Godfrey
somewhat colored
Perhaps this wil help: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4799255/page3#post4799978
Help ... with what? Some other discussion isn't going to change reality.
G
Perhaps this wil help: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4799255/page3#post4799978
Help ... with what? Some other discussion isn't going to change reality.
Help ... with what? Some other discussion isn't going to change reality.
G
The link is to Sonnar Brian's empirical demonstrations of measured superiority of the CCD sensor. I guess you missed that. Too bad.
The link is to Sonnar Brian's empirical demonstrations of measured superiority of the CCD sensor. I guess you missed that. Too bad.
I've read all the hooey and repeated the experiments, done a few dozen experiments of my own. Sonnar Brian's "empirical demonstrations" seem to be either the same or modeled on two other persons with an agenda to prove the superiority of their CCD sensor cameras.
IMO, The "measured superiority of the CCD sensor" is nonsense. But as jsrockit said, in paraphrase, 'Just use the Leica you like and stop trying to prove that yours is better than anyone else's. They are all capable of great photography.'
I certainly don't care if you produce splendid, beautiful, satisfying photographs with a box fitted with a Coke bottle bottom lens regardless of what sensor you tape to the back of the box ... I applaud wonderful photographs no matter how they are created. :angel:
G
In the end, you pick a digital camera that gives you the image that you want. With a film camera, you can just load it with the film that gives the look you want. Digital camera- stuck with the sensor. Comparing images from my M8 with the EP2, shooting both at Low ISO, 160 and 200 respectively, the biggest difference that I see is more noise in the shadow areas on the EP2 images. The M8 images are smoother, less noisy. CCD vs CMOS? Olympus boosting gain because of sensor vignetting? More signal processing on the M8- I know that is not true! They are fairly minimalist on the in-camera processing. I don't care- the M8 images look better.
The EP2 is fun, makes a good image, uses lots of different lenses, and I can use it for making movies. But the M8 images are "cleaner".
That is a fascinating and thoughtful article.
Moreover, it is extremely funny if you think about all the baying for "fast, wide primes" for various digital systems (especially micro 4/3). Apparently, super-fast lenses not only aren't that much brighter, but in some cases they won't even buy you shallower DOF!
Now, that said, the "CCD advantage" in the M8/9 has almost nothing to do with CCD structure (as implied but NOT demonstrated with data in the linked article). Rather, the advantage of the M8/9 comes from the use of an eccentric microlens array. In fact, the requirement for that specialized array is specifically because the CCD sensor prefers to see light entering normal (perpendicular) to the sensor plane.
Note that an eccentric microlens array is also being used by Fuji on the APS-C, CMOS sensor for the X-100 — which is fitted with a fast (f/2) wide angle lens.
Fuji knows what they're doing.
For BOTH CCD and CMOS sensors, the best approach will eventually be to use backside-illuminated sensors (back-illuminated CCDs have been common in scientific imaging for well over a decade, and back-illuminated CMOS sensors are increasingly prevalent in consumer devices with small sensors). A good article that shows how beneficial backside illumination can be is here (scroll down to Figure 3).
By putting the photosites closer to the sensor surface, the "tunnel effect" is minimised and quantum efficiency can be nearly perfect (approaching 100%).
Unfortunately, making large back-illuminated sensors is still very expensive. Too expensive, at present, for 4/3, APS-C, and larger sensors. And these sensors, because they are very very thin, are (mechanically) fragile — and the bigger they get, the more fragile they are. Not rugged enough to put in a Nikon D4, yet. But maybe by the time the D5 is out...