So the quality you achieve is related mostly to the quality of your RAW converter, and how well matched it is to the sensor and camera firmware.
It is good that you are happy with the combination.
How are you processing your RAW files? And which CCD camera are you comparing to?
The SD card straight to an obsolete Mac desktop with no capability for LR or Capture One.
Watching YouTube videos on the Leica M8 & M9 with the reviewers admitting color accuracy is not up to the digital Leica M CMOS standards is all I have to go on…
So how have you determined that CMOS is more accurate than CCD? I sure hope it's not YouTube.
Different cameras with the same sensor technology can render subjective things such as skin tones differently, in line with the manufacturer’s preferences.
But why did you start a thread asking for opinions when you already have an apparently strong one determined by someone else?
Have you ever heard of a second opinion…
My opinion is the MD 262 is very accurate with colors.Well there have been many opinions on this thread, most backed by actual experience. That doesn’t seem to have altered yours, seemingly based on internet claptrap.
Those opinions on this thread you say suggest what? And how do they differ from my opinion?Well there have been many opinions on this thread, most backed by actual experience. That doesn’t seem to have altered yours, seemingly based on internet claptrap.
A strong opinion based on what (besides YouTube reviewers)? You don't seem to have dedicated software or maybe even a calibrated monitor (post #52). I can't imagine how you are viewing the RAW files.My opinion is the MD 262 is very accurate with colors.
There’re just opinions, though…
All I could gather are the results I see from my camera and opinions on claptrap!My opinion, for one, based on several CCD-equipped cameras as well as a number of CMOS ones.
I think the way to figure it out for yourself is try, say a Nikon D200 CCD and Nikon D300 CMOS and see which like. You can buy from KEH and return the one you don't like.
A strong opinion based on what (besides YouTube reviewers)? You don't seem to have dedicated software or maybe even a calibrated monitor (post #52). I can't imagine how you are viewing the RAW files.
Started with digital just over a year ago
So logically, your experience with how color materializes in the digital environment is superficial at this point. Which leads you to believe things like the type of sensor being responsible for the selective saturation of certain hues or color rendition in general, which is basically just bogus. What you're looking at are decisions in the hardware and (mostly) software/firmware chain that have no relation whatsoever to the semiconductor technology used for the sensor sites as such.
There's no contest that you'll see differences between images from different cameras. Attributing these differences to CCD vs. CMOS is fundamentally impossible without controlling for all other factors. This would require building experimental setups using bare sensors and then adding your own filter arrays on top etc. None of the internet reviewers that jumps to conclusions w.r.t. sensor technology is in a position to do this, or to even understand what kind of approach in general terms would be required to substantiate the conclusions they draw.
Between CMOS and CCD, there are some differences w.r.t. noise and image artefacts. For the most part, modern sensors compensate for these weaknesses (which exist in both technology domains) to yield comparable overall performance.
The color rendition of the RAW files you're looking at is a combination of a multitude of factors, ranging from hardware choices (of which light capture technology is just a small part) to especially algorithms in camera firmware to convert, adjust and map analog signals into a digital array of data, and then lots of interpretation on the MacOS side in how the data in the RAW file are represented as a viewable image. Virtually NONE of what you're looking at has anything to do with sensor technology as such.
It's a total deception - but like I said, we're all human. We like a good story, regardless if it's true. Heck, much of the time, we prefer the story that sounds good over the story that's representative of real events.
On my Mac desktop screen with the SD card inserted, the information icon shows RAW in the description…
I agree with you on that. The problem occurs of my dislike of a LCD Screen. It robs the experience I get with the MD 262. My years of shooting film is satisfied digitally with the Leica’s screen less design…
You're not viewing a RAW file directly. You're viewing an interpretation that's made by MacOS based on a selection of data from the RAW file as well as a number of defaults decided on by Apple's (or their subcontractor's) engineers. This has been touched upon several times in your earlier threads.
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?