CMOS vs CCD Meanderings

Additionally: it is much cheaper to add on-chip signal processing circuitry to a CMOS sensor than to a CCD. Doing so can also improve performance and power dissipation characteristics of the imaging chain, not just for the sensor per se.
 
Ooh, thanks, PKR. I haven't gone to the Chipworks site in a while. That's a good writeup and I'd not realized Fujitsu was making Nikon's EXPEED chip.

Also: According to DxO that Toshiba sensor is at least as good as the Sony EXMOR used in the D5100 — especially impressive considering the jump from 16 to 24 megapixels.

The EXMOR is a benchmark sensor that stomped all competitors when it was new. Stiff competition from Toshiba is Very Good News for camera designers and users.
 
Thank you for the replies. It would seem that the write ups that are so busy comparing the two are a bit misleading. From what most of you are saying, the CMOS sensor has eclipsed the CCD sensor technically; and, it is down to software engineering making the difference in what people are or believe they are seeing. Is this a fair statement? I always wonder how much of this type of conclusions is due to psychological factors rather than facts. People wanting the results to be a certain way. Therefore, they perceive them to be such.
 
biggambi said:
Thank you for the replies. It would seem that the write ups that are so busy comparing the two are a bit misleading. From what most of you are saying, the CMOS sensor has eclipsed the CCD sensor technically; and, it is down to software engineering making the difference in what people are or believe they are seeing. Is this a fair statement? I always wonder how much of this type of conclusions is due to psychological factors rather than facts. People wanting the results to be a certain way. Therefore, they perceive them to be such.
Click to expand...

I think it's quite fair. Digital capture is far more complex technology than film cameras, in many ways, and people become attached to certain notions based on what are points of view based on oversimplified understanding of the technologies. These notions become 'common sense', and we all know that the last thing someone wants to let go of are notions that seem common sense.

Psychology is always a factor in the perception of fact and fiction. 🙂

G
 
Godfrey said:
I've felt from the beginning that the CCD vs CMOS stuff is malarky from the point of view of a photographer since the impact of image processing on the raw data produced by either accounts for the VAST majority of what we see in the images. What matters far far more than the sensor technology is the tuning and handing of the raw data after capture, and whatever other in-camera processing is applied on the way to jpeg image files.

I love my M9, have no problems at all with it and will be using it for a long time to come. It is a delightfully competent and capable camera. I doubt I really need anything more for 95% or more of what I do.

I do look to the new M in the future for its improvements in sensitivity, responsiveness, acutance, and occasional capability to use with Live View for very long lenses and close-up work. But until I feel flush enough to drop another $7000 on a new body out of pocket, I'm quite content with working the excellent camera I already own.

G
Click to expand...

A man who uses the word malarky has a view that should be heard and seriously considered.
 
I used to be on a list for the M, but once the first pictures started to show up from users I just could not love them as much as the M9 output. To be honest I have hardly seen any pictures from the new M that I liked at all. This goes for jpg as well as dng.
To my eyes the M9 pictures are superior at base iso. Two things I would pinpoint where it is preferable to me:
Sharpness: in direct comparisons of the same scene I could pick the M9 every time when I look at which of the two pictures gave me greater sense of depth. From extreme pixelpeeping my theory is that the M needs more pixels to resolve about the same level of detail as the M9. Sense of depthis something hidden in the details of camera's characteristics.
Color: the color of the M just seems quite bad. Compared to the M9 the M feels like an elephant in a porcelain shop. It's colors seem crude and without subtlety. Skintones is where this is the most obvious, where it seems to show weird blotches of pink mixed with yellow. Grass is another telling feature in a picture. Basically anything of which we have a strong color memory seems lacklustre on the M.

So is this the sensor? I would say it plays a big part in the rendering. The M has a certain plastic digital quality to it, which I feel it shares with other cmos camera's. But whether it is the cmos or ccd thing or something else, at the moment I greatly prefer the M9 output. Whether some mythical firmware will change it, I doubt it.
 
I really don't know whether the reason is CCD vs CMOS or the processor or the color filters, but the trouble with most of the M240 pictures I've seen is that the colors show a yellow-green bias — and when the skin tones are corrected other colors look "off". That's not a problem I find with the M9, or to up the ante, with Kodochrome: I've looked yesterday at some 200 photos by Alex Webb, and wouldn't want to try to get this type of color with the M240. On the other hand, Thorsten Overgaard writes, "It might be of interest to know that the Leica M9 and Leica M9-P, as well as the Kodak-Leica developed CCD-sensors for Leica M8 and Leica R9/DMR digital back, were developed with Kodachrome slide film as the ideal color look." That doesn't seem to be the case with the M240.

It seems to me that it's premature to speculate whether or not the M240 color rendition can be fixed with a combination of improved raw developer profiles and firmware updates for the camera, or whether it's a hardware issue.

—Mitch/Paris
Paris Obvious [WIP]
Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...
 
I dunno. I Find that there's a slight blue cast on my M9 pictures especially when I up the saturation in post using Lightroom. I just simply dial it down by reducing the saturation in the blue.
 
I don't worry about the color. That's processing (and since the whole thing is digital, there will be some at some point). Speed and sensitivity: the reason I had that Fuji F30 way back. and the reason I applaude the change.

Of course, I eagerly await the transition to CMPCP, which will certainly be a significant improvement.
 
At this point in time the design and engineering of the entire camara data stream along with manufacturing of and materials used in the CFA should be more important than CCD vs CMOS.

It is certainly possible that Leica used CCD initially because they had no choice. It's not as if vendors were knocking on their door every day begging for the chance to make a highly specialized sensor for a relatively small number of units.
 
malland said:
I really don't know whether the reason is CCD vs CMOS or the processor or the color filters, but the trouble with most of the M240 pictures I've seen is that the colors show a yellow-green bias — and when the skin tones are corrected other colors look "off". That's not a problem I find with the M9, or to up the ante, with Kodochrome: I've looked yesterday at some 200 photos by Alex Webb, and wouldn't want to try to get this type of color with the M240. On the other hand, Thorsten Overgaard writes, "It might be of interest to know that the Leica M9 and Leica M9-P, as well as the Kodak-Leica developed CCD-sensors for Leica M8 and Leica R9/DMR digital back, were developed with Kodachrome slide film as the ideal color look." That doesn't seem to be the case with the M240.

It seems to me that it's premature to speculate whether or not the M240 color rendition can be fixed with a combination of improved raw developer profiles and firmware updates for the camera, or whether it's a hardware issue.

—Mitch/Paris
Paris Obvious [WIP]
Eggleston said that he was "at war with the obvious"...
Click to expand...

I agree. I'm a bit not excited by color of the M240 samples I've seen but its early and firmware or profiles can fix the color. As far as CCD vs CMOS, there might have been a difference 10 years ago with CCD having the edge but with so few in the CCD game the R&D money has gone to improving CMOS sensors and processors. Now, I guess, the edge goes to CMOS.

But I have no plans of getting rid of my M9 and getting a M240. It's my 5th and best Leica to date.
 
I too was very skeptical about the M CMOS sensor and thought CCD was better until I failed all the blind comparisons. In reality I preferred the M color in these comparisons and I was quite sure it was the M9. So now I have no problem whatsoever with CMOS rendering, it is definitely an improvement over the M9.
 
theno23 said:
At 24x36mm and similar sizes, yes. At least a few years ago CCDs were common in things like cell phones, and I think most MF sensors are still CCD?

- Steve
Click to expand...

All medium format sensors are CCD.

In the video I linked below, D800 is compared with Hasselblad H4D-40, and there is not even a comparison when it comes to skin tones, D800 looks washed out compared to H4D-40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
 
Exdsc said:
All medium format sensors are CCD.

In the video I linked below, D800 is compared with Hasselblad H4D-40, and there is not even a comparison when it comes to skin tones, D800 looks washed out compared to H4D-40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
Click to expand...

You're comparing the color rendering of a digital MF back and a D800 by looking at a YouTube video. I see what you're doing there.
 
semilog said:
You're comparing the color rendering of a digital MF back and a D800 by looking at a YouTube video. I see what you're doing there.
Click to expand...

One is a landscape camera and the other is a people camera. M series cameras have always been people cameras...

Not that I'm owner of a digital M or plan to buy one but as a CCD camp person, I find it impossible not to press the point that spec sheets and numbers don't mean anything in photography, just look and look and then make up your mind.


Why would people spend lots of money for CCD MF digital - the video answers that question.
 
This can soon become horses for courses with out actual RAW files. Does anyone have files they can upload of the same subject under the same light for comparison between the M9 and M240? It would help to know the camera's software version being used, as this is critical.

I do agree with Exdsc that specs do not tell the whole story. Certainly there have been many who have argued this on this very site and others, after DxOMark gave the M9 such a low rating. What looks good on paper does not always translate into a great finished product. Hence, I would like to see some real examples that I can download to my workstation, and reach my own conclusions. I am sure there are others who would like to do the same.

Also, I do believe that the M8 saw a revolution in the quality of the files being produced. Does anyone recall the evolution, as I am quite hazy on it? This would give significant credibility to the notion that Leica will grow their software into producing even better images from the M240. Both are first generation with a given sensor for Leica. I will say this, when it comes to digital output in computers and music, software is the key - same components and very different results. A camera has to be the same thing., and Leica did not get to the best they could achieve with the CCD sensor in one step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
some digital questions
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
shawn
S
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
ranger9
R
boojum
CCD vs CMOS, again
7 8 9
Replies
166
Views
11K
boojum
boojum
boojum
AI and Photography
5 6 7
Replies
127
Views
9K
splitimageview
splitimageview
J
  • Article Article
Will the long-anticipated Leica M11-V with built-in EVF arrive in 2025? Probably, but it’s taking longer than expected and rumors are still flying!
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Back
Top Bottom