Will Wrote--->>>"If you look at all the variable in a photograph from the original scene, the optics, the DR/noise of the sensor, to exposure, to processing, and then display. And the skill of the photographer is most likely the largest influence here. The sensor architecture is pretty obscure. You, Ed, and I regularly post 645D images here. All consistently high in quality. Yet, our photographs show a distinct style of the photographer--I am sure no one would confuse them. And not just in subject matter, but the tonal and color qualities. Where is the CCD look?"---<<<
Will, I'm not sure I fully agree with this statement. All these variables most definitely contribute to the look of the final image output from a CCD sensor based camera....but at the same time they also contribute to the look of output of a CMOS based camera. Yet even when these variables exist in both types of cameras, consistantly, it's the CCD based camera that appeals to me most and from what I gather, to many others too.
I realize many notice an absence of posted images from myself. Although I shoot 645D for personal use, lack of time to other more pressing responsibilities often leaves little time to fully process these images in order to be suitable for posting (personal images). The majority of my work with the 645D often involves well known and recognized personalities and/or clients whereupon written contractual agreement, prohibits my posting. At times, in some others cases, its simply not ethical. It's certainly not from lack of wanting to contribute to image posting and hope it's not construed this way.
The explanation of why the CCD based cameras have an appealing look to their images that many find lacking in a CMOS based camera, is still a long way off from being quantifiable. There have been so many possible explanations bandied about (no doubt some very plausable) and that's why at present, I choose to concentrate on image output, rather than the science and reasoning behind such differences. As I posted before, I am certainly very interested in the hows and why's..but there are so many hours in the day, so to speak. Everyone approaches this differently but at the end of the day, it's about the imagery and also final output that one hopes to achieve and of course love of the entire process.
Dave (D&A)
Will, I'm not sure I fully agree with this statement. All these variables most definitely contribute to the look of the final image output from a CCD sensor based camera....but at the same time they also contribute to the look of output of a CMOS based camera. Yet even when these variables exist in both types of cameras, consistantly, it's the CCD based camera that appeals to me most and from what I gather, to many others too.
I realize many notice an absence of posted images from myself. Although I shoot 645D for personal use, lack of time to other more pressing responsibilities often leaves little time to fully process these images in order to be suitable for posting (personal images). The majority of my work with the 645D often involves well known and recognized personalities and/or clients whereupon written contractual agreement, prohibits my posting. At times, in some others cases, its simply not ethical. It's certainly not from lack of wanting to contribute to image posting and hope it's not construed this way.
The explanation of why the CCD based cameras have an appealing look to their images that many find lacking in a CMOS based camera, is still a long way off from being quantifiable. There have been so many possible explanations bandied about (no doubt some very plausable) and that's why at present, I choose to concentrate on image output, rather than the science and reasoning behind such differences. As I posted before, I am certainly very interested in the hows and why's..but there are so many hours in the day, so to speak. Everyone approaches this differently but at the end of the day, it's about the imagery and also final output that one hopes to achieve and of course love of the entire process.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
