Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on January 05, 2014, 06:31:20 am
-
With Sinar being integrated into the Leitz group, they can now offer solutions for all large sensor photography, but surely there is a gap that needs to be full filed to connect the two lines as they now exist, Sinar now only makes tethered backs (all MS capable) and only view cameras. Leica makes a large sensor integrated DSLR which can't have its back removed. The first move for integration was another version of Sinar's P2/P3/PDslr camera, that can take a Leica S (more than Canon or Nikon Dslrs) on its "rear standard" to be used instead of an MFDB. But surely this is a compromise for view camera users.
If one buys a Sinar MFDB there is no MF camera platform on either firms to use it on, OTOH leica's S-mount looks that has being designed having adapters in mind, where other MF camera users (Hasselblad-H & Contax 645 currently-more to be expected), can use their lenses fully integrated of their functioning on a Leica-S. I believe it makes sense if Leica (or Sinar), will come up with a new MF camera platform with interchangeable back capabilities, that would be able to take Sinarbacks on it and a new lens line to support it, that would (via an adapter) be able to be used on the Leica-S as well. It also makes sense if Sinar will come back to re-make self contained versions of their digital backs for that new platform (now they only do tethered) as they used to.
In the mean time, it's great news for Contax645 users, their system can play that same "role" to "bridge" the gap between Sinar and Leica, their lenses are fully compatible with Leica-S, and their MFDBs can be fitted on a Sinar view camera for work with movements… Heck! It even makes sense if Leica will invest to resurrect C645 instead of investing on a new platform now they have the adapter and Contax has a wide base of good lenses spread all over the world.
-
All very good points, and a logical explanation of the decision.
-
All very good points, and a logical explanation of the decision.
Indeed. We all want a Rollei Hy6 6x6 sturdy body, sensor rotation, Hasselblad True Focus AF, with Phase software and tethering, Leica lenses, Red-grade 4K video or at least Canon-quality liveview, Canon Wifi iPad remote use, Canon CPS service with loaner, Doug Peterson 24 hour hotline, and Nikon 36MP prices. Does the back/sensor maker matter? No, everybody knows how to do that now.
At least that makes it clear what we expect from Sinar.
Edmund
-
Indeed. We all want a Rollei Hy6 6x6 sturdy body, sensor rotation, Hasselblad True Focus AF, with Phase software and tethering, Leica lenses, Red-grade 4K video or at least Canon-quality liveview, Canon Wifi iPad remote use, Canon CPS service with loaner, Doug Peterson 24 hour hotline, and Nikon 36MP prices. Does the back/sensor maker matter? No, everybody knows how to do that now.
At least that makes it clear what we expect from Sinar.
Edmund
Add Pentax weather sealing + Sony DR and you have my vote!
-
Hi,
Synn makes a good point, on weather proofing.
I guess what we need to wait for is the Nikon 36MP price. My guess is that Leica will 'make' it's own sensor, based on the design used in the Leica M(240).
Doug Petersn would be nice for sure, but I don't think he is Leica. Steve Hendrix would do just fine :-)
Best regards
Erik
Indeed. We all want a Rollei Hy6 6x6 sturdy body, sensor rotation, Hasselblad True Focus AF, with Phase software and tethering, Leica lenses, Red-grade 4K video or at least Canon-quality liveview, Canon Wifi iPad remote use, Canon CPS service with loaner, Doug Peterson 24 hour hotline, and Nikon 36MP prices. Does the back/sensor maker matter? No, everybody knows how to do that now.
At least that makes it clear what we expect from Sinar.
Edmund
-
Indeed. We all want a Rollei Hy6 6x6 sturdy body, sensor rotation, Hasselblad True Focus AF, with Phase software and tethering, Leica lenses, Red-grade 4K video or at least Canon-quality liveview, Canon Wifi iPad remote use, Canon CPS service with loaner, Doug Peterson 24 hour hotline, and Nikon 36MP prices. Does the back/sensor maker matter? No, everybody knows how to do that now.
At least that makes it clear what we expect from Sinar.
Edmund
Most possible IMO, is if they create a new platform and add a dedicated adapter for HY6 and 6xxx series lens to be fully compatible on the S-cameras. This would both add them with the necessary platform to "bridge" the two lines (of Leica and Sinar as they exist now) and allow people to use their own "bridge platforms" (as they now can do if they have Contax), to do the same… Never the less, such a move (inducing a "connecting" platform between Leica-S and Sinar) would bring competition "under serious pressure" 8).
-
My guess is that Leica will 'make' it's own sensor, based on the design used in the Leica M(240).
According to rumors Leica would be working on a new sensor with Truesense (ex-Kodak).
Please also note that in the meanwhile CMOSIS (the manufacturer of the M Type 240 sensor) has been acquired by a an investment company called TA Associates.
If CMOSIS was truly of strategic importance to Leica my guess is that they probably would have to tried to acquire CMOSIS themselves.
-
Thanks,
that makes some sense.
Best regards
Erik
According to rumors Leica would be working on a new sensor with Truesense (ex-Kodak).
Please also note that in the meanwhile CMOSIS (the manufacturer of the M Type 240 sensor) has been acquired by a an investment company called TA Associates.
If CMOSIS was truly of strategic importance to Leica my guess is that they probably would have to tried to acquire CMOSIS themselves.
-
Broadcom has gobbled up Renesas. A lot of change in the sensor field.
My take is that whatever happens we will get underperforming overpriced luxury goods, and Doug and Steve will sell a thousand IQ280/Alpa combos to the Getty, move to the Canary islands, open a beachhouse bar and mail us iPhone pix of Rob guzzling their Daquiris surrounded by the local hotties and James playing the saxophone :)
Edmund
-
According to rumors Leica would be working on a new sensor with Truesense (ex-Kodak).
Please also note that in the meanwhile CMOSIS (the manufacturer of the M Type 240 sensor) has been acquired by a an investment company called TA Associates.
If CMOSIS was truly of strategic importance to Leica my guess is that they probably would have to tried to acquire CMOSIS themselves.
Hi Joris,
I don't think that any camera maker would be interested on investing in sensor technology as of today, the way I see it, imaging companies are better off to concentrate on the mechanical design part and the integration of sensors into their systems than to work on imaging surfaces… Much like as to what was happening in the film days, where camera companies where independent than film makers. An imaging camera maker, may decide to use Cmosis on one day, or Dalsa or Sony or Aptina the other day, depending on what suits better their strategy, or they can design a sensor themselves and get a sensor maker to construct it for them (like Nikon does with their 16.2mp FF sensor that is used on the D4 and Df). Acquiring a sensor construction company from a maker, could possibly mean that the competition would reject that same sensor maker as possible choice for their own imaging areas, or that the sensor maker would restrict production and design to only serve the brother company. Usually, sensor makers make sensors for far more appliances than to be used on an imaging camera. Never the less , I don't see how could Dalsa (if it would be acquired by P1 or other for example) would continue to have Leica (I believe the 45x30mm S-sensor is a different size version of the P65+ and the same happens with Sinar's 48x36mm 48mp sensor for the eVolution 86H MFDB) as a customer.
-
Please also note that in the meanwhile CMOSIS (the manufacturer of the M Type 240 sensor) has been acquired by a an investment company called TA Associates.
If CMOSIS was truly of strategic importance to Leica my guess is that they probably would have to tried to acquire CMOSIS themselves.
The idea of thee being a great advantage for a camera company to own its sensor design resources seems over-rated. Remember when people touted that as an advantage Canon had over Nikon? Now instead Nikon and Olympus seem to benefit from being able to move between multiple sensor design shops and fabs, based on who currently offers the best technology for each particular product.
This is even more so in the case of Leica and the MF makers, which need so few sensors and designs that it makes more economic sense to outsource sensor design to companies that get economies of scale from serving other customers too.
P. S. Note that CMOSIS and Aptina do not make sensors, they only design them (perhaps with input from important customers like Nikon that have significant sensor know-how of their own), with fabrication outsourced to yet another company.
-
Indeed. We all want a Rollei Hy6 6x6 sturdy body, sensor rotation, Hasselblad True Focus AF, with Phase software and tethering, Leica lenses, Red-grade 4K video or at least Canon-quality liveview, Canon Wifi iPad remote use, Canon CPS service with loaner, Doug Peterson 24 hour hotline, and Nikon 36MP prices. Does the back/sensor maker matter? No, everybody knows how to do that now.
At least that makes it clear what we expect from Sinar.
Edmund
You forgot Nikon dynamic range and high iso, Sigma foveon class technology Sony A7 weight (but not size), 250M pixels native, Hasselblad (1 gpigapixel multishot) (filming), 60fps full size, Phase one Sensor Plus, 100m underwater operation and 8 days battery I am not paying for it, And I mean no more than 4K dollars with normal lens :)
Best regards,
J. Duncan
-
If this is turning into a wish list, then may I add a 6x6 sensor to go on my Hy6?
-
If this is turning into a wish list, then may I add a 6x6 sensor to go on my Hy6?
What about Mamyia RZ and GX680 users? …they'll complain if you get yours done! Anyway (seriously now), I don't think it would be wise for Sinar to possibly come up with a new back and leave HY6 or 6xxx users unsupported, they have a great base there, nor I think that there won't be a future for those cameras lenses.
-
I don't see how could Dalsa (if it would be acquired by P1 or other for example) would continue to have Leica (I believe the 45x30mm S-sensor is a different size version of the P65+ and the same happens with Sinar's 48x36mm 48mp sensor for the eVolution 86H MFDB) as a customer.
No, the Leica S/S2 sensor is by Kodak, not Dalsa. It is a close brother of the 40MP Kodak CCD in the Pentax 645D and Hasselblad HxD-40.
Ray
-
Add Pentax weather sealing + Sony DR and you have my vote!
And don't forget a flange distance short enough to mount unique M645 lenses like the 24/4 ULD fisheye and the APO telephotos!
Ray
-
Anyway (seriously now), I don't think it would be wise for Sinar to possibly come up with a new back and leave HY6 or 6xxx users unsupported, they have a great base there, nor I think that there won't be a future for those cameras lenses.
Indeed. Sinar have put their name on only two MFD SLR cameras: their own Sinar M (ambitious design but commercial failure) and the Hy6 partnership. It would rile if they got back into MFD cameras and didn't support the Hy6/Rollei ecosystem that they themselves helped to create!
Ray
-
Indeed. Sinar have put their name on only two MFD SLR cameras: their own Sinar M (ambitious design but commercial failure) and the Hy6 partnership. It would rile if they got back into MFD cameras and didn't support the Hy6/Rollei ecosystem that they themselves helped to create!
Ray
When I first saw the Sinar M I thought it was a great concept. I think it was ahead of its time a bit. Maybe with better pricing / marketing / availability it would have built up a large enough customer base for Sinar to develop it further.
-
When I first saw the Sinar M I thought it was a great concept. I think it was ahead of its time a bit. Maybe with better pricing / marketing / availability it would have built up a large enough customer base for Sinar to develop it further.
Apart from the pricing / marketing / availability that you correctly draw attention to, I think another problem was that thing that Hasselblad is always criticised for - it was a "closed system". The only DBs that the M body could mount were Sinarbacks, and the back interface flange was specifically M - yet another new back interface "standard" in a world already overcrowded with back interfaces.
But nevertheless I have massive respect for any camera that can do this:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img854/2471/29dv.jpg)
Medium format digital WITH fast Nikon lenses AND a waist level reflex finder! YOWZA!!
That's not doable with anything currently on the market - neither the Hartblei nor Alpa FPS offer reflex viewing.
Ray
-
Apart from the pricing / marketing / availability that you correctly draw attention to, I think another problem was that thing that Hasselblad is always criticised for - it was a "closed system". The only DBs that the M body could mount were Sinarbacks, and the back interface flange was specifically M - yet another new back interface "standard" in a world already overcrowded with back interfaces.
But nevertheless I have massive respect for any camera that can do this:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img854/2471/29dv.jpg)
Medium format digital WITH fast Nikon lenses AND a waist level reflex finder! YOWZA!!
That's not doable with anything currently on the market - neither the Hartblei nor Alpa FPS offer reflex viewing.
Ray
Forgot about that it is a closed system! Then add that to the list :D It would be awesome if it would work with many other lenses and backs. In concept it seems like a great open system. Almost everything is removable.
-
Sooner or later there will be an MF cottage industry. After the CMOS sensors drop, a camera will essentially be a box with a lens mount for a (central shutter) lens, no shutter, no mirror, no finder, no focus module, no fuss. When that day comes, Sinar and Alpa will be front runners.
Edmund
-
No, the Leica S/S2 sensor is by Kodak, not Dalsa. It is a close brother of the 40MP Kodak CCD in the Pentax 645D and Hasselblad HxD-40.
Ray
Good point… now I've done the calculation works out better than it did with the Dalsa sensor. Thanks.
-
My opinion is that what caused the failure of the M was its "focal plane only" shutter approach, which was made worst by the low sync speed… Another issue was with the size of the camera. Never the less, if Sinar-m was to have LS compatibility with LS lenses (like Leica S does) it would be much more successful… The best thing (IMO) with Sinar-m was the fact that it could add a focal plane shutter and thus MS compatibility on to a view camera… Many users miss this now (having their back attached on to a view camera with only a focal plane shutter in front of the back)… just my 2 cents.
-
Sooner or later there will be an MF cottage industry. After the CMOS sensors drop, a camera will essentially be a box with a lens mount for a (central shutter) lens, no shutter, no mirror, no finder, no focus module, no fuss. When that day comes, Sinar and Alpa will be front runners.
Edmund
Yes, once Medium Format Digital Backs have high quality live view then its just the lens with central shutter and the lens mount / frame + the cables / contacts for communication. One could then just use the rear screen and / or a high quality EVF for composing and focusing. Almost endless configurations are possible. Ideally one would not even need a mechanical shutter. Just like digital cinema cameras. The problem would be the flash sync speed.
-
Yes, once Medium Format Digital Backs have high quality live view then its just the lens with central shutter and the lens mount / frame + the cables / contacts for communication. One could then just use the rear screen and / or a high quality EVF for composing and focusing. Almost endless configurations are possible. Ideally one would not even need a mechanical shutter. Just like digital cinema cameras. The problem would be the flash sync speed.
Leaf shutter lenses only, mean that all other lenses will be thrown away, this will restrict such a camera's appreciation. Another maker will come, build the same, but add a focal plane in front of the sensor and take the market… More than that, what it will be with mechanical leaf shutters and what with the different CPU interface with electronic leaf shutters? Leica works on an "open" lens compatibility with the S… no body else does.
-
Leaf shutter lenses only, mean that all other lenses will be thrown away, this will restrict such a camera's appreciation. Another maker will come, build the same, but add a focal plane in front of the sensor and take the market… More than that, what it will be with mechanical leaf shutters and what with the different CPU interface with electronic leaf shutters? Leica works on an "open" lens compatibility with the S… no body else does.
T.Dascalos,
Be careful. If you praise leica around here they'll call you a wall street guy or a dentist.
IMO
BC
-
T.Dascalos,
Be careful. If you praise leica around here they'll call you a wall street guy or a dentist.
IMO
BC
Just call him a dealer already - Mephisto! there is a soul here waiting for you to claim!
Edmund
-
T.Dascalos,
Be careful. If you praise leica around here they'll call you a wall street guy or a dentist.
IMO
BC
::) LOL… who cares? 8) I'm not either, I do some "street" but I use a Nikon DSLR with primes. ...And I have always hated the M system! ???
-
Just call him a dealer already - Mephisto! there is a soul here waiting for you to claim!
Edmund
Truth is I'd love to be a dealer, ...would have added an S2 with Contax adapter to my C645 already! Anybody for my old R8? Sold my 28, 50 & 90 and I have the body left… Only Leica gear I ever had. If any one is interested, please PM me, it's in great condition! :P
-
Anybody for my old R8?
Tempting... my backup DMR could use a functioning body
-
Tempting... my backup DMR could use a functioning body
Looked for a PM… still nothing! :'(
-
Looked for a PM… still nothing! :'(
PM sent
-
for me the S2 is the epitome of a handheld camera..at least from the long list of what I have shot with. A real joy to shoot. Teaming up with sinar for a technical camera solution is really good for them and those who want some added diversity when shooting locked down. They keep making the right moves and do it with extreme skill and taste.
-
Hi,
I would say that I see two interesting points with the CMOSIS design.
One is that it is said to be better suited to Leica M lenses because it has shallower wells than competing designs.
The second is that I presume that Leica own the design, so they would be able to reuse it in other models.
Other than that I don't disagree.
Best regards
Erik
The idea of thee being a great advantage for a camera company to own its sensor design resources seems over-rated. Remember when people touted that as an advantage Canon had over Nikon? Now instead Nikon and Olympus seem to benefit from being able to move between multiple sensor design shops and fabs, based on who currently offers the best technology for each particular product.
This is even more so in the case of Leica and the MF makers, which need so few sensors and designs that it makes more economic sense to outsource sensor design to companies that get economies of scale from serving other customers too.
P. S. Note that CMOSIS and Aptina do not make sensors, they only design them (perhaps with input from important customers like Nikon that have significant sensor know-how of their own), with fabrication outsourced to yet another company.
-
Hi,
I would say that I see two interesting points with the CMOSIS design.
One is that it is said to be better suited to Leica M lenses because it has shallower wells than competing designs.
The second is that I presume that Leica own the design, so they would be able to reuse it in other models.
Other than that I don't disagree.
Best regards
Erik
Now you say it -
Yes, they could do a with-mirror CMOS S based on those cells, with AF handled by the current in-camera phase-contrast path.
The interesting question is whether that design really stitches well in 2D, and I suspect this was part of the original spec.
For main-sensor AF they'd need a serious redesign. I'd bet they are already working on that as AF is a natural extension of the M.
If Leica were a Japanese company, I'd expect a CMOS S at Photokina, as it stands, I think some new FrankenLeica based on a revision of the CMOSIS design will appear, maybe an AF compact, with an update to the S in a year or so.
Frankly, I wish Leica would just get together with Nokia and make a 40 or 60MP phone with interchangeable lenses or a decent zoom. More useful to more people than the S.
Edmund
-
I very much doubt that Leica will consider an MF CMOS sensor for now… Sinar has always being a company that believes in multishot (their top in the line backs have always being with such capability) and their current line is MS only. All MS backs up to now are CCD, more than that all MFD is CCD... I'm not sure either if a sensor that has A/D convetion "build in" can do MS… I think that the priority for Leica with respect to Sinar currently, will be to "bridge" the two lines with repect to each other, clearly the problem arising is "what MF will suit best a Sinar MFDB customer?" since Leica S2 is a DSLR that doesn't have interchangeable image area, nor it can be (being a DSLR) as effective as an MFDB when used on a Sinar View or Tech camera. Surely they didn't invest without having all the above in mind… They have considered the problem and they have planned for the solution. It shouldn't be long before we see an action for the matter...
-
more than that all MFD is CCD...
Except the Leaf C-MOST and Valeo 6, which were CMOS backs for MF cameras...albeit in 35mm sensor format.
I'm not sure either if a sensor that has A/D convetion "build in" can do MS…
It can. Multishot is merely physical shifting the sensor between sequential exposures, and splicing them together in firmware. That works the same whether the sensor is CCD or CMOS. It might actually work slightly more reliably with CMOS, because the faster readout lowers the risk of movement/vibration problems intervening.
Ray
-
I would say that I see two interesting points with the CMOSIS design.
...
The second is that I presume that Leica own the design, so they would be able to reuse it in other models.
That can be a good reason for having active partnerships with sensor design company and retaining some rights in the joint projects, rather than just buying whatever sensors the maker has in its catalog. This seems to be what Nikon sometimes does in its sensor design partnership with Sony, getting some input into the designs and a period of exclusivity on sensor designs like that of the D800/A7R. In contrast, Pentax seems to have to settle for the sensor models than Sony (and Nikon?) are willing to let them have, and usually gets them somewhat later.
-
Except the Leaf C-MOST and Valeo 6, which were CMOS backs for MF cameras...albeit in 35mm sensor format.
It can. Multishot is merely physical shifting the sensor between sequential exposures, and splicing them together in firmware. That works the same whether the sensor is CCD or CMOS. It might actually work slightly more reliably with CMOS, because the faster readout lowers the risk of movement/vibration problems intervening.
Ray
I know MS well it is in my daily routine… What I doubt is not the mechanical part (surely a piezoelectric crystal can do the shift with either sensors), but whether a sensor with build-in A/D conversion (like Cmos) are can provide "true colour" information to the (exterior) software, the way it happens with CCD (where A/D conversion happens outside the sensor)… In other words, I don't know if the dedicated program to do MS (flexcolor in my case) takes the info it uses after the transistors or after A/D conversion or from the two combined… Surely, if it can be done with Cmos, it will need a new program that won't be compatible with the ones that the makers already have. This all, is only a suspicion I have which I'm not sure about… If one (or you) can be sure on the matter as to enlighten us, it is more than welcome and will be highly appreciated.
-
Hi,
Both CCD and CMOS just give an electronic signal, which in the end is interpreted as a voltage fed to an ADC. So CMOS or CCD has nothing to do with color, the same applies to multishot.
There are two advantages of CMOS over present day CCD devices, the first advantage is lower readout noise, which means that the sensor can go further int darks without producing excessive salt and pepper type noise. The other advantage of CMOS over CCD is continous readout. The latter one is usable for live view.
Modern sensors have very good resolution weather CCD or CMOS, so they need very exact focusing. Technical cameras today have a lot of odd technology for focusing, like extemely long calibrated helicoids that can be used with laser distance meters. Having live view on an MFDB would be very helpful in achieving exact focus with focus peaking and actual pixels view. Live view also would integrate well in tethered shooting situations.
Those are the main reasons I think MF makers will switch to CMOS.
Best regards
Erik
I know MS well it is in my daily routine… What I doubt is not the mechanical part (surely a piezoelectric crystal can do the shift with either sensors), but whether a sensor with build-in A/D conversion (like Cmos) are can provide "true colour" information to the (exterior) software, the way it happens with CCD (where A/D conversion happens outside the sensor)… In other words, I don't know if the dedicated program to do MS (flexcolor in my case) takes the info it uses after the transistors or after A/D conversion or from the two combined… Surely, if it can be done with Cmos, it will need a new program that won't be compatible with the ones that the makers already have. This all, is only a suspicion I have which I'm not sure about… If one (or you) can be sure on the matter as to enlighten us, it is more than welcome and will be highly appreciated.
-
I agree. Liveview and electronic shutter is completely impossible with CCD technology, which is the reason why no CCD TV cameras were ever made :)
Edmund
Hi,
Both CCD and CMOS just give an electronic signal, which in the end is interpreted as a voltage fed to an ADC. So CMOS or CCD has nothing to do with color, the same applies to multishot.
There are two advantages of CMOS over present day CCD devices, the first advantage is lower readout noise, which means that the sensor can go further int darks without producing excessive salt and pepper type noise. The other advantage of CMOS over CCD is continous readout. The latter one is usable for live view.
Modern sensors have very good resolution weather CCD or CMOS, so they need very exact focusing. Technical cameras today have a lot of odd technology for focusing, like extemely long calibrated helicoids that can be used with laser distance meters. Having live view on an MFDB would be very helpful in achieving exact focus with focus peaking and actual pixels view. Live view also would integrate well in tethered shooting situations.
Those are the main reasons I think MF makers will switch to CMOS.
Best regards
Erik
quote author=T.Dascalos link=topic=85784.msg697039#msg697039 date=1389374710]
I know MS well it is in my daily routine… What I doubt is not the mechanical part (surely a piezoelectric crystal can do the shift with either sensors), but whether a sensor with build-in A/D conversion (like Cmos) are can provide "true colour" information to the (exterior) software, the way it happens with CCD (where A/D conversion happens outside the sensor)… In other words, I don't know if the dedicated program to do MS (flexcolor in my case) takes the info it uses after the transistors or after A/D conversion or from the two combined… Surely, if it can be done with Cmos, it will need a new program that won't be compatible with the ones that the makers already have. This all, is only a suspicion I have which I'm not sure about… If one (or you) can be sure on the matter as to enlighten us, it is more than welcome and will be highly appreciated.
-
I agree. Liveview and electronic shutter is completely impossible with CCD technology, which is the reason why no CCD TV cameras were ever made :)
Edmund
Yeah, but most were 3 CCD designs weren't they? I am no scientist but IIRC a color separation prism absorbs much less light than a bayer filter array which absorbs about 2/3 of the light coming in. I know even consumer three ccd video cameras from way back were pretty good even in low light.
But I know what you are hinting at, high quality live view in Digital Cameras with CCD sensors is possible. More so today with so much advancements in technology.
-
I agree. Liveview and electronic shutter is completely impossible with CCD technology, which is the reason why no CCD TV cameras were ever made :)
In fairness to Erik, he is right when he is referring to the high-megapixel realm of MFD CCDs. It's just a question of scale: pre-HD TV cameras were what, VGA resolution? That's just 0.3 MP. In the same time as it takes to read out a single 30MP CCD image, you could feed ~100 VGA images through the same single register, single amplifier, single ADC readout bottleneck inherent in the CCD design. Of course some CCDs use dual or quadrant readouts to help speed up matters by 2x or 4x, but that's still a very long way from the "massively parallel" readouts of CMOS.
Ray
-
whether a sensor with build-in A/D conversion (like Cmos) are can provide "true colour" information to the (exterior) software, the way it happens with CCD (where A/D conversion happens outside the sensor)… In other words, I don't know if the dedicated program to do MS (flexcolor in my case) takes the info it uses after the transistors or after A/D conversion or from the two combined… Surely, if it can be done with Cmos, it will need a new program that won't be compatible with the ones that the makers already have. This all, is only a suspicion I have which I'm not sure about… If one (or you) can be sure on the matter as to enlighten us, it is more than welcome and will be highly appreciated.
OK, thanks, I'll try. When doing multishot, a program like Flexcolor receives the same array of digitized pixel counts from the camera as you would find in a finished RAW frame. It's all post-amplifier, post-ADC; the usual 1 integer value per pixel, representing the intensity captured through the usual 1 CFA colour filter per pixel. Therefore it doesn't matter to the software what type of sensor delivered the image. I wouldn't expect multishot usage to require a major program rewrite just because of a change to CMOS.
Ray
-
Is it true that if I refuse to see you, you don't exist?
The one reproach one could make of these CCDs is that they are not full-frame (eat up some fraction of imaging surface with circuitry).
but 10 frames/s liveview is currently easily doable.
http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/interline-transfer-ccd
Frankly I don't know whether CCD is better than CMOS; but I do know that the imagery coming out of the japanese dSLRs has never reached the quality of the old MF CCDs when the captures are done in good light. And I belong to the older crowd who think that getting it right in physics, and exporting the data to the customer to deal with, is better than endless software massaging in firmware as the japanese dSLR school seem to practice it, the latest example being the strange encoding of the Raws of the Sony A7R.
Edmund
In fairness to Erik, he is right when he is referring to the high-megapixel realm of MFD CCDs. It's just a question of scale: pre-HD TV cameras were what, VGA resolution? That's just 0.3 MP. In the same time as it takes to read out a single 30MP CCD image, you could feed ~100 VGA images through the same single register, single amplifier, single ADC readout bottleneck inherent in the CCD design. Of course some CCDs use dual or quadrant readouts to help speed up matters by 2x or 4x, but that's still a very long way from the "massively parallel" readouts of CMOS.
Ray
-
If I don't see you, you don't exist.
http://www.truesenseimaging.com/products/interline-transfer-ccd
Edmund
Well interline CCDs give you a nice electronic shutter alright, but they still only have up to 4 quadrant readouts, and thus a slow frame rate at higher pixel counts (the biggest Kodak/Truesense one there, the 29MP, manages 4 frames/sec...not great for live view).
And they've never been used in MFD. Maybe because DR is lower than a full-frame type of CCD; and because microlenses are absolutely essential to route the light away from the "dead" areas dedicated to the line transfers and antiblooming - the microlenses make about a 3x - 10x difference in the quantum efficiency. And we all know that microlenses are not friendly to tech-cam lens usage.
Ray
-
Hmm, you edited and extended your post while I was responding to it.
Frankly I don't know whether CCD is better than CMOS; but I do know that the imagery coming out of the japanese dSLRs has never reached the quality of the old MF CCDs when the captures are done in good light.
I agree. But my assessment is that it's not because of CMOS or CCD per se, but because of AA filters (which are only now starting to go out of fashion), and less spectrally selective CFAs, and sensor size.
And I belong to the older crowd who think that getting it right in physics, and exporting the data to the customer to deal with, is better than endless software massaging in firmware as the japanese dSLR school seem to practice it, the latest example being the strange encoding of the Raws of the Sony A7R.
Count me in that older crowd! I detest when manufacturers mess with the RAWs. What is Sony playing at with the A7R? And Nikon, who used non-optional, non-documented low-pass filtering on long exposures. Canon at least do seem to take the proper view of RAW integrity - they don't even subtract the bias offset - respect! Hopefully others too - Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic - I don't know how pure their RAWs are so I can't comment.
Ray
-
Easy editing is what makes the comp superior to the pen!
IMHO, email should also be editable ...
Of course, I perfectly accept that everything you say is true, and yet to be CONVINCED I would wish to be shown a really good CMOS chip. Just one, please.
Edmund
Hmm, you edited and extended your post while I was responding to it.
I agree. But my assessment is that it's not because of CMOS or CCD per se, but because of AA filters (which are only now starting to go out of fashion), and less spectrally selective CFAs, and sensor size.
Count me in that older crowd! I detest when manufacturers mess with the RAWs. What is Sony playing at with the A7R? And Nikon, who used non-optional, non-documented low-pass filtering on long exposures. Canon at least do seem to take the proper view of RAW integrity - they don't even subtract the bias offset - respect! Hopefully others too - Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic - I don't know how pure their RAWs are so I can't comment.
Ray
-
Well interline CCDs give you a nice electronic shutter alright, but they still only have up to 4 quadrant readouts, and thus a slow frame rate at higher pixel counts (the biggest Kodak/Truesense one there, the 29MP, manages 4 frames/sec...not great for live view).
And they've never been used in MFD. Maybe because DR is lower than a full-frame type of CCD; and because microlenses are absolutely essential to route the light away from the "dead" areas dedicated to the line transfers and antiblooming - the microlenses make about a 3x - 10x difference in the quantum efficiency. And we all know that microlenses are not friendly to tech-cam lens usage.
Ray
I'm not sure there are really technical reasons which would limit the number of readouts, or the DR. Re. the Liveview speed, I'd bet that one can design a circuit that subsamples, does less precise A/D, and speeds up the frame rate by an order of magnitude. As for the microlenses, some trick can probably be found to make them flat on top. Or else the "interline" circuitry could be buried inside the chip. My feeling is this technology has been the victim of underinvestment.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I have seen an exact description of the Sony coding, they use fewer bits at high data numbers, using something like 1800 values to represent 8000 values. I would say it's OK and probably a means of putting 13 bits of information trough a 12 bit processing pipeline.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lexa.ru%2F2011%2F10%2F28%2Fo_lineinosti_raw_i_ettr.html
The other things they do is data compression on block level.
It is data compression and image manipulation. I guess it may have to do with Sony using the same technology for stills and video.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.lexa.ru%2F2012%2F12%2F29%2Fo_sortakh_raw_u_sony.html
The author of the article suggests that this could cause problems on steep gradients, if my interpretation of the google translation is correct.
Best regards
Erik
Hmm, you edited and extended your post while I was responding to it.
I agree. But my assessment is that it's not because of CMOS or CCD per se, but because of AA filters (which are only now starting to go out of fashion), and less spectrally selective CFAs, and sensor size.
Count me in that older crowd! I detest when manufacturers mess with the RAWs. What is Sony playing at with the A7R? And Nikon, who used non-optional, non-documented low-pass filtering on long exposures. Canon at least do seem to take the proper view of RAW integrity - they don't even subtract the bias offset - respect! Hopefully others too - Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic - I don't know how pure their RAWs are so I can't comment.
Ray
-
Hi,
May be, but one of the proven benefit of CDDs have been the fill factor. Using interline CCD-s half of that would be given up. CCDs also build on transferring charges from cell to cell, so most charges are popped from cell to cell several thousands of times. I don't think ADC-s can be put on CCDs, and it also seems that available external ADC-s are a bit noisy.
This is said to be the reason that Canons have limited DR, the signal from the sensor is very clean but the ADC is noisy. At high ISO the clean signal from the sensor is amplified before ADC, and the amplified signal is still clean, that is the reason Canons perform so well at higher ISOs.
It may be that CCDs could be developed more, but at this stage it seems that CCDs have no (or little) advantages over CMOS, there is little reason to push an old technology over a newer technology when the newer technology is good enough.
Best regards
Erik
I'm not sure there are really technical reasons which would limit the number of readouts, or the DR. Re. the Liveview speed, I'd bet that one can design a circuit that subsamples, does less precise A/D, and speeds up the frame rate by an order of magnitude. As for the microlenses, some trick can probably be found to make them flat on top. Or else the "interline" circuitry could be buried inside the chip. My feeling is this technology has been the victim of underinvestment.
Edmund
-
Ray,
Just to say, I have a P45+ and I have a lot of issues with color aliasing, so I don't see the lack of OLP filtering as a benefit. The benefit I see with MFD is sensor size.
Regarding spectral selectivity, I would say you are probably right, even if I am quite a bit enigmatic about the colour rendition of my P45+.
This i a small write up I made on aliasing: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/78-aliasing-and-supersampling-why-small-pixels-are-good
Best regards
Erik
I agree. But my assessment is that it's not because of CMOS or CCD per se, but because of AA filters (which are only now starting to go out of fashion), and less spectrally selective CFAs, and sensor size.
-
Why do people assume the fill factor is better for CMOS than for CCD?
Edmund
-
Hi,
May be, but one of the proven benefit of CDDs have been the fill factor. Using interline CCD-s half of that would be given up. CCDs also build on transferring charges from cell to cell, so most charges are popped from cell to cell several thousands of times. I don't think ADC-s can be put on CCDs, and it also seems that available external ADC-s are a bit noisy.
This is said to be the reason that Canons have limited DR, the signal from the sensor is very clean but the ADC is noisy. At high ISO the clean signal from the sensor is amplified before ADC, and the amplified signal is still clean, that is the reason Canons perform so well at higher ISOs.
It may be that CCDs could be developed more, but at this stage it seems that CCDs have no (or little) advantages over CMOS, there is little reason to push an old technology over a newer technology when the newer technology is good enough.
Best regards
Erik
I thought that the main reason that MFDBs are not very good on higher ISO, is the absence of microlenses, take your P45+ for instance, it has much more noise than the P30+ because the later has micro lenses which help the photons to be directed to the bottom of the well… The other reason of course is the lower nominal sensitivity. My opinion is that CCDs are underestimated for their capabilities in coping with low light because of how MFDBs are tuned, but OTOH, it is also MO that the makers are correct in their approach… Let me use another example, the classic Dalsa 33mp sensor is considered to be the nearest "opponent" to your 39mp Kodak Sensor ...right? Now this sensor has a little higher sensitivity than the Kodak sensor, but in return, it is about a stop better at higher ISO, I would't hesitate to use a Sinarback 75LV or a Leaf 75/7 on 400 ISO… If this sensor would have a version with microlenses on its pixels, I believe it would gain another 2 stops, thus being able to achieve completely noiseless prints at 1600 Iso… now, if we take in mind that the sensor is eight years old, it would be reasonable to assume that a latest generation sensor, would be able to achieve more than another, maybe two stops of additional high Iso capability…. add to this the fact that we are talking about no NR appliance in the development on the RAW or of the processor when storing the file and things don't look much different than they do with Cmos FF sensors… But colour accuracy? Can a Cmos sensor compete with a CCD on that?
-
I agree. Liveview and electronic shutter is completely impossible with CCD technology, which is the reason why no CCD TV cameras were ever made :)
As you surely know, the CCD's used in DMF cameras are of the "full frame" type, which does not support video out ... which is why interline transfer CCD and frame transfer CCD were developed for video usage. And looking at the specs on dark noise levels, DR, SNR and such for interline CCD vs full frame CCDs at the sites of Kodak/Truesense and Teledyne/Dalsa, a change to interline CCD would clearly be a big step backward in IQ for DMF. Interline CCD was what Sony (and so also Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta) used before switching to CMOS; does anyone want to suggest that at equal pixel and sensor size the comparison favors interline CCD?
Also, let us avoid comparisons that confound the effects of differences in pixel size, sensor size and CFA design choices with comparisons of the core sensor technology.
P. S. I say "Full frame" not "full frame transfer" because the latter is a neologism coined to avoid the confusion caused when people started using "full frame" in reference to sensor sizes.
-
... I would wish to be shown a really good CMOS chip. Just one, please.
Can you show me a comparisons between a CCD and a CMOS sensor of the same sensor size and pixel size where the CCD comes out ahead?
-
Can you show me a comparisons between a CCD and a CMOS sensor of the same sensor size and pixel size where the CCD comes out ahead?
Leica DMR. Leica M8. Leica M9 are all superb at base ISO. Image quality clearly ahead of their competition at the time.
Now, where is this wonderful CMOS chip which can render color as well as the old CCDs?
And yes, I agree that CMOS is better on paper, and should work at least as well in practice. Strangely enough it doesn't, and it is time the geeks accepted what the photographers in this forum all seem to know.
Edmund
-
I guess one can't have everything, CCDs are much better in colour and especially in the way they hold colour in even the deepest of shadows, they are sharper and more contrasty, but I will insist that the CCDs of today have been designed with MF requirements in mind (even M9's one which is a cropped conversion with specially designed microlenses of a larger Kodak one), OTOH , Cmos have "different" approach to DR, which favours overexposing (CCDs favour underexposing) which makes it easier to use from "average shooters". I also insist that there is no proven noise advantage of Cmos, but rather it's a makers decision since MF users, traditionally use their cameras under conditions that don't require LL action shooting.
-
Now, where is this wonderful CMOS chip which can render color as well as the old CCDs?
Color is a matter of CFA design [Edit: and lens characteristics], not CCD vs CMOS, so your examples of Leica cameras with Kodak sensors seems to be mainly a comment on Kodak's expertise and design decisions in CFA's.
As I said two posts back "let us avoid comparisons that confound the effects of differences in pixel size, sensor size and CFA design choices with comparisons of the core sensor technology."
-
Hi,
Do you have any images showing any CCD advantages on comparable sensors? I have seen a few by Erwin Puts, but not much else. Erwin Puts felt at that time that the M9 was behind the competition.
On the other hand, I just made two A2 prints, one from my Sony Alpha 99 and one from my P45+ and I can essentially not tell them apart. OK, I made it difficult, same subject, same time, same processing using the same tools. OK, sky is a bit different, Sony Alpha 99 a bit magenta the P45+ a bit blue. Some yellowish areas of grass more yellowish on P45+, some strains of grass a tiny bit sharper on the P45+ (?!, Maybe!). Some stones sharper on the Alpha 99? In a 17x24" print those differences are incredibly small!
In general, I may have a feeling that the P45+ has an advantage in sharpness, but when I print comparable images I see little difference.
Anyway, I feel that CMOS offers tremendous advantages, but for me the most important one is live view. I just don't see how anyone can ignore live view for precision work.
I had both CCD and CMOS cameras, Konica Minolta Dimage 7D, Sony Alpha 100 and P45+ on CCD and Sony Alpha 700, 900, 55, 77 and 99 on CMOS. So I actually know what I am talking about. That said, I may be wrong, of course.
Best regards
Erik
Leica DMR. Leica M8. Leica M9 are all superb at base ISO. Image quality clearly ahead of their competition at the time.
Now, where is this wonderful CMOS chip which can render color as well as the old CCDs?
And yes, I agree that CMOS is better on paper, and should work at least as well in practice. Strangely enough it doesn't, and it is time the geeks accepted what the photographers in this forum all seem to know.
Edmund
-
Hi,
Unfortunately I can't. But, I have a P45+ 39 MP MFD (CCD) and a Sony Alpha 99 SLT at 24 MP (CMOS). 17 x 24" prints, I cannot really make apart. Colour rendition is pretty close when processed in LR 5.3 using DCP profiles created at the same time at similar conditions. The Alpha is better on DR as the P45+ has noisy shadows.
In a match, I would say the Alpha wins, looses no rounds and wins a few.
I do think that the P45+ has a resolution advantage, I can measure it in Imatest but I may not see it in real world test. Why not? One factor is that both are good enough. THe other factor is that I print smallish, like 17x24", at that print size both are very sharp.
I am not in the testing business. I either shoot Sony Alpha or P45+, it is seldom I shoot comparable images. BUT, using both systems for something like half a year I can say that I don't see any magic advantage of MFD or CCD.
What I see is that the P45+ has an advantage in resolution/MTF and the Alpha's are better regarding DR. I like shooting with the P45+ and Hasselbald 555ELD, but when it really matters it is the P45+/ELD that stays at home.
Best regards
Erik
Can you show me a comparisons between a CCD and a CMOS sensor of the same sensor size and pixel size where the CCD comes out ahead?
-
I also insist that there is no proven noise advantage of Cmos, but rather it's a makers decision since MF users, traditionally use their cameras under conditions that don't require LL action shooting.
The advantage in noise levels and high ISO, low light performance of modern active pixel CMOS sensors offer CCD is clear, both in tech specs and observations, and is not due only to issues of micro lenses and CFA design. Remember that many early DSLRs used CCDs from Sony and Kodak, and many of them did have micro lenses. Canon instead used CMOS sensors, and gained a big advantage in lower noise and better high ISO performance. Then Sony moved to its Exmor CMOS, and again the advantage in low noise over Sony's own CCDs and Kodak's CCDs was clear.
Spec's and measurements show one big reason why: far lower levels of dark/read noise in active pixel CMOS sensors. This is turn is probably due to the fact that these active pixel CMOS sensors amplify the signal very early, during a direct transfer from each photosite to the edge of the sensor, providing more robustness against subsequent noise sources. CCDs instead use passive transfer of the charge from each photosite to a corner of the sensor, in thousands of hops from one photosite to the next.
-
RE: CCD vs CMOS. I can't think of a CMOS sensor that I've felt produced a better looking file than CCD sensors when I step back from the image. I know there all sorts of quantitative tests that show how great the latest CMOS sensors are in terms of DR and so on, but at the end of the day you have to also look and feel the images (assuming your goal is to make compelling imagery).
Edit: I'm not saying there will never be one or even some other technology that will best the look of CCD, just so far.
-
Hi,
I have only a limited choice P45+ and some Sony CMOS sensor of recent design. I also have an experience going from CCD to CMOS on APS-C. The first CMOS camera I had was the Sony Alpha 700, and it is the camera that produced most of my best images.
My recent experience is shooting with a Sony Alpha 99 SLT for about one year and with the Phase One P45+ for about half a year. My objectives are to get good images and credible color. What I can say is that I cannot see a lot of difference. The P45+ is a bit sharper, but I cannot really see this in 17x24" prints, larger prints probably but 17x24" is my normal print size. Regarding colour the P45+ has yellowish greens you love it or you hate it. I had some success getting decent colour of P45+ and LR5.3 using home made DCP profiles. I have tested Capture One for something like nine months but I decided that we don't make friends, so C1 went to waste basket. I love Lightroom workflow and tools, so I do have bias for Lightroom, that program has been invented for me!
Obviously, different posters have different views. That depends on different factors. I always loved Velvia, well, except for the colours and I always hated Ektachrome, but a couple of friends of mine loved Ektachrome, without realising how bad that film actually was ;-) I originally liked Kodachrome, than Kodachrome was sort of out of question so I started looking for alternatives and wound up with Velvia. I am not sure I like the colours but I like a lot else, not to have to deal with Kodak was one of those things.
Best regards
Erik
RE: CCD vs CMOS. I can't think of a CMOS sensor that I've felt produced a better looking file than CCD sensors when I step back from the image. I know there all sorts of quantitative tests that show how great the latest CMOS sensors are in terms of DR and so on, but at the end of the day you have to also look and feel the images (assuming your goal is to make compelling imagery).
Edit: I'm not saying there will never be one or even some other technology that will best the look of CCD, just so far.
-
RE: CCD vs CMOS. I can't think of a CMOS sensor that I've felt produced a better looking file than CCD sensors when I step back from the image.
I have to keep asking this question: are you looking at images from sensors of equal size, and better yet from the same sensor designer/maker, so as to have some chance of having the same CFA using approach? Maybe from Nikon or Pentax SLRs during their transition from Sony CCD to Sony CMOS?
Because discussions like this keep confounding multiple differences, partly due to looking mainly at the CCDs designed for medium format systems, ignoring the APS-C and 4/3" sized ones that were used before CMOS took over down there. After all, the "MF look" is a thing with film too.
-
RE: CCD vs CMOS. I can't think of a CMOS sensor that I've felt produced a better looking file than CCD sensors when I step back from the image. I know there all sorts of quantitative tests that show how great the latest CMOS sensors are in terms of DR and so on, but at the end of the day you have to also look and feel the images (assuming your goal is to make compelling imagery).
Edit: I'm not saying there will never be one or even some other technology that will best the look of CCD, just so far.
I agree to all the above, my observation also gives the DR advantage to my MF 22mp Kodak sensor than either my 36mp or 16mp FF sensors… The two FF sensors do record a little more DR but in high contrast situations, there is no way to keep most of it so as to make the picture look realistic, I've come to care more of usable DR than recorded DR and there the 22mp sensor comes ahead and even the 16mp Cmos FF sensor beats my other 36mp Cmos sensor. Another thing to consider, is that I've find that the CCD I shoot it -1EV than what I shoot the two Cmos sensors. Another observation is that the makers dedicated program does develop the files clearly better than any other program (like LR), but again, MF benefits even more in both DR and colour. As far as colour is concerned I think there is simply no comparison.
-
Here is a sample of mixed images from MFD and DSLR I have posted here on LuLa a while ago. Some images are P45+ and some Sony Alpha 99 SLT. All images are downsized to 4000 pixels width mostly to get relevant actual pixels views, screen is normally about 100 PPI, but we normally print at 180-360 PPI. The images are from an actual shot, this is not testing, just using both systems in the field.
Not the comparison you ask for but the best I have.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/
Here is info on which is which:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
Best regards
Erik
I have to keep asking this question: are you looking at images from sensors of equal size, and better yet from the same sensor designer/maker, so as to have some chance of having the same CFA using approach? Maybe from Nikon or Pentax SLRs during their transition from Sony CCD to Sony CMOS?
Because discussions like this keep confounding multiple differences, partly due to looking mainly at the CCDs designed for medium format systems, ignoring the APS-C and 4/3" sized ones that were used before CMOS took over down there. After all, the "MF look" is a thing with film too.
-
Here is a sample of mixed images from MFD and DSLR I have posted here on LuLa a while ago. Some images are P45+ and some Sony Alpha 99 SLT. All images are downsized to 4000 pixels width mostly to get relevant actual pixels views, screen is normally about 100 PPI, but we normally print at 180-360 PPI. The images are from an actual shot, this is not testing, just using both systems in the field.
Not the comparison you ask for but the best I have.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/
Here is info on which is which:
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/MFDJourney/RawImages/RealWorld/Answers.html
Best regards
Erik
If I may suggest Erik, since you love LR for all your work, I propose to try the following for your P45+ files, …do some quick (but careful) development in C1P1 for the exposure/DR and colour temperature you want and then export the file as a DNG, use the DNG in LR along with your Sony files, I suspect that this may increase DR considerably for files from your P45+ and you may find that colour and sharpness may benefit too.
-
BJL,
I have no problem admitting that files processed by Lightroom from CMOS and CCD are often equivalent. At this point I think the discussion is over.
As for the remark about color coming from CFA, I think other design factors affect color like crosstalk in the sensor.
Edmund
-
Here is a sample of mixed images from MFD and DSLR I have posted here on LuLa a while ago.
Here is a thought: since many current sensors in both 35mm format and DMF have 6 micron pixel pitch (24MP 35mm format CMOS sensors, and the 50MP and 60MP MF sensors) a comparison of crops to 6000x4000 from various "6 micron" sensors using lenses of the same focal length could be informative. That would not avoid differences in CFA design approach though (which is why I suggested "Sony vs Sony" comparisons).
-
Are we still doing this CCD vs CMOS thing?
I really feel that some of you guys should take a look at the big picture. Pun intended. I don't care how much superior CMOS is on paper, not a single CMOS camera has produced images that look as appealing as a CCD camera till date. The Leica M240 vs M9 example Ronald brought up is a good one.
Having started my digital journey with CCD APSC (Nikon D70s), I can certainly say that I had that look, lost it when I moved to CMOS and now have it again with MFD. I have shown several examples here before, but people tend to ignore images and keep going back to paper spec differences to prove their point.
I don't buy the "It's the filters" argument either. If it were just the filters, some manufacturer at some point of time would have attempted a CMOS based camera that puts color accuracy as top priority over everything else such as high ISO. Hasn't happened yet.
As a final note, here are two image shot yesterday. Same model, same location, same lighting.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1501466_10151942916528196_800461168_o.jpg)
The framing isn't exactly the same because:
- I didn't have lenses with equivalent FoVs for both cameras
- A model isn't a brick wall. She will keep moving
Look at the tonal separation between the reds in the dress and the reds in the skintones in the Credo file. In the D800 file, no matter what I do, adjusting one changes the other (Without using masks etc). Of course, the Credo file also has that "3D" look that comes with MFDBs.
If you want to ignore the image and go back to paper spec discussions, feel free. But as an artist, I trust what I see and for me, there's no comparison.
-
Synn, it won't work, most engineers are guys with average "guy" color vision so they simply don't *see* that there is a problem.
Unfortunately, in your example, I like the D800 image because the model looks more .. 3 dimensional :)
Edmund
Are we still doing this CCD vs CMOS thing?
I really feel that some of you guys should take a look at the big picture. Pun intended. I don't care how much superior CMOS is on paper, not a single CMOS camera has produced images that look as appealing as a CCD camera till date. The Leica M240 vs M9 example Ronald brought up is a good one.
Having started my digital journey with CCD APSC (Nikon D70s), I can certainly say that I had that look, lost it when I moved to CMOS and now have it again with MFD. I have shown several examples here before, but people tend to ignore images and keep going back to paper spec differences to prove their point.
I don't buy the "It's the filters" argument either. If it were just the filters, some manufacturer at some point of time would have attempted a CMOS based camera that puts color accuracy as top priority over everything else such as high ISO. Hasn't happened yet.
As a final note, here are two image shot yesterday. Same model, same location, same lighting.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1501466_10151942916528196_800461168_o.jpg)
The framing isn't exactly the same because:
- I didn't have lenses with equivalent FoVs for both cameras
- A model isn't a brick wall. She will keep moving
Look at the tonal separation between the reds in the dress and the reds in the skintones in the Credo file. In the D800 file, no matter what I do, adjusting one changes the other (Without using masks etc). Of course, the Credo file also has that "3D" look that comes with MFDBs.
If you want to ignore the image and go back to paper spec discussions, feel free. But as an artist, I trust what I see and for me, there's no comparison.
-
Haha well, I actually think the Credo file looks more 3 Dimensional. Maybe it's the downscaling. But at a decent madnification, the D800 file certainly looks a lot flatter.
-
Hi,
I have tried Capture One for I guess nine months but deinstalled a couple of days ago, we never made friends. I definitively don't think C1 gives more DR at least not on my exposures. I expose for the highlights, so what limits my DR is shadow noise.
Thanks for the suggestion, anyway.
Best regards
Erik
If I may suggest Erik, since you love LR for all your work, I propose to try the following for your P45+ files, …do some quick (but careful) development in C1P1 for the exposure/DR and colour temperature you want and then export the file as a DNG, use the DNG in LR along with your Sony files, I suspect that this may increase DR considerably for files from your P45+ and you may find that colour and sharpness may benefit too.
-
Hi,
My two first DSLRs had CCD, it was the Konica Minolta Dimage 7D (6MP) and the Sony Alpha 100. There might have been a significant rendering difference between the two. After that I got a Sony Alpha 700 which was my first CMOS camera and I made my best images using that camera (much depending on travel opportunities).
I have found two images shot same day, place and subject: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/CMOS_VS_CCD/
Those images were processed to my taste the same time. The link above shows to both JPEGs and raw images.
Best regards
Erik
I have to keep asking this question: are you looking at images from sensors of equal size, and better yet from the same sensor designer/maker, so as to have some chance of having the same CFA using approach? Maybe from Nikon or Pentax SLRs during their transition from Sony CCD to Sony CMOS?
Because discussions like this keep confounding multiple differences, partly due to looking mainly at the CCDs designed for medium format systems, ignoring the APS-C and 4/3" sized ones that were used before CMOS took over down there. After all, the "MF look" is a thing with film too.
-
Haha well, I actually think the Credo file looks more 3 Dimensional. Maybe it's the downscaling. But at a decent madnification, the D800 file certainly looks a lot flatter.
I would add some (maybe 8%) warming filter to the Credo file… Certainly the dress on the Credo is red, while in D800 it's orange but the face is over saturated pink… Same problems I get from my D800E with respect to my MFDB… The MFDB is well ahead in both tones and colour.
P.S: Not to mention the blue cast that has been developed on the D800 (which is what happens in my case too) in the deep shadows of the background which IMO makes the image unusable. Clearly, if one was not to "push" to expose LL information (which is what creates the blue cast) on the D800, the image would show much less DR than its MFDB counterpart. Therefore, if one seeks for"correct" development, MFDBs clearly have more "usable" DR than any DSLR…
P.S-2: Interesting part is that D4 also beats D800 at base ISO for "usable" DR, that said, it is still well behind my MFDB, but it does present the best IQ out of all Cmos sensor DSLRs I've tried. This, in combination with the fact that D4 has the fattest pixels among all DSLRs and the fact that many find some "magic" to the old Kodak 22mp 37x49mm sensor, leads me to the conclusion that more than CCD vs. Cmos differences, pixel size may have shrunk more than it should… Heck, I never missed resolution for single shot needs from any MFDB and whenever there was extreme resolution needed (like in reproduction of big size paintings), the resolution and colour of high-resolution single shot backs was never enough… Only 16x multishot (microstep), is in a class of its own for resolution, DR and colour.
-
I would add some (maybe 8%) warming filter to the Credo file… Certainly the dress on the Credo is red, while in D800 it's orange but the face is over saturated pink… Same problems I get from my D800E with respect to my MFDB… The MFDB is well ahead in both tones and colour.
P.S: Not to mention the blue cast that has been developed on the D800 (which is what happens in my case too) in the deep shadows of the background which IMO makes the image unusable. Clearly, if one was not to "push" to expose LL information (which is what creates the blue cast) on the D800, the image would show much less DR than its MFDB counterpart. Therefore, if one seeks for"correct" development, MFDBs clearly have more "usable" DR than any DSLR…
P.S-2: Interesting part is that D4 also beats D800 at base ISO for "usable" DR, that said, it is still well behind my MFDB, but it does present the best IQ out of all Cmos sensor DSLRs I've tried. This, in combination with the fact that D4 has the fattest pixels among all DSLRs and the fact that many find some "magic" to the old Kodak 22mp 37x49mm sensor, leads me to the conclusion that more than CCD vs. Cmos differences, pixel size may have shrunk more than it should… Heck, I never missed resolution for single shot needs from any MFDB and whenever there was extreme resolution needed (like in reproduction of big size paintings), the resolution and colour of high-resolution single shot backs was never enough… Only 16x multishot (microstep), is in a class of its own for resolution, DR and colour.
I agree on all counts!
It's good to see a D800(e) user who accepts it for what it is (and understands its capabilities AND shortcomings) rather than defend it fiercely as if it can do no wrong.
The Credo file was indeed a tad cold for my liking (I blame it on the slightly cool strobe), so I did do some toning in the final version. You can see it here: http://www.sandeepmurali.com/p879687852/h1CBBE5C8#h1669a012
I have not shot with a D4 in the studio, but I have seen a shot from Joe McNally under strobes with the D4 that was rather impressive. I would still pick my "Old tech" CCD equipped MFD though.
I also agree about the usable DR part. I am a moron and shot a strobe lit shot right after shooting some available light shots at 800 ISO while the metering was for 50. 4 stops overexposed! There was nothing but white in the shot and I still managed to recover a perfectly usable image that holds up for everything except extreme pixel peeping. Do that with a D800 file and you'll end up with a lot of grey patches with no color info.