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.
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.