at all to the way that Canon's CMOS gave it dominance over competing DLSRs when they were still using CCDs. Instead, it is the noise and DR advantage of early on-chip amplification in active pixel sensor designs.
Perhaps you should read my subject line before you reply, so that you do not miss my main point.
I just bought a second M8(.2) and have arranged to sell my A7r, FE lenses & various adapters to a friend-of-a-friend (at close to cost). For me the M8's pleasure factor is off the charts. My favorite M lenses just sing with it too. Unloading the Sony also frees up time & opportunities for using the 645D. Sometimes ya gotta do the wrong thing to find out what the right thing is. ;)
-Dave-
I'd need to understand your point before I get it.Just read up on how active pixel CMOS sensors work, and on the read noise and DR measurements for the best ones compared to the best CCDs. Or look at the deep shadows in samples for a quick demo of the far lower noise floor of good CMOS. The key is the word "active"!
I'm tired, obstinate, and unconvinced :)
Let me sleep on this ...
As a happy 645D user who has been tempted by the size and weight of the A7r, I'd love to hear why you dumped the Sony.
With the CCD cameras I've owned and still use, I see a difference, our crew sees a difference, our retoucher sees a difference, when client's select images from our portfolio about 70% are from CCD images and since more than half of what we show is from cmos cameras, that's interesting.
There is an engineering explanation already: the secret is in the CFA optimisation for colour or for ISO. Almost all dslr CMOS have been optimised to provide great iso, but not the IQ250 which is optimised for colour, even Phase One has said it themselves.
Are you saying that, in the IQ250, Phase One is using a different CFA than the other two manufacturers who are offering products (H5D-50c, 645Z) based on the same chip? Or are you saying that all three manufacturers are using the same CFA, and that it's different from the CFA used on Sony's smaller chips? The fact that the base ISO is the same for all three indicates that the CFAs are the same for all three 33x44mm-sensor cameras wrt ISO/color tradeoffs.
Thanks,
Jim
You are right.OK! Doug Peterson, you have your marching orders.
There is an engineering explanation already: the secret is in the CFA optimisation for colour or for ISO. Almost all dslr CMOS have been optimised to provide great iso, but not the IQ250 which is optimised for colour, even Phase One has said it themselves.
So I would not worry.
Leica has not been using state of the art sensors, so it's not surprising that they have had issues with quality. I would not take their CMOS issues as a sign that there's a specific problem with CMOS on the whole.
Testing with a Color Checker the Sony is almost dead accurate and the P45+ less so. Using an IT8 target the Sony is still more accurate, but Capture One comes close if linear curve is used.
This is where the engineer and the photographer part ways:
In engineering you are looking for 100% accuracy or as close to it as possible.
In photography, you are looking for the most pleasing picture.
Case and point, Leaf Aptus which had very inaccurate colors, but still the files were very popular.
I remember shooting a catalog for a designer, where about 50% of the items were in completely the wrong color, no matter how hard I tried to push them in the right direction (it happens with some mid-tones). I was expecting furious reaction from the client, but it never came, and the client continued to come back. With painters it's different though, and they want the right colors to appear in the reproduction. A photographer complained in this forum a few days ago about the "washed out" colors of Credo compared to Aptus, because the Credo colors are much more accurate. I'll still take the Credo as I was feeling quite uncomfortable with the Aptus color interpretation, but the question at hand is not measured color accuracy, but how nice do the end result images look.
I would say that this may be a bit of blanket statement.
Edmund, can you tell more about what texture issues are? Is it aa filter related or something else?
So you saying that Canon is using CMYG and Phase is using RGGB?
I was sure everybody were using RGGB.
I agree, I'm just repeating what many are saying, have not been able to safely verify it myself. There has been a few other "well-known truths" about MF image quality that has turned out to be marketing b*llshit when really drilling down, like the "16 bit DR" thing. So I can't guarantee that it's true, but I find it reasonable... even if not true concerning color vs ISO, it could be true pleasing vs accurate or some other criteria, what's certain is that different sensors have different CFAs, and sometime even the same sensor type can be equipped with different CFAs for different manufacturers.
For what it is worth to this discussion, here is a post I made on another board comparing the CCD an CMOS in the Hasselblad offerings.
I've been asked for some comparisons between the H4D-60 and the H5D-50c. These first three pairs were shot at ISO 100 (which is base ISO for the H5D-50c; base for the H4D-60 is ISO50). All were shot within a minute of each other, and from the same stationary tripod. These are all straight out of LR5 with no corrections or sharpening.
With the HC 100
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f11_45th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f11_40th.jpg
With HC 50 II
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f8_15th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f8_15th.jpg
With HC 50 II
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f8_125th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f8_125th.jpg
When I first used the new camera I had the impression that the colors were hotter--a little more saturated and vibrant--than my older rig, but this isn't evident when you compare them side by side at ISO100. The H4D-60 exposes 2/3 of a stop higher than the H5D-50c across all settings, but this is probably due to normal camera variation. I'll be damned if I can tell any difference in resolution or sharpness between these two cameras. The major differences are, of course, the crop factor and the ability of the H5D-50c to sing at higher ISOs.
I'll continue to posts comparisons, next at higher ISO and faces.
For what it is worth to this discussion, here is a post I made on another board comparing the CCD an CMOS in the Hasselblad offerings.
I've been asked for some comparisons between the H4D-60 and the H5D-50c. These first three pairs were shot at ISO 100 (which is base ISO for the H5D-50c; base for the H4D-60 is ISO50). All were shot within a minute of each other, and from the same stationary tripod. These are all straight out of LR5 with no corrections or sharpening.
With the HC 100
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f11_45th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f11_40th.jpg
With HC 50 II
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f8_15th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f8_15th.jpg
With HC 50 II
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h4d60_iso100_f8_125th.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23138385/h5d50c_iso100_f8_125th.jpg
When I first used the new camera I had the impression that the colors were hotter--a little more saturated and vibrant--than my older rig, but this isn't evident when you compare them side by side at ISO100. The H4D-60 exposes 2/3 of a stop higher than the H5D-50c across all settings, but this is probably due to normal camera variation. I'll be damned if I can tell any difference in resolution or sharpness between these two cameras. The major differences are, of course, the crop factor and the ability of the H5D-50c to sing at higher ISOs.
I'll continue to posts comparisons, next at higher ISO and faces.
I find it quite interesting that many both say that they don't need many megapixels and that they don't want any AA filter.Perhaps (some of) those people are judging their images unsharpened at 1:1 on a computer screen, and finding that the larger sensel, non AA filtered images look better in that condition than cameras of smaller sensels featuring AA filters?
FWIW I tested a Phase P25 back against a 5D3.
Same relative lens setup (primes) and found that whilst the colours were exactly the same the phase was slightly sharper. Probably because there was no AA filter to screw things up.
[...]
If someone came out with a CMOS version of the P25 (same 9 micron pixel count) I'd be all over that in a heartbeat and I really think the sensor manufacturing is focused on the wrong thing.
I don't need 50mp for my line of work. Even 22mp is overkill.
Perhaps (some of) those people are judging their images unsharpened at 1:1 on a computer screen, and finding that the larger sensel, non AA filtered images look better in that condition than cameras of smaller sensels featuring AA filters?
It would be a strange (myopic?) setting to base ones purchase of expensive image-producing equipment on, but I have heard of stranger things.
-h
| P45+ | 3.9my (Sony Alpha 99) |
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png) |
If you want larg-ish sensor, low-ish MP count _and_ state-of-the-art sensor tech, then the Sony A7S might be something to investigate?
When I listen to music I don't strive for 44100 Hz native D/A converters using no interpolation filter. Rather, I want the best D/A there is, and this usually means a very high sample rate, combined with noise-shaping/dithering and resampling to give good performance in the audible band. Same with image sensors, I expect that we will at some stage have camera sensors that have "spatial resolution" way in excess of what we need (or what lenses can realistically resolve), or what there is normally photon counts to excite at normal noise level. The I expect this sensor to provide very good image quality at sensible image reprodution sizes. See http://ee.usc.edu/faculty_staff/faculty_directory/fossum.htm
-h
I don't think it's idiotic to prefer a camera like the M8 which can take a huge amount of uprezzing for some reason to one which has a similar number of sharp pixels but cannot do crop/enlarge.
Yeah, I'm amazed at just how well M8 files uprez & print at sizes you'd think would be beyond the safe zone. Except for the occasional bit of moiré it's been all upside with this camera. Wish I'd discovered this a year ago...coulda saved myself a lot of time, effort & $$. :o
-Dave-
How is the M9?
How is the M9?
Edmund
Different ;D
http://pskiss.com/shop/cross-camera-color-profiles/
Well,
I don't disagree with you, but one of my observations were that those images could be made pretty close, if work flow is calibrated and matched.
My guess is that the profiles provided with C1 for Phase One backs may be better than those provided for say Nikon cameras. Some posters here even found that profiles for the IQ-250 worked better with Nikon D800 than the D800 profile provided by C1.
That said, I am an engineer with photography as a pastime and quite interested in the engineering part of it…
Best regards
Erik
What kind, since you bring it up? Electrical, Mechanical, Software, Optical? The term engineer is used for so many things...
Edit - I would guess software since you seem quite skilled with it.
Hi,
I made a test/demo of this a while ago, the image below was shot on a P45+ with a Sonnar 150/4 at 3.8 m. The P45+ has 6.8 my pixels and no AA-filter.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png)
another shot was made with a 70-400/4-5.6 G at 150 mm on a Sony Alpha 77 also at 3.8 m, the Sony has 3.9 my pixels and may have AA-filter. So the focal length and distance is the same. The difference is essentially the size of the pixels.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.png)
The two lenses are about the same quality.
Below, an enlarged P45+ image for better viewing.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a_large.png)
Finally, this is the 3.9 image downscaled to same size as the P45+ image:
P45+ 3.9my (Sony Alpha 99) (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png)
Full article is here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
So, I feel there is a merit to small pixels. On the other hand looking at individual pixels on screen is a bit different from viewing a print.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik!
I am sure you will see much better results from the P45 with the best lenses like the 60cfi, 100cfi and 180cfi.
The 150mm is a portrait lens and is far from the sharpest lens. Even the 120 macro is not very good with a high res digital back.
Love reading your tests!
Henrik
I tried using the phase one iq250 adobe profile with the d800 in photoshop and the color hues are all wrong, my guess the same thing will happen in C1.
Hi Henrik,
Thanks for feedback!
Some of those lenses are on my shopping list. I actually replaced my Sonnar 150/4 with the 180/4 CFi and I am very happy with it.
The 120/4 is now also a CFi, and I will keep it as I want to have a macro lens. The 100/3.5 is on the long term list, but I feel that I have to many lenses in that focal range, 80 and 120. It may come that I replace 50 -> 60 and 80->100, replacing the 150/4 with 180/4 was the first step in that process.
I bought my lenses after checking the MTF curves from Zeiss, and the Sonnar 150/4 is one of the better ones, but the 180/4 is a bit better.
With regard to this test I wanted to see if the relatively large pixels would cause fake patterns on a low contrast natural subject and what effect OLP filtering and small pixels had. What I found was smaller pixels give more truthful reproduction.
A couple of observations:
- This is pixel peeping at worst, the question is if these fake patterns are visible in print? They may be, I need to print to find out.
- MTF data only goes down to 40 lp/mm, while the P45+ is around 73 lp/mm
I measured MTF for the lenses, and the Sonnar is a tiny bit better than the 70-400/4-5.6 I used at 150 mm (f/8). See enclosed figures, Sonnar on top and the 70-400/4-5.6 at bottom. The MTF measurement is a bit off-axis but still in the central area.
Best regards
Erik
(Idiotic comments on)
And yes, if you believe I don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about you're probably right, but maybe that's because we've walked off the edge of the luminous world where one looks at images and into the jungle world of finite digital numbers where digital reflections of mathematical entities are being pushed around in a brittle way, and we should just use equations to talk our way past this point.
(Idiotic comments off)
I dare you. ::)
My "dare" was not really serious, but I like the concepts in the first document you cited. Seems to be an approach about measuring texture loss which could give good results.
Hi,
The methodology described in the first article is used by the German monthly "Color Photo", but I think they only use it on JPEGs.
I don't think we see similar noise reduction in raw files, although some noise reduction in raw have been noted by DxO on some cameras. They check for this routinely.
Best regards
Erik
I dunno. I'm very interested in some of the wavelet transform ideas - not the details, of course I don't understand those :) but I'm a bit put off by the fact that discrete wavelet transforms seem not to be translation invariant, so I think I'm going to have to go back to earlier work. I just read through the first half of the Wong book on discrete Fourier analysis (http://www.amazon.com/Discrete-Fourier-Analysis-Pseudo-Differential-Operators/dp/3034801157/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398668541&sr=1-1&keywords=wong+discrete+fourier+analysis) which shows nicely how the frequency and time-frequency models interact. The internet is incredible as a library.I think that wavelets were hyped in the 90s. Although the rationale behind and continous behaviour of wavelets may excite physicists and mathematicians, I think that the practical possibilities have (up until now) been quite similar to e.g. the time/frequency analysis filterbanks that have been used in e.g. electronic engineering for half a century or more.
Edmund
We may not be seeing noise reduction on raw, but we sure are seeing a considerable amount of subjective texture loss.Is the cutoff for this texture loss sensel-pitch-dependant? If so, one would assume that something like the D800 can be compared to a D700 under identical conditions to figure out what kind of flaws the D700 has? It might also be interesting to compare the Leica M9 with the Leica M monochrome to see if color capability has anything to do with it.
It would be nice to be able to translate this subjective perception into a measurable quality.
Edmund
I think that wavelets were hyped in the 90s. Although the rationale behind and continous behaviour of wavelets may excite physicists and mathematicians, I think that the practical possibilities have (up until now) been quite similar to e.g. the time/frequency analysis filterbanks that have been used in e.g. electronic engineering for half a century or more.
-h
I don't know. I would agree there has been a lot of wavelet hype. However, when we image a subject, in first analysis we image 3D texture interacting with lighting: Moss, brick, clouds, water, snow, skin are not shaded solids.If you are talking about closely emulating the HVS, then I guess that one would need to discuss with the people who do just that. I don't know those things.
Texture is not something well described by conventional geometry. An analysis of texture implies the understanding of the object under various transforms of which scale transforms seem to be part, and whether one likes it or not this is not something which Fourier does naturally. I mean, one can do it with Fourier constructions, but Fourier does not -to me at least- seem to be something that generates or analyses textures naturally.
Wavelets seems to be just a class of digital convolution filters with some interesting time/frequency properties. Other linear filters may have other properties that may or may not map better to a given scene, how the HVS works, and how we want to present this information for manual/automated analysis.
-h
I measured MTF for the lenses, and the Sonnar is a tiny bit better than the 70-400/4-5.6 I used at 150 mm (f/8). See enclosed figures, Sonnar on top and the 70-400/4-5.6 at bottom. The MTF measurement is a bit off-axis but still in the central area.
Wavelets are used extensively in the processing of astro-photos...
Erik,
A bit more fun comparing apples to oranges for pixel peepers. I photographed a slanted edge with the Nikon D800e and the Zeiss 135 mm f/2 Apo Sonnar lens and analyzed the images with Imatest using the same settings that you used, rendering with ACR 8.4.1 and PV2012, using the highest quality JPEG (since it preserves the EXIF data). No sharpening was applied. The Nikon lacks a low pass filter and has a pixel size of 4.87 μm. The Nyquist frequency is 102 lp/mm. This compares to your Sony A77 which has a pixel size of 3.9 μm and a Nyquist of 128 lp/mm. Since your Imatest results show minimal response at Nyquist, I presume a low pass filter is present.
The Sony should out-resolve the Nikon since it has a finer pixel pitch, but may need deconvolution sharpening to offset the effect of the low pass filter.
The Nikon with the Zeiss lens outresolves the Sony in these tests, illustrating that the lens is usually more important than the sensor. However the higher response at Nyquist indicates alaising. However, I rarely observe alaising in normal images, but it does show up in spades with Bart's sinusoidal star chart.
Your insights are welcome.
Regards,
Bill
And they form the basis of JPEG 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000).JPEG 2000 is hardly a successful standard. Does that make it "fringe"? (not sure that the lacking success of Jpeg2k is dues to wavelets, though).
Definitely not a fringe technology.
Jim
Wavelets are used extensively in the processing of astro-photos, in fact a lot of the software for that niche has wavelets built in. You might want to discuss the pros/cons with an astronomer. Mike Unsold (a mathematician) who wrote Images Plus uses wavelets in his sharpening demos that come with the program. He is helpful if you contact him.I am not saying that wavelets are without use. I am saying that wavelets seems to be a re-invention of filterbanks. New terminology, fascinating mathematical derivations, but as far as I can see, few new results.
In my original test I also had a 6 micron pixel camera with OLP filter. What I saw was that the OLP filter reduced colour moiré, but there was still some moiré and very much fake detail. So the conclusion I arrived at is that small pixels are more important to keep aliasing down than the OLP filter. It seems that the OLP filter is dimensioned to reduce colour aliasing, but doesn't affect grayscale moiré.
As a side note, thanks for posting the MTF data. It may give me some ideas on the possible gain by a high quality lens. Could you post the raw, I would be most thankful.
Erik,
Here is a link to the raw file which I uploaded to Adobe Creative Cloud. If you have not used this facility, simply load the link into your browser and click on the download button and then on the dropdown menu with the name of the file. It downloaded on my machine as _DSC3084.X-NIKON-NEF and had to be renamed to _DSC3084.NEF in order to be opened in ACR.
Regards,
Bill
http://adobe.ly/1rCmPEO