The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

CCD or CMOS - you choose

jonoslack

Active member
Hi There
David Farkas has an interesting pair of articles on the Red Dot Forum website.
He's actually trying to get some statistical information on the question of whether people can tell the difference in real photos.

There are different ways it could have been done, but at least it's an interesting experiment - if you can spare the time why don't you vote on this - the more people vote the better the statistics.

CCD vs CMOS - part 1

and

CCD vs CMOS - part 2


Enjoy!
 
I enjoyed guessing – and I wonder if Dave will provide a way for us to check out our own answers against the correct ones?

Kirk
 
Thanks for posting this here Jono. I went through David's articles yesterday, but didn't think to post links to them here. Duh.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Whatever results from CMOS - they look better for me.

Translated this means - I would never go back to CCD anytime in the future, as CMOS has just too many advantages.

Easy decision ;)
 

jonoslack

Active member
I enjoyed guessing – and I wonder if Dave will provide a way for us to check out our own answers against the correct ones?

Kirk
Hi There
Sadly I don't think David has a way of identifying sessions - I thought it would be interesting to know if anyone got all (or most) of them right, but apparently he can't do that

Still, I think it's worthwhile, because if his results show 50-50 . . . then it's pretty clear that those who KNOW the difference between CCD and CMOS . . .
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
I think if David provides the correct answer for each comparison ... we can get an idea of how we did . It was apparent to me that in a high percentage of the comparison that they were so close as to not matter .

There are three key areas I looked for :

1. Highlights on the M9 are generally brighter because the M9 has a stronger tone curve and a smaller DR . Unless you adjust for it the light tones will appear brighter . This is a big part of the “brilliance “ that often seen. Of course at the expense of maintaining detail in the highlights/lights .

2. The M240 files will generally show a more magenta blue sky ..this is due to the profiles used to correct the yellow green bias of the CMOS file . You used to be able to see this easily by using the embedded profiles .

3. Skin tones on the M9 tend to favor the lighter pink hue verse the stronger orange sometimes seen in the M240 . If the skin looks baby pink its probably an M9 file .

If you have access to both cameras simply shoot a color checker chart in sunlight and compare the color strength and tone curves . What David has done to his credit is to show that with most photographs ...the results are too close to reliably differentiate .

Too bad Leica hasn t provided an M9 color profile for the M240 .
 

jonoslack

Active member
What David has done to his credit is to show that with most photographs ...the results are too close to reliably differentiate .
Exactly my feelings Roger - and if that's the case, then it seems to me that it's pretty tough to assign what differences there might be to the CCD/CMOS argument.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I think if David provides the correct answer for each comparison ... we can get an idea of how we did . It was apparent to me that in a high percentage of the comparison that they were so close as to not matter .
Hi again Roger
I think it would have been good for him to be able to get the results from each user - to see whether ANYONE was reliably getting the images correct - obviously 1 person might be luck, but if a few people had got them all (or nearly all) correct then one could infer that there really was a difference (even if it was one that the majority couldn't tell).

There's a good statistical exercise which could be done here . . . . . but although this is useful - and I applaud David for doing it - it isn't quite the real deal.

On the other hand - if one designed a really good experiment - and got lots and lots of people to join in - and proved conclusively that people couldn't tell between the two cameras . . . . . . it still wouldn't convince people, because battle lines in the CCD/CMOS argument have really been drawn up on religious grounds.

All the best
Jono
 

seakayaker

Active member
Thanks for the link, it was fun to go through the two sets of images. Look forward to Part 3, please let us know when it is posted.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I would find this experiment more useful if we could play with the files. It's not just the finished product, although that is quite important. It's also how easy it is to get a desired look, and how quickly the file deteriorates as it is over-manipulated.

I also think it's a comparison of individual camera models more than a comparison of sensor technologies.

--Matt
 

jonoslack

Active member
I would find this experiment more useful if we could play with the files. It's not just the finished product, although that is quite important. It's also how easy it is to get a desired look, and how quickly the file deteriorates as it is over-manipulated.

I also think it's a comparison of individual camera models more than a comparison of sensor technologies.

--Matt
I couldn't agree more with you Matt - not a shadow of doubt that the cameras are different . . . but there are good reasons for this in the demosaicing / DR / Bayer filter- no need to think it's because of differing sensor technology.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I could come up with features to look for in the paired pictures. I voted with the majority most but not all of the time. I have no clue on the single pictures in part 2.

scott
 

aDam007

New member
There is no difference between CMOS and CCD visually that you or I could see. Any differences you are seeing are other factors at play.

The whole CCD VS CMOS is overhyped.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
After reading this thread, (to mangle Shakespeare a bit) ... " Methinks thou dost protest too much".:)

Seriously, why the obvious underlying need to begrudge a preference or fondness for CCD rendering, be it real or perceived? Why is it so important?

The sun is setting on the era of CCDs across the photographic landscape ... and, speaking of "religion", we will all have to drink the CMOS Kool-Aid soon enough :ROTFL: ... in this specific case, if we wish to continue using a M Rangefinder and ALL of the M lenses ... and eventually the S system, and all of its expensive proprietary glass.

With all the issues that Leica has had with CCDs (cracking, corroding, etc), and the migration to CMOS in the M240 and S(007), it is clearly ... over and out in short enough order. I doubt ME and SE CCD offerings will last very far in future.

So, while fun, retailer exercises like this feel like sales pitches to convince some of us about what?

I don't get it. While it will probably support those who think there is no difference, it most likely does little to alter the perceptions of those who do. Even if it did, what's the point? To sell more M(240)s? Are they not selling well? Are M9 users not buying? Are too many M9 users migrating to Sony? Is Leica worried that CMOS is, or will be, effecting sales because it is not perceptually different enough from upstart mirror-less competition? Does Leica need to operationally phase out the ME and SE CCD models sooner than later?

As to the CCD/CMOS M differences I see, I think Roger outlined it well, so I won't repeat it.

That this set of images may be hard to distinguish one from another speaks to what? Skill in post? Skill in selecting scenarios with manipulative contrast? Are images from the two cameras really indistinguishable?

The M9 had a distinct "finger-print" in the eyes of many. Why begrudge it's unique place in Leica's history of image making tools?

It all seems to be a moot point ... actually, soon to be a pointless point :rolleyes:

- Marc
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
After reading this thread, (to mangle Shakespeare a bit) ... " Methinks thou dost protest too much".:)

Seriously, why the obvious underlying need to begrudge a preference or fondness for CCD rendering, be it real or perceived? Why is it so important?

The sun is setting on the era of CCDs across the photographic landscape ... and, speaking of "religion", we will all have to drink the CMOS Kool-Aid soon enough :ROTFL: ... in this specific case, if we wish to continue using a M Rangefinder and ALL of the M lenses ... and eventually the S system, and all of its expensive proprietary glass.

With all the issues that Leica has had with CCDs (cracking, corroding, etc), and the migration to CMOS in the M240 and S(007), it is clearly ... over and out in short enough order. I doubt ME and SE CCD offerings will last very far in future.

So, while fun, retailer exercises like this feel like sales pitches to convince some of us about what?

I don't get it. While it will probably support those who think there is no difference, it most likely does little to alter the perceptions of those who do. Even if it did, what's the point? To sell more M(240)s? Are they not selling well? Are M9 users not buying? Are too many M9 users migrating to Sony? Is Leica worried that CMOS is, or will be, effecting sales because it is not perceptually different enough from upstart mirror-less competition? Does Leica need to operationally phase out the ME and SE CCD models sooner than later?

As to the CCD/CMOS M differences I see, I think Roger outlined it well, so I won't repeat it.

That this set of images may be hard to distinguish one from another speaks to what? Skill in post? Skill in selecting scenarios with manipulative contrast? Are images from the two cameras really indistinguishable?

The M9 had a distinct "finger-print" in the eyes of many. Why begrudge it's unique place in Leica's history of image making tools?

It all seems to be a moot point ... actually, soon to be a pointless point :rolleyes:

- Marc

Spot on. I couldn't agree more! Thanks.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
After reading this thread, (to mangle Shakespeare a bit) ... " Methinks thou dost protest too much".:)

Seriously, why the obvious underlying need to begrudge a preference or fondness for CCD rendering, be it real or perceived? Why is it so important?

The sun is setting on the era of CCDs across the photographic landscape ... and, speaking of "religion", we will all have to drink the CMOS Kool-Aid soon enough :ROTFL: ... in this specific case, if we wish to continue using a M Rangefinder and ALL of the M lenses ... and eventually the S system, and all of its expensive proprietary glass.

With all the issues that Leica has had with CCDs (cracking, corroding, etc), and the migration to CMOS in the M240 and S(007), it is clearly ... over and out in short enough order. I doubt ME and SE CCD offerings will last very far in future.

So, while fun, retailer exercises like this feel like sales pitches to convince some of us about what?

I don't get it. While it will probably support those who think there is no difference, it most likely does little to alter the perceptions of those who do. Even if it did, what's the point? To sell more M(240)s? Are they not selling well? Are M9 users not buying? Are too many M9 users migrating to Sony? Is Leica worried that CMOS is, or will be, effecting sales because it is not perceptually different enough from upstart mirror-less competition? Does Leica need to operationally phase out the ME and SE CCD models sooner than later?

As to the CCD/CMOS M differences I see, I think Roger outlined it well, so I won't repeat it.

That this set of images may be hard to distinguish one from another speaks to what? Skill in post? Skill in selecting scenarios with manipulative contrast? Are images from the two cameras really indistinguishable?

The M9 had a distinct "finger-print" in the eyes of many. Why begrudge it's unique place in Leica's history of image making tools?

It all seems to be a moot point ... actually, soon to be a pointless point :rolleyes:

- Marc
Hi Marc,
I think such comparison can help people who want to get a digital rangefinder and trying to decide which one. It also helps people who want the functions of the M type 240 but are confused from reading all the threads about CCD vs CMOS which do not include direct comparisons.
 

bradhusick

Active member
The images are so close that the distinct advantages of the CMOS sensor make that the obvious choice. I shot both the M9 and M240 for years and would never go back to an M9.
 

jonoslack

Active member
The M9 had a distinct "finger-print" in the eyes of many. Why begrudge it's unique place in Leica's history of image making tools?
Nobody is denying the cameras are different Marc - OR that the M9 doesn't have a distinct finger print (many cameras have distinct finger prints - uncontroversial ones might be the Olympus E1 and the Sony A900)

It all seems to be a moot point ... actually, soon to be a pointless point :rolleyes:

- Marc
The reason for bringing it up is twofold

1. People are not buying the M240 because there is a huge groundswell of opinion on the internet that the colour is no good (of course, we both know that this is a matter of personal preference - which is fine if it was the general perception, but it isn't). It's one of those stories which largely originated in the incorrect WB adjustment on the original firmware - exacerbated by a series of photos taken in the far east and widely circulated where the photographer SAID he had used AWB but actually had used Daylight WB in streets in Hong Kong (I know this because I saw the raw files with intact exif information) . This still resonates around the internet and it's still putting people off

2. Because the CCD/CMOS / Colour thing does not seem to be founded in fact (again, I'm not denying the difference in the colours). Colour is a function of the Bayer filter and the demosaicing (and partly the DR) - NOT a function of the underlying structure of the sensor. . . . . . . But the reason I referred to it as a 'religion' is that it isn't really possible to investigate on any kind of empirical basis.

It's certainly NOT moot - because it's costing a number of manufacturers money (not just Leica) and it's on the basis of fundamental misconceptions - and disinformation.

Let me repeat - I'm NOT saying there is no difference between the M9 and the M240 - and I understand and respect your dislike for it . . . but what I am denying is that the reason for it is that the M9 is CCD and the M240 is CMOS!
 
Top