Let's talk about money: Upgrade prices, value depreciation, promotions for P1

[voidshatter]

"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio".



Can we please move on now?

I would like to see raw files for comparison between this and Sony A7R-II + Canon 11-24mm combo, if possible.

Looking forward to see the advantages of CCD outside studio.

[jsiva]

I would like to see raw files for comparison between this and Sony A7R-II + Canon 11-24mm combo, if possible.

Looking forward to see the advantages of CCD outside studio.

When you find an 80MP CMOS sensor that I can put on the back of a tech cam with at least 54x40mm surface area, let me know. 

Otherwise not sure what you point is here other tanking another thread along with your pals.

[gerald.d]

I would like to see raw files for comparison between this and Sony A7R-II + Canon 11-24mm combo, if possible.

Looking forward to see the advantages of CCD outside studio.

Such a comparison would be impossible, because that shot can't be taken with the combination you suggest.

Give it a rest voidshatter. You are ruining this forum for everyone.

[ErikKaffehr]

Not something I have seen.

Well, I have seen. The reason you may have missed that may be that your argumentation may bee poor or lacking…

"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio".

This is the original statement he made that I have a problem with and I will continue to have a problem with.
Sweeping statements that don't hold true for everyone are asinine and those who make them should have the courtesy to present them as personal opinions than facts. Not to mention the continuous attempts at mockery at anyone who dares to think otherwise.

I can absolutely agree that the "CCD is useless for anything other than in studio" is quite a bit sweeping just like all your postings favouring CCDs over CMOS. BTW, both are electron storing devices. You seem to think that electrons stored in CCD capacitors are of better colour than electrons stored in CMOS capacitors.

Actually, I have seen great images made by CCD, CMOS, small format, medium format and even film. The photographer and the subject matters quite a lot more than gear.

Now, "Void" seems to have a foible for long exposures with high scene illumination range. That is a weak point of CCDs. Personally I don't do that kind of photography and I feel that CCD works fine for me. On the other hand, CMOS has less readout noise and less problems with heat building up. It is a newer and better technology replacing an older one. Development resources are of course flowing to the new technology so the possibility of the older technology catching up is quite remote.

The very nice thing with "Void" is that he actually shares raw images. I had some communication with him, as he has experience with several MF backs I don't have access to and he has been most helpful.

Best regards
Erik

[JohnnyR]

Not something I have seen.

"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio".

This is the original statement he made that I have a problem with and I will continue to have a problem with.
Sweeping statements that don't hold true for everyone are asinine and those who make them should have the courtesy to present them as personal opinions than facts. Not to mention the continuous attempts at mockery at anyone who dares to think otherwise.

You are actually having problem with modern technology(Sony CMOS) which depreciates your current gear(CCD).
Void has given enough evidence to show us this kind of improvement and he did 'downgrade' his iq260 to iq250 for better landscape image quality.And i admire that.
"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio" compared with CMOS ,that's only for now. If the full frame cmos sensor comes , it will be completely useless.


 

[ciccio]

+ 100000
future is cmos no matter what the owners of ccd thinks...
best.

[voidshatter]

Such a comparison would be impossible, because that shot can't be taken with the combination you suggest.

Give it a rest voidshatter. You are ruining this forum for everyone.

I'd be curious to see why impossible. 

[tjv]

This thread is absolutely absurd! There are many ignorant and narrow minded people on the internet and it seems many of them now choose to congregate on LuLa. Mr. Song, I suggest you take your narrow minded agenda elsewhere.

You are actually having problem with modern technology(Sony CMOS) which depreciates your current gear(CCD).
Void has given enough evidence to show us this kind of improvement and he did 'downgrade' his iq260 to iq250 for better landscape image quality.And i admire that.
"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio" compared with CMOS ,that's only for now. If the full frame cmos sensor comes , it will be completely useless.


 

[JohnnyR]

This thread is absolutely absurd! There are many ignorant and narrow minded people on the internet and it seems many of them now choose to congregate on LuLa. Mr. Song, I suggest you take your narrow minded agenda elsewhere.

Embracing the future = ignorant and narrow minded?

[synn]

You are actually having problem with modern technology(Sony CMOS) which depreciates your current gear(CCD).
Void has given enough evidence to show us this kind of improvement and he did 'downgrade' his iq260 to iq250 for better landscape image quality.And i admire that.
"CCD is useless for anything other than in studio" compared with CMOS ,that's only for now. If the full frame cmos sensor comes , it will be completely useless.


 

Read gooder (sic).
I have both CCD and CMOS gear and I favor the CCD gear for CERTAIN kinds of applications. Ihave stated this several times over and over.
For those CERTAIN kinds of applications, my concern is not zero noise or DR assessment or whatnot. Mr. Song (and dance) ONLY focuses on those areas and in a bigoted fashion, states that ANYONE who uses CCD for ANYTHING other than studio use is a dumbass.


I beg to differ and so do many practicing photographers across genres. For reasons far removed from white knighting for deprecated technology or whatever you think I'm up to.

[synn]

This thread is absolutely absurd! There are many ignorant and narrow minded people on the internet and it seems many of them now choose to congregate on LuLa. Mr. Song, I suggest you take your narrow minded agenda elsewhere.

He was elsewhere, got kicked out for this, IIRC.
Unfortunately, moderation here is practically non existant.

[synn]

The very nice thing with "Void" is that he actually shares raw images.

My RAW files are official samples on the Mamiyaleaf site.
Can't give back to the society more than that.

Now, "Void" seems to have a foible for long exposures with high scene illumination range. That is a weak point of CCDs.

Agreed, but that is not what he is saying. "Good only in the studio" insinuates that they are useless for many other styles of shooting that does not involve long exposures. Genres in which artists more accomplished than Mr. Song have created (And are still creating) exceptional images with CCD backs.

Short version: It'S fine if some of y'all hate CCDs. But dont impose that opinion on the rest of us.

[gerald.d]

I'd be curious to see why impossible. 

It should be obvious from the image.

I'm outta here.

Will return when people are no longer allowed to get away with destroying threads.

I thought contributing to this thread with a real life quote for an upgrade might be of interest, and benefit to the forum.

Clearly this isn't the case.

Au revoir LuLa.

It's a shame that those who run the site, having clearly recently made significant investments in it, allow what was once its arguably most useful aspect to turn into this.

[FMueller]

My CCD back performs exactly the same as the day it was new. I also have cameras with CMOS sensors. They do nicely as well.

I am really impressed with the long exposure capability of the Sony large sensor chips, or at least what others post and report.

As Mike Johnston, of http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html has suggested, we have reached "the point of sufficiency" and I have identified the weakest link in my system----me.

The best thing I can do to improve my results is take more photographs and print them. I print really well on a printer that is not state of the art (Epson 3800) and plunked down the $800 for ImagePrint thereby removing another excuse (I abandoned the i1 profiler because it just took too much damned time away from making photographs) And for reasons unbeknownst to me, that printer has not clogged even once during its entire lifetime and it was purchased shortly after released.

I'll finish off by saying, I truly benefit from all the pixel peeping and hairsplitting accomplished by many here and I have learned plenty, thank you. Seriously.

I have also learned plenty from the working pro's insights here even though their input here is far too seldom, and from them I have learned I need to use what I have.

[voidshatter]

This thread is absolutely absurd! There are many ignorant and narrow minded people on the internet and it seems many of them now choose to congregate on LuLa. Mr. Song, I suggest you take your narrow minded agenda elsewhere.

Narrow-minded? I admit the advantages of CCD for portrait in studio (pixel count). I demand evidence of advantages of CCD outside studio, by means of RAW files for comparison. Internet forum is a free place to talk, unless the administrator has certain collaboration with manufacturer / retailer to control the consensus. I'm eager to learn any mistakes I make. On the other hand, I don't like subjective imaginations to damage the community.

[voidshatter]

My RAW files are official samples on the Mamiyaleaf site.
Can't give back to the society more than that.

Agreed, but that is not what he is saying. "Good only in the studio" insinuates that they are useless for many other styles of shooting that does not involve long exposures. Genres in which artists more accomplished than Mr. Song have created (And are still creating) exceptional images with CCD backs.

Short version: It'S fine if some of y'all hate CCDs. But dont impose that opinion on the rest of us.

What I'd like to see is a direct comparison. Where are your raw files shot by a Sony CMOS under the same condition?

[synn]

CCD



CMOS






Same place, same time, very similar focal lengths, equivalent aperture and similar shutter speed, same post processing software and the same spot chosen for white balancing.

I couldn't care less what the noise is like when my nose is against the monitor or how many stops of DR is there. I know how to work around those.
 I do care how the CMOS file utterly butchers all the texture and tonal variations in the greens and colors bleeding into each other like junkies sharing a needle. This is something that can't be fixed.
That TO ME is a more important aspect regarding image making.

Anyone wanting RAW files, paypal me USD 500. Why? Because they are my files and I can do whatever the hell I want with them.
If you have a different opinion, feel free to shoot your own comparison test.

[sgilbert]

Regarding Gerald's point:  it seems that what happens here too often is that whatever the original focus of a thread, it devolves into the same pissing match.  

While it's easy to see which posters contribute most to this, those who try to reason with them share the blame.  

[voidshatter]

CCD



CMOS






Same place, same time, very similar focal lengths, equivalent aperture and similar shutter speed, same post processing software and the same spot chosen for white balancing.

I couldn't care less what the noise is like when my nose is against the monitor or how many stops of DR is there. I know how to work around those.
 I do care how the CMOS file utterly butchers all the texture and tonal variations in the greens and colors bleeding into each other like junkies sharing a needle. This is something that can't be fixed.
That TO ME is a more important aspect regarding image making.

Anyone wanting RAW files, paypal me USD 500. Why? Because they are my files and I can do whatever the hell I want with them.
If you have a different opinion, feel free to shoot your own comparison test.

I guess there is no specific reason why you hide the raw files. You are just not happy to share, instead of being afraid of sharing. 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Synn,

We have done our test and arrived at different results. Contrary to your approach we have shared the raw images.

Best regards
Erik

CCD



CMOS






Same place, same time, very similar focal lengths, equivalent aperture and similar shutter speed, same post processing software and the same spot chosen for white balancing.

I couldn't care less what the noise is like when my nose is against the monitor or how many stops of DR is there. I know how to work around those.
 I do care how the CMOS file utterly butchers all the texture and tonal variations in the greens and colors bleeding into each other like junkies sharing a needle. This is something that can't be fixed.
That TO ME is a more important aspect regarding image making.

Anyone wanting RAW files, paypal me USD 500. Why? Because they are my files and I can do whatever the hell I want with them.
If you have a different opinion, feel free to shoot your own comparison test.