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
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?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.
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.You only thinking of interchangeable lens cameras?
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?
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.
View attachment 195139
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.
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.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..