Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Willie,
Thanks for this post. The midrange that I get on my Monochrom is not generic. Thanks for the understanding.
Cal
ferider
Veteran
That's over-simplified. First, the energy of a photon (or charge generated in the sensor) is inverserly proportional to the wavelength (color). Second, the pixel device has non-linear response, similar or different from this (depending on the technology)
(from http://www.fen-net.de/walter.preiss/e/slomoinf.html)
Third, depending on how the sensor is designed and how large it is, there might be impact from one pixel's charge to the neighboring one, via substrate coupling, power drop, etc.
In any case, I agree with the general conclusion: whether or not a camera has CCD vs. CMOS sensor, matters much less than what happens to the sensor's signal post AD converter. In these CCD/CMOS sensor discussions, I'm always puzzled that nobody ever talks about downstream devices, and the in-camera image processor in particular. And if you doubt that it has an impact, consider the correction that Leicas do to vignetting, colors, and even distortion (Leica Q).
Roland.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Hmmm...ah yes, of course... (no idea what ferider is talking about).
rbelyell
Well-known
Most of my digital cameras were CCD cameras: Nikon D1X, Olympus E500, Kodak Pro DCS SLR/N, but I thought those CCD times were over. Yes, i liked the colors those cameras gave me, but I guess you can get just as good results with CMOS sensors... What is the technical basis for claiming a CCD sensor would be better? I would like to know.
If i had it my way, i would have a medium format digital camera where the sensor is a big Image Orthicon tube... Someone has to build this someday
'technical basis' has nothing to do with a subjective activity. its like me demanding you provide a 'technical basis' for the images you like and dont. if it was all 'tecnically based' there would be way fewer cameras, sensors and lenses. photography is not synonymous with dxo scores. its based on how each of us 'feels' with their equipment and 'sees' their results.
rbelyell
Well-known
i think a more accurate statement is that whether ccd generates a more aesthetically pleasing midrange rendering is wholly subjective and therefore is not susceptible of objective conclusion; ie, by definition, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder.
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Why would they market it to the mainstream?
BlackXList
Well-known
I'm waiting to see them try and pass off the RX2R II with a lump on it as "Medium format" because it's 42mp.
flavio81
Well-known
I hate DxO scores.
I ask for technical basis because, as pointed out by the poster above who underlinded the importance of the processing that happens AFTER the linear value captured by the pixel, the subjective differences that could make you prefer "cameras with CCD sensors" might not have anything to do with the sensor being a CCD one, at all...
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm going with the Hasselblad rumour ...
rbelyell
Well-known
i dont have a site, but i just read hasselblad is having an 'announcement' of some kind on june 22, that insider ming thien calls 'at least twice as interesting' as hasselblad claims. we shall see...
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Two cameras ? ... and a pile of lenses ?
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm going with the Hasselblad rumour ...
I'd like to see a digital XPAN. Since it is supposed to be M-mount, the sensor would have to be of a size M lenses can cover. So I don't think an aspect ratio as extreme as the film XPAN's could work. I do think that a ratio about the same as wide-screen cinema could be accomplished with the present lenses. If we take 70mm Panavision as a model for it, with its 2.21:1 ratio, then a sensor of around 18x40mm (or something close to that) should fit within the image circle of most Leica/Zeiss/Cosina lenses.
I wonder if there would be a sufficient market for such a camera? I'd buy one if it came from a maker like Cosina that could keep the price reasonable.
raid
Dad Photographer
Maybe, Hasselblad has revamped its ugly duckling of a camera that people did not like?
Out to Lunch
Ventor
the Leica S/S2 system was apparently aimed squarely at Hasselblad
Is Hassy now finally returning the favor aiming at the M system?
Is Hassy now finally returning the favor aiming at the M system?
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The Leica I'd like to see is a digital version of the mini I, II or 3; or minilux. I can't see it happening somehow. Small P&S's with prime lenses just don't turn up these days but there were several when 2 megapixels was huge and cutting edge.
Regards, David
The Leica I'd like to see is a digital version of the mini I, II or 3; or minilux. I can't see it happening somehow. Small P&S's with prime lenses just don't turn up these days but there were several when 2 megapixels was huge and cutting edge.
Regards, David
ramosa
B&W
The Leica I'd like to see is a Q 35mm with CCD.
rbelyell
Well-known
the twin rumors of 'unusual shape' of camera and 'unusual aspect ratio' leads one to believe the 'pano'-wishers amongst us. certainly cant be 3:2 or 4:3, so its either square, which wouldnt require an 'unusual shape' or a pano-cam, which would. however, that leaves me confused about how it could possibly be M mount...