CCD vs CMOS

[Nikon 2]

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.

The Summicron 50mm f/2 Rigid helps…

 

[Nikon 2]

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…

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

So how have you determined that CMOS is more accurate than CCD? I sure hope it's not YouTube.

CMOS is more accurate in color rendering than CCD according to many reviewers…

 

[Nikon 2]

Such as being overly saturated and with inaccurate flesh tones…

 

[Paul Howell]

At this point we have different opinions, no different than which better Porta or Ektar. Without cameras of the same generation, same color chart, same post processing and 2 identical calibrated monitors or prints from the same printers, who knows. I have both CCD and CMOS, I have not done any objective tests. Just seems to my eye that my Pentax K200 CCD is a bit more muted, than my Sony A700 CMOS. I often use the Pentax K 2000 for travel pics when the final images will be used on my wifes facebook page.

 

[Pieter12]

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?

 

[Nikon 2]

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…

 

[Nikon 2]

When the thread was initially introduced there was no opinion from me yet…

 

[Pieter12]

Have you ever heard of a second 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.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

My opinion is the MD 262 is very accurate with colors.
There’re just opinions, though…

 

[Nikon 2]

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?
What’s your opinion on this subject…

 

[Pieter12]

My opinion, for one, based on several CCD-equipped cameras as well as a number of CMOS ones.

 

[Pieter12]

My opinion is the MD 262 is very accurate with colors.
There’re just opinions, though…

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

Remember, I’m new to digital and shot film for over thirty years. Started with digital just over a year ago and happy not spending so much money, time waiting for development of film so I can enjoy photography not regretting it…

 

[Nikon 2]

My opinion, for one, based on several CCD-equipped cameras as well as a number of CMOS ones.

All I could gather are the results I see from my camera and opinions on claptrap!
Congratulations…

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

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…

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

On my Mac desktop screen with the SD card inserted, the information icon shows RAW in the description…

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

Excellent summary. I appreciate your time in helping me in my limited understanding. All I can add to this discussion is what I see on the computer screen after inserting the SD card from the Leica MD.
The rest are just suppositions and opinions that others, more qualified than me, have influenced me either way, to accept a superficial realization in a deceptive persuading manner or truth. As new to digital being naive doesn’t help…

 

[Nikon 2]

On my Mac desktop screen with the SD card inserted, the information icon shows RAW in the description…

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[Paul Howell]

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…

Just turn it off or tape it over. Other deciding if like CCD or CMOS sensor better or worse, the Nikon will allow you use your current lens with limitations, and many very good lens at prices that wont rob the piggy bank.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

Right, forgot that discussion…