What happened to "CCD is better than CMOS"?!

[narikin]

In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS?   Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!

Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!

[ErikKaffehr]

Nonsense can be very diehard…

If CCDs have benefits over CMOS, those benefits are probably very different from the purported ones.

The industry switched from CCD to CMOS and they probably have done that because CMOS is beneficial.  Canon has been forerunners in this and should have due credit.

For me, it looked like CCD vendors went into "fact denial mode". When companies do that they loose credibility with the knowledgeable users. I have seen this in the computer industry and I see it in the photographic industry.

There are a few good guys in this industry who present facts without the gospel. Steve Hendrix seems to be one of the few…

Best regards
Erik

In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS?   Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!

Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!

[BernardLanguillier]

For many years it was DR, then when it became all too obvious that a handful of DSLR were ahead, it moved to micro detail related to the lack of AA filter, then DSLRs did that too. Then it became the unique look of the lenses... until Otus was born... then all that was left ended up being colors and some magic CCD properties.

Interesting since, as Doug listed several times here, the backs have a long list of objectives advantages when compared to DSLR (not to mention personal preferences that is a valid ratinale). It would seem that for some owners those aren't as important as the confidence that their imaging device has some magically superior qualities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

I think it is like CD vs Vinyl.

Anyway, photography is a commercial art and Sony sensors are the new Ektachrome. Everybody uses them because they are decent, fast, affordable.

Doug has provided an honest set of tests, but sadly I think no comparison model shoot.

Edmund

For many years it was DR, then when it became all too obvious that a handful of DSLR were ahead, it moved to micro detail related to the lack of AA filter, then DSLRs did that too. Then it became the unique look of the lenses... until Otus was born... then all that was left ended up being colors and some magic CCD properties.

Interesting since, as Doug listed several times here, the backs have a long list of objectives advantages when compared to DSLR (not to mention personal preferences that is a valid ratinale). It would seem that for some owners those aren't as important as the confidence that their imaging device has some magically superior qualities.

Cheers,
Bernard

[voidshatter]

My reasons to choose CMOS over CCD:

a) CMOS has real Live View;
b) Fullframe CCD has more tiling issues;
c) CCD overheats fast;
d) CCD relies on long exposure noise reduction (darkframe noise reduction);
e) Fullframe CCD has corner issues for long exposure, and is essentially turned into crop;
f) CCD requires more calibrations for read noise;
g) CCD has less DR and worse high ISO performance.

Point d) is critical enough for me to give up CCD.

[jsiva]

I went with CCD for a major issue with CMOS at the time.  There were no CMOS FF MFDB backs in 2010.

[BAB]

My reasons to choose CMOS over CCD:

a) CMOS has real Live View;
b) Fullframe CCD has more tiling issues;
c) CCD overheats fast;
d) CCD relies on long exposure noise reduction (darkframe noise reduction);
e) Fullframe CCD has corner issues for long exposure, and is essentially turned into crop;
f) CCD requires more calibrations for read noise;
g) CCD has less DR and worse high ISO performance.

+1

Point d) is critical enough for me to give up CCD.

[tsjanik]

I think it is like CD vs Vinyl.

Anyway, photography is a commercial art and Sony sensors are the new Ektachrome. ..................

Edmund

By extension, is CCD the new Kodachrome?

[eronald]

By extension, is CCD the new Kodachrome?

I think CCD is the new vinyl; Kodachrome is totally RIP, flatlined, ded

Edmund

[JV]

On vinyl (and instant film):
http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/28/10674108/amazon-top-holiday-sellers-include-instant-film-and-a-turntable

Lesser known is that also one of the last (if not the last) audio cassette making companies is doing better than ever...:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-01/this-company-is-still-making-audio-cassettes-and-sales-are-better-than-ever

[tsjanik]

................... Kodachrome is totally RIP, flatlined, ded

Edmund

Indeed it is, and despite the shortcomings, its rendering was magical.

[eronald]

Indeed it is, and despite the shortcomings, its rendering was magical.

I agree - which is why we are left with Ektachrome - adequate, convenient and cheap always wins over good, more expensive or harder to use.  A generalised form of Gresham's law. Wait, is this relevant to CMOS chasing out CMOS? No way, I must be offtopic as usual. 

Edmund
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greshams-law.asp

[landscapephoto]

I agree - which is why we are left with Ektachrome - adequate, convenient and cheap always wins over good, more expensive or harder to use.  A generalised form of Gresham's law. Wait, is this relevant to CMOS chasing out CMOS? No way, I must be offtopic as usual. 

Edmund
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greshams-law.asp

Ektachrome has been discontinued since 2013.

[torger]

It never had that much to do with CCD. Camera color profiles, sensor CFA, lenses, raw processing.

And of course, people liked to compare Dalsa 6um CCD in say P65+ to Canon CMOS in say 5Dmark II, which is a lot different from comparing Sony CMOS in say D800 and Kodak CCD in P45+.

It was also much about comparing Capture One's color profiles for their own digital backs with Adobes in Lightroom for the CMOS.

There may be some Vinyl vs CD left though. The high aliasing high noise pixels especially of the older CCDs did provide some texture difference, but I don't know if it made any difference other than when pixel peeping. Modern images often look a bit like plastic, but that's about post-processing not about sensor.

[synn]

In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS?   Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!

Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!

I have a CCD back, it delivers results better to my tastes than the CMOS cameras I own and I have no plans to buy a CMOS back in the immediate future.
So for me, the bird in hand is better than the one in the bush.

Does that answer your question?

[voidshatter]

I went with CCD for a major issue with CMOS at the time.  There were no CMOS FF MFDB backs in 2010.

There were no CMOS FF MFDB back in 2014 either but I still made the switch from CCD FF to CMOS crop (and now planning to switch to CMOS FF).

[jduncan]

In the hubbub about the new FF CMOS 100mp backs, I'm wondering what happened to all those arguments that CCD sensors gave a better, cleaner result at base ISO, than CMOS?   Was that marketing hyperbole, or still partly true? The discussion seems to have evaporated!

Reminds me of Apple a decade ago telling us all how much more powerful their PowerPC processors were than Intel's ones, and then... switching to Intel's PC processors, because they were, in fact, faster!

I believe that we have two factors:

1. It's not false, but an anachronism, it is common for a new technology to start below the existing technology in many areas, and then catch up preserving the original advantages. Examples:  LCD vs CRT,  CMOS vs ECL,  Microprocessors vs Discrete LSI,  etc. Some times it goes both ways and old technology returns  due to a change of technology or the environment. The main reason Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel was not speed, but performance per watt. The managers at IBM were not willing make the investments and wanted Apple to use the Cell processor. It was fully stupid, but IBM does not take risks. They did not take the advantage when Itanium proved to be a failure. They did not lower prices, and did not increase expending on the Power Platform. Now is too little to late, but even underinvested the Power8 is competitive with Intel. That is the reason IBM is slowly bleeding to dead.
We see the same mentality with Hasselblad. Now Phase One has a competitive to better camera, and during all this years Hasselblad did nothing.

2. The same reason that True Focus will be a gimmick until Phase One has something similar, or why Nikon during the early 2000s was just adding nano coating and charging twice for the lenses. In the pre DxO era companies have to:

• Locate the popular experts and lavish them with VIP treatment. They will talk about subjective stuff that only them with the trained eyes can see, and anyone that differ is a simpleton.
• Locate key journalists and testers and give them early access etc.
  
• Do cool adds.
  

Today they have to do all the above and build better products. Nowadays the proper information is online, and all the brands have access to cmos. They don't have a  point in promoting the delusion that CCDs>CMOS in general, and anyone that don't know that is a simpleton.

Best regards,

[Christoph B.]

Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.

CCD

a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)

A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.

Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Perfectly good points.

When new technology arrives, older tech often gets more affordable.

Best regards
Erik

Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.

CCD

a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)

A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.

Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".

[Theodoros]

Sure from a technological point of view CMOS has surpassed CCD - but doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.

CCD

a. is cheaper
b. is more readily available
c. comes in a lot of varieties up to 80mpx
d. is tested and proven and reliable technology
e. still delivers great image quality and great resolution and DR
(for P1 only: f. has Sensor+which is a nice feature.)

A photographer who works mainly inside a studio has no real need for a great high ISO performance or an additional stop of DR but he may want to also buy a tech cam for product shots and another powerful flash head and use the highest resolution he can afford.

Right now CMOS is better from a technological point of view, but CCD sensors are also excellent and they are cheaper especially when it comes to 2nd hand market - and that's a big deal. Personally I couldn't afford a CMOS DB and I have no need for it.
So for me the CCD is "better".

CCD will always be better to the eyes of those that want to do different things with their MF than they already do with their FF DSLRs...  IMO, there is no point in adding features to MF that are already the strong points of DSLRs... If there is one thing that CCD lucks and is crucial for its future survival, that is the quality of LV... IMO, if CCD will ever die, it will be because of that...