CCD vs CMOS

[Nikon 2]

Any opinions on the most realistic performing sensor…?

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Nikon 2]

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.

True…!

 

[Steven Lee]

@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.

 

[Pieter12]

@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 convertor they used with that camera.

He is asking for opinions, not how the damn things work. Every manufacturer's camera processes the files in-camera to some extent, and they can differ.Plus lenses can make a huge difference in color rendering. You don't have to post-process using Adobe products or profiles. I like how Capture One processes my CCD files.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Pieter12 he's asking specifically about rendering of CCD vs CMOS. Not two specific cameras or RAW converters. In other words, the question is about two different technologies, not products. A photographer cannot possibly have an opinion on CCD vs CMOS. An engineer might. You may like the output of your camera + RAW converter, but unless you know how the full stack works, you can't possibly attribute your preferences to CMOS or CCD.

[EDIT] I see how my comment may come across... full disclosure: I am not that engineer who knows the answers. I only worked on the DSP side of things, and somewhat familiar with the complexity of the overall imaging chain. It is simply too long with too many pieces for an end user to spot the difference or form an opinion on an underlying sensor technology. As far as I know, the differences between CMOS vs CCD show up in noise/dr, power consumption, readout speed, and cost. But if both are manufactured to the same spec, you get an identical monochromatic output.

 

[Nikon 2]

@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’m on it…!

 

[Pieter12]

@Pieter12 he's asking specifically about rendering of CCD vs CMOS. Not two specific cameras or RAW converters. In other words, the question is about two different technologies, not products. A photographer cannot possibly have an opinion on CCD vs CMOS. An engineer might. You may like the output of your camera + RAW converter, but unless you know how the full stack works, you can't possibly attribute your preferences to CMOS or CCD.

[EDIT] I see how my comment may come across... full disclosure: I am not that engineer who knows the answers. I only worked on the DSP side of things, and somewhat familiar with the complexity of the overall imaging chain. It is simply too long with too many pieces for an end user to spot the difference or form an opinion on an underlying sensor technology. As far as I know, the differences between CMOS vs CCD show up in noise/dr, power consumption, readout speed, and cost. But if both are manufactured to the same spec, you get an identical output.

I can have an opinion. Anyone can. You don’t have to be an engineer or technician to appreciate what you see. Photographs are not charts or data, they are images. And I prefer the color images I get with my CCD sensor cameras and their lenses to what I have seen produced by the CMOS sensor cameras, of which I own and use a few.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Pieter12 you don't see what's coming out of a sensor. You see the output of multiple pieces of software (often created by different companies) chained together. What you prefer is not "CCD sensors". You prefer color filters and software in your cameras that just happen to contain a CCD. It's like saying "I prefer color coming out of my chrome cameras, not my black-paint cameras". The attribution is wrong.

 

[wiltw]

Even IF the CCD could provide a 'better image' than CMOS, there are a number of advantages that CMOS has over CCD in the integration into cameras...

1. CMOS image sensors cost less to produce than CCD image sensors
2. CCD sensors that use high-voltage analog circuits, while CMOS sensors employ a smaller digital circuitry that uses less power,
3. in principle CMOS is free from smear (vertical white streak in the image taken under bright light) and blooming (corruption of images such as white spots).
4. logic circuitry can be built into the CMOS chip during the manufacturing process, so CMOS sensors with an on-chip image processing circuit

What Is a CMOS Image Sensor? | The principle of Semiconductor | nanotec museum

Semiconductor device that serves as an 'electronic eye', Faster in data rate than CCD, Cheaper, energy-efficient, and on-chip integratable

www.tel.com

CMOS = Lower cost, lower power needs, greater integration with support circuitry. Any CCD IQ benifit would have to be really big, and come with other significant advantages for it to overtake the use of CMOS.

 

[xkaes]

From -- https://www.csensor.com/ccd-vs-cmos:

Short Summary of the CCD vs CMOS Debate:​

• The CCD and CMOS sensor both exploit the photoelectric effect to capture light. Historically, CCDs produced higher-quality images with less noise, while CMOSs was more power efficient.

• Modern CMOS technology has evolved greatly, offering cost advantages, low power consumption and faster signal processing capabilities that have enabled its widespread usage in various applications.

• Recent improvements in CMOS sensor technology have made them a viable in image quality, comparable to CCD cameras, making them preferable for cost/energy efficiency as well as high speed imaging applications.

 

[Pieter12]

Well there seems to be a coincidence that the combination of CCD and the processing in camera and in post produce color I like better. Witness the difference in color rendering between the Leica S 006 (CCD) and the Leica S3 (CMOS). There is obviously something different happening at the sensor-level. CMOS sensors perform much better at higher ISOs and can reach ridiculously high ones at that. It can’t just be happening at the processor level.

Even IF the CCD could provide a 'better image' than CMOS, there are a number of advantages that CMOS has over CCD in the integration into cameras...

1. CMOS image sensors cost less to produce than CCD image sensors
2. CCD sensors that use high-voltage analog circuits, while CMOS sensors employ a smaller digital circuitry that uses less power,
3. in principle CMOS is free from smear (vertical white streak in the image taken under bright light) and blooming (corruption of images such as white spots).
4. logic circuitry can be built into the CMOS chip during the manufacturing process, so CMOS sensors with an on-chip image processing circuit

What Is a CMOS Image Sensor? | The principle of Semiconductor | nanotec museum

Semiconductor device that serves as an 'electronic eye', Faster in data rate than CCD, Cheaper, energy-efficient, and on-chip integratable

www.tel.com

CMOS = Lower cost, lower power needs, greater integration with support circuitry. Any CCD IQ benifit would have to be really big, and come with other significant advantages for it to overtake the use of CMOS.

I still like CCD sensor rendering better. But they are not being made anymore. The benefits listed above are benefits for the designer and manufacturer and beyond live view and high ISO performance and maybe lower cost, do not affect the user. Maybe CMOS sensors are more reliable.

 

[Pieter12]

@Pieter12 you don't see what's coming out of a sensor. You see the output of multiple pieces of software (often created by different companies) chained together. What you prefer is not "CCD sensors". You prefer color filters and software in your cameras that just happen to contain a CCD. It's like saying "I prefer color coming out of my chrome cameras, not my black-paint cameras". The attribution is wrong.

The attribution is more like, I like TRI-X shot at 320 and processed in Rodinal rather than Delta 100 at box speed processed in ID-11.

 

[Steven Lee]

Well there seems to be a coincidence that the combination of CCD and the processing in camera and in post produce color I like better. Witness the difference in color rendering between the Leica S 006 (CCD) and the Leica S3 (CMOS). There is obviously something different happening at the sensor-level.

Obviously? How can that be obvious if all sensors are monochromatic? Color is created entirely in software with help from a color filter. "CCD color" is a delusion. If you want S 006 color from the S3, build a LUT.

 

[Steven Lee]

BTW, when it comes to color, software makers completely dwarfed camera manufacturers. In the early days of DSLRs we used to argue over Canon color science vs Nikon color science. These days you get Adobe Color. Or CaptureOne color. Software companies get to decide what colors you get. Hardware hardly matters, let alone sensor tech (especially because everyone uses the same hardware anyway). @Pieter12 if you want "CCD color" you need to find the right DCP profile for your camera which will give you "CCD color".

 

[Nikon 2]

I thought I was asking a simple question…!

 

[wiltw]

Well there seems to be a coincidence that the combination of CCD and the processing in camera and in post produce color I like better. Witness the difference in color rendering between the Leica S 006 (CCD) and the Leica S3 (CMOS). There is obviously something different happening at the sensor-level. CMOS sensors perform much better at higher ISOs and can reach ridiculously high ones at that. It can’t just be happening at the processor level.


I still like CCD sensor rendering better. But they are not being made anymore. The benefits listed above are benefits for the designer and manufacturer and beyond live view and high ISO performance and maybe lower cost, do not affect the user. Maybe CMOS sensors are more reliable.

Unfortunately, the reality of business is that THEY choose what to implement based upon profitability...which is why cheaper SD card memory is used in so many cameras in spite of the fact that CF packaged memory has clear data transfer advantages over SD memory.
Decades ago VHS won over the market in spite of better video quality from Beta format.

 

[Nikon 2]

Obviously? How can that be obvious if all sensors are monochromatic? Color is created entirely in software with help from a color filter. "CCD color" is a delusion. If you want S 006 color from the S3, build a LUT.

A good point, Steven…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Could it be that a CCD sensor can achieve a truer color palette better than a CMOS sensor can by adjusting to the software more easily and accurately…?

 

[Pieter12]

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."

 

[Steven Lee]

@Nikon 2 Again, I am not a hardware guy. But AFAIK the modern sensor tech is not gamut-limited, in other words they capture way more than your monitor can display. It comes down to color filtration and signal processing. Back when I was researching sensors (I had a brief period when I was flirting with an idea of building my own film scanner) I was able to find datasheets for the sensors and color filter arrays used in Sony cameras with characteristic curves similar to what film datasheets use. The gamut was insane. Can't quickly find them now.

 

[Nikon 2]

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."

Yes, my Leica MD 262 only shoots RAW files and sent to my computer look more realistic than film flash drives ..!

 

[P1505]

I flip flop on this and have come to the conclusion that now, with modern CMOS, it’s all psychological.

I can say for sure the Canon 5D Classic creates beautiful colour. I haven’t googled to see what sensor it is, I don’t care. I can say the Hasselblad 100% outputs better colour than the Fuji with the same sensor - again to my eyes. And I can say that no Sony ever made can produce colours my brain can accept, even though they share sensors with other manufacturers.

So it can’t be the sensor, it must be what comes next.

However, I also know if you blind test me I’d change my opinion every week. It’s all about the light and what’s in front of your lens.

 

[Nikon 2]

I flip flop on this and have come to the conclusion that now, with modern CMOS, it’s all psychological.

I can say for sure the Canon 5D Classic creates beautiful colour. I haven’t googled to see what sensor it is, I don’t care. I can say the Hasselblad 100% outputs better colour than the Fuji with the same sensor - again to my eyes. And I can say that no Sony ever made can produce colours my brain can accept, even though they share sensors with other manufacturers.

So it can’t be the sensor, it must be what comes next.

However, I also know if you blind test me I’d change my opinion every week. It’s all about the light and what’s in front of your lens.

Some have said the software changes color more than the sensors…!

 

[Hassasin]

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.