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

[TechTalk]

...At this point in time I have little use for the advantages of a CMOS sensor...

Thanks for letting us know, but others do have use for the advantages offered by current CMOS sensors.

...just would like something approaching a 6x6 film image area.

You can probably have whatever you'd like — as long as the cost is of no concern. Otherwise, broader consumer demand will determine what's available to buy.

 

[Pieter 12]

Thanks for letting us know, but others do have use for the advantages offered by current CMOS sensors.



You can probably have whatever you'd like — as long as the cost is of no concern. Otherwise, broader consumer demand will determine what's available to buy.

I believe the topic of this thread is cameras with CCD sensors. Maybe you should stay on track and not get so upset because some may not that interested in what a CMOS sensor might offer.

 

[TechTalk]

Actually the thread topic was looking for suggestions for a camera with a CCD sensor with a maximum of 40 megapixels. I suggested a camera with a 40 megapixel CCD on the first page.

The topic then went astray with suggestions that didn't match the original poster's request, like a 56 megapixel Leaf back. It then spiraled further off track from that point forward. I've simply replied to some of the comments that followed with my own point of view.

As for your impression that I'm upset; if I were any calmer, I'd be dozing off and taking a nap. It makes no difference to me what anyone uses for their photography as long as they're satisfied. Have I told anyone else what they should or should not use or like or want? I don't believe that I have.

 

[hausens]

From my experience, Pentax 645D has the most consistent image quality throughout the iso ranges up to 800. You will notice a deterioration in IQ starting at 400 but nothing serious. The IQ1/2/3 is a different story. The ISO is capped at 800. I found anything more than 200 not usable unless you do AI noise cancellation. The main advantage of the IQ series is the natural film look! You really have to do tons of heck things on other CCD cameras. The Kodak sensor is great but Pentax tweaks it to their taste.

 

[hausens]

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

It’s not entirely clear why P1 made that no difference claim. For example, IQ3 100 has a more subtle bluish color. Just like CFA, CCD and CMOS always have different response to the light on a spectrum. If they are the same, then we should have seen the same color from Kodak 14n and Pro Back. AFAIK, the color profile of Leica m9 was provided by Jenoptik.

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.

I have been working with CMOS camera as well. The difference is visible in the shadow in early days. It doesn’t have sufficient color to fill the color space. So sometime after post process, you can see a gap in color transition. But the issue has been substantially improved since the release of Sony a7 series.

 

[TechTalk]

A CCD or CMOS sensor is a monochrome device. In a sensor which uses a Color Filter Array (CFA) matrix applied over the monochrome CCD or CMOS device to generate color data, the color components are derived from the spectral transmission profiles of the filter array and the image processing applied to raw data from the sensor required to generate a viewable image.

Altering the color filter array will affect color from either CCD or CMOS sensors. Altering the processing of the captured raw image data will affect color from either CCD or CMOS sensors. As a result, you can find distinct color differences from different camera manufacturers, different color profiles, or different software utilizing the same image sensor whether CCD or CMOS.

The design of individual sensor models will have other specific characteristics such as dynamic range or noise which also affect image appearance. Image characteristics are specific to each sensor design and its implementation by individual camera manufacturers and the processing applied. You will find a great deal of variation in image characteristics, including color, across the wide range of both CMOS and CCD camera models produced over the years. So much so, that generalizations regarding qualitative differences between "CCD vs CMOS" often appear to be based more on myth and individual perception than the type of electronic hardware.

 

[Ray Harrison]

A CCD or CMOS sensor is a monochrome device. In a sensor which uses a Color Filter Array (CFA) matrix applied over the monochrome CCD or CMOS device to generate color data, the color components are derived from the spectral transmission profiles of the filter array and the image processing applied to raw data from the sensor required to generate a viewable image.

Altering the color filter array will affect color from either CCD or CMOS sensors. Altering the processing of the captured raw image data will affect color from either CCD or CMOS sensors. As a result, you can find distinct color differences from different camera manufacturers, different color profiles, or different software utilizing the same image sensor whether CCD or CMOS.

The design of individual sensor models will have other specific characteristics such as dynamic range or noise which also affect image appearance. Image characteristics are specific to each sensor design and its implementation by individual camera manufacturers and the processing applied. You will find a great deal of variation in image characteristics, including color, across the wide range of both CMOS and CCD camera models produced over the years. So much so, that generalizations regarding qualitative differences between "CCD vs CMOS" often appear to be based more on myth and individual perception than the type of electronic hardware.

I have to say this is one of the best and most clear explanations I’ve heard. Thank you!

 

[hausens]

It’s not just about CFA, a CCD and a CMOS has a different response to the same spectrum. They have different sensitivity to the light even if it’s within the visible spectrum. Strictly speaking, even different CCD has different response. So technically, nothing is the same.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/3-Spectral-sensitivity-graph-of-CCD-sensor-CMOS-sensor-and-human-eye-3-Width-is-5mm_fig3_216533561

Teledyne-Dalsa has a webpage recapping their difference in near infrared and ultraviolet sensitivity.

CCD vs CMOS | Teledyne DALSA

Teledyne DALSA is a leader in high performance digital imaging and semiconductors.

www.teledynedalsa.com

 

[TechTalk]

I don't think that anyone has suggested that It’s just about CFA (Color Filter Array). The sensitivity and response of any sensor to various wavelengths of visible light, UV, and infrared (IR) is influenced by multiple factors present in the design and engineering of the imaging device. The CFA spectral profile will be engineered to work in conjunction with the spectral sensitivity and response of the CCD or CMOS sensor as well as additional components which affect spectral response, the IR filter for example.

 

[JeffK]

CCD CMOS Facts and Fiction

 

[TechTalk]

CCD CMOS Facts and Fiction

Just a note that some things may have changed since the linked article was written...

"Reprinted from the January 2001 issue of PHOTONICS SPECTRA". That article is finally old enough to buy alcohol now.

 

[TechTalk]

Strictly speaking, even different CCD has different response. So technically, nothing is the same.

Even just generally speaking, nothing is the same. Sensors of all types exhibit a multitude of differences from one model to another. It's one reason why generalizations regarding them, which circulate over time and become legend, warrant some skepticism.

 

[hausens]

I’m trying to provide a perspective why the myth ‘CCD look’ exists. A monochrome sensor actually captured something dependent on color. The primary takeaway is, in modern image sensor design, a cmos is more sensitive to blue while a ccd is more to red. It’ll be difficult to use a CFA or other filter to compensate the difference. Profiling will be equally if not more challenging. When a camera maker designs a CFA, they had enough to consider. For eg, they want to improve the iso while not letting each color channel overlap too much with others.

 

[TechTalk]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/3-Spectral-sensitivity-graph-of-CCD-sensor-CMOS-sensor-and-human-eye-3-Width-is-5mm_fig3_216533561

Thanks for the link to the graph. The article it came from is a college student's paper: A Music Keyboard with Gesture Controlled Effects Based on Computer Vision — January 2011, Thesis for BSc., Ravimal Bandara. It's an experiment using infrared machine vision to sense hand movement and control music effects. I read the article because I have a casual interest in music production and audio technology.

Of course, technology advances and you can see changes from one camera model to the next. So, what may be "typical" sensor performance changes over time.

For anyone, like yourself and Jeff, interested in reading more on these subjects; I recommend taking a look at the blog Strolls with my Dog (Musings about Photography and the Science behind it). There are a lot of great articles there! For instance the 3-part series of articles on the IQ3 100MP Trichromatic vs Standard Back (with sample images courtesy of David Chew) is revealing with regard to how altering a CFA might affect saturation, gamut, and accuracy in different ways. This is a blog worth exploring! These are some good places to begin...

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/camera-spectral-sensitivity

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-data-physical-units

https://www.strollswithmydog.com/raw-color-space-connection

 

[TechTalk]

I’m trying to provide a perspective why the myth ‘CCD look’ exists.

While I may provide a different perspective, I'm always in favor of people using whatever they prefer. It's up to each individual to decide what satisfies them.

 

[rollsman44]

Let me say I appreciate all the feedback and personal use of the Various CCD and CMOS sensor cameras. Right now I am extremely satisfied with my decision not to buy a CCD bosy and went with Fuji GFX 50Sll. I love the colors, the Higher ISO I can use when needed and the IBIS which at my age( 75) works for me. It took me many systems to go through till I found what works for me. Again, I thank everyone for their input as it helped in my decision. Dennis

 

[Geoff]

Not wanting to extend this debate much further, but perhaps this is useful: had an opportunity to test three sensors - CCD Credo 60 vs two CMOS backs - 3100 and CFV II. Wanted to see how older CCD held up against reasonably newish 3100 and newer CFV. Done with same lens and setup. Results were pretty clear:

- at base ISO, all were comparable, CCD a bit better.
- at ISO 800, the two CMOS backs were still very good, comparable to base settings. The CCD was out of the running.
- newish CFV (with slightly smaller sensor) was quite comparable to 3100 - no surprise, as the same basic array.

In a perfect world, love the CCD, even if getting on in years. Live view and higher ISO capabilities add usability and favor CMOS.

Test can be seen here: digital back test

 

[MartinN]

A digital back for peanuts (think low mpix count) is still a digital back, once state of the art, and enormously more adaptable than an old digicam with the same mpix count. I prefer giving extended life to my antique cameras, and not always want film. I don’t sell cameras (yet).

 

[buildbot]

A digital back for peanuts (think low mpix count) is still a digital back, once state of the art, and enormously more adaptable than an old digicam with the same mpix count. I prefer giving extended life to my antique cameras, and not always want film. I don’t sell cameras (yet).

Very true - even the old 22MP backs are very serviceable. With modern editing tools they are only getting better too, you can shoot higher ISO now and fix in post pretty easily.

 

[Pieter 12]

Very true - even the old 22MP backs are very serviceable. With modern editing tools they are only getting better too, you can shoot higher ISO now and fix in post pretty easily.

Are you saying service is available for the old Leaf/Sinar backs?