Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format  (Read 24858 times)

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1276

I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.


I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.

I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.

First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.

Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.


I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.

I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.

It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.

If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?


I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).

The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.

But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.

CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".


CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example,  experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.


Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?


What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).

Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #1 on: May 03, 2014, 10:49:53 pm »

I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.


I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.

I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.

First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.

Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.


I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.

I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.

It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.

If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?


I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).

The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.

But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.

CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".


CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example,  experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.


Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?


What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).

Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.

Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.

Edmund
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4397
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2014, 11:42:11 pm »

Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.

Edmund

First, I very much agree with this.  The world would be very boring with out many different paints.  

However, I too am seeing a difference between the color of CMOS and CCD, even with MF.  Personally, I think that this would primarily be due to the Bayer grid placed over the sensor during manufacturing.  Most of Sony's sensors are used for high ISO optimization, or at least partially optimized for this.  Redesigning their grid, along with the manufacturing process, for the very small number of MF orders is probably not (currently) within their interest.  Whereas Dalsa is manufacturing sensors for the highest possible color quality, due to the high demand for aerospace applications and markets other then commercial photography.  

Personally, horses for courses.  Shoot what you love, and love what you shoot.  I dont use MF primally for the "CCD look," but more the tech camera capabilities.  The "CCD look" is a plus. 

« Last Edit: May 03, 2014, 11:44:00 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2613
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2014, 11:47:19 pm »

I agree with Edmond in that its great to have options but I also feel its important to know what each brings to the table. I also see a difference in CCD vs CMOS.  CMOS somehow looks flatter to me as well but I've never known if its just the CFA or not.
Logged
Rolleiflex USA

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2014, 12:25:04 am »

Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).

The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.

The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.

The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.

From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.

That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.

Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?

Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2014, 12:30:17 am »

Hi,

No, I am actually quite sure this CCD stuff is just BS. Michael Reichmann also indicated that he got similar information from Phase One developers.

Regarding the images I have seen from the Pentax 645Z I was not impressed at all, but I have seen a lot of impressive images from the 645D, so I am pretty sure it can deliver.

Doug Peterson posted some impressing test images from the IQ-250 (the library shots). It is not possible to judge colour rendition from those shots, I guess. I would agree that many of the IQ-250 samples posted stressed high ISO capability.

Personally I have shot CCD and CMOS in parallel (Sony Alpha 100 and Sony Alpha 700) in the past. I also shoot CCD and CMOS in parallel today (P45+ and Sony Alpha 99). If I use a ColorChecker for WB and adjust exposure similarly with the P45+ profiled I get similar results.

Doug Peterson wrote an article about the development of the IQ-250, and he clearly wrote that Sony offered two different CFA options.

There are a lot of factors in colour rendition. I would say that white balance is the most important one, WB is a bit of a secret sauce. Shoot a grey card reference shot and many of the differences go away. If you use Capture 1 with an MF back it may give better colour rendition than say with a Nikon camera, but that may depend on Phase One building better profiles for their own backs and also that Capture One would utilise the calibration data in each IIQ image (it is said to have 1 MByte or so of invidual calibration data).

Another factor which may play a role is the strength of the IR filter. Colour profiles can correct for weak IR filtering to some extent.

Tim Parkin, who publishes "On Landscape", looked a bit into colour rendition, and he is quite confident that the Sony Alpha 900 (a CMOS camera) has the best colour rendition of the cameras he used and the P45+ is something he wouldn't touch with a barge pole. His buddy Joe Cornish on the other hand has been a happy P45+ shooter a long time.

Just to say, there are many things involved in colour rendition. WB, raw converter, camera profiles and CFA design is part of that, too.

CFA doesn't affect sharpness. There may be some reasons CCD/MFD images look sharper:

- Larger sensor makes less demands on the lens
- Larger pixels will always look sharper than smaller pixels, but quantity has a quality of it's own
- Some may argue that MF lenses are better than 135 lenses, but that may vary from case to case
- Leica (who is the only maker of CCD based 135) makes excellent lenses
- Microlenses will reduce apparent sharpness (area sampling vs. point sampling) but will also reduce aliasing

Regarding Canon experimenting with Foevon type sensors, I don't think they do. Sigma has the IP-rights for Foevon, which lacks filtration and essentially reproduces colour by math. (It has three stacked sensels, light of different wavelength diffuses to different depth in Silicon and this is the effect the Foevon uses to calculate colour).

Very clearly, several sensor vendors work on different non-bayer designs, but it is not very probably that they would go with the Foevon concept.

Best regards
Erik

 


I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.


I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.

I looked at the test images of the Phase One IQ250 and of the new Pentax 645, both of which I think are using the same Sony sensor.

First I thought the photographers had messed up. The images looked just like a DSLR image, just with a little bit more detail, and a bit smoother.

Gone was the stunning detail and light quality and sharpness that I admired in medium format files.


I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.

I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.

It could be, that with the introduction of CMOS sensors into medium format, medium format has shot itself into the foot.

If all I can get is a bit more resolution, but not a higher end look - why should I bother with a much more expensive camera that weighs a ton and is much slower to use than a DSLR?


I see the introduction of the CMOS sensor into medium format as a continuation of the High Iso War (which started after the Megapixel war ended).

The CMOS sensor has everything working for him in a test chart sense.

But I think, from an esthetic point of view, it is an inferior sensor.

CMOS has been named a "game changer" for medium format. I don't think so. I'd be happy if it didn't become a "game ender".


CMOS has hit its limits. Even in the SLR world. Canon, for example,  experiments with the Foveon sensor for the 5D mark IV.


Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?


What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).

Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 12:54:08 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2014, 12:40:19 am »

Hi,

Just to put it a bit in a context:

Phase One IQ 160 uses a Dalsa sensor while Pentax 645D, Leica S2 and M9 uses a Kodak sensor.

Much of the colour rendition depends on camera profiles in each raw converter.

Best regards
Erik

Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).

The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.

The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.

The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.

From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.

That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.

Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?


« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 12:42:40 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2014, 03:06:04 am »

Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.
Discussing esthetics without caring about the technical details can very easily lead to poor conclusions. Just like discussing technology without caring about the esthetics can lead to poor conclusions.

1. Any image comparision (esthetics or technical) really should be made at the same place and time (or using a truly static scene), using equivalent settings, and developed in a "fair" manner.
2. CFA, OLPF, IR-filter and electronic post-processing are linked to the sensor for us mortal people. We don't get to change them independently, making it hard to conclude if esthetic differences are due to one or the other.
3. Color correction and WhiteBalance affects color. A lot.

If "digital MF" (somewhat larger sensor than 24x36mm) is really worth $10.000-ish more than garden-variety 24x36mm in terms of image quality, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side. If CCD gives significantly better image quality than CMOS, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side.

When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.

-h
*)Fairness can be difficult to agree upon
« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 03:19:06 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2014, 03:47:02 am »

Hi,

I have tried to do that, with what I have, and I don't feel there is a real difference, except large sensors giving more resolution. Modern CMOS has less noise than CCDs.

I was happy making A2 prints from my 12 MP APS-C camera, many of the best images I have were made with that one.

I did some side by side comparisons between CCD cameras (Alpha 100, P45+) and CMOS (Alpha 700, Alpha 99) and I would agree on no difference with same processing, WB etc.

Worth listening to Ctein in the interview with Michael Reichmann, he finds that his 16 MP 4/3 camera is good enough for A2. Ctein knows a thing or two about image quality.
Best regards
Erik


If CCD gives significantly better image quality than CMOS, then I expect it to be possible to display this difference in a fair*) side-by-side.

When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.

-h
*)Fairness can be difficult to agree upon
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1276
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2014, 04:28:38 am »

Does it matter? the world would be a sadder place if every artist had to use the same paints.

Edmund

Yes, it does.

If CCD is going away, then every artist does use the same paint, so to speak.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

The View

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1276
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2014, 04:45:51 am »

Hi my experience with high quality CCD cameras has been limited to the Fuji S2pro, Pentax 645D and now the PhaseOne IQ160 all of which I have owned (or still own as in the case of the IQ160) and the Leica S which I played with in a NY studio. Each has a different look ("out of the box" using basic adjustments on the ACR or C1Pro Raw converters).

The IQ160 has a more cyan bias in general and has an unreal amount of color differentiation capability, specially if there is a lot of green present in the scene. It is VERY sensitive to white balance / color adjustments. It is great because I feel that it seems and distinguishes color incredibly well even in complex scenes. But it can take a bit of more work in post production with images made under mixed and or changing light conditions.

The 645D was more biased towards green / yellow it has a bit less color differentiation capability than the IQ160 but more than the CMOS DSLRs I have used but it is also tricky camera also to get the right white balance and color in mixed / changing light. The Leica S files seemed VERY similar to the Pentax 645D files but the Leica lenses are just waaaay better.

The IQ160 files feel more malleable and "deeper" when adjusting in post. A lot has to do with the awesome dynamic range and color depth of the file.

From looking at images online from other cameras like the Leica M9 the CCD cameras do have a different, more snappy / edgy and unique look. Not all CCD cameras really look the same. Some are quite close but each seems pretty distinctive.

That is also the case between some CMOS cameras although I agree that there is a bunch that are pretty much alike.

Why is that I have no idea. I suspect the differences in the Color Filter Array of each sensor plus the on-chip processing of the CMOS data produces different results. Do most CMOS sensors use similar CFA's? ("thinner", to let more light in to increase high iso performance) and that makes the out of the box look of the CMOS files similar?



You are combining a lot of experience with different medium format cameras with a lot of modesty - thanks for your input.

So I'm not alone with having the impression that a CCD has a more characterful file (you were using the words snappy, edgy, unique, which pretty much describes it).

I know what I want in a camera, and, honestly, while my current 5D III is a very good camera (and way better than the 5D II), it doesn't have that crispness that I wish it had.

My ideal of crispness is slide film (and I even forgot the names was it the ISO 50 Fuji Provia that was so great in its greens and blues?)


I just couldn't find anything good with the CMOS MF - it's just like full frame, just larger.

I'm sure a camera will come along sooner or later that gets crisp and characterful files.

The upside of many people seemingly liking the CMOS MF cameras is that CCD backs may soon be available second hand at good prices.

I'm currently in an exploring phase for my next system, and MF CMOS is definitely not it.


In regards to the High Iso wars, I'm just as sceptical to them as I was of the Megapixel wars. (I just wish we'll get a push on esthetic qualities).

There are immeasurable qualities of an esthetic kind.

Immeasurable, because it's not about depicting a line as sharp as possible or a color as correct as possible, and contrast and microcontrast as correct as possible.

This is why great camera builders and lens crafters are artists, and they get the relationship of sharpness, contrast, and color right so it's great for the human eye.

And exactly this I am missing when I look at the cameras using that new Sony MF sensor.
Logged
The View of deserts, forests, mountains. Not the TV show that I have never watched.

Gel

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 240
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #11 on: May 04, 2014, 05:05:27 am »

It's weird I know, but I've been thinking about buying a used 5D (Mk 1) just so my photos don't look the same as everyone else who's using a 5D3.

To hell with ISO performance. I've the 1DX for that.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #12 on: May 04, 2014, 05:42:51 am »

I have read the thread CCD vs CMOS - but it was mainly about technical details.

Hi,

Because that's the difference, they both convert light into electrons, and have different ways of storing and reading those electrons as a representation of what the lens saw. It's just a capture device, same photons make the same image.

Quote
I'd like to focus on the esthetics, the look, the image itself.
[...]
I find that CCD images have a quality of light, a glow, a sharpness, that sticks out in comparison to the rather "smeared" look of a CMOS.

Frankly, that is nonsense (not your impression but what's causing it), provided that the same lens and CFA and Raw processing was used. It has almost nothing to do with the photovoltaic conversion method, but everything with the other system choices. Did the tests you saw use the same lens? If not, let's stop here. Apples and oranges from that point on, and it only gets more cconfusing.

All the other technical effects you do not want to talk about, are exactly what makes a 'look' different. AA-filter or not, microlenses or not, CFA chracteristics, lower noise readout of CMOS and thus higher dynamic range and higher ISO capability, Raw conversion can make any look one wishes. It has virtually nothing to do with CCD versus CMOS. Sorry to blow the bubble that some people created for you to believe in.

Quote
I was particularly shocked by the files of the Pentax 645: while it shows more detail without doubt, I can't say that the files look better than the files of a 5D mark III - which I would truly expect from any medium format camera worth its salt.

Was the same lens used? The lens is the first mechanical step in shaping an image, a look.

Quote
Or is there really something in an image created on a CCD, that the CMOS cannot get?

A photon is a photon is a photon, so no.

Quote
What's your take? Do you agree or disagree that CCD has a very distinct look IF HANDLED RIGHT? (I have seen comparisons of poorly lit images, where CMOS and CCD had very comparable poor quality - looks like a CCD is more demanding on lighting to get to its maximum quality - let me know if you share my impression, or no. I have only shot medium format in film, but never digitally).

Which explains why you've been influenced by a certain group of stakeholders, who didn't tell the full story because it was not in their interest. When you use this equipment yourself, you'll learn how each component of a system can be used to create a certain look.

Quote
Please only argue about esthetics, and don't use test charts like dxoMark as an argument. All technical details are irrelevant for an esthetic discussion. All that counts is: how good an image quality can you get when using a camera with either a CCD or a CMOS sensor.

Use a good lens (what's good or not is open for debate), a good sensor (CCD or CMOS is mostly irrelevant, CFA characteristics aside), use a superior Raw converter, and get a grip on postprocessing, which can create just about any result you want.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

peterv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
    • facebook
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #13 on: May 04, 2014, 06:57:35 am »

So Bart, you don't see any difference between CCD and CMOS in general? We know Erik does not, which is fine, BTW. I just wanted to know if you personally feel that you don't see any difference. Thanks.
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8848
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #14 on: May 04, 2014, 07:16:09 am »

So Bart, you don't see any difference between CCD and CMOS in general? We know Erik does not, which is fine, BTW. I just wanted to know if you personally feel that you don't see any difference. Thanks.

Hi Peter,

In a fair comparison, everything the same (lens, same CFA characteristics, similar sensel aperture, same Raw conversion, etc.) except a CCD versus CMOS capture technology, there will be virtually no difference. Of course we do not have that choice, manufacturers already made choices of CFA and ISO and profiles, and not all lenses fit all bodies.

There are a few technical differences that may lead to some differences, such as higher dynamic range of recent CMOS technology, and a higher sensitivity for color cast at extreme angles of incidence on current CMOS implementations, but not something that would define a 'look', like the difference between Fujifilm Provia and Astia.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #15 on: May 04, 2014, 07:25:08 am »

we're still doing this?

OK, then. Just passing by...
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2014, 07:38:48 am »

we're still doing this?

OK, then. Just passing by...
How nice of you to let us know. Do you have anything to contribute?

-h
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11302
    • Echophoto
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2014, 07:42:36 am »

Hi,

Thanks for mentioning this. I feel that small sensor technology awesome results.

Best regards
Erik




When comparing smaller sensor sizes of different manufacturers (I am not rich, nor a professional photographer, thus I don't have anything larger than a crop DSLR), I have been humbled by how much color and settings affect the result, compared to how little sensor size/tech affects the result.

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

peterv

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 160
    • facebook
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2014, 07:54:19 am »

Thanks Bart, it was just out of curiosity I asked and as a long time lurker here, I value your opinion. As for me, I'm starting to doubt more and more now that this question comes up more often with all the MF CMOS being released. Looking at the image samples, I see the MF CMOS as Sony NEX files on steroids. Side by side on a pixel peeping level there does not seem to be much difference, but looking at the complete images, I feel the CCD versions have more 'bite' and a certain 'freshness' that seems to be laking in CMOS. Maybe it's the smaller DR of the (older) CCD sensors.

Cheers,
Peter
Logged

synn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1235
    • My fine art portfolio
Re: The look of a CCD versus a look of the CMOs in medium format
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2014, 08:07:47 am »

How nice of you to let us know. Do you have anything to contribute?

-h

I contributed more than most here regarding this topic; you know, by shooting real pictures and all that.
What I learned was that most human beings are stuck in their own ways and no amount of evidence from the other camp will make them think differently.
Logged
my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up