Welcome to the forum Lobalobo! You sure picked a hotly debated subject for your first post It isn't a settled discussion by any measure, and there are those who are firmly in one camp or another.
Some swear that they can not see a difference … and if they can see it initially, usually feel that the differences can be mitigated through digital post processing. This may well be true, and is a valid point for those who wish to achieve a certain look through post work.
Personally, I'm in the camp that desires an out-of-camera response that is initially closer to my own image criteria … and have even chosen between different CMOS cameras to achieve that, let alone CMOS verses CCD MFD cameras.
My current MFD system is CCD, and was selected for many of the attributes that you mentioned, and others here have commented on.
However, attributes like expanded DR and higher ISO performance are of less importance to me than they are to others. I use MFD in fat light, either natural or by means of lighting. In fact probably 75% of my MFD work involves strobe work where ISO and DR are less of an issue because I control both through placement, quantity and quality of the light.
We have to remember that the beginnings of digital backs were aimed at studio shooters as the digital age crashed down on them and all media abruptly went digital. My first digital back provided any ISO as long as it was 100:ROTFL: … and required being tethered to a computer or a giant battery. Hardly "field friendly".
I can fully understand why a natural landscape photographer using a field camera would hunger for all the attributes that a CMOS back would provide … and then expertly work on hard earned key images in post no matter how much time it may take.
- Marc
Some swear that they can not see a difference … and if they can see it initially, usually feel that the differences can be mitigated through digital post processing. This may well be true, and is a valid point for those who wish to achieve a certain look through post work.
Personally, I'm in the camp that desires an out-of-camera response that is initially closer to my own image criteria … and have even chosen between different CMOS cameras to achieve that, let alone CMOS verses CCD MFD cameras.
My current MFD system is CCD, and was selected for many of the attributes that you mentioned, and others here have commented on.
However, attributes like expanded DR and higher ISO performance are of less importance to me than they are to others. I use MFD in fat light, either natural or by means of lighting. In fact probably 75% of my MFD work involves strobe work where ISO and DR are less of an issue because I control both through placement, quantity and quality of the light.
We have to remember that the beginnings of digital backs were aimed at studio shooters as the digital age crashed down on them and all media abruptly went digital. My first digital back provided any ISO as long as it was 100:ROTFL: … and required being tethered to a computer or a giant battery. Hardly "field friendly".
I can fully understand why a natural landscape photographer using a field camera would hunger for all the attributes that a CMOS back would provide … and then expertly work on hard earned key images in post no matter how much time it may take.
- Marc