CCD versus ?

[dee]

I am wholly ignorant about sensors.
There seems to be a dismissive response to CCD sensors.
Are/were they so poor, or do different sensors have strengths and weaknesses ?

Thanks dee

 

[lynnb]

Google CCD vs CMOS and there's a lot of information. Kodak's CCDs are renowned for good colour. CMOS seems to have achieved lower noise at higher ISOs. I believe CMOS are cheaper to manufacture. I might be wrong.

Also there is the Sigma/Foveon Merrill sensor, a different technology again, which captures each colour at the same pixel location rather than using a colour filter array over the sensor and then interpolating/mapping the colours.

People who are dismissive towards CCDs have probably never shot with one, or only shoot in conditions that favour CMOS e.g. very low light.

If you stay within any sensor's design envelope, the results can be excellent.

I suggest you also consider the whole image processing pipeline rather than just the sensor. Firmware/colour LUTs (lookup tables which map/interpolate pixel output under a colour filter array to output colour) play a significant role in the end result. There are noticeable differences between different CMOS sensors as each manufacturer maps colours differently (and in Fuji's XTrans sensor, uses a different colour filter array to the standard Bayer pattern).

It's probably useful to look at generations of sensors as much as sensor type. Latest Sony sensors/image processing seem to be state of the art at the present time. Even then, different manufacturers tweak the basic Sony design to achieve different results, e.g. Pentax, Nikon, Sony.

 

[dee]

Thanks .
I have found conflicting reviews of the 2008 Sony 14mp CCD [ Sony A290/390 ] , at ISO 100 ,the colours and dynamic range of which seems better than my A35 .
I am not concerned that it all falls apart above ISO 200.
I shall check out Google .
dee

 

[Ronald M]

noise at high iso is problem with CCD. And no live view.

Leica M8 & M9 produce excellent colors as do Nikon D2 and D200, all CCD. The issue is the color engineers have tinkered with all so I use Adobe DNG profile Editor to even out the response.

My newer cameras are all profiled and the colors match CCD.
Set you ACR or LR to use camera serial # to activate the profile editor look up table (Lut) automatically. All colors across all cameras match .

There is no way to tell if native output is better to not because even the raw color have be adjusted before we can see them.

Canon also has their color engineer who imposes his will so the rep tells me.

 

[rbelyell]

many 'old hands', ie those who came from film, very much prefer ccd to cmos because of its filmlike rendering qualities. many feel nothing digital can reproduce skin tones like ccd. ive had scores of cameras in my time and i recently sold my sony rx1 with state of the art cmos sensor to instead shoot with a ten year old epson rd1, 6mps and ccd sensor. like it so much i bought a panasonic L1 4/3 camera just so i could have an autofocus camera with ccd sensor. thats what makes the world go 'round. when i need low light i shoot a bayer sensored cmos fuji, because to me it has the closest skin tones to ccd.

 

[willie_901]

Most photographers who prefer rendering from CCD sensor assemblies are not imagining things. However CCD sensor assemblies are not inherently superior to CMOS assemblies in therms of color rendering or monochrome tonality.

The most important aspect of color rendering in-camera are the passive devices in front of the sensor bed. The characteristics of the IR filter (if there is one) and the color-filter array assembly are important and vary from brand to brand and between models for the same brand.

The preference for CCD rendering is actually a preference for the camera's color-filter array assembly

The Bayer reconstruction algorithms assume only red, blue or green light frequencies are present for a specific sensor site. However all filters are imperfect. It is more expensive to manufacture color-filter arrays that minimize light from unwanted frequencies. That is, the red sites will be contaminated with some amount of blue or green light as are the blue and green sites. There are coefficients in post-production rendering programs that correct for filter imperfections. This is one reason why raw from different cameras use different rendering profiles. However nothing beats collecting high-quality data in the first place.

Both CMOS and CCD sensors use the photoelectric effect to generate analog signals (convert light energy to electrical charge). The only difference is the CCD technology requires separate chips to complete the data stream output while CMOS technologies integrate all of the data stream electronics within the main sensor chip. The later technologies results in less electronic noise (read noise). This is how come CMOS cameras enjoy a signal-to-noise ratio and analog dynamic range advantage compare to CCD cameras.

Both CCD and CMOS employ pinned photodiodes to utilize the photoelectric effect. The output of both CCD and CMOS photo sites are analog DC voltages, which are the signals. DC voltages alone can not have any impact on color rendition whatsoever. Instead they are just an estimate of the light energy a particular pixel collects (and the lower the signal-to-noise ratio, the less certain the estimate becomes). Other factors such as the transmission properties of the color filter array, the IR filter transmission properties and even the frequency response of the PIN diodes themselves could affect the DC voltage amplitudes and could impact Bayer image reconstruction. But these variables will have the same impact for both CCD vs CMOS.

If you think I am misrepresenting the CCD vs CMOS story please take the time to read these links.

This is a fairly non-technical general comparison of CCD and CMOS sensor technologies.

Here are is a detailed technical review article from a peer-review journal.

link 1

About midway through this presentation the same author shows data comparing the quantum efficiencies of CMOS vs CCD sensors. QE determines the sensors sensitivity to light. It affects the signal component of the signal-to-noise ratio.


This presentation summarizes the history of image sensor development and explains in detail the physics and engineering behind the superior signal performance (which is not color performance) of CMOS devices.

 

[nightfly]

I know nothing about sensors except that I never really liked the look of digital images till I saw some files from the M9.

Ended up buying one used and am not disappointed with the results (except that it's been at Leica for 3 months waiting on a sensor replacement).

I want it back badly.

In fact I wouldn't mind an older compact with a CCD as a backup/second camera if anyone has a recommendation.

 

[uhoh7]

CCD and CMOS are different and have different strengths.

CCD is not out of date. Many scientific applications prefer them.

CCD is more expensive.

CMOS in the form available to us is better at high ISO than CCD true. Both are better in low light than film. That doesn't seem to discourage film users at all. They just thump the table harder. 🙂

While it's true files from both may become indistinguishable, after editing, it may be hard to duplicate the clarity of an un-edited shot:

Here is un touched M9 shot:

Golden Trailer by unoh7, on Flickr

Of course they don't all come out like that, LOL. It's alot of work to make the 240 shot look like that, and by the time you get close the adjustments will have effected the clarity, possibly. However the M240 shot may have other strengths which are unreachable on the M9.

If you like the look of M9 files natively better than M240, you may choose to save some precious time on this earth in editing all the 240 files, and pay the price of low ISO and less pixels.

 

[nightfly]

Great shot.

As someone who loves shooting and isn't too into post production, I need images to grab me the way they come out of the camera to coax me into spending the time to edit. I find the M9 images do this in a way that other previous digitals do not. I like my GR Digitals but the images aren't as compelling.

 

[YYV_146]

Scientificf applications prefer CCDs because of economies of scale. It's cheaper to produce CCDs in smaller batches and for specific applications.

I just sold my pentax 645D, a camera with one of the more advanced CCD sensors. The output color accuracy is considerably worse than what I get on the A7rii. AWB is consistently biased towards blues/green. Dynamic range is of course nowhere as close, and the response curve is unfavorable for critical processing. Resolution-wise the 645D holds its own, but for everything else, the A7rii sensor is vastly superior.

None of this should matter if you shoot RAW, though. But the CCD myth - and the digital medium format myth for sensors just a tiny bit larger than full frame - is mostly just a myth.

 

[Pioneer]

Here is un touched M9 shot:

Golden Trailer by unoh7, on Flickr

Of course they don't all come out like that, LOL. It's alot of work to make the 240 shot look like that, and by the time you get close the adjustments will have effected the clarity, possibly. However the M240 shot may have other strengths which are unreachable on the M9.

If you like the look of M9 files natively better than M240, you may choose to save some precious time on this earth in editing all the 240 files, and pay the price of low ISO and less pixels.

Hey!! That guy lives next door to me! 😀

Seriously, the M9 is a special camera.

I suspect though that it is a combination of things and not just the sensor. I kind of think this is true of most things in the digital photography world. There are a lot of things happening behind the scenes once you push the shutter button that most of us don't even consider. They all have a huge impact on the output.

 

[rbelyell]

why do those who cant see something need to tell those that do that they dont? to them: you can spew all the technobabble whoha you want, but this hobby is primarily about 'seeing' and the fact that many do that differently than you is a fact you cannot--and should not want to--alter. it is these very artistic differences that make viewing art interesting and varied. so please stop trying, its tiresome and wholly ineffective.

 

[Addy101]

I just sold my pentax 645D, a camera with one of the more advanced CCD sensors. The output color accuracy is considerably worse than what I get on the A7rii. AWB is consistently biased towards blues/green. Dynamic range is of course nowhere as close, and the response curve is unfavorable for critical processing. Resolution-wise the 645D holds its own, but for everything else, the A7rii sensor is vastly superior.

The things you quote are hardly inherent to CCD's. Colour accuracy is as much about the treatment of the signal from the sensor as it is of the sensor itself. AWB has nothing to do with the sensor. Finally, the A7Rii has a 2015 sensor, while the 645d is from 2010 - a lot happened in those five years.

Dee, a lot of folk are obsessed by high ISO performance and CMOS sensors are better at high ISO's. At low ISO's CCD's are just as good or maybe a little better. This is one of my favourite pictures taken with my beloved Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D:

Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D | Minolta 70-210/4 | 210mm | f/5.6 | 1/500s | 400iso

CCD in its full glory at 400iso. There is nothing wrong with a CCD sensored camera 😀

 

[Godfrey]

I am wholly ignorant about sensors.
There seems to be a dismissive response to CCD sensors.
Are/were they so poor, or do different sensors have strengths and weaknesses ?

Thanks dee

As you can see from the other responses, the CCD vs CMOS debate is just as much of a dogmatic religious thing as the film vs digital debate.

As said in another response, what really matters is the in-camera color system for out-of-camera JPEGs and your skills at raw image processing. If you like what a particular camera produces with respect to color, you're good. If you are good at raw image processing, it doesn't really matter all that much which technology your camera's sensor is.

G

 

[rbelyell]

it shouldnt be dogmatic. it should be a matter of what some people see, what some people dont, with each being ok. one camp neednt make it their mission to dissuade the other. my hackles go up when someone uses their knowledge, or professed knowledge, of science to 'prove' i dont see in a piece of art what i see in a piece of art.

 

[Bob Michaels]

As you can see from the other responses, the CCD vs CMOS debate is just as much of a dogmatic religious thing as the film vs digital debate.

As said in another response, what really matters is the in-camera color system for out-of-camera JPEGs and your skills at raw image processing. If you like what a particular camera produces with respect to color, you're good. If you are good at raw image processing, it doesn't really matter all that much which technology your camera's sensor is.

I must agree as I have no clue what type of sensor is in any of my digital cameras. (Fuji XPro, XT-1, and a Canon underwater p&s) I just know that I can get colors that work for me.

 

[dee]

Thanks everyone.
I love the colours from the Leica M8 , Leica Digilux 3 and L1 body .
Later cameras did not give the same ambiance including the low light useful Sony A35.

The much derided Sony A290 with outdated 2008 14mp CCD sensor has similar colours to my previous cameras and allows me to use my much loved Minolta 35-70 f4 'beer can' as well as the kit zooms and 35mm f1.8.

Taking advantage of plummeting prices , I bought a near mint A390 @ £00 with useful waist level finder and clever [extra sensor ] live view .

I don't have much confidence in my own perceptions through the mists / lostness of ASD .

dee

 

[rbelyell]

dee always have confidence in your own perception. photography is a hobby and an art form, and for both it is only your opinion that matters. the fact that i and many others agree with you, or that many more do not, both should be totally irrelevant to you. please yourself.

 

[nongfuspring]

why do those who cant see something need to tell those that do that they dont? to them: you can spew all the technobabble whoha you want, but this hobby is primarily about 'seeing' and the fact that many do that differently than you is a fact you cannot--and should not want to--alter. it is these very artistic differences that make viewing art interesting and varied. so please stop trying, its tiresome and wholly ineffective.

I think you're misunderstanding what others have been saying here. Nobody is trying to undermine the value of your personal impression, what posters like Willie are saying is that there are many other parts of the image processing chain that also impact the final output, not just wether the sensor is CCD or CMOS.

 

[ray*j*gun]

This is a really interesting thread! I am learning a lot about sensors. Like Bob Michaels, I don't really know what sensors are in my digital cameras (well I do now lol) but I know my M8 and My D610 are very different and both highly valued in different ways. I find that if I'm not shooting film I like the M8 for B&W and the D610 for color.