Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
If you do, how about posting some examples? And perhaps even some comparison shots, if you have them.
Cheers, Jock
Cheers, Jock
-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
Does anybody else think that CCD sensors have a slightly different "look" to the images they produce?
- Thread starter Jock Elliott
- Start date
-
- Tags
- produce
All I know is how M9 images are somehow so crystal clear down to the pixel level whereas the M240 images are more ordinary. It's somehow as if the other wasn't using Bayer filters and the other was.
But it doesn't make much difference outside 100% pixel peeping. Not a difference at all.
But it doesn't make much difference outside 100% pixel peeping. Not a difference at all.
To be honest I never noticed a difference on the whole between cmos and ccd, in terms of look. The color filters on various sensors play a VERY significant role in the difference in looks between sensors, but as far as i know, and as far as i can reason, cmos or ccd doesn't and shouldn't make a difference.
Photons hit the color filter, which either allows them or rejects them based on the wavelength of that particular filter. After that, the sensor does its best to record the number of photons that make it through the color filter and into the pixel. If they work well, both ccd and cmos should accurately inform the image processor about the numbers of photons per pixel, and from there on, it's all software.
Cmos and ccd just use a different layout of the light sensitive surface and a different technology to read out the number of photons per pixel, but I don't see why that should result in any particular look.
Photons hit the color filter, which either allows them or rejects them based on the wavelength of that particular filter. After that, the sensor does its best to record the number of photons that make it through the color filter and into the pixel. If they work well, both ccd and cmos should accurately inform the image processor about the numbers of photons per pixel, and from there on, it's all software.
Cmos and ccd just use a different layout of the light sensitive surface and a different technology to read out the number of photons per pixel, but I don't see why that should result in any particular look.
Images from CMOS based cameras have more in-camera image processing applied, such as noise reduction and non-uniformity correction. CCD based images typically are closer to a "true raw" image out of the camera. I've never used coded lenses on my M8, have yet to notice non-uniformity caused by off-nadir light on lenses, including a Jupiter-12.
- Location
- Boston Burbs
- Name
- David
Not sure about other brands, but I remember more than a few threads over on the cafe about it when Nikon switched; Nikon D200 and Fuji S5 Pro to D300 for me.
Last edited:
Hmm you might have a point there. I wonder, though, if that's something that is inherently specific to cmos technology, or if it's just a technological development that happened to come up around the same time that cmos sensors started to replace ccd's? Or if it was made possible by cmos sensors, but isn't an inherently necessary step, just a choice by sensor / camera makers?
It is inherent to the design of CMOS sensors as they have a global reset, and allow over-sampling of the image. Front illuminated CMOS sensors lose collection efficiency of off-nadir light, meaning in-camera corrections for light fall-off are greater than that of CCD's.
- Location
- Switzerland
- Name
- Matt
What I see is that CCDs do two things: They give you gorgeous looking punchy colours that - on first glance - appear very natural, or at least organic, and they render with a distinct, but again pleasing lack of dynamic range. Way less flexible than most CMOS images from a similar size and resolution sensor, but also very appealing. Case in point, the M8 mentioned above.
I shot this yesterday in very high contrast, and while there is some shadow detail, I didn't recover it on purpose: Had I done that, it would seem washed out and low quality. I love how strong the image feels in spite of the lack of dynamic range. I think that's why images from that sensor are so nice to convert to black and white, too - it's "filmic" in the sense that you have to make do with what you get, but transitions (as well as colours) still look very nice and true. But technically, this is only just a tad better than what my smartphone can do (at base ISO, that is - the M8 does hold up much better in low light, and of course, I can use lenses that fling the smartphone lens against the wall and make it bounce).
N.B. I did use the JPEG for this and did some post processing in Polarr - the RAW is obviously still better, but crucially, not good enough if you're used to modern CMOS sensors in terms of shadow recovery. So it didn't make a major difference for the intended result in this case.
M.
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I shot this yesterday in very high contrast, and while there is some shadow detail, I didn't recover it on purpose: Had I done that, it would seem washed out and low quality. I love how strong the image feels in spite of the lack of dynamic range. I think that's why images from that sensor are so nice to convert to black and white, too - it's "filmic" in the sense that you have to make do with what you get, but transitions (as well as colours) still look very nice and true. But technically, this is only just a tad better than what my smartphone can do (at base ISO, that is - the M8 does hold up much better in low light, and of course, I can use lenses that fling the smartphone lens against the wall and make it bounce).
N.B. I did use the JPEG for this and did some post processing in Polarr - the RAW is obviously still better, but crucially, not good enough if you're used to modern CMOS sensors in terms of shadow recovery. So it didn't make a major difference for the intended result in this case.
M.
I'd love there to be some sort of directory of CCD cameras. I have looked, albeit unsuccessfully. Very common to first think of, say, an M9 but there are, I'm sure, many many bargains to be had for those of us that are attracted to that type of image from 10/15 year old cameras. I mentioned the Canon Powershots up-thread and off the top of my head I can also think of that Fuji DSLR that aped a Nikon and Pentax K200, both of which have access to wonderful lenses. But there's more - there has to be, right?
- Location
- Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- Name
- Sue
You only thinking of interchangeable lens cameras? I have two other CCD cameras apart from my K200D, those being the Ricoh GRD III, and the OLympus XZ-1, both of which have slightly larger sensors that the average compact camera.
No, all of them, keep 'em coming. Just had a look at the XZ-1 images and regardless of it's sensor size etc, I can still see a certain 'cine' look. The Panasonic/ Lumix LX3, that's another one, while I think of it.
Last edited:
Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
There is a directory. Go to dpreview, click on cameras, then click on camera feature search: Camera feature search: Digital Photography Review : Digital Photography Review!
Scroll down to sensor, click on sensor, then click on CCD for camera sensor type.
There are, apparently, 1677 CCD-sensor cameras in the DPreview database.
Cheers, Jock
Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
By golly, you nailed it! I would argue that this -- from my humble G12 -- has a similar look:
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
BTW, I think this -- "they render with a distinct, but again pleasing lack of dynamic range" -- is spot on. Never thought of it that way before . . . thanks!
Cheers, Jock
Last edited:
- Location
- Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- Name
- Sue
While the images in this thread are lovely, I am struggling to see any particular magic that would not show up in a cmos sensored camera... When I think of a camera with magic pixie dust sprinkled over its images to have them dripping with character, the original X100 is the first that comes to mind, with its CMOS sensor..
- Location
- Switzerland
- Name
- Matt
It ain't magic pixie dust at all - if anything, it's a kind of "judicious" imperfection that happens to please the eye. I fully agree that older CMOS sensors shared some of that at times, but Fuji did add their own pixie dust, in spades. I owned the Nikon D90 for years, and it was a very good camera capable of good images, but they never "sparkled" the way the ones from the Canon S95 did, which was very frustrating, because in all technical regards, the D90 was the clearly better tool and a really good camera in its own right. The D90's sensor was a close relative to the one used in the original Fujifilm X100 - but it didn't work out the same way.
I'd put it like that: If you want all the leeway you can get to create the images you want from the (RAW) files, modern CMOS sensors are the way to go. If you want to be surprised by just how good images from severely limited sensors can look, older CCD designs (which are often based on optical tools used in science before they became affordable enough to be put into consumer products) are a better bet.
I'd never put the M8 images over the ones coming from the M10 - the latter are better in every way, and just as gorgeous, if not even more so. But in terms of feel and effect, I'm very fond of the images I get from the M8 - and they're less demanding to process because frankly, there's not a lot you can do in many cases. The S95 ones were similar: Apart from occasionally needing corrections for distortion and white balance, they just popped, right out of the camera - or not at all. Sadly, my S95 now has a huge sticky flake of something dreadful on its sensor - too big for cloning out, easily visible in most shots ...
M.
The OP asked if CCD's gave a different look from CMOS, not anything about magic pixie dust or if one was better than the other.
CCD images give a different look, the technology of the sensors is different. Same as asking if Film gives a different look from CMOS sensors.
The M8 sensor is unique in that the dynamic range is 3dB higher than the M9. The saturation count of the M8 sensor is ~60K, the M9 is a bit higher than 40K. Blame sensor thinning (taking material off) to accommodate off-nadir light for a full-frame sensor. The M9 has better noise figures than the M8. Still- I still bring the M8 out, for the 1/8000th second top shutter speed and 16-bit RAW mode. Great camera. If you do not use M8RAW2DNG: in camera JPEG works with the true raw image, not the "damn-Idiotic" (as in firmware cripples a camera) compressed DNG file. I would have quit rather than implement that stupid compression scheme.
CCD images give a different look, the technology of the sensors is different. Same as asking if Film gives a different look from CMOS sensors.
The M8 sensor is unique in that the dynamic range is 3dB higher than the M9. The saturation count of the M8 sensor is ~60K, the M9 is a bit higher than 40K. Blame sensor thinning (taking material off) to accommodate off-nadir light for a full-frame sensor. The M9 has better noise figures than the M8. Still- I still bring the M8 out, for the 1/8000th second top shutter speed and 16-bit RAW mode. Great camera. If you do not use M8RAW2DNG: in camera JPEG works with the true raw image, not the "damn-Idiotic" (as in firmware cripples a camera) compressed DNG file. I would have quit rather than implement that stupid compression scheme.
Last edited:
- Location
- Newcastle, NSW, Australia
- Name
- Sue
The problem with trying to compare is in getting the same shot in the same conditions with two different cameras/sensors. I have similar shots in the same location, but they werent taken on the same day at the same time... so, in answer to the original Q... sorry, I don't have comparison shots. Anyone else?
