Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
ENABLER. :facesmack:Guy - Bob
semantic arguments about CCD/CMOS are just one thing. Lovely cameras with delicious silky shutters, lovely lenses and a rangefinder are just the other.
There really is no escape:facesmack::chug:
oke:That may be because I still can not get over the fact that Barnack is no more!Absolutely Vivek - except that I know you aren't a member
HI Guy - I assumed you'd put it there. It's what you have to do to yourself when you decide that you really have to have two M bodies. :facesmack::facesmack::facesmack:
I run into this on workshops with folks. Just to much stuff. Really need to try and simplify your life with gear. Now your not a Pro so you have no restrictions here as far as being forced into gear. You shoot what you like, I know I say this when I retire I'm getting a M9 and 3 or 4 lenses. Street , travel and enjoyment. Tech cam landscape work 3 or 4 lenses and pretty much call it a day. But you really need to sit down and figure this out or gear thoughts will just cloud you art.
Guy,
You are not alone on this subject my friend. As I head toward more retirement, I'm faced with what to keep, what to jettison, and what to replace.
Jono,Hi There Sven
Indeed - how could it be otherwise when discussion a subjective judgement on a theoretical comparison
But actually, my position is that I don't know the answer to the question - and more to the point, nobody else does either (see below)!
I'm challenging what is an almost universally held belief on the internet (i.e. that CCD is inherently different from CMOS), because some technical people who I consider to be very knowledgeable and who are involved in sensor design, say that it is not the case. My argument here is not based on any personal technical knowledge, but on an understanding of logic and scientific methodology - which tells me that saying .Period. don't make it so!
see above Saying. Period. doesn't make it so - it just means you believe it to be so.
Okay - we agree that CCD works differently from CMOS and produces a different output.
The point of discussion is not this, but whether it is the processing of this data which produces the distinction between the current crop of CCD sensors from the current crop of CMOS sensors (which we can also agree have a different look) - or whether there is an inherent and visible difference.
The person I was talking to at Leica is quite certain that it's the way that the data from the sensor is treated in the production of the RAW file which characterises the image, and NOT the distinction between sensor technologies.
Of course, until someone changes their approach to using the data from a CMOS sensor consciously with the same values which are applied to data from a CCD sensor then it's really not possible to come to any categorical decision about this - because there are no two such sensors to compare the output from.
On a slight side track, it's interesting to look at the output from the D3X and the Sony A900. It's radically different, with the Sony showing characteristics which make it (at low ISO) look rather more like the current crop of CCD sensors. With a poor high ISO response - the D3x is rather the opposite. This is only interesting because they are the same sensor.
Let's put it this way:
a) some people say that there isn't necessarily a definitive and observable difference between a CMOS and CCD sensor (whatever the current crop of sensors might imply). (FWIW I've been told this by technical people at Leica amongst others)
b) some people say there is a definitive difference between the look of a CMOS and a CCD sensor - whatever the processing between sensor and RAW file (I've been told this by you and Guy (and most of the rest of the internet).
Describing the way the sensors work really doesn't have any bearing on these positions. It all hinges around the intent of the processing of the information and whether this is more important than the data from the sensor.
What is clear is that Canon and Nikon process the data to produce the best possible high ISO response - because that's the visible and definable IQ factor which sells cameras. (and this is what the internet defines as the CMOS look)
What is also clear is that Phase and Hasselblad process the information to provide the best colour response - because that's what their clients want, and because it's an identifiable advantage over what Canon and Nikon do. (and this is what the internet defines as the CCD look)
What is also clear is that Leica have tried to process the information from the M240 to produce a sensible compromise - whether they have achieved this or not will become more obvious when the final firmware is released - but it's worth bearing in mind that both Sean Reid and Ming Thein have been surprised at how the files from the new M look like something in between the M9 and D800 files.
all the best
Hi Sven
That would be Dalsa P40 not P30 which was Kodak. The same sensor in the P40 is identical to the IQ 140 and 160 although larger FF size.
Hi Scott
Guy: This comment was not intended for me, of course, but it can serve as a fine guide for lots of us, including my pondering of which FF digital rangefinder to get after having had M8 for five years. Keep it simple and get what you need--not what you want. At least for me, that's a good approach. Thank you.
