Hi,
I am mostly a landscape shooter, using both CMOS (Sony Alpha) and CCD (Phase One P45+). I am always shooting base ISO on the P45+ and always use a tripod. With the Alphas it is
mostly the same, base ISO and tripod.
What is obvious to me is that the P45+ gives more resolution, often leading to aliases, but I don't see a lot of difference otherwise. Making A2 prints, I see little difference. That is cannot say which is which, unless looking at well known detail. Colour moiré is often a clue.
Another thing I have noticed is that my images with the P45+ seldom make it to the wall. That said, I like shooting with the P45+ and I do have quite a few nice images, it is just that wall space is limited.
What I often have seen is that a good MF image is often compared with a sloppy made Canon shot. I personally have never used a Canon SLR nor a Nikon digital camera, but my best friend shoots Canon and I am quite happy about his images. I would also say that most of the great images I have seen where shot with either Canon or Nikon. Clearly, this may to have a lot to do with preferences, and of course with the marketshare of foretold cameras.
Overall, I find we have to much obsession with equipment. Images care little about the tools used to make them. A good image is a good image, whatever tool has been used.
Personally, I am pretty sure I will switch to Sony FE (A7rII) in August, mostly because it will give me access to some nice lenses, like the Canon 24/3.5 TS and the Zeiss Batis 1.8/85. That camera can also use my existing lenses. I guess I will hang on to my Hasselblad gear, too, as I like to shoot with it and I don't think it is easy to sell it for a decent price.
Honestly, I would consider switching to a CMOS based MFD as I could use that with my Hasselblad Flexbody, but that wouldn't give me the wide angle I need. An Alpa FPS or a Hartblei HCam may take me there, but at a much greater expense than the Sony, a Metabones adapter and a 24/3.5 TS from Canon.
This was shoot with a P45+:
This was Sony Alpha:
This was P45+:
And this was Sony SLT 99:
Best regards
Erik
I had CCD (Phase, Leica) and Cmos (Canon, Nikon), and some of the CMOS had strong texture loss, while the CCD tended to be very good with skin. As an ex-ICC member I do understand what a CFA is, please spare me the lecture.
Whether this means that ALL Cmos are inferior in some way is improbable, but some people may ascribe creative virtues to their backs and we should not mock them: it makes them angry, possibly depriving their children or lovers of an evening's affection, and also they might for all we know be more sensitive to image auras than the rest of us, ie. they might be right.
Given a choice, I would still prefer to use a random Phase or Hassy with CCD for portraits, and would certainly reach for a Cmos product whenever high ISO is desired. I don't think I would differentiate between the two for landscape.
Edmund