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.