Suggestions for Medium Format Camera with CCD Sensor. DISREGARD This Thread

[Pieter 12]

I still have my Leica S2 which I bought used in 2017 for 2k. It needs an (sort of expensive) adapter for HC and Contax lenses, but works actually pretty well despite its age. I keep it because it is not worth selling it and from time to time it is fun to use the S2. Not sure though I understand you want a CCD based camera.

But who needs an adapter when the Leica S lenses are so superb, better than the Hasselblad or Contax lenses IMO, just bigger and heavier. And with the CCD sensor, a knock-out combination. Just watch out for the corrosion issues and hope the camera (and the early AF lens motors) does not need any quite likely expensive and possibly impossible repairs.

 

[baudolino]

Rollei Hy6 with Leaf Credo 80. This is a very very niche combo. The back especially is very difficult to find in the Hy6 mount (took me about a year before one became available through Eric Hiss); the body can still be purchased new from DW Photo (I hope...I bought mine last year). The four latest images on my website are shot with the combo.

 

[drevil]

It was also phase one that said that there is no difference, otherwise they surely would have sticked to dalsa sensors(my guess)

I mean everyone loves the old kodak sensors, especially the ones in the p25 and p45 backs, my guess is also that this was the same tech that was used in the leica m9. And leica was able to achieve a special film look with that sensor.

My guess is, its mostly a profil companies put on their raw files

 

[buildbot]

Could it be pixel density? I know a lot of astro photography is biased towards bigger pixel pitch than mainstream photography to achieve a better SNR. Perhaps older CCD sensors have better color SNR than newer ones do, at base ISO? Looking at DXOmark to spot check that hypothesis, it does not really hold out, but also, I am not sure I trust them that much anyway.

 

[Pieter 12]

Rollei Hy6 with Leaf Credo 80. This is a very very niche combo. The back especially is very difficult to find in the Hy6 mount (took me about a year before one became available through Eric Hiss); the body can still be purchased new from DW Photo (I hope...I bought mine last year). The four latest images on my website are shot with the combo.

So I have a Hy6 with an older AFi II-7 back, and I really like the rendering, it doesn't have the digital "curse" of 35mm and smaller size sensors. I really like using the camera and especially the lenses, shooting mostly B&W film. What lens did you use for the portrait?

 

[beano_z]

Is there any rational reason to want a CCD sensor instead of CMOS? In terms of color differences, it can not be because of the sensor technology. Charges in the pixels and/or electronics don't change behaviour depending on how they were created, so the difference must be because of different CFA's or processing. Which has nothing with CCD or CMOS to do.

My guess is that most of what we (think we) see, is due to the manufacturers changing approach to priorities. The noise from an old CCD would not be accepted by many today, and hence CFA's now have more overlap between R-G-B, which means lesser "color resolution" (not neccessarily accuracy) but lower noise. Or that the signal processing of some of the old sensors were just very inaccurate in an aesthetically pleasing way. But I highly doubt that it has anything with CCD vs. CMOS to do.

So, if it is a particular "look" you want, you can't just choose any CCD. And you should probably not rule out all CMOS sensors.

What you've written could be technically correct and I have no reason to object to this logic.

However, there are two cases which have convinced me to go back to CCD (and I use the term here just to refer to the cameras equipped with CCD sensors). First was the Leica M9 vs. M240, I never gotten to like the images from the M240 when compared to the M9, so I ended up keeping the M9 and getting rid of the M240. Second was my P45 vs. IQ3 100mpx (& IQ4 150mpx backs), after I got rid of my old P45+ to upgrade to the IQ3 back, I always felt my landscape shots had colours which were difficult to edit to my liking (again, like you mentioned, this could be anything from colour to dynamic range to processing, etc.), so I opted to add the Hasselblad CFV (CCD equipped) backs to shoot for my own pleasure.

There might be CMOS based cameras which will produce images that look 'right' to me, but given the above experience (which cost me both lots of money and time), I'm hesitant to go and try all of them. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, who can't judge these things scientifically but can only do so based on subjective feel and more often than not, we end up simplifying things and choose an easy route. i.e. go CCD instead of CMOS.

Ideally, if I could try any camera I wanted to on my chosen subject, then surely I would, and perhaps then I'd find better options for me than those out of date, obsolete CFV backs, but sadly this is not realistic, at least not for me.

 

[Makten]

What you've written could be technically correct and I have no reason to object to this logic.

However, there are two cases which have convinced me to go back to CCD (and I use the term here just to refer to the cameras equipped with CCD sensors). First was the Leica M9 vs. M240, I never gotten to like the images from the M240 when compared to the M9, so I ended up keeping the M9 and getting rid of the M240. Second was my P45 vs. IQ3 100mpx (& IQ4 150mpx backs), after I got rid of my old P45+ to upgrade to the IQ3 back, I always felt my landscape shots had colours which were difficult to edit to my liking (again, like you mentioned, this could be anything from colour to dynamic range to processing, etc.), so I opted to add the Hasselblad CFV (CCD equipped) backs to shoot for my own pleasure.

There might be CMOS based cameras which will produce images that look 'right' to me, but given the above experience (which cost me both lots of money and time), I'm hesitant to go and try all of them. I'm sure there are lots of people like me, who can't judge these things scientifically but can only do so based on subjective feel and more often than not, we end up simplifying things and choose an easy route. i.e. go CCD instead of CMOS.

Ideally, if I could try any camera I wanted to on my chosen subject, then surely I would, and perhaps then I'd find better options for me than those out of date, obsolete CFV backs, but sadly this is not realistic, at least not for me.

While I agree (at least to some extent), I just wanted to point out that the color difference is not because of CCD vs. CMOS. It's becoming some sort of myth, similar to the one about larger pixels giving lower noise (they don't, per image height).

Someone mentioned dynamic range, and that probably plays a role. However, with a modern, low noise sensor, you're free to apply a lot of contrast in PP. But of course it takes some effort, especially if the out-of-camera image doesn't inspire you to work on it.

 

[baudolino]

So I have a Hy6 with an older AFi II-7 back, and I really like the rendering, it doesn't have the digital "curse" of 35mm and smaller size sensors. I really like using the camera and especially the lenses, shooting mostly B&W film. What lens did you use for the portrait?

I used the Tele-Xenar 180 AFD with the ET9 extension tube for the fourth picture (dark/pale), and the 80mm Schneider AFD for the others. I like the ergonomics of shooting with the 45 deg prism. And the colours coming out of the sensor, when combined with the native Leaf profiles in Capture One (strangely, my favourite profile is something like "Product 5", even for portraits).

For completeness, I shoot otherwise mostly with Phase One XF IQ4 150...which is on another level again...(and a few other cameras, film and digital). The Rollei with the Credo back is more or less a product of extensive GAS-inducing lockdown boredom, combined with some CCD nostalgia. But yes, it still works very nicely and I shoot my favourite people with it.
I am not interested in "learned debates" about CCD vs. CMOS and how "I can achieve the same look in post processing" etc. The Hy6 camera has its quirks (so has the XF) - mostly in terms of AF missing focus - but as long as I align everything correctly, the images sing (the model told me that her grandfather loved the images, so what more can I wish for?).

 

[JoelM]

The two sensors vary quite a bit. CMOS is much better at higher ISO, but CCD allows you to pull out more pleasing colors from the shadows and highlights. I use a Leica S2 and M9 and shoot at low ISOs. The S2 was bought like new (MPB) for about $2000 and came with the original receipt of $17k or so. Quite a savings and the look is fantastic. If you need convenience, high ISOs, and want CMOS, the Fujis (GFX100s) are fantastic. Don't forget, Kodak made the M8 and M9 sensors for Leica to resemble Kodachrome. Sensors are not created equal.

 

[Pieter 12]

When I shoot MF film, I usually shoot ISO 160, sometimes 320 or 80. High ISO capability in medium format is not really that much of an advantage. In 35mm where shooting sports, theatrical or action is more prevalent, high ISO performance is definitely a plus.

 

[baudolino]

Don't forget that the base ISO for the CCD based Phase/Leaf backs is 35. You do need light. The Leica S2 is usable at up to ISO 640 and provides quite a nice "filmic look"at that ISO.

You can check out a series I shot on the S2 back in 2012 when traveling to Uganda here . The chimp pictures were shot at ISO 640, I think the gorillas as well. The problem with the CCD Leicas is sensor corrosion which, I now believe, is a matter of when and not if.

 

[TechTalk]

...In terms of color differences, it can not be because of the sensor technology. Charges in the pixels and/or electronics don't change behaviour depending on how they were created, so the difference must be because of different CFA's or processing. Which has nothing with CCD or CMOS to do...

...I just wanted to point out that the color difference is not because of CCD vs. CMOS. It's becoming some sort of myth...

As you said, "the difference must be because of different CFA's or processing". Myths are difficult to overcome.

But the fact remains that CCD and CMOS sensors are both monochrome electronic measuring devices which convert photons collected into an analog voltage signal. Color is derived from the color filters (which are not electronic) placed in front of the monochrome sensors and the software which interpolates and creates the color RGB pixels that we see.

 

[buildbot]

As you said, "the difference must be because of different CFA's or processing". Myths are difficult to overcome.

But the fact remains that CCD and CMOS sensors are both monochrome electronic measuring devices which convert photons collected into an analog voltage signal. Color is solely derived from the color filters (which are not electronic) placed in front of the monochrome sensors and the software which interpolates and creates the color RGB pixels that we see.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are’t there some fairly meaningful difference about how analog CCDs vs CMOS sensors are? Foveon sensors also convert light into analog voltage, but again differently than normal monochrome bayer sensors. Even on the same sensor, you have to balance the relative sensitivities between stitched die shots. I wonder if when this happens, if the quantum efficiency curve is altered proportionally or at random, that would also be a meaningful difference between sensors made with different silicon.

The entire processing chain combines to give a different look by default, at least in my opinion.

 

[TechTalk]

Within the context of the discussion which preceded my comments, I was not including unique sensor technologies, like the Foveon, which utilizes an entirely different approach to measuring color.

 

[Makten]

When I shoot MF film, I usually shoot ISO 160, sometimes 320 or 80. High ISO capability in medium format is not really that much of an advantage. In 35mm where shooting sports, theatrical or action is more prevalent, high ISO performance is definitely a plus.

To me, low noise at high ISO is a great advantage regardless of what system I use. It means I seldom need a tripod and that I don't have to use different cameras for different occasions.

Just an example, ISO 3200 and 1/8 shutter speed...

 

[Geoff]

On the CCD vs. CMOS discussion, here's a comparison of three backs, one CCD, two CMOS. The idea was to compare different generation of backs using the same camera, lens and setup. In general, the findings are
- at base ISO there is a wee advantage to the CCD
- the two CMOS backs at ISO 800 are almost comparable to the CCD back at base ISO 50.
- in general, the CMOS flexibility yields a signficant advantage for usability, but the CCD back is still a quality back.

https://www.gigi-photos.com/digitalbacktest.pdf

 

[Pieter 12]

To me, low noise at high ISO is a great advantage regardless of what system I use. It means I seldom need a tripod and that I don't have to use different cameras for different occasions.

Just an example, ISO 3200 and 1/8 shutter speed...

View attachment 194439

Looks like a strobe shot, dragging at a slow (for ambient) shutter speed. I don't necessarily see the need for high ISO unless the room was vert dim.

 

[Makten]

Looks like a strobe shot, dragging at a slow (for ambient) shutter speed. I don't necessarily see the need for high ISO unless the room was vert dim.

I used a little bit of bounce flash, but the room was very dim, yes. Maybe not the best example since I have used the flash like three times and then concluded that flash is probably not for me.
Here's another example; ISO 6400 and 1/15. No flash.



Could I have used a simpler, smaller camera? Yes and no. This was the only camera I had with me (vacation) and it would not be very convenient to schlep two cameras just because I wanted photos of the family too.
Nothing of what I shoot requires fast AF, but most of it is done without tripod and some in very poor light. So, high ISO capabilites is very important to me, not to mention IBIS.

 

[TechTalk]

When I shoot MF film, I usually shoot ISO 160, sometimes 320 or 80. High ISO capability in medium format is not really that much of an advantage...

"When I shoot"... you shoot the way that you prefer. What you find advantageous does not universally apply to others needs and preferred methods.

 

[Pieter 12]

"When I shoot"... you shoot the way that you prefer. What you find advantageous does not universally apply to others needs and preferred methods.

First, I am not advocating that anyone need to work or prefer to work like me. I was referring to the fact that film available for MF cameras only covers a limited ISO range, even when pushed. I was also pointing out that coming from MF film photography, there was no sacrifice being made on my part using the ISO range of a CCD sensor, or even the lack of live view. It is not about what is advantageous, it is about not really having to change much when using digital. At this point in time I have little use for the advantages of a CMOS sensor, just would like something approaching a 6x6 film image area.