CCD vs CMOS

[George Mann]

But the camera obscura on the west coast of San Francisco doesn't !

And I would argue that people using digital cameras are not engaging in photography in the classic sense, but graphic arts.

 

[Nikon 2]

And of course such behavior saves the battery.

It almost doesn’t need a battery…

 

[Nikon 2]

And I would argue that people using digital cameras are not engaging in photography in the classic sense, but graphic arts.

…

 

[Pieter12]

It almost doesn’t need a battery…

Almost doesn't count. It needs a battery.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Almost doesn't count. It needs a battery.

Especially in cold weather, standing in the snow, wind blowing hard and you have the money shot focus and the viewfinder and the money shot is about to evaporate in milliseconds.

 

[Nikon 2]

Almost doesn't count. It needs a battery.

Nothing’s perfect…

 

[Pieter12]

Nothing may be perfect, but a film camera with great optics that doesn't depend on a battery is close.

 

[Nikon 2]

Nothing may be perfect, but a film camera with great optics that doesn't depend on a battery is close.

Do you mean “like a” Nikon F2…

 

[Pieter12]

Do you mean “like a” Nikon F2…

That would qualify.

 

[Nikon 2]

That would qualify.

…

 

[Rockaway Studios]

Just curious...about when was the changeover for medium format backs, switching to CMOS from the prior CCD sensors? What model numbers of Hassy are CMOS vs. those that are CCD?

Both Hasselblad and Phase One offered both types. For Phase one IQ family, the ones numbered in multiples of 50 are CMOS -the 50, 100, and the current 150 are CMOS, and the 40,60, and 80 are CCD, no matter if they are IQ1, IQ2, or IQ3. These days they just have the IQ4-150. Everything in the P series and earlier backs was CCD. So, the CCDs were finally removed from the product line around 2016 with the advent of the IQ4.

For Hasselblad, the current CFV 50vii, and CFV100 are both CMOS. Earlier CFV backs - the 16, 32 MP models are CCD. The CFV50 was CMOS….so the transition was around the same time.

 

[wiltw]

Both Hasselblad and Phase One offered both types. For Phase one IQ family, the ones numbered in multiples of 50 are CMOS -the 50, 100, and the current 150 are CMOS, and the 40,60, and 80 are CCD, no matter if they are IQ1, IQ2, or IQ3. These days they just have the IQ4-150. Everything in the P series and earlier backs was CCD. So, the CCDs were finally removed from the product line around 2016 with the advent of the IQ4.

For Hasselblad, the current CFV 50vii, and CFV100 are both CMOS. Earlier CFV backs - the 16, 32 MP models are CCD. The CFV50 was CMOS….so the transition was around the same time.

Thanks much for the insight into model number designations to differentiate the sensor type in the existence of parallel offerings from Phase One and from Hasselblad...my own research had already found 2014 as the birth year of CMOS sensors used in medium format. While my interest in the format remains because years of MF film pro shooting decades ago, the considerable expense of digital MF backs made it not possible for me to adopt, especially in view of the continuing evolution rapidly making things 'outdated' and increasing the expense for non-professional usage in retirement years.

 

[Nikon 2]

Both Hasselblad and Phase One offered both types. For Phase one IQ family, the ones numbered in multiples of 50 are CMOS -the 50, 100, and the current 150 are CMOS, and the 40,60, and 80 are CCD, no matter if they are IQ1, IQ2, or IQ3. These days they just have the IQ4-150. Everything in the P series and earlier backs was CCD. So, the CCDs were finally removed from the product line around 2016 with the advent of the IQ4.

For Hasselblad, the current CFV 50vii, and CFV100 are both CMOS. Earlier CFV backs - the 16, 32 MP models are CCD. The CFV50 was CMOS….so the transition was around the same time.

I’d like a camera with a high IQ…

 

[DaveNJ]

Where does Live CMOS fit in the discussion? It's apparently a thing only for Micro Four Thirds sensors and has some benefits over standard CMOS (?). I recall reading somewhere it was "similar" to CCD with the power benefits of CMOS.

 

[Pieter12]

Where does Live CMOS fit in the discussion? It's apparently a thing only for Micro Four Thirds sensors and has some benefits over standard CMOS (?). I recall reading somewhere it was "similar" to CCD with the power benefits of CMOS.

Not sure what "Live CMOS" is, maybe a brand-specific name. I believe that most if not all CMOS sensors offer live view, if that is what is being referred to.

 

[Chan Tran]

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 don't know Matt I don't think I want either Ansel Adams or Georgia O'Keefe represents me in court.

 

[DaveNJ]

Not sure what "Live CMOS" is, maybe a brand-specific name. I believe that most if not all CMOS sensors offer live view, if that is what is being referred to.

I don't think it's referring to live view. Wiki says it's a brand name of a NMOS Image sensor. Seems to be a marketing thing and it's really just CMOS.

 

[Cholentpot]

I have a Konica Minolta 7D collecting dust. Got it for nothing.

My real question is, use it as a JPEG machine or is it worth messing the the RAW?

 

[MattKing]

I don't know Matt I don't think I want either Ansel Adams or Georgia O'Keefe represents me in court.

Perhaps,
But you need to understand that:
1) only a tiny percentage of lawyers appear regularly in court - it is a very particular specialty, and only a small subset of the profession are suited to it; and
2) whomever you receive legal services from, whether it involves courtroom work or not, it is worthwhile to seek out practitioners who have a well rounded set of skills and interests. And appreciation of the wide world of artistic endeavour is a really good indicator of being well rounded, when it applies to people not specifically employed in the arts.

 

[George Mann]

My real question is, use it as a JPEG machine or is it worth messing the the RAW?

With good conversion software, RAW produces the best quality of output.

 

[Pieter12]

With good conversion software, RAW produces the best quality of output.

Many if not most programs that open RAW/DNG files also have profiles for specific cameras, given excellent results without too much fiddling.

 

[Chan Tran]

I have a Konica Minolta 7D collecting dust. Got it for nothing.

My real question is, use it as a JPEG machine or is it worth messing the the RAW?

I use the raw files on any camera that has raw except the phone. I don't have good luck with the dng files from my Samsung S23.

 

[Cholentpot]

With good conversion software, RAW produces the best quality of output.

Many if not most programs that open RAW/DNG files also have profiles for specific cameras, given excellent results without too much fiddling.

I shoot only RAW on my Canon machines. 5D4 and 6D. However, wouldn't the 'look' of a CCD be in the manufactures presets? I can make a RAW look however I want. I've been shooting over a decade and still don't really understand how people gush over one manufactures 'color science' over another. If I'm shooting RAW it doesn't make a difference if I'm shooting Canon, Nikon, Sony or anything else. My RAWs will get edited to suit my vision. My Nikon shots looks exactly like my Canon shots. I'm sure if I had a Panasonic they'd look the same too. The only difference I've found is the lens I'm using. The contrast of lenses vary.

 

[Pieter12]

I shoot only RAW on my Canon machines. 5D4 and 6D. However, wouldn't the 'look' of a CCD be in the manufactures presets? I can make a RAW look however I want. I've been shooting over a decade and still don't really understand how people gush over one manufactures 'color science' over another. If I'm shooting RAW it doesn't make a difference if I'm shooting Canon, Nikon, Sony or anything else. My RAWs will get edited to suit my vision. My Nikon shots looks exactly like my Canon shots. I'm sure if I had a Panasonic they'd look the same too. The only difference I've found is the lens I'm using. The contrast of lenses vary.

When I load images into Capture One, at first they look dull and soft. Within seconds, they are brighter and sharper as the program recognizes the camera they came from and automatically applies a profile to the RAW files.

 

[Cholentpot]

When I load images into Capture One, at first they look dull and soft. Within seconds, they are brighter and sharper as the program recognizes the camera they came from and automatically applies a profile to the RAW files.

When I load my RAW files into lightroom they're always going to need temp balance and levels adjusted. I don't think I've ever not adjusted a RAW image. What's too keep me from applying a Nikon profile to a Canon RAW? And what's the point of applying a profile if your shooting RAW? Isn't the whole point that you have creative control and not the camera?