Does anybody else think that CCD sensors have a slightly different "look" to the images they produce?

@BrianS Is there an alternative to avoid the finger-dance to activate RAW on the M8? And thank you for enlightening me/us about the fact that the JPEG actually has its own strenghts; it explains to me why in some/many cases, working with the JPEG seems at least as rewarding as using the DNG ... though total DR seems a bit better from the DNGs, but I could be wrong ...

As for comparison shots, that'd be doable (e.g. M8 against Sony A7 II or even M10; though I really don't carry both Leica bodies, usually). For me, it's not anything I claim to be scientifically true anyway, but if anyone would really like to see some, I could do that, of course - Saturday should be a good day for it, too.

M.
 
If I were to go looking for a CCD body it would a Fuji S5 Pro, one of my favorite.
195154
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


195153
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


It's been a while since I had it, now I have another Fuji.

195155
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
@BrianS Is there an alternative to avoid the finger-dance to activate RAW on the M8?
M.

No alternative that I know of. This would require someone hacking the firmware, non-trivial. I have the button dance down. We need a tune to go with it. The "TimeWarp" would work. Four Steps to the Right, Three Steps to the Left, One Step to the Right, Hit Set- lets do the Raw Warp Again.
 
Yes I’ve heard about that camera. A CCD sensor to front all those wonderful and often classic Nikkors and great example of megapickles meaning blah.
No question, the X-Trans isn't Fuji's first special sensor.

I shoot 90% of my events in manual with auto ISO. The other 10% I shot in program or aperture priority with spot or center weighted because of a few errors like this one. I was shooting the bride and groom on a porch in complete shade. I turn and saw one of the nephews and snapped a quick pic. I didn't look at it, I just turned back to the B&G. The first is what I found when I got home. The second was what I was able to recover from the RAW file.

Pretty impressive for 12 years ago.
195168
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


195169
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
View attachment 195160

View attachment 195161

One CCD photo and the other a CMOS photo, both SOOC, down-scaled and converted to PNG, vote which is which and I'll tell.
I find this extremely difficult to say due to the shots being so different; but I'll go out on a limb and say that if there's no strange white balance issue at play, the first shot is CMOS, the second one CCD. But as I said before, my impression is as much one based on my own taste and the way I want my images to look (something that my own CCD based cameras make very easy for me) as anything else of any kind of objectivity.

The first shot has the balance and acuity, but also the flatness that you sometimes get with modern CMOS sensors (when working from RAW, it's no big deal to bring such files to life in post, btw.) - or from the current breed of cheap CCD sensors as used in inexpensive point and shoot cameras, though I'd be quite surprised by this because of the overall quality. If it is actually a smartphone shot (that impression is derived from the format as well as the DoF), it's a quite an impressive performance which may be helped just a bit by web compression.

The second shot has a warm tinge to it, is rather high contrast and pretty sharp, though also a bit painterly with strong colours, so probably could be perceived as a bit less accurate, but to my eyes, it's very well lit, well seen as well as quite pleasing overall. It's a shot I could have got with the M10, but not SOOC from the A7 II; the M8 would produce something similar in terms of tones, though it might be difficult to get that kind of DoF indoors at base ISO to control noise - so, maybe a premium compact, 1/1.7"?

If anything, the images are so different in tonality and feel that I'd say it's a boon to have both tools available 👍

M.
 
I find this extremely difficult to say due to the shots being so different; but I'll go out on a limb and say that if there's no strange white balance issue at play, the first shot is CMOS, the second one CCD. But as I said before, my impression is as much one based on my own taste and the way I want my images to look (something that my own CCD based cameras make very easy for me) as anything else of any kind of objectivity.

The first shot has the balance and acuity, but also the flatness that you sometimes get with modern CMOS sensors (when working from RAW, it's no big deal to bring such files to life in post, btw.) - or from the current breed of cheap CCD sensors as used in inexpensive point and shoot cameras, though I'd be quite surprised by this because of the overall quality. If it is actually a smartphone shot (that impression is derived from the format as well as the DoF), it's a quite an impressive performance which may be helped just a bit by web compression.

The second shot has a warm tinge to it, is rather high contrast and pretty sharp, though also a bit painterly with strong colours, so probably could be perceived as a bit less accurate, but to my eyes, it's very well lit, well seen as well as quite pleasing overall. It's a shot I could have got with the M10, but not SOOC from the A7 II; the M8 would produce something similar in terms of tones, though it might be difficult to get that kind of DoF indoors at base ISO to control noise - so, maybe a premium compact, 1/1.7"?

If anything, the images are so different in tonality and feel that I'd say it's a boon to have both tools available 👍

M.
I agree with you that it's because of the hugely different subject they are not directly comparable in any scientific way. And by the way, very nice observations, and I like that you also pointed out what could be the other causes for different looks rather than just CCD vs CMOS. I'll wait a while before giving the answer to see what other people think of them.
 
After going through some of the my old photos and seeing some dpreview CCD camera sample photos, I can't say CCD produces a technically better image, not that anyone's implying that in the thread I know. What I do realise CCD could do to make photos look better to my eyes, is that although CCD cameras from those days lack dynamic range compared to the new CMOS cameras, they usually produces smoother, or less saturated photos but rich in tones, the blue contains more cyan and the green contains more yellow, resulting in a more lively look IMO.

CMOS photos OTOH, often look too "digital", like there's less transition in between, saturation is often too high and they look polarised to me. However I think CMOS might have better skin tones, just my very personal opinion.

All of those are based on the fact that there's no strange thing going on like crazy white balance, or in-camera profile.

The photo below was taken with my EPL5 camera with a CMOS sensor.
195177


I made a slightly different version to demonstrate what could make it more CCD-like, not precisely, just a 2 minutes quick and dirty edit in PS. I can't reproduce the smooth colour gradient that doesn't exist from the JPG, if I lower the saturation that doesn't make it more like my desired CCD look.

195178
 
I've gone through as much gear as most people (m43/Fuji/Nikon/Ricoh/Canon Powershots). By way of example, these random CCD images I think look different to all of them, maybe a bit more film-like. Whether one can tell the difference, whether it's "better" or whether you like it, is of course a very personal thing.

43762651380_1c39cce6fe_b.jpg
Untitled
by Otim, on Flickr

44881593324_8f04376d3d_b.jpg
Sculpture By The Sea 2018
by Otim, on Flickr

Personally, I love it, but that's just me.
 
Here are some shots from a couple of (very) different cameras; the first two pairs were explicitly shot to pit CCD against CMOS, albeit two very different quality sensors on the whole (though interestingly, same resolution ...). The last shows two slightly different shots of the same view, again CCD vs. CMOS. All images are SOOC JPEGs, all from yesterday's impromptu walk.

1)

195224

A

195223

B

2)

195222

C

195221

D

3)

195220

E

195219

F

It'd be interesting to know your opinion as to what's what ...

EDIT: EXIF removed - I thought I had things set up to prevent it showing because I sure don't see it. Sorry for that stupid fumble ...

M.
 
Last edited:
Here are some shots from a couple of (very) different cameras; the first two pairs were explicitly shot to pit CCD against CMOS, albeit two very different quality sensors on the whole (though interestingly, same resolution ...). The last shows two slightly different shots of the same view, again CCD vs. CMOS. All images are SOOC JPEGs, all from yesterday's impromptu walk.

1)

View attachment 195195A

View attachment 195194B

2)

View attachment 195192C

View attachment 195193D

3)

View attachment 195191E

View attachment 195190F

It'd be interesting to know your opinion as to what's what ...

M.
You left the exif, they show under each photo, an interesting comparison though.
 
I always found the same with my old CCD Nikon D40 versus the later M4/3 cameras with CMOS sensors. The D40 with the old Nikon 50mm f1.8 produced amazingly saturated, beautiful images - without much exposure latitude or DR. The 12MP and 16MP four thirds sensors I always felt were flatter and duller. But I do wonder whether some of that just doesn't come down to camera processing, aiming for more versatility in post processing. What has made me suspect that CMOS sensors have potential for the same punchiness as CCD has been working with a few Fuji original X100 raw files, and the 16MP and 24MP Ricoh GR sensors - those three examples produce files that I'd be hard-pressed to differentiate from good CCD files. I don't know - I definitely haven't made a scientific inquiry into it but this is the impression I got.
 
I always found the same with my old CCD Nikon D40 versus the later M4/3 cameras with CMOS sensors. The D40 with the old Nikon 50mm f1.8 produced amazingly saturated, beautiful images - without much exposure latitude or DR. The 12MP and 16MP four thirds sensors I always felt were flatter and duller. But I do wonder whether some of that just doesn't come down to camera processing, aiming for more versatility in post processing. What has made me suspect that CMOS sensors have potential for the same punchiness as CCD has been working with a few Fuji original X100 raw files, and the 16MP and 24MP Ricoh GR sensors - those three examples produce files that I'd be hard-pressed to differentiate from good CCD files. I don't know - I definitely haven't made a scientific inquiry into it but this is the impression I got.
It’s a sort of similar situation with the Fuji’s. No CCD sensor, but the ones used particularly in the original X100, XE1 and even X-T1 are different to the new models in, I think, a nicer way, albeit without the bells and whistles in the camera.
 
I always found the same with my old CCD Nikon D40 versus the later M4/3 cameras with CMOS sensors. The D40 with the old Nikon 50mm f1.8 produced amazingly saturated, beautiful images - without much exposure latitude or DR. The 12MP and 16MP four thirds sensors I always felt were flatter and duller. But I do wonder whether some of that just doesn't come down to camera processing, aiming for more versatility in post processing. What has made me suspect that CMOS sensors have potential for the same punchiness as CCD has been working with a few Fuji original X100 raw files, and the 16MP and 24MP Ricoh GR sensors - those three examples produce files that I'd be hard-pressed to differentiate from good CCD files. I don't know - I definitely haven't made a scientific inquiry into it but this is the impression I got.

I just went to Photography Blog, one of the few websites that do raw samples even before DPReview started doing it and I downloaded a few D3000 raw files.

You can see them here:
Nikon D3000 Review - Sample Images | Photography Blog


It definitely wasn't all in my head, the raw files definitely have nice sharpness and the colors are quite punchy! I only wish Nikon made some pancake lenses like Canon with their 24mm 2.8 and 40mm 2.8 STM lenses. I could see picking the D3000 up for cheap and just slapping a small prime on it!
 
It’s a sort of similar situation with the Fuji’s. No CCD sensor, but the ones used particularly in the original X100, XE1 and even X-T1 are different to the new models in, I think, a nicer way, albeit without the bells and whistles in the camera.
So basically you're not a fan of the 24 and 26mp sensors?

X100 - 12mp Last non X-Tran in a premium body
X-E1 - 16mp X-Tran I
X-T1 - 16mp X-Tran II
 
Back
Top