Nikon 2
Allowing Ads
CCDs render color way better and have a more filmic look to my eye. But you cannot have live view or video as far as I know. I think the resolution might be limited, too. I don't believe there are any CCD cameras made today. Leica famously had corrosion problems with the CCDs in their cameras.
The question is why does it matter?
CCD is old technology that can still be had, especially in form of backs for MF cameras, even if no longer in production, can create great images, but with caveats of no live view, for the most part. it's money that made them all switch to CMOS, seriously cheaper to produce, expand, manage etc. with higher profit margin. And most everyone wants more in every department, convenience, features, even pixel count (to this day).
CCDs had trouble making good files above base ISO, they had to go just because of that. But for those who don't need anything above base ISO, they are often bargains still to be enjoyed.
I am looking at same issue, go cheaper for an older back, or go newer for a lot more dough. No question easy transition with CMOS is a good selling point, but having searched quite a bit of output from both, it's a hard one to swallow, given what CCD are capable of and how comparatively "cheap" they are.
In the end what one likes isn't necessarily what another will.
Some have said the software changes color more than the sensors…!
Yes, my Leica MD 262 only shoots RAW files and sent to my computer look more realistic than film flash drives ..!
Maybe it has something to do with how processors and software deals with a CCD signal vs CMOS. Leica makes a big deal about their Maestro processors. I will repeat again, the raw files straight into Capture One look natural and filmic to me, no real adjusting or tweaking necessary. Especially the skin tones. But that could vary with ethnic groups and preferences. Less so with CMOS generated images which seem harsher and more "digital."
@Nikon 2 You need to talk to an DSP engineer to get the answer. Photographers have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to sensors, signal processing, and color science. All sensors are monochrome. The color is defined by filters and signal processing. On top of that you have post-processing and Adobe with their Adobe Color profiles that make all cameras and sensors look the same. When a photographer starts mumbling about awesome "CCD colors" in their first Nikon DLSR, they're describing the color profile of the RAW converter that came with that camera.
I do conclude CMOS renders more accurate colors than CCD sensors
A conclusion I wouldn't stand by since it seems that your 'analysis' ignores color workflow decisions (both the photographer's and the camera maker's). These swamp any subtle differences in sensor performance.
It's like arguing your car goes faster with slightly bigger fluffy dice suspended from the rearview mirror.
If you want to get a grip on this, forget the CCD/CMOS difference and start reading books on color theory and color management. Then after a year of studying, revisit the question once again and dive into the technical literature on the relevant semiconductor technology.
CCD looks better. To me colour accuracy is of little value. Films were rarely colour accurate. Cameras lost a certain something when they went to CMOS. Again all my opinion.
In that case, you're lost unless someone presents you with a dependable side by side comparison. I don't think such exists without color management having a severe influence, so you'll remain 'conclusion-less'.
Well, you can of course draw a conclusion if you like - there's just no differentiation between that conclusion and a delusion. Which, of course, may be satisfactory. It's hard to get through life without being delusional at least some of the time.
Haha, I'm sure that's what you believe!I’m very critical of capturing the realistic colors of landscapes more than the attractive qualities that are not so real
Haha, I'm sure that's what you believe!
Maybe I need to explain further.
In college studying law, I became overwhelmed and bored. My counselor suggested that I took art classes to relieve the stress.
To my surprise I was told by many art teachers to stay away from law. The instructors added my brain was heavily weighted in the arts. One side being much more dominant than the other.
I painted landscapes in oil and tried to mimic true colors in my paintings.
So when I shoot landscapes with my cameras It’s like I’m painting with the them to achieve art work…
I found that during my quarter century of law practice that both my photography and my interest in mathematics improved the quality of my legal work, and that they also enhanced my enjoyment of that work.
And the legal experience both helped my photography, and gave me some opportunity to exercise my mathematical skills.
I'm afraid your art teachers were sorely mistaken.
I’m sorry, how were the art teachers mistaken…
Color is subjective, depending on the time of day, weather conditions and lighting if artificial or mixed. Have you compared a photo shot with both a CCD and CMOS sensor (preferably cameras by the same manufacturer and of similar vintage) of a standardized color chart on a calibrated monitor and the chart itself under industry-standard lighting? Are you looking at JPEG images as delivered by the camera. All jpegs from cameras are processed raw images according to each manufacturer's algorithms, that can vary. Plus any settings you have made in the camera.
How are you processing your RAW files? And which CCD camera are you comparing to?No, and all images from the MD 262 are RAW only…
No, and all images from the MD 262 are RAW only…
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?