Robin, your use of color in composition is masterful. I think that's a much bigger reason why your pictures are so vibrant than the fact you shot with a CCD camera.
I recently bought a Nikon D50 due to seeing many videos about this CCD thing. I normally shoot with vintage lenses on my Sony mirrorless and love it. After seeing only a handful of pictures from the D50 (luckily I still had my 35, 40 and 50 primes from my D7000)....I was blown away. So I bought a D70 for the faster shutter speed and extra dial, the D40 for compactness, and the D200 (just received) for the extra MP and legendary status. I told my wife I was done buying after she counted my 100 vintage lenses ...so now I'm sneaking in to the house my Nikon cameras 😂. And now after just telling her I have all the CDD Nikons on my list ...I bought for $8 a Minolta Dimage 7 CCD 5MP camera because it can be used as Infrared without modification....😂
Almost a decade ago ( I was 15) I picked up a D50 for like 50 USD because it had an error. My teenage trouble shooting skills went to work and it turns out that it showed an error because it had a 4gb SD card, and I think the max the firmware could handle was something like 2gb. I ended up picking up a cheap lens too with my after school job money. I took it on a trip overseas to visit my family in Germany as a 15 year old and to this days, those unprocessed images still look SO GOOD. I wish I knew how good I had it at the time, and ended up selling it at the end of HS for gas money to see my girlfriend. Anyways it didn't work out and I think about that D50 more than her now a decade later LOL. As it turns out, there's much more to a great photo than just sheer megapixels. I love your videos and your enthusiasm is soooo contagious! Nowadays I pretty much just shoot film. No particular reason but just because I still have my 35mm Rebel 2000 slr that I also purchased in middle school. I throw it in my car anytime I go on a trip, and it just never stops working. I might just snatch up a D50 again just so I take more pictures.
I've been shooting Nikon since the late seventies so my experience in color comparisons and rendering in digital is vast. Having said that I still have my D100 and D200, both 6 and 10Mp CCDs respectively. I now shoot with the D850 (BSI CMOS) and the Z5 (Non-BSI CMOS) and I have to say that at least with Nikon, they have stayed consistent with their native RAW colors, very true to life in my personal experience. What CCD differs I think is in its rendering or look. To me the CCD is the closest you can get to modern film look with it's grain and color & focus transitions. Black and White images has a certain "emulsion" look to them that I don't see much in CMOS unless I try to process in post, maybe the difference in Mps or pixel pitch has something to do with it because my Fuji X-E1 and X-E2 both with 16Mp CMOS come very close to what I see in my old Nikon CCDs. By the way; the reason the industry went to CMOS is Not "better" technology, initially, it's because CCDs were expensive to make and CMOS were much cheaper tech and design to manufacture. Who know if Live View and better AF would have made it to CCDs if we stuck with them, but I guess we'll never know.
CCD sensors are passives, as film negatives are. They base on electron (fotons) stream force to give pics - electron sensors. CMOS sensors active are, they are electronic sensors which base is scanning system as in old tv tubes + noise dumping system.
Sony made DSLR with CCD sensor and live view and flip screen. Models are sony alpha 300, 350. They have 2 sensors, one for capturibg photo 1 for live view. Also sony made CCDs for Nikon, so they just made sensors by themselves and put in camera, dont have to search for manufacturer. I also like colours from CCD sensor, more than CMOS. My first try was with Nikon coolpix 4600.
You aren't the only person to love the old Canon 5D color renditions. I also hear the Nikon D700 is mentioned as having a unique quality. I do enjoy my old D80, and I still shoot it a lot. I recently got one of my favorite images with it. It was very overcast and a 1950's ere pickup truck just came out amazing. The local color in your photo's makes me want to visit your beautiful country some day. Thanks for all your hard work.
People conflate dynamic range and saturation with “better colors”. What they like about ccd sensors is the saturation values of reds, greens and blues they were coded with and the lack of dynamic range creating stark contrast and the perception of even more saturated colors. The one thing I would say is a true benefit of ccd is the representation of noise. The Bayer array on cmos sensors makes noise look more “digital” as color is simulated via an algorithm causing a blocky noise pattern that is not the most pleasing to look at.
CCDs have the same Bayer array filter, the only difference between CCDs and CMOSs lies in the micro lenses in front of the photosites/photodiodes. It is true that the treatment of noise used to be smoother in CCDs than in CMOSs, not necessarily the case anymore due to the tremendous research efforts invested in CMOS and the fact that the information is processed at pixel level in real time and that that technology as also tremendously improved ("back-lit" CMOS for instance, and processing software).
About color, i watched an interview with a colorist that said Hasselblad colors are the most accurate ones, then was Fuji (plain color without simulations) and Nikon. But he said no camera have perfect color, Sony put grey in skies and mess the skin in different ways, Nikon mess the greens and put cyan in skies, Canon put magenta all over the place (that he said is very difficult to correct), etc.
I have a 2006 Kodak Z650 point and shoot camera. It does in fact have a CCD sensor. This little 6mp camera takes excellent pictures even compared with my modern Olympus mirrorless cameras. ( EM10 MarkII and EM1 MarkII). It has surprisingly good color rendition !!!
@@robinwong I tried several Kodak digital cameras around 1996-1997 when i worked as a benchmarking technician and editor for a computer magazine and saw no evidence of them knowing anything about colour, the pictures were absolutely hideous even by the standards of the day. I think they had to learn it - their chemistry people can do colour, but this wouldn't trivially translate into the company being serious about it in their other endeavours. After reputation murdering moves like that (even if they did do better eventually), and various successful attempts at self-sabotage, whose fault is it really that they had to give up?
@@Koji-888 No, i didn't make a blanket statement about all Kodak cameras. The cameras i had in my hands in that era were the ones that were sold in the stores at the time, Kodak DC20 and DC120 if i remember right, sub $1000 cameras. Both were made by Chinon and both were based on cheap camcorder CCDs from what people figured out later. This whole endeavour with Chinon cameras for sure left a sour taste in the mouth of every person who touched these units and ruined the brand reputation for this business area. Once you have that sort of issue, some companies recover and others do not, and JUST doing good products is often not enough, especially if they don't start being CONSISTENTLY good and also special enough somehow or at least aggressively enough priced to get them in the hands of people. I'm saying Kodak has set themselves up for failure by shipping crap with their branding on it in mid late 90s, into the market area with a lot of volume and visibility, they're themselves to blame for the eventual failure of their DSC business. Not because all their products were bad. But even try to name a really bad Fujifilm, Canon, Casio, SONY, Olympus or even Sanyo. Just try.
I just wanted to thank you for your amazing videos. You really inspired me to go outside and take some beautiful photos. I love the motivation you put into your videos.
At the beginning of the CMOS era, there was some drawbacks in CMOS technology compared to CCD. But CMOS was cheaper and consumes less energy, so that both advantages were the reason why industry put money in develop better and better CMOS sensors. An advantage of CCD up today is that even a cheaper CCD is a global shutter one, even in point and shoot cameras. I would love a CCD full frame sensor with today technology.
Global shutter CMOS sensors do exist, so if a manufacturer cared to (there are some Black Magic cameras that do this), CCDs don’t even have that advantage.
@@amermeleitor don’t think it’s cost alone. The Black Magic Ursa 4K had global shutter, and was certainly far less expensive, than the RED and ARRI cameras of the time (2013) which lacked global shutter. Considering that both ARRI and RED still choose not to use global shutter, indicates other tradeoffs.
I think global shutter is not that simple to execute. While the older CCD may have global shutter, they also have other issues that come with it, and it as been proven that CMOS is superior and more "future-proof".
@@robinwong yes, even Sony (the biggest sensor maker) uses CMOS for its global shutter industrial line, but others makers continue with CCD up today. And as far as I know the Digital Bolex 16 uses a CCD sensor with somewhat "modern" capabilities.
The good thing about photography as an hobby/art/documentary tool is everyone has different liking and interpretation of what they see and what they like. It’s personal, emotional, fun, experimental, and enjoyable, not how “colour accurate”!
Hi Robin. Love your explanations and outlook. Very unpretentious. I am long term user of Olympus and Lumix. Loved this piece about CMOS v cc'd. Have no opinion either way. Whatever does it for you is good. Thanks!
Such a big and complex subject! I have all these CCD pocket cameras, and I just love the different ways they reproduce colors. They may nor be technically perfect, but I don't think people see the way cameras do anyway. In fact, cameras are nowhere near being able to see as well as humans do. All I can say is that the colors never look "flat" and they are very easy to absorb. Thanks to Robin, I will be getting a 5D Classic for sure, this video decided me!!!!
Human eye is actually extremely imperfect, its only got a small centre of its vision thats "high spatial resolution" everything outside this very small cone falls off dramatically and becomes very blurry. Not to mention our colour vision is non existent, yes our eyes cannot differentiate colour at all, its the brain that does insane amount of computational power to turn the extremely lackluster vision of ours into the things we see, colours included. Cameras need filters to filter out colours in order to distinguish red green and blue or some cameras do CMY others have extra green filters and likes of Foveon have complete filter coverage for each channel. My point is, using our eyes as an argument for cameras to go by is like using a Google Pixel phone and stating it takes good pictures, but its not the camera that does the good pictures its literally all the AI stuff they crammed in there, the Google Pixel is the closest representation to our eyes, but a camera has to literally see everything instantly and perfectly, the processor only puts the various data together and combines it, thats it, nothing more, maybe a bit of noise reduction as the signals go through various channels, our eyes also have horrid low light performance with equivalent ISO of like 1 million and yet still cannot see jack piss.
@@SMGJohn Well if you want to say the human visual system is responsible for the way we see, that's fine. That's what I call the human eye. No artificial system can detect and reproduce what the human eye sees. For me this is most evident with dynamic range: 21 stops. That is the eye proper. But the resolution of the visual medium (not the retina, or the visual cortex) is estimated at about 130 MP. About not having infrared vision, you are quite right, humans can't see well in the dark, although there is a dark vision mode that can work well enough with some special techniques and practice. Some people have better night vision than others. Night vision hasn't been critical for survival for a very long time, perhaps around 100,000 generations. What night vision camera do you use?
I liked your video a lot. I still find satisfaction when using my Nikon D3000 that I purchased in 2010. Apparently I am faithful to it and when battery died last year I decided to get a new battery and keep the camera.
my first DSLR was an Olympus E500 I bought around 2007...8 megapixel, no live view, slow as a wet week to buffer photos shot in RAW format but I do still love the colours and was always trying to emulate them in post with images from my Canon 60D that replaced the Olympus to no avail. I still have it...along with a Canon 6Dmkii and a Fuji XS-10...and I still love shooting with it at times for the colours/contrast ratios and that something special about the look.
I think color accuracy vs. aesthetic appeal depends entirely on the purpose and situation. Photographing for a client, whether wedding, product photography, etc., is hands down about color accuracy and reproducing reality. Aesthetically pleasing colors (and shadow quality, etc.) come into play when representing a more subjective experience, maybe more in art photography or for hobby use. I've used multiple cameras over almost 20 years of taking concert photos. I've seen professional photos of those same shows that are far superior in technical quality, but they have the look of "that happened." My favorites of my own photos have the look of "I know what it was like to be there." The photos that most give that quality are from cameras from the golden age of the CCD era, ~2005-2009 in the case of my cameras. I've taken photos since then that have more detail, far better low-light tolerance, require less correction, but editing them is a technical pursuit, not an artsy enjoyment.
Yeah, also I didn't agree with the statement that it's the job of the camera to be accurate. Depends on what you're trying to do with your photography. Also post processing is entirely unenjoyable for me
I see a difference between some CCD's and most CMOS. I prefer CCD for Abstract Street shooting. I have fun on both ends, the shoot and the process at which I can lose my sense of time doing and find that the sun is about to come up.
@@TreDeuce-qw3kv CCDs shine the most in artificial light, for example well lit cities at night (where older CCDs are still good enough), neon lights mainly. Also, at least thats my experience with 2004/2005 Sony CCD cameras, they perform great with vibrant colors in nature, such as flowers and greenery in general. What i really like the most about my CCD cameras... out of the box you dont need too much post processing, beside the fact that i barerly can stretch my 5,1 and 7,2MP photos at all.
@@tobinthomas-sg5ix Being accurate is the most difficult job of any film or sensor. It can always be modified (JPG profile or image processor on computer) to please your colour biases or intentions. The reverse operation is extremely tricky and almost impossible.
@@TreDeuce-qw3kv If you look at the JPG straight from the camera and whose profile has not be modified, maybe although I would interested for the results of a test (especially in "abstract street photography" (which by the way almost sounds like an oxymoron ;o).
Robin I Bought my Pentax *istDL in 2005 and my Pentax K100D in 2006 both are 6 megapixel CCD sensor cameras that I stil use I like the way the colors pop with modern photo editing software especially my pictures of fall foliage in New England.
This is a great video. I would only add that, to me, the Olympus color science reflects very vivid colors compared to others. Not good or bad, just different.
Wow, I can't agree more, you are absolutely right. 5d classic, full stop. I already know your channel and I know that you're a m43 shooter and I can tell you I was super surprised by the Canon 5d classic. Actually I shot Canon for assignments (owned a huge number of canons, but also bought the 5dc because of nostalgia) and recently bought 2nd hand m43 camera + couple of lenses (BTW thanks to you I picked up a Pana 20mm 1.7 I for street photography, thank you, well spent money). Keep up good work :)
CCD sensors are passives, as film negatives are. They base on electron (fotons) stream force to give pics - electron sensors. CMOS sensors active are, they are electronic sensors which base is scanning system as in old tv tubes + noise dumping system.
Total babble, no scientific data to back this up (except that CCDs and CMOS process their information (electron/electricity) differently and not their Photons (from photo = light in Greek)
You are dead on with this one Robin. I still shoot my e-5 and e-510 all the time. These old Kodak sensors are amazing. Love these vintage videos. Now if we can get you to shoot some MANUAL vintage OM lenses that would be fun.
Nikon d200 is a beast and it tales beautiful pictures - colors is real result of this format. Not to mention the build quality and thoughtful menu and buttons location
Just did a test recently : Sigma DP3 Quattro (foveon) vs Fx Nikon D780 (cmos) vs apsc Nikon D60 (CCD) all used with an equivalent sharp portrait prime lens.results are incredible. The Foveon offers lots of detail but the raw needs to be processed to avoid color shift. Once processed well, The Foveon portrait looks very filmic. The CCD file needs the less PP and is excellent and very sharp for 10Mp. The colors are the most accurate and just pop. Color separation is beautiful on CCD. The CMOS file is the most malleable but looks dull in comparison. It needs PP and still doesn’t look as eye catching as the CCD file.
Interesting experiments. I would be interested in seeing and comparing the results. Now regarding processing RAW files: all images CMOS or not originate in a RAW file that requires to be processed to be seen. The difference with Sigma's Foveon compared to CMOS and CCD is that it is a very idiosyncratic sensor requiring an idiosyncratic software (or plug-in) to be processed. Second, what does "filmic" mean?? I have always found the colours generated by a Foveon sensor to be very realistic/accurate and, especially in the early days (around 2002-2003) more deprived of noise and artefacts than CCDs or CMOSes. The only issue being that they cannot compete in terms of high ISO. As for the CCD, if colours "pop", how can they be accurate. I also noticed that CCD colours had a tendency to "pop" which means a little more saturation (especially reds and blues) and contrast that "accurate" would require. [now some may find "accurate" "dull but for me it is the safest starting base, "pop" can always be added (it is just like salt or pepper in a recipe).
@@BrunoChalifour I’ll try to reply as best as I can to your message. First off, the CCD raw files (if shot at lower ISO) require very few adjustments such as sharpening, levels or curves depending on the exposure and pop naturally without being over-saturated. It’s inherent to their ability to separate colors better than other sensor/ without loosing colors or detail. For example, older CMOS sensors and still newer ones (that are less prone to this issue) tend to blow the gamma of magenta and oranges in mixed lightings, which will kill skin or clothes detail on portraits. So with older CMOS cameras (D700 to D750 generation) these specific colors needed to be shiftet to a different hue and saturation independently, depending on the lighting conditions and camera generation, which was very time consuming to get the best out of the portraits or landscapes. This is not the case with CCD files which generally show very accurate colors and color separation (or color contrast) : each color is very accurate and easily distinguishable, which creates and overall richness and pop, by défaut. Regarding the Sigma cameras and software, it’s true and very frustrating that Sigma never came out with a faster, more efficient and bug free version of its sigma pro software. It very often crashes, even with a good computer (64 bits of ram, excellent processor and SSD) but I compared the files with my Fuji GX617 and Bronica GS1 Velvia and ektar photographs, using mirror lockup with the GS1, so very sharp, and the Sigma quattro H offers very close results. I also compared the Foveon shots with my D850 and if shot at base ISO, the Foveon offers more richness in terms of textures and again, colors. But, the colors have a tendency to shift and provide almost unnatural, more artistic colors. This also depends on the way the raw files are processed of course.
I definitely agree that accuracy of colors must come first, then artistic interpretation of those colors if desired. I know a number of women who spent DAYS picking out the perfect shade of color for their bridesmaid dresses, and they would have been horrified if the photos came back with those colors altered. And yes, brand colors are also highly scrutinized for accuracy.
My Olympus E-300, Canon Powershot G9, and Kodak ZD710 have amazing colors and the only one of my cameras that beats them in color science is my Leica M10. I plan on getting another Canon Powershot G9 soon as a backup to my current one just in case anything happens to it because that’s the camera that’s always with me because how pocketable it is and has a zoom range of 35-200mm full frame equivalent. CCD sensors seem to portray true to life colors and that’s what seems to make them special.
That very same Kodak is what made me serious about photography years ago. One of the first with easy control of aperture ISO and shutter speed even though the sensor was so small. But it helped in experimentation and I loved the results in good light. It didn't shoot RAW but I didn't even know why I would need it and I used JPEGs for a long time with the newer camera too. I still have it even though I haven't used it for years. It was my last camera before the transition to my first DSLR (smallest DSLR on the market by Olympus :)).
I particularly shoot Sigma with their Foveon sensors, because - as far as I can see it - this sensor captures the colors most naturally. I also still have one or two old digital cameras with CCD sensors, and I may try them again just to check and compare them on this aspect.
@mipmipmipmipmip I know. They worked on that for like 10 years, and than bagged everything, starting completely anew a couple years ago. Don't know if they'll ever succeed, and I also really don't care much - APS-C and H are large enough for me.
The Sigma Quattro H is just excellent. The speed is faster than any medium format film camera and the results are on par with 6x9 slides, or even close to 6x17 when shot in panoramic mode. (I tested and compared both) CCD cameras offer the best compromise between speed, fast post processing and film like colors
This is what originally attracted me to Foveon; that and the extreme detail I can capture, especially in clothing. I really hope to see even an updated Quattro sensor in an L-mount body. With the pricing they were able to do for the sd Quattro at that frankly ludicrous level of build quality, it'd be a hit IF they could just get their marketing right and present it as a tool for specific jobs. I think the only thing really holding it back was SA-Mount. Just think of how much more successful the SD1 could have been if it Sigma had licensed the EF mount...
Some models in a camera lineup will "seemingly" excel at color science. I shoot Nikon, and that's why I haven't sold my old D300 and D700 cameras. I really like the way they render skin tones, so I'll dig them out to shoot portraits. Not sure if anyone else notices it, but it does matter to me.
I used 3 different brands' cameras to photograph some flowers at a flower show on auto everything. Then I asked the flower show judges to tell me which camera's play back jpg was closest in colour to the flowers I'd photographed. This was at the show, so they could compare reality to the captured image. They chose the Olympus colours. I've used Olympus ever since. There were 7 judges, so if I had a colour bias, it didn't count. Each brand has its own subtle bias or look that pleases its devotees. As I publish my pictures on the website of the flower society whose judges opinions, I sought they spared me the time to get it as close to what they perceived as right as was possible.
I have relied on Olympus color science for a long time for my work, and believe me they are more than sufficient. I am happy with what they produce. However, I also must admit, having used more cameras recently, that Pentax and Canon give better colors in some situations.
@Robin Wong I agree with you as to my eyes Canon has its own colour palette, which is great for flattering portraits less so for flowers. One of the things with flowers is that botanical flower paintings can still set standards that photographs can't match, particularly when most of the audience are trained botanists.
??? How can you use the judge's opinions about the colour accuracy of the JPG images (which also involve in-camera software) when they have not seen the original flowers???
@@BrunoChalifour You missed the line in the original post: 'This was at the show, so they could compare reality to the captured image.' They compared the jpg to the actual flower in front of them.
Always pleased to see your videos Robin. My first camera was an Olympus E-420 with a 10MP CMOS sensor. Despite having a Pentax K3 mk.III as my main camera, i still take that Olympus around with the Olympus 25mm f2.8 Pancake lens, because i love those colours.
I find the discussion about different sensors interesting, but... a bit of relic from the celluloid period. I'll explain... Different film and paper had different color tones (I still believe there is something in Kodak Gold), but all camera sensors are capturing image in black and white, which is then processed using bayer filter. Its 4 color filter in front of every sensor consisting of one red, two green ad one blue filter. These values are then calculated from grey tones, to colors. At this stage there is a lot of automated calibration in process and most cameras are aiming for best color reproduction possible and the variations which occur among different brands can be changed upon post production. Like if you want to have yellowish tint of Panasonic Leica lenses, while using Olympus just add 350-700 Kelvins to white balance :) Also you may use different ways of color calibration, either in camera or in POST. On other hand discusion about CCD, CMOS and Live MOS is an interesting topic. For example there is a claim that M43 systems have higher noise because of smaller sensor surface. The thing is that on any system surface sensitive to light covers about 1/4 of each individual pixel. Rest is the analog signal amplifier and other electronics. These were made smaller on M43 and the design is different. Its not CCD, its not CMOS, but NMOS. In terms of electrical engineers, the design is not symmetrical and therefore the noise is higher. That lead to various misconceptions that F1.4 in M43 equals to F2.8 FF which is not true. Giving enough light for a certain time period will reduce noise in any situation, including higher ISO scenarios. All image sensors simply work to 'Signal to noise Ratio' or SNR for short. Its an interesting thing to know when using digital camera. Like this you can get nice clean image from bright and medium parts from the image, and you can make dark but noisier parts less noisy by making them bit darker and let noise fade to black. The other thing is with bits. The more bits per channel the sensor offers the higher accuracy of capturing the right color tone. However people tend to like warmer color tones, vivid, with slightly higher and punchier gradation. That usually means less colors rather than more. as with 10bit color gamuts in movies, those may look bit more muted even when properly displayed. Hope this helps.
You are forgetting one detail. There are very few manufacturers of sensors. For instances lots of brands use Sony sensors (FUJI (GFX), Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon...) so the differences now lie in the processed JPGs, meaning the software on board (camera). But you are 100% right in your analysis of digital technology (another detail though "all cameras" do not use the Bayer filter, the vast majority does though: Fuji Xtrans sensor do not use the Bayer array but their own and Sigma Foveon sensors operate without any Bayer filter). Another detail: the higher noise in 4/3 camera comes not so much from the surface of the sensor but from the size of the photosites. The consequence being that between a 20 Mp 4/3 sensor and a 20 Mp FF sensor it is obvious that the FF sensor has bigger photosites (thence collects more light and does not require the same level of application of the signal). Where did you see that "on any system surface sensitive to light covers about 1/4 of each individual pixel" by definition a pixel is the information gathered by 100% of the photo site and nothing else. That some room around pixels may be taken by other technologies especially CMOS sensors (different there from CCDs, so no "any system" here, there are differences), especially non back-lit CMOSs. As for warmer tones being less colour?!? A 14-bit colour, warm or cold is still a 14-bit colour!
@@BrunoChalifour Not each output is JPEG, but any color image from your camera is no longer RAW. RAW has just grey tones. This is something I forgot to actually look for, and its about higher noise. Most people simply inspect that visually and its not correct way to do it. There are tools how to measure this. Also there are different types of noise. a) Signal to Noise ratio Its something that really can be attributed to smaller photosites. From what I have read about CMOS sensors, only 25 percent of individual pixel is a photosite, rest are other electronics. This can be measured as SNR in decibels, when the image is actually processed... more like an audio signal (which is what happens during analog-digital conversion) Once you have strong enough light source, and SNR output is high enough, you are good, regardless of ISO. b) Variations among pixels. This is noise too, but its completely independent from photosite. A "red" pixel or "blue" pixel as an example, but solid color might not be recorded as exactly same color hex value by every single pixel. These can be resolved by calibration. Also look for Well depth or Full Well in relation to the image sensors.
@@Mir1189 "RAW has just grey tones" : NO RAW format is a file made of 0 and 1 values, absolutely not an image whether a colour or grey-scale one. The numbers are just a record of light intensities behind red, green and blue filters (except on monochrome cameras). Those files have to be processed to be seen and as a result give a colour image. Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. These numbers can be measured with any sensor, CCD, CMOS, Strain, or Foveon, whatever the size. "Once you have strong enough light source, and SNR output is high enough, you are good, regardless of ISO." this is a weird recipe as the noise increases with high ISO (meaning high amplification of the signal) and it is not so much a question of light source but of its intensity. "Variations among pixels. This is noise too, but its completely independent from photosite. A "red" pixel or "blue" pixel as an example, but solid color might not be recorded as exactly same color hex value by every single pixel. These can be resolved by calibration." I am truly puzzled. What variation among pixels?? Are you speaking on the intensity of light filtering depending on the color of the filter in front of the photo site. Photosite behind a blue filter receive less light and as such need to be more amplified than the ones behind green and red pixels (thence more noise but also the possibility to get some information in the highlights when the two other colors are saturated (pure white))?
Another thoughtful video Robin. Maybe if we all saw the world with the same eyes we'd all agree, but we don't so there will always be room for personal taste and we can agree to disagree. Take the same camera into different environments and you'll likely get different results. Light and colour can vary so much in different locations and from day to day. Is it hot, is it cool, how high is the humidity, how harsh is the mid-day sun, is it raining yet? You know much about this in your part of the world. Drawing conclusions becomes subjective. Thanks for posting.
Thanks Trevor. When it comes to "pleasing" colors, I agree, color is personal, and we all want different colors in our photos. However, when it comes to color accuracy, I think there is no debate. When there is too much bias, it shows, and it is not a matter of preference. I have seen clients bashing some "full frame" cameras for producing inaccurate colors.
@@robinwong Yes you are right of course. Thankfully most of us don't have that demand placed upon us, so we take our photography in any direction we prefer. Your posts just seem to get better and better. Thanks.
I, like you, am into collecting older cameras. BTW - older Olympus cameras are my favorites to collect! I have never found anything special about CCD sensors. In my opinion, I get better results from CMOS sensors which I find more accurate. I also find that Pentax cameras produce super results. I have a k-5 and a k-50. But in general, as for faithful results, Olympus color science cannot be beat! Thanks for your videos. I enjoy them.
In the films days, I shot mostly for magazine artilces and prints. Different positive films had different colors and I would match my film to my subject. I did use positive film although it had less dynamic range, it had a nicer contrast and color. Although sometimes, I would use a low contrast film. Velvia had its place. But was not for weddings as an example. Kodachrome just lacked in landscapes, but llooked lovedly for other thinbgs. Now today with post processing, I do not worry about it any more. I do have my LUTS I use with Adobe products to match Panasonic and Olympus as sometimes I would use both cameras on a job and wanted a profile I could batch use to match the photos. Still I could often tell in magazines such as Life and National Geographic what film was used for the photo. Which means none were accurate and for those uses accuracy was not an issue, the look and emotion of different films was what sold my works.
I think for a lot of cases color accuracy isn't an absolute necessity, as most people won't know what the actual reality looks like in color, except for the photographer. However, in commercial situations, some clients will demand matching colors, so that is when the color biases will ruin the job. I think these days, the modern cameras can capture colors very well, and there should not be too big of a problem.
As a current member of Fuji World I currently use a CMOS. But in the last year I have re edited old images with new software (Luminar NEO, DXO Photoshop 5 ) The images from my Pentax ist* and K10 D both CCD sensors have a special quality. Not just the color. Initially the CMOS was not as good as the CCD and the biggest reason for the companies going to them was cost. I agree today they perform well but I wonder how the CCD would be today if they had a parallel improvement line.
I also have Canon, and the way Canon renders the color is one of my favorite, Olympus colors are also on my list About old digital cameras, I have a few of them Olympus, Canon , Ricoh, HP, fuji, Toshiba, Nikon and a few exotic brands such as Traveler and all camera has its own touch and even the "worst" in terms of quality could provide this little tiny something unique that allows to have different pictures.
Hi Robin, thank you for another fantastic video. It is interesting how various cameras (sensors?) have different colour signature. A very long time ago, I loved colours from my D200, and D2x even more, and never understood how could anyone see D300 to have better colours. But I also have strong sentiment to Olympus 16mpx sensor. While my EM1ii is a wonderful camera, I think I prefer colours from the old em5 (mk1) and pen epl7… I can’t articulate what it is, all cameras have ‘keep warm colours” set to “off”, but they are slightly different. Of course I agree accurate colours are a must for professionals, as the success of your projects depends on it. But for many hobbyists, it’s hard to ignore, what we like 😊 best regards, Steven
almost exactly my experience with the D200, D2Xs, and the D300. I simply don't like the colors from the D300 as much - it brings a lot via the FPS and AF it has, but it takes me more work to get the final images in lightroom The D200 and D2Xs (and I'd add the D700) all are pretty special, IMO
Interesting for the discussion here is that you experienced the D200 (CCD) and the D2X (CMOS) with obviously the same conclusion as my observations between my D200 and my D3.
I once had Olympus XZ-1. I got the feeling that the color (of photos) are more saturated than later cameras from Olympus which use CMOS sensors. But I never had XZ-2 to compare against XZ-1. As for the topic of accurate color vs pleasing color, mobile phones are usually biased towards the latter.
@@robinwong Try an iPhone 7 (Plus). No oversharpening and oversaturated colors. After the 7 (Plus) Apple's colorscience and algoritms start becoming more and more meh.
Good one Robin, there is way too much hype for the older cameras and lots of other RUclipsrs promoting them as better. In my opinion, just get a camera that you can afford, like and "want" to use and create the photos "you" want. I have an old 2012 CCD Fuji S4200 camera (I love this camera) and I tried it side x side along side my old 2015 Olympus EM-10 mk ii. With the exact same subject, focal length, etc - and side x side "printed" photos - I prefer the 2015 CMOS sensor in the Olympus. My favorite pocket camera is my iPhone 7, it also produces great colours.
Sony sensors often have the most 'tonally neutral' look but this is intentional. It allows for the widest latitude in terms of editing potentiality whereas if the colours are pushed/processed/saturated at the time of the capture that will impact the range of editing choices one can make. Having said that I still use my Nikon P7100 that has a CCD 1.7" sensor pretty regularly. The camera is super slow in capturing an image but it provides excellent results if the light is ample/great... it's a terrible camera if they volume of light drops off.
I still miss my E1's colours! I use a Nikon D7500 now and it's great, quality wise, but, the colours aren't so out and out pleasing as the E1's. I would also say that even my Olympus E520 (not a CCD camera) had a certain way of doing colour that I also wish I knew how to emulate on my Nikon. Something about the blues and the reds, that was always warm without turning too yellow like my Nikon tends to, and very pleasing in the brightness of the blues, without making the picture ever look cold. The E1, as well, at least, mine did, set at low contrast, had a really nice depth to the shadows.
I think there are just some gems of cameras with sensor/readout hardware pairings (and JPEG engines) that work in perfect harmony, whether CCD or CMOS. I have one older Fuji P&S CCD camera that takes incredible photos for its size and age, but I also attribute some of that to its lens -- I have a few other older CCD cameras that take quite awful photos, however they do still have a 'point-n-shoot' look to them which can be interesting in itself. Variety is the spice of life and it's most true of photography, isn't it?
I shot a wedding for a friend on a 6mp Nikon D40. Looking back on the images they are beautiful. (Sony ccd sensor) I also used fill in flash for the confetti shot. The D40 synchronised for flash at 500th of a second! Perfect. I still use a 2005 Ricoh digital 8.1 megapixel ccd sensor.
I had Olympus E-1 back in the day, and colours from that camera stood the test of time. And camera had great ergonomics, too. But aside from (too small) resolution, I did sell it however, when I still could get good money for it, course it was really, really too slow for mi liking...
One thing I noticed with my old ccd panasonic camera is when capturing 720p video, it seems to have a global shutter. So there is no jello effect in video. This is very interesting.
That is true. CCD is a global shutter. I can shoot passengers inside a train passing my train from the opposite direction as if they're standing still. Isn't that what a camera is supposed to do? The reason CCDs were abandoned was to save on manufacturing cost.
I guess we also have to consider other aspects like high ISO, higher resolution without losing too much dynamic range, all which the CMOS sensors can surpass CCD very well. The drive for technical perfection is getting a bit out of hand.
And yet, I see a difference between the images you share. It is subjective (as in I can't really specify exactly what the difference is) but the first batch you shared are much more pleasing to my eye than the last ones. It's not the color, however, it's something to do with the rendering, particularly in out of focus areas.
I think it's more tones than colors that make CCD sensors kind of special. I can really see it when I shoot monochrome. I started shooting on film in the 80's and I definitely see how people say it replicates a sense of image quality similar to film. I also get where people like film simulations - it's not always about color accuracy. Sure for product stuff you have to be accurate but even back in film days different films rendered colors differently. And people would do things like shoot out of date film on purpose or process the film intentionally in the wrong chemical process to get certain odd 'looks'.
There's an in-depth website that compares a Leica camera with CCD with the later CMOS sensors by providing a blind test comparison. Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference.
I totally respect everything you do and mean this in no disrespectful way. Maybe your eyes are just not as sensitive to colors as others. We're all different after all. Personally, I see the difference. It's a slight difference, but just enough to push an image over the top. I've shot ccd, Olympus 16 and 20 megapixel cameras, canon, Nikon, fujifilm. CMOS is a fantastic technology, because ccd can't shoot worth a darn in low light. They do however seem to grab rich color much more than cmos.
Thanks so much Robin - yet another great video! I *still* miss my 5D mark I years after I traded it. I still have two 20D bodies, one infrared and one normal. I absolutely love them both and despite being a little brother to the 5D, I find my 20D delivers much of what I miss about the 5D. It says a lot that I use far more modern cameras for the wildlife and landscape photography I love to do the most, but I am constantly taking the 20D out and leaving my newer stuff at home because I love the results. If you can look at your pics and smile, I think that's the most important thing.
Same here. Despite having pretty good gear, i really enjoy taking my old point and shoot out in the wild. Such as my first camera ever, the Sony P100 and the recently purchased P200 (7,2 vs 5,1MP, faster AF and startup,...). I mean, yes, im "mildly" dissapointed if i see a nice scene of a bird and i dont have anything usable to take the shot since my point and shoot with 3x optical zoom is by far not enough when it comes to range, let alone the super slow burst speed and limited burst anyway. Its just such a charme to have something compact in the pockets which still gives better looking images (at 5.1MP!!!) compared to any modern 12-50MP phone.
I would say from my Nikon D200 that has a 10MP CCD sensor, the camera does give a warm orange tint on the pics, which does remind me of film photos I have from the 1970s. Now with that being said, I compared the Nikon D200 with the Nikon D300 which has a CMOS sensor. To my eye, the D300 colors are more realistic to what my real eyes see. The Nikon D200 does give a more film like appearance, but who said that is how the colors look in real life? To be honest, the old film colors to my eyes (mostly Kodak film), did not look like I see colors in person. However, the CCD sensor in my Nikon D200 gives a bit more even noise pattern more like film. That is my take. The modern CMOS sensors totally smoke the old CCD sensors for true to life colors in my opinion. However, if I want the more 70s film look, the CCD sensor in the Nikon D200 does a good job for this. True to life colors, the CMOS sensor in my Nikon D300 does better. However, I am waiting for my original Canon 5D to arrive in the mail. I have to see if the colors everyone is saying are so great in the original 5D is in fact true to my eyes.😅
This video demonstrates perfectly how the latest progressions and updates in camera development are marginal and more or less irrelevant for most practical purposes, at least when it comes to image quality alone.
I think in terms of image quality, we have reached a point of sufficiency some time ago, any camera can deliver great results. However to say that the progressions and developments are marginal is also not true, there is significant progress in AI AF tracking, and computational photography, which simplified overall photography workflow and enabled more sophisticated photography done in camera.
@@robinwong What you say is also true, Robin. But for purists that find pleasure in manual, slowed down shooting processes anyway, old school tech can be more than good enough. Gear also get a longer life that way.
I'm not sure why CCD should have better colors compared to CMOS in the first place. They are different in converting photons to electrons, but the colors should mostly be affected by the color filters that are applied onto the sensors (plus the algorithms creating the picture from the sensor data). So I'd assume a change in color filters over the years plus a lot of subjectivity that lead to the idea of better CCD colors.
I heard that argument too. So I decided to compare my pictures taken on Canon bridge cameras. One lot taken on a Powershot Pro1 with CCD and another lot taken on a more recent Powershot SX50 with CMOS sensor. While I am generally pleased with both cameras, the SX50 has the edge on performance, IE, frames per second, zoom range, and faster auto-focus. But when it comes to colour rendition without editing, the older Pro1 has the edge.
I've used a few brands of digital still cameras and there is a big difference in color rendition. I think most of this is not per say the capture chip but instead the actual processor chip that creates the image. My experience is that I prefer the Canon brand for truer color and Sony for low light conditions. I have never liked Nikon there seems to be an overall flatness of contrast that bothers me. I've even gotten mixed images from different brands from wedding jobs and can pick out the Nikon ones immediately (I work as a lab tech. since the " old " film days ) .
No digital camera or film produces perfectly accurate color. I agree that Olympus colors are not perfectly accurate, because no camera does this. But to my eye, Olympus cameras have a good balance between accurate and pleasing colors.
I am a novice JPEG shooter. I sometimes shoot in vivid mode. At a night carnival with colored lights is one example that comes to mind. A daytime photo of the same carnival doesn't seem to trigger the same emotion or memory. The adult entertainment district looks very different during the day. Perhaps the neon lights remind us of a childhood carnival? In my town we have hot air balloon events once a year. This is another time exaggerating reality is fun.
Hi Robin. I totally agreed with you camera should produce “accurate” color. However, at the end you said Pentax and Canon 5D ccd camera color is the most pleasing. Well…are they “accurate” as well? I am a bit confused…😅
Thank you Robin for this entertaining video, again. Because of your Canon 5D review I bought one and also I bought some Olympus Pen camera's. My questions are: why don't you use a protective filter for all your expensive lenses? I always buy a Skylight filter when I invest in some new glass. Also I am fond of your single hand straps. Where can you buy those? Keep up the good work and thanks from the Netherlands.
Colour accuracy depends on the RGB filters which cover each pixel, and on how the pixel values are combined in the camera, not on the underlying sensor technlogy. My guess is that over the years the filters and processing were refined to produce more accurate colour rendition, which may be less pleasing than the less accurate colours produced by older cameras. The improvement in colour accuracy may have coincided with the switch to CMOS sensors, but if CCDs had continued in use it would probably have happened anyway.
Hello Robin. I also bought an old D40 because i wanted to make again pictures as i did with my D50. Nice colors again yes, maybe little warmer versus the OM1 OM10 ones. I also feel great light. I definitly love these images. May be its also a question of multicoating treatment of old Nikon lenses 18/140mm or 18/200 or 18/105...
I think this argument at the end of the day boils down to the simple fact, people see different colours, I did not used to care for colours in real life in my early days of photographing, but I got more and more jobs as colourist for video production suddenly I am colour grading cinema movies, and noticed that I see colours differently IRL, everything has become more contrasty and punchy, everything is just more colourful now and its probably in the same way that people grow near sighted when sitting in front of a screen all day, you train your eyes. So some people who do not care for CCD or punchy colours, *shrug* who cares, they do what they want to do and people who like contrasty and punchy colours, they do what they want to, I love the Olympus XZ1 but the thing is I always shoot all my cameras on the most contrast looking colour profile by default and I raise the colour contrast almost 2 times in post. Thats where the problems starts, with CMOS you start seeing really ugly results when increasing colour saturation and contrast in post-prod, stuff can turn ugly orange because the camera sensor itself did not capture those deep reds that were present instead they are represented as orange hues. I also noticed colours can start to blow out very easily, remember colours have dynamic range too so its definitely in my experience that CCD sensors or cameras with strict CFA (Colour Filter Array) which were common pre-2011 before the high ISO craze took over and we got loose CFA instead. One prime example is the Canon 400D you can push the colours in the RAW files like insane, and the footage turns into slide film, I never seen so many hues of green in my entire life in a picture before until I started editing my old 400D files, I own a S1R and never seen it capture such insane colour fidelity in shots before specially in daylight landscape photography. But again, just because I love that old school contrast punchy Kodak look, does not mean everyone has to, at the end of the day, there no right or wrong, there is obviously a science behind everything and the science is CFA which dictates the colours that are allowed to reach the sensor, the thicker it is, the less light the sensor receives but the more accurate the light is meaning the colours are broader and more defined, a forest might have 5 million shades of greens whereas with a sensor that has loose CFA and is made in 2022 might only have 1 million shades of greens, if you do nothing with the image you wont loose out on anything, but if you try to work those colours and compare you will quickly see the limitations of modern sensors but the negative of strict CFA is of course a lot worse ISO performance, take Sony A900 / A850 for example, its the colour master machine yet its CMOS but its also got ridicules poor ISO performance even for its time, tops out at 1600 ISO at "barely usable" and 800 really being the most useful high ISO setting. This camera is one of the few that could distinguish a certain type of orange colour that no modern camera is able to do, even medium format fail, of course Foveon are the other type but these sensors are more like negative film in how they work.
Good point, often ignored about the dynamic range of colors (very often reds, for instance, have a tendency to lose details because of their apparent lack of dynamic range (for lack of a better word). As for "old school contrast punchy Kodak look", for those who have not used Kodak film I would like to point out that not all Kodak film were punchy. Having work in the wedding and portrait industry for a while I have learnt to use Kodak Portrait film for its smooth tones and the quality of its reproduction on skin tones (and wedding dresses) far away from saturation and contrast. Just one question: what is a "strict color array"? (and while at it "Loose CFA"?) Never heard of it. Never heard of the differences in the thickness of the filters either (which does not mean it does not exist but the question is why is it never mentioned if it so important (besides manufacturers looking for more efficiency in their sensors have little interest in building them with "thick" CFA, don't you think? Plus I do. not see why thicker filter would mean more accuracy, with "broader and more defined colours"?!? Where do you get your 1 million shades of green from? Most RAW format records colours in 14 bits which means a maximum of over 16 000 shades of green! By the way how many do you think our eyes can discriminate ;o) As for ISO, the last time that 1600 iso was barely usable was probably 10 years ago. As for medium cameras, your assertion kinda puzzles me as it is a well-known fact that both Fuji and Hasselblad use the same SONY sensor for their respective GFX and XD lines. ??
@@BrunoChalifour I am not gonna go over everything you said I am just gonna answer the CFA questions. The Colour Filter Array is what tells the black and white sensor, what colour the light that hits the specific pixel is. Look at it as a grid and under that grid is their respective pixel, the light ray hits the CFA grid and then passes through the grid layout lets say and hits their respective pixel. The strict CFA means the light has to travel a longer distance through the array to reach the pixels on the sensor. This means the light will be more defined and have less bleeding into other nearby pixels. A loose CFA means its thinner, the light has to travel LESS distance, this means more light will hit the sensor at any given time which means overall brighter image but each pixel have tendency to get colour bleeding, green light can hit red pixels for example which causes a reduction in colour accuracy for that given pixel and thus needs to be data corrected internally. The million shade was an example to make the reader understand the difference between a thicker and thinner CFA, certainly you did not need a large flashing neon sign to tell you that? Because thicker CFA have light travel longer distances, means there is less light overall reaching the sensor but there is also less bleeding, but this has the effect that noise gets worse just because not every pixel gets saturated in time this a mix of darker and brighter pixels which is seen as noise, but of course noise comes from a lot of other sources like processing, cosmic radiation, magnetic field disturbance, and overall just sluggishness of sensors at the time many not being perfectly manufactured had defective pixels that did not work 100% etc. But in turn, modern cameras have WAY more colour noise than older cameras, because like I said the light travels so quick, it bleeds onto other pixels and thus it creates errors, what happens when a red pixel receives way too much blue light? Well it just shows up as a blue pixel and there you have colour noise in a nuttshell, processing removes a lot of it today but if you were to look at a complete unprocessed RAW image from old and new camera, you would see shocking amount of colour noise on the modern sensor. Modern cameras get away with a lot of this because for one, most people do not care, secondly most people have no idea of this concept, noise is a lot more perceived than colour depth is in an image and people care about what they can see. Secondly, modern cameras have amazing processing power, like I said modern sensors are exceptionally prone to colour noise, but good processing helps reduce this using predictable colour patterns, for example taking pictures of a green sofa, and there is a blue carpet in the image, on a modern CFA you would get just that, green sofa and blue carpet, on a thicker CFA you can actually see that the sofa has a pattern on it thats a slight brighter green colour and the blue carpet actually has a man on a fishing boat sewn into it, the modern CFA throws these information away because it cannot perceive it, there too much colour bleed and this the predictive colour algorithm just assumes its all just the same blue colour. There are a lot of good examples online about old sensors versus new ones, and giving good examples, specifically modern sensors are hopeless at taking pictures of patterns on fine woven materials whereas old sensors while less sharp are able to perceive far greater colour details out of those patterns.
@@SMGJohn Hmmm, still several issues here that kinda puzzle me. So I"ll explain: I asked about what a "strict", and a "loose" CFA were (notions I had never heard of before reading you), not what a CFA is. Could you give me examples of what a "strict" CFA is in "real life", what camera using either a CCD or a CMOS sensor incorporates a "strict" (thick) or a "loose" (thin?) CFA ? It is not still that clear to me. Wouldn't the opposite of "thick" be "thin" instead of "loose" (another notion I doubt many people are familiar with, except you, of course). I thought that Bayer-array filters were basically mass produced to rather identical specifications and what could make a difference were the micro lenses added on top of photo diodes (especially for CMOS sensors. For instance the difference between the micro lenses depending on the distance between flange/mount and sensor (different with various cameras brands, or within the same brand as for Leica Ms and SLs, Fuji X, TX, and GFX). How can the difference between 16 000 and 1,000,000 not require a neon flashing light and help your audience understand your point?. "But in turn, modern cameras have WAY more colour noise than older" that is another point where you may have convinced yourself but facts seem to say exactly the opposite. ;o) The sometimes observed "bleeding" as you call it, usually called "blooming" is something CCDs are more prone to when they receive too much light (it has nothing to do with whatever speed the light travels at... which, by the way, is constant). Your theory about blue light being cast on a red-filtered photo site and producing noise is an interesting one, I doubt that it is accurate (noise is part of the deterioration of the electric signal while being processed and not the light signal). "Modern cameras get away with a lot of this because for one, most people do not care" ???? " if you were to look at a complete unprocessed RAW image from old and new camera" please tell me how you do that, I am really puzzled. That would certainly require a rather sophisticated physics research lab? Have you ever seen "an unprocessed raw image" [sorry but it really sounds like an oxymoron as for a raw file to be seen as an image it has to be processed] "noise is a lot more perceived than colour depth is in an image" aren't you comparing apples and oranges here? "modern sensors are hopeless at taking pictures of patterns on fine woven materials whereas old sensors while less sharp are able to perceive far greater colour details out of those patterns." If I translate this into what I know (and that is close to common knowledge) modern sensors with their higher resolution are in fact better at rendering details, patterns even of woven materials. What you may be referring to is the phenomenon commonly called "moiré" that has to do with the frequency of minute patterns and the resolution of the sensor. The traditional way of dealing with that has been to add an "anti-moiré" or "anti-aliasing" filter in front of the sensor (to somewhat blur the image and eliminate high-frequency pattern that creates artefacts (moiré pattern) when meeting the sensor. Higher resolution sensors have somewhat partially solved the problem so that most high-end cameras have done away with the anti-aliasing filter. The consequence being that they generate sharper images (and better details of the material your sofa is covered with).
Seams like the price on used E1s have gone up. Glad I held on to both of mine. Now for colors they seam to be the same to me. However the transition between pixels of different color is what I see as having more pop. I think that had to do with the absence of micro lenses that scatter and mix some light between pixels.
I can see many commercial situations where color accuracy is key. OTOH I think selection of sensors/pipelines is akin to selection of films. You pick the tool appropriate for the job. I enjoy having sensors with different looks. BTW I picked up an old e-m5 recently, and boy, those are raw files with an opinion! I love the colors but no way do I expect a faithful representation of the moment from that camera.
I tried upgrading to a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS45 (Lumix DMC-TZ57) and it was worse than my old Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 (Lumix DMC-TZ10) so I went back to the latter!
I am In Taiepi, Taiwan. Since I changed from Nikon D50 and Fujifilm CCD S5Pro to Nikon CMOS camera, D700, D3s, D4s, D800E, I could not get clean blue sky in my photos, no matter there is CPL filters or not. The sky color from CMOS camera is dirty blue inaccurately. Besides that, CMOS sensors peform better than CCD. I think CCD lacks the color depth in CMOS sensor or the on-body processor in CCD camera are old technology.
Robin, another great video. I also could not afford the cameras you mention back in the early days of digital although I very much wanted a D50 at the time. Now I have a wide range of cameras from digicam to M43 to APSc and FF, some newer but most are used and date back as far as 2008 or so.
I'm with you. I don't see anything special about CCD sensors either, and I have used quite a few, as well as CMOS. I also agree about accurate colours over pleasing colours. Keep it up!
Air quotes were plentiful and called for in this video. I also agree CCD sensors on cameras I’ve used don’t look special to me. All I remember is how slow my old digital cameras were compared to newer ones.
I agree with a lot you say. However, colour accuracy was an Olympus camera strength. Certainly the CCD sensors had more accurate colours. It been struggling to find newer camera which have accurate colour accuracy. It is made worse, as manufacturers have stopped making advanced compact cameras. Many big manufacturers are using the same sensors. So all the pictures look the same. The only other recent camera is the Fuji XT-100, which is the closest thing to the original CCD. Fuji uses a different sensor on that camera. The XT-200 is slightly different. For me it is frustrating for travel, as I do want an advanced compact camera, which can take great shots. Using a smartphone for photography is disappointing as the battery drains down. It does not give the control I need. Nor do I want a subscription to photo software to fix all the issues.
Get yourself along to Specsavers. I worked for Kodak from 1968 for many years in the film process departments of many labs in England. Hand tanked 10x8 Ektachrome sheets at professional labs in Manchester but only took up photography in retirement. I worked my way through m43 and ended up at an A7Rii and non of the colours satisfied me. I eventually sold all my gear and bought a 16 year old CCD crop sensored M8 Leica. Job done, Kodachrome in a brass body, absolutely beautiful realistic muted yet vibrant colours. Wipes the floor with any cmos sensor no matter how fast, how much range, how much video crap it might offer,. If you want accurate colours and an unbelievably authentic enthralling experience get yourself an M8 mate.
The main reason to switch from CCD to CMOS was the cost. It is much more expensive to produce a CCD sensor than it is CMOS. The CMOS sensor also has all the electronics onboard the chip and can be produced on existing chip manufacturing equipment, but not the CCD. Suffice to point out that the majority of sensors used in scientific and industrial applications are still CCDs and not CMOS, including the Wide Field and Advance Survey Cameras of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Yes, this is true. CCD uses more engery than a CMOS chip, but CMOS is inherently more noisy, hence the need for all these highpowered processors onboard the camera and sophisticated algorithms to clean up the image. @@ronmurray7349
I used to be quite the Fuji fanboy but their colours were just off putting for me with every camera update (last camera was the x100v) Agree with a lot you said here, Robin. I own a E500, E300 and some other ccd cameras. I also own a Panasonic L1 (mos). The E300 gives lovely images for sure but I much prefer the output the L1 gives me. Has that pop to the colours BUT is accurate. I feel a lot of this boils down to the colour science. These earlier cameras (5D MK1 for example) came out at the time not far off from the film days so it seems the makers approach was to replicate closer to that or give out as accurate, true to life images. Modern digital cameras now compete with each other digital cameras. Including Fuji. I find skin tones really bad in most modern cameras. Side note:- Stop tempting me getting a K-01!!!!
Yup, totally agree with you Robin. I don't buy into all this CCD colours are the best nonsense. I've even heard folk suggest it's more filmic and analog looking than images taken using a CMOS sensor. If they mean it's more grainy/noisy then I'd agree wholeheartedly lol. The only thing that looks filmic and analog to me is....film! CCD digital cameras were of their time, the best the technology could produce. Of course, many CCD based cameras can take very nice photos but I don't attribute their look as being anything to do with the CCD technology in and of itself. If that is the case perhaps undertake a blind test of several cameras, some CCD and some CMOS and see who can tell which is which 😁
Robin, your use of color in composition is masterful. I think that's a much bigger reason why your pictures are so vibrant than the fact you shot with a CCD camera.
I recently bought a Nikon D50 due to seeing many videos about this CCD thing. I normally shoot with vintage lenses on my Sony mirrorless and love it. After seeing only a handful of pictures from the D50 (luckily I still had my 35, 40 and 50 primes from my D7000)....I was blown away. So I bought a D70 for the faster shutter speed and extra dial, the D40 for compactness, and the D200 (just received) for the extra MP and legendary status. I told my wife I was done buying after she counted my 100 vintage lenses ...so now I'm sneaking in to the house my Nikon cameras 😂. And now after just telling her I have all the CDD Nikons on my list ...I bought for $8 a Minolta Dimage 7 CCD 5MP camera because it can be used as Infrared without modification....😂
Same issue here
I would really like to have a camera that can shoot "Infrared Photos" !!! I wonder what You do to make it shoot "IR PIX"???? ThankYou in advance :) :)
@@johnyoung1606 just Google Minolta Dimage 7 Infrared and you will see some old posts about it. You just need that camera and IR filter.
Only 100? I wish I had your level of self control :)
Well that's informative
Almost a decade ago ( I was 15) I picked up a D50 for like 50 USD because it had an error. My teenage trouble shooting skills went to work and it turns out that it showed an error because it had a 4gb SD card, and I think the max the firmware could handle was something like 2gb. I ended up picking up a cheap lens too with my after school job money. I took it on a trip overseas to visit my family in Germany as a 15 year old and to this days, those unprocessed images still look SO GOOD. I wish I knew how good I had it at the time, and ended up selling it at the end of HS for gas money to see my girlfriend.
Anyways it didn't work out and I think about that D50 more than her now a decade later LOL. As it turns out, there's much more to a great photo than just sheer megapixels. I love your videos and your enthusiasm is soooo contagious!
Nowadays I pretty much just shoot film. No particular reason but just because I still have my 35mm Rebel 2000 slr that I also purchased in middle school. I throw it in my car anytime I go on a trip, and it just never stops working. I might just snatch up a D50 again just so I take more pictures.
I've been shooting Nikon since the late seventies so my experience in color comparisons and rendering in digital is vast. Having said that I still have my D100 and D200, both 6 and 10Mp CCDs respectively. I now shoot with the D850 (BSI CMOS) and the Z5 (Non-BSI CMOS) and I have to say that at least with Nikon, they have stayed consistent with their native RAW colors, very true to life in my personal experience. What CCD differs I think is in its rendering or look. To me the CCD is the closest you can get to modern film look with it's grain and color & focus transitions. Black and White images has a certain "emulsion" look to them that I don't see much in CMOS unless I try to process in post, maybe the difference in Mps or pixel pitch has something to do with it because my Fuji X-E1 and X-E2 both with 16Mp CMOS come very close to what I see in my old Nikon CCDs.
By the way; the reason the industry went to CMOS is Not "better" technology, initially, it's because CCDs were expensive to make and CMOS were much cheaper tech and design to manufacture. Who know if Live View and better AF would have made it to CCDs if we stuck with them, but I guess we'll never know.
Compact CCD cameras all had live view.
@@kevinurben6005 Yes because they were essentially fixed lens mirrorless with or without a viewfinder, only an LCD to see what you're shooting
@@S7RING3R what? where did you hear that.
CCD sensors are passives, as film negatives are. They base on electron (fotons) stream force to give pics - electron sensors.
CMOS sensors active are, they are electronic sensors which base is scanning system as in old tv tubes + noise dumping system.
Sony made DSLR with CCD sensor and live view and flip screen. Models are sony alpha 300, 350. They have 2 sensors, one for capturibg photo 1 for live view. Also sony made CCDs for Nikon, so they just made sensors by themselves and put in camera, dont have to search for manufacturer.
I also like colours from CCD sensor, more than CMOS. My first try was with Nikon coolpix 4600.
You aren't the only person to love the old Canon 5D color renditions. I also hear the Nikon D700 is mentioned as having a unique quality. I do enjoy my old D80, and I still shoot it a lot. I recently got one of my favorite images with it. It was very overcast and a 1950's ere pickup truck just came out amazing. The local color in your photo's makes me want to visit your beautiful country some day. Thanks for all your hard work.
People conflate dynamic range and saturation with “better colors”. What they like about ccd sensors is the saturation values of reds, greens and blues they were coded with and the lack of dynamic range creating stark contrast and the perception of even more saturated colors. The one thing I would say is a true benefit of ccd is the representation of noise. The Bayer array on cmos sensors makes noise look more “digital” as color is simulated via an algorithm causing a blocky noise pattern that is not the most pleasing to look at.
People seem to be on a nostalgia trip. It's low contrast, creamy and warm looking compared to CMOS which is rather clinical aka close to life.
CCDs have the same Bayer array filter, the only difference between CCDs and CMOSs lies in the micro lenses in front of the photosites/photodiodes. It is true that the treatment of noise used to be smoother in CCDs than in CMOSs, not necessarily the case anymore due to the tremendous research efforts invested in CMOS and the fact that the information is processed at pixel level in real time and that that technology as also tremendously improved ("back-lit" CMOS for instance, and processing software).
@AnthonyJGianotti this may be the most pinpoint accurate comment I've ever seen on RUclips. 100% nailed it.
About color, i watched an interview with a colorist that said Hasselblad colors are the most accurate ones, then was Fuji (plain color without simulations) and Nikon.
But he said no camera have perfect color, Sony put grey in skies and mess the skin in different ways, Nikon mess the greens and put cyan in skies, Canon put magenta all over the place (that he said is very difficult to correct), etc.
That is true, there is no camera with perfect colors. Each has some compromises. We pick and choose what works best for us.
I have a 2006 Kodak Z650 point and shoot camera. It does in fact have a CCD sensor. This little 6mp camera takes excellent pictures even compared with my modern Olympus mirrorless cameras. ( EM10 MarkII and EM1 MarkII). It has surprisingly good color rendition !!!
Kodak is another company that knows color very well. Too bad they went out of business too soon.
@@robinwong I tried several Kodak digital cameras around 1996-1997 when i worked as a benchmarking technician and editor for a computer magazine and saw no evidence of them knowing anything about colour, the pictures were absolutely hideous even by the standards of the day. I think they had to learn it - their chemistry people can do colour, but this wouldn't trivially translate into the company being serious about it in their other endeavours.
After reputation murdering moves like that (even if they did do better eventually), and various successful attempts at self-sabotage, whose fault is it really that they had to give up?
@@Koji-888 No, i didn't make a blanket statement about all Kodak cameras. The cameras i had in my hands in that era were the ones that were sold in the stores at the time, Kodak DC20 and DC120 if i remember right, sub $1000 cameras. Both were made by Chinon and both were based on cheap camcorder CCDs from what people figured out later.
This whole endeavour with Chinon cameras for sure left a sour taste in the mouth of every person who touched these units and ruined the brand reputation for this business area. Once you have that sort of issue, some companies recover and others do not, and JUST doing good products is often not enough, especially if they don't start being CONSISTENTLY good and also special enough somehow or at least aggressively enough priced to get them in the hands of people.
I'm saying Kodak has set themselves up for failure by shipping crap with their branding on it in mid late 90s, into the market area with a lot of volume and visibility, they're themselves to blame for the eventual failure of their DSC business. Not because all their products were bad.
But even try to name a really bad Fujifilm, Canon, Casio, SONY, Olympus or even Sanyo. Just try.
That may rely more on the way the JPG are processed (Kodak profile vs Olympus profile).
@@Koji-888 + Kodak numerous DSLRs (the last ones being the DCS 14n and 14c), and the Leica M9.
I just wanted to thank you for your amazing videos. You really inspired me to go outside and take some beautiful photos.
I love the motivation you put into your videos.
Thanks Lukas, appreciate that. Let's all go out and shoot more photos!
At the beginning of the CMOS era, there was some drawbacks in CMOS technology compared to CCD. But CMOS was cheaper and consumes less energy, so that both advantages were the reason why industry put money in develop better and better CMOS sensors. An advantage of CCD up today is that even a cheaper CCD is a global shutter one, even in point and shoot cameras. I would love a CCD full frame sensor with today technology.
Global shutter CMOS sensors do exist, so if a manufacturer cared to (there are some Black Magic cameras that do this), CCDs don’t even have that advantage.
@@Lauren_C Global shutter CMOS sensors are very expensive. Global shutter CCD sensor are cheap, just because all CCD sensors are global shutter.
@@amermeleitor don’t think it’s cost alone. The Black Magic Ursa 4K had global shutter, and was certainly far less expensive, than the RED and ARRI cameras of the time (2013) which lacked global shutter.
Considering that both ARRI and RED still choose not to use global shutter, indicates other tradeoffs.
I think global shutter is not that simple to execute. While the older CCD may have global shutter, they also have other issues that come with it, and it as been proven that CMOS is superior and more "future-proof".
@@robinwong yes, even Sony (the biggest sensor maker) uses CMOS for its global shutter industrial line, but others makers continue with CCD up today. And as far as I know the Digital Bolex 16 uses a CCD sensor with somewhat "modern" capabilities.
The good thing about photography as an hobby/art/documentary tool is everyone has different liking and interpretation of what they see and what they like. It’s personal, emotional, fun, experimental, and enjoyable, not how “colour accurate”!
Hi Robin. Love your explanations and outlook. Very unpretentious. I am long term user of Olympus and Lumix. Loved this piece about CMOS v cc'd. Have no opinion either way. Whatever does it for you is good. Thanks!
Such a big and complex subject!
I have all these CCD pocket cameras, and I just love the different ways they reproduce colors.
They may nor be technically perfect, but I don't think people see the way cameras do anyway. In fact, cameras are nowhere near being able to see as well as humans do.
All I can say is that the colors never look "flat" and they are very easy to absorb.
Thanks to Robin, I will be getting a 5D Classic for sure, this video decided me!!!!
Give the Canon 5D a try! The white balance engine may be too warm in some situations, if you shoot RAW, a bit of slider adjustment goes a long way.
@robinwong Thanks, Robin. I wonder what Olympus cameras tend to need most often in post-processing? (Hint, hint...)
Human eye is actually extremely imperfect, its only got a small centre of its vision thats "high spatial resolution" everything outside this very small cone falls off dramatically and becomes very blurry.
Not to mention our colour vision is non existent, yes our eyes cannot differentiate colour at all, its the brain that does insane amount of computational power to turn the extremely lackluster vision of ours into the things we see, colours included.
Cameras need filters to filter out colours in order to distinguish red green and blue or some cameras do CMY others have extra green filters and likes of Foveon have complete filter coverage for each channel.
My point is, using our eyes as an argument for cameras to go by is like using a Google Pixel phone and stating it takes good pictures, but its not the camera that does the good pictures its literally all the AI stuff they crammed in there, the Google Pixel is the closest representation to our eyes, but a camera has to literally see everything instantly and perfectly, the processor only puts the various data together and combines it, thats it, nothing more, maybe a bit of noise reduction as the signals go through various channels, our eyes also have horrid low light performance with equivalent ISO of like 1 million and yet still cannot see jack piss.
@@SMGJohn Well if you want to say the human visual system is responsible for the way we see, that's fine. That's what I call the human eye.
No artificial system can detect and reproduce what the human eye sees.
For me this is most evident with dynamic range: 21 stops. That is the eye proper. But the resolution of the visual medium (not the retina, or the visual cortex) is estimated at about 130 MP.
About not having infrared vision, you are quite right, humans can't see well in the dark, although there is a dark vision mode that can work well enough with some special techniques and practice. Some people have better night vision than others. Night vision hasn't been critical for survival for a very long time, perhaps around 100,000 generations. What night vision camera do you use?
Hi Robin, can I just say, thanks, thanks for your honesty, that really helps me to make my own informed choices.
I liked your video a lot.
I still find satisfaction when using my Nikon D3000 that I purchased in 2010.
Apparently I am faithful to it and when battery died last year I decided to get a new battery and keep the camera.
Yeah just get the new battery, the camera is still awesome!
my first DSLR was an Olympus E500 I bought around 2007...8 megapixel, no live view, slow as a wet week to buffer photos shot in RAW format but I do still love the colours and was always trying to emulate them in post with images from my Canon 60D that replaced the Olympus to no avail. I still have it...along with a Canon 6Dmkii and a Fuji XS-10...and I still love shooting with it at times for the colours/contrast ratios and that something special about the look.
I think color accuracy vs. aesthetic appeal depends entirely on the purpose and situation. Photographing for a client, whether wedding, product photography, etc., is hands down about color accuracy and reproducing reality. Aesthetically pleasing colors (and shadow quality, etc.) come into play when representing a more subjective experience, maybe more in art photography or for hobby use. I've used multiple cameras over almost 20 years of taking concert photos. I've seen professional photos of those same shows that are far superior in technical quality, but they have the look of "that happened." My favorites of my own photos have the look of "I know what it was like to be there." The photos that most give that quality are from cameras from the golden age of the CCD era, ~2005-2009 in the case of my cameras. I've taken photos since then that have more detail, far better low-light tolerance, require less correction, but editing them is a technical pursuit, not an artsy enjoyment.
Yeah, also I didn't agree with the statement that it's the job of the camera to be accurate. Depends on what you're trying to do with your photography. Also post processing is entirely unenjoyable for me
I see a difference between some CCD's and most CMOS. I prefer CCD for Abstract Street shooting. I have fun on both ends, the shoot and the process at which I can lose my sense of time doing and find that the sun is about to come up.
@@TreDeuce-qw3kv CCDs shine the most in artificial light, for example well lit cities at night (where older CCDs are still good enough), neon lights mainly. Also, at least thats my experience with 2004/2005 Sony CCD cameras, they perform great with vibrant colors in nature, such as flowers and greenery in general.
What i really like the most about my CCD cameras... out of the box you dont need too much post processing, beside the fact that i barerly can stretch my 5,1 and 7,2MP photos at all.
@@tobinthomas-sg5ix Being accurate is the most difficult job of any film or sensor. It can always be modified (JPG profile or image processor on computer) to please your colour biases or intentions. The reverse operation is extremely tricky and almost impossible.
@@TreDeuce-qw3kv If you look at the JPG straight from the camera and whose profile has not be modified, maybe although I would interested for the results of a test (especially in "abstract street photography" (which by the way almost sounds like an oxymoron ;o).
Robin
I Bought my Pentax *istDL in 2005 and my Pentax K100D in 2006 both are 6 megapixel CCD sensor cameras that I stil use I like the way the colors pop with modern photo editing software especially my pictures of fall foliage in New England.
Old cameras are great cameras
This is a great video. I would only add that, to me, the Olympus color science reflects very vivid colors compared to others. Not good or bad, just different.
Wow, I can't agree more, you are absolutely right. 5d classic, full stop. I already know your channel and I know that you're a m43 shooter and I can tell you I was super surprised by the Canon 5d classic. Actually I shot Canon for assignments (owned a huge number of canons, but also bought the 5dc because of nostalgia) and recently bought 2nd hand m43 camera + couple of lenses (BTW thanks to you I picked up a Pana 20mm 1.7 I for street photography, thank you, well spent money). Keep up good work :)
CCD sensors are passives, as film negatives are. They base on electron (fotons) stream force to give pics - electron sensors.
CMOS sensors active are, they are electronic sensors which base is scanning system as in old tv tubes + noise dumping system.
Total babble, no scientific data to back this up (except that CCDs and CMOS process their information (electron/electricity) differently and not their Photons (from photo = light in Greek)
You are dead on with this one Robin. I still shoot my e-5 and e-510 all the time. These old Kodak sensors are amazing. Love these vintage videos. Now if we can get you to shoot some MANUAL vintage OM lenses that would be fun.
Yeah, I use my old OM lens occasionally, lots of soft - slightly out of focus photos :) but also lots of fun, epically when we get focus right.
Kodak KAF sensors are only in: E1, E300, E500, E400 cameras. X.
No AF no go for Robin. Sorry!
Neither E5 nor E510 has a Kodak sensor. The last Olympus DSLR to have a Kodak sensor was the E-400.
Nikon d200 is a beast and it tales beautiful pictures - colors is real result of this format. Not to mention the build quality and thoughtful menu and buttons location
Just did a test recently : Sigma DP3 Quattro (foveon) vs Fx Nikon D780 (cmos) vs apsc Nikon D60 (CCD) all used with an equivalent sharp portrait prime lens.results are incredible. The Foveon offers lots of detail but the raw needs to be processed to avoid color shift. Once processed well, The Foveon portrait looks very filmic.
The CCD file needs the less PP and is excellent and very sharp for 10Mp. The colors are the most accurate and just pop. Color separation is beautiful on CCD. The CMOS file is the most malleable but looks dull in comparison. It needs PP and still doesn’t look as eye catching as the CCD file.
Interesting experiments. I would be interested in seeing and comparing the results. Now regarding processing RAW files: all images CMOS or not originate in a RAW file that requires to be processed to be seen. The difference with Sigma's Foveon compared to CMOS and CCD is that it is a very idiosyncratic sensor requiring an idiosyncratic software (or plug-in) to be processed. Second, what does "filmic" mean?? I have always found the colours generated by a Foveon sensor to be very realistic/accurate and, especially in the early days (around 2002-2003) more deprived of noise and artefacts than CCDs or CMOSes. The only issue being that they cannot compete in terms of high ISO.
As for the CCD, if colours "pop", how can they be accurate. I also noticed that CCD colours had a tendency to "pop" which means a little more saturation (especially reds and blues) and contrast that "accurate" would require. [now some may find "accurate" "dull but for me it is the safest starting base, "pop" can always be added (it is just like salt or pepper in a recipe).
@@BrunoChalifour I’ll try to reply as best as I can to your message. First off, the CCD raw files (if shot at lower ISO) require very few adjustments such as sharpening, levels or curves depending on the exposure and pop naturally without being over-saturated. It’s inherent to their ability to separate colors better than other sensor/ without loosing colors or detail. For example, older CMOS sensors and still newer ones (that are less prone to this issue) tend to blow the gamma of magenta and oranges in mixed lightings, which will kill skin or clothes detail on portraits. So with older CMOS cameras (D700 to D750 generation) these specific colors needed to be shiftet to a different hue and saturation independently, depending on the lighting conditions and camera generation, which was very time consuming to get the best out of the portraits or landscapes.
This is not the case with CCD files which generally show very accurate colors and color separation (or color contrast) : each color is very accurate and easily distinguishable, which creates and overall richness and pop, by défaut.
Regarding the Sigma cameras and software, it’s true and very frustrating that Sigma never came out with a faster, more efficient and bug free version of its sigma pro software. It very often crashes, even with a good computer (64 bits of ram, excellent processor and SSD) but I compared the files with my Fuji GX617 and Bronica GS1 Velvia and ektar photographs, using mirror lockup with the GS1, so very sharp, and the Sigma quattro H offers very close results. I also compared the Foveon shots with my D850 and if shot at base ISO, the Foveon offers more richness in terms of textures and again, colors. But, the colors have a tendency to shift and provide almost unnatural, more artistic colors. This also depends on the way the raw files are processed of course.
I definitely agree that accuracy of colors must come first, then artistic interpretation of those colors if desired. I know a number of women who spent DAYS picking out the perfect shade of color for their bridesmaid dresses, and they would have been horrified if the photos came back with those colors altered. And yes, brand colors are also highly scrutinized for accuracy.
You are right. I have brides telling me they want the colors to match real life as closely as possible.
My Olympus E-300, Canon Powershot G9, and Kodak ZD710 have amazing colors and the only one of my cameras that beats them in color science is my Leica M10.
I plan on getting another Canon Powershot G9 soon as a backup to my current one just in case anything happens to it because that’s the camera that’s always with me because how pocketable it is and has a zoom range of 35-200mm full frame equivalent. CCD sensors seem to portray true to life colors and that’s what seems to make them special.
Kodak certainly knows colors very well. Too bad they are not around any more.
That very same Kodak is what made me serious about photography years ago. One of the first with easy control of aperture ISO and shutter speed even though the sensor was so small. But it helped in experimentation and I loved the results in good light. It didn't shoot RAW but I didn't even know why I would need it and I used JPEGs for a long time with the newer camera too. I still have it even though I haven't used it for years. It was my last camera before the transition to my first DSLR (smallest DSLR on the market by Olympus :)).
I particularly shoot Sigma with their Foveon sensors, because - as far as I can see it - this sensor captures the colors most naturally. I also still have one or two old digital cameras with CCD sensors, and I may try them again just to check and compare them on this aspect.
Unfortunatey those Foveon cameras are sooooooo slow. I need speed.
@@robinwong That's true. Fortunately, I can live with this - my main cameras are large format cameras. Compared to them the Sigmas are lightning fast!
@mipmipmipmipmip I know. They worked on that for like 10 years, and than bagged everything, starting completely anew a couple years ago. Don't know if they'll ever succeed, and I also really don't care much - APS-C and H are large enough for me.
The Sigma Quattro H is just excellent. The speed is faster than any medium format film camera and the results are on par with 6x9 slides, or even close to 6x17 when shot in panoramic mode. (I tested and compared both)
CCD cameras offer the best compromise between speed, fast post processing and film like colors
This is what originally attracted me to Foveon; that and the extreme detail I can capture, especially in clothing. I really hope to see even an updated Quattro sensor in an L-mount body. With the pricing they were able to do for the sd Quattro at that frankly ludicrous level of build quality, it'd be a hit IF they could just get their marketing right and present it as a tool for specific jobs.
I think the only thing really holding it back was SA-Mount. Just think of how much more successful the SD1 could have been if it Sigma had licensed the EF mount...
Some models in a camera lineup will "seemingly" excel at color science. I shoot Nikon, and that's why I haven't sold my old D300 and D700 cameras. I really like the way they render skin tones, so I'll dig them out to shoot portraits. Not sure if anyone else notices it, but it does matter to me.
I used 3 different brands' cameras to photograph some flowers at a flower show on auto everything. Then I asked the flower show judges to tell me which camera's play back jpg was closest in colour to the flowers I'd photographed. This was at the show, so they could compare reality to the captured image. They chose the Olympus colours. I've used Olympus ever since. There were 7 judges, so if I had a colour bias, it didn't count.
Each brand has its own subtle bias or look that pleases its devotees.
As I publish my pictures on the website of the flower society whose judges opinions, I sought they spared me the time to get it as close to what they perceived as right as was possible.
I have relied on Olympus color science for a long time for my work, and believe me they are more than sufficient. I am happy with what they produce.
However, I also must admit, having used more cameras recently, that Pentax and Canon give better colors in some situations.
@Robin Wong I agree with you as to my eyes Canon has its own colour palette, which is great for flattering portraits less so for flowers. One of the things with flowers is that botanical flower paintings can still set standards that photographs can't match, particularly when most of the audience are trained botanists.
??? How can you use the judge's opinions about the colour accuracy of the JPG images (which also involve in-camera software) when they have not seen the original flowers???
@@BrunoChalifour You missed the line in the original post: 'This was at the show, so they could compare reality to the captured image.' They compared the jpg to the actual flower in front of them.
@@malcolmwright6948 you mean the edited version?
Always pleased to see your videos Robin.
My first camera was an Olympus E-420 with a 10MP CMOS sensor.
Despite having a Pentax K3 mk.III as my main camera, i still take that Olympus around with the Olympus 25mm f2.8 Pancake lens, because i love those colours.
Olympus color science has always been solid since the beginning. Hence I rely on them for my work!
I find the discussion about different sensors interesting, but... a bit of relic from the celluloid period. I'll explain...
Different film and paper had different color tones (I still believe there is something in Kodak Gold), but all camera sensors are capturing image in black and white, which is then processed using bayer filter. Its 4 color filter in front of every sensor consisting of one red, two green ad one blue filter. These values are then calculated from grey tones, to colors.
At this stage there is a lot of automated calibration in process and most cameras are aiming for best color reproduction possible and the variations which occur among different brands can be changed upon post production. Like if you want to have yellowish tint of Panasonic Leica lenses, while using Olympus just add 350-700 Kelvins to white balance :)
Also you may use different ways of color calibration, either in camera or in POST.
On other hand discusion about CCD, CMOS and Live MOS is an interesting topic. For example there is a claim that M43 systems have higher noise because of smaller sensor surface. The thing is that on any system surface sensitive to light covers about 1/4 of each individual pixel. Rest is the analog signal amplifier and other electronics. These were made smaller on M43 and the design is different. Its not CCD, its not CMOS, but NMOS. In terms of electrical engineers, the design is not symmetrical and therefore the noise is higher. That lead to various misconceptions that F1.4 in M43 equals to F2.8 FF which is not true.
Giving enough light for a certain time period will reduce noise in any situation, including higher ISO scenarios. All image sensors simply work to 'Signal to noise Ratio' or SNR for short. Its an interesting thing to know when using digital camera.
Like this you can get nice clean image from bright and medium parts from the image, and you can make dark but noisier parts less noisy by making them bit darker and let noise fade to black.
The other thing is with bits. The more bits per channel the sensor offers the higher accuracy of capturing the right color tone. However people tend to like warmer color tones, vivid, with slightly higher and punchier gradation. That usually means less colors rather than more. as with 10bit color gamuts in movies, those may look bit more muted even when properly displayed.
Hope this helps.
You are forgetting one detail. There are very few manufacturers of sensors. For instances lots of brands use Sony sensors (FUJI (GFX), Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon...) so the differences now lie in the processed JPGs, meaning the software on board (camera). But you are 100% right in your analysis of digital technology (another detail though "all cameras" do not use the Bayer filter, the vast majority does though: Fuji Xtrans sensor do not use the Bayer array but their own and Sigma Foveon sensors operate without any Bayer filter).
Another detail: the higher noise in 4/3 camera comes not so much from the surface of the sensor but from the size of the photosites. The consequence being that between a 20 Mp 4/3 sensor and a 20 Mp FF sensor it is obvious that the FF sensor has bigger photosites (thence collects more light and does not require the same level of application of the signal).
Where did you see that "on any system surface sensitive to light covers about 1/4 of each individual pixel" by definition a pixel is the information gathered by 100% of the photo site and nothing else. That some room around pixels may be taken by other technologies especially CMOS sensors (different there from CCDs, so no "any system" here, there are differences), especially non back-lit CMOSs.
As for warmer tones being less colour?!? A 14-bit colour, warm or cold is still a 14-bit colour!
@@BrunoChalifour Not each output is JPEG, but any color image from your camera is no longer RAW. RAW has just grey tones. This is something I forgot to actually look for, and its about higher noise.
Most people simply inspect that visually and its not correct way to do it. There are tools how to measure this. Also there are different types of noise.
a) Signal to Noise ratio
Its something that really can be attributed to smaller photosites. From what I have read about CMOS sensors, only 25 percent of individual pixel is a photosite, rest are other electronics.
This can be measured as SNR in decibels, when the image is actually processed... more like an audio signal (which is what happens during analog-digital conversion)
Once you have strong enough light source, and SNR output is high enough, you are good, regardless of ISO.
b) Variations among pixels.
This is noise too, but its completely independent from photosite. A "red" pixel or "blue" pixel as an example, but solid color might not be recorded as exactly same color hex value by every single pixel. These can be resolved by calibration.
Also look for Well depth or Full Well in relation to the image sensors.
@@Mir1189 "RAW has just grey tones" : NO RAW format is a file made of 0 and 1 values, absolutely not an image whether a colour or grey-scale one. The numbers are just a record of light intensities behind red, green and blue filters (except on monochrome cameras). Those files have to be processed to be seen and as a result give a colour image.
Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. These numbers can be measured with any sensor, CCD, CMOS, Strain, or Foveon, whatever the size.
"Once you have strong enough light source, and SNR output is high enough, you are good, regardless of ISO." this is a weird recipe as the noise increases with high ISO (meaning high amplification of the signal) and it is not so much a question of light source but of its intensity.
"Variations among pixels.
This is noise too, but its completely independent from photosite. A "red" pixel or "blue" pixel as an example, but solid color might not be recorded as exactly same color hex value by every single pixel. These can be resolved by calibration."
I am truly puzzled. What variation among pixels?? Are you speaking on the intensity of light filtering depending on the color of the filter in front of the photo site. Photosite behind a blue filter receive less light and as such need to be more amplified than the ones behind green and red pixels (thence more noise but also the possibility to get some information in the highlights when the two other colors are saturated (pure white))?
Another thoughtful video Robin. Maybe if we all saw the world with the same eyes we'd all agree, but we don't so there will always be room for personal taste and we can agree to disagree. Take the same camera into different environments and you'll likely get different results. Light and colour can vary so much in different locations and from day to day. Is it hot, is it cool, how high is the humidity, how harsh is the mid-day sun, is it raining yet? You know much about this in your part of the world. Drawing conclusions becomes subjective. Thanks for posting.
Thanks Trevor. When it comes to "pleasing" colors, I agree, color is personal, and we all want different colors in our photos. However, when it comes to color accuracy, I think there is no debate. When there is too much bias, it shows, and it is not a matter of preference. I have seen clients bashing some "full frame" cameras for producing inaccurate colors.
@@robinwong Yes you are right of course. Thankfully most of us don't have that demand placed upon us, so we take our photography in any direction we prefer. Your posts just seem to get better and better. Thanks.
I, like you, am into collecting older cameras. BTW - older Olympus cameras are my favorites to collect! I have never found anything special about CCD sensors. In my opinion, I get better results from CMOS sensors which I find more accurate. I also find that Pentax cameras produce super results. I have a k-5 and a k-50. But in general, as for faithful results, Olympus color science cannot be beat! Thanks for your videos. I enjoy them.
In the films days, I shot mostly for magazine artilces and prints. Different positive films had different colors and I would match my film to my subject. I did use positive film although it had less dynamic range, it had a nicer contrast and color. Although sometimes, I would use a low contrast film. Velvia had its place. But was not for weddings as an example. Kodachrome just lacked in landscapes, but llooked lovedly for other thinbgs. Now today with post processing, I do not worry about it any more. I do have my LUTS I use with Adobe products to match Panasonic and Olympus as sometimes I would use both cameras on a job and wanted a profile I could batch use to match the photos. Still I could often tell in magazines such as Life and National Geographic what film was used for the photo. Which means none were accurate and for those uses accuracy was not an issue, the look and emotion of different films was what sold my works.
I think for a lot of cases color accuracy isn't an absolute necessity, as most people won't know what the actual reality looks like in color, except for the photographer. However, in commercial situations, some clients will demand matching colors, so that is when the color biases will ruin the job.
I think these days, the modern cameras can capture colors very well, and there should not be too big of a problem.
As a current member of Fuji World I currently use a CMOS. But in the last year I have re edited old images with new software (Luminar NEO, DXO Photoshop 5 ) The images from my Pentax ist* and K10 D both CCD sensors have a special quality. Not just the color.
Initially the CMOS was not as good as the CCD and the biggest reason for the companies going to them was cost. I agree today they perform well but I wonder how the CCD would be today if they had a parallel improvement line.
Well I guess the reason CCD was abandoned was because it could no longer match the technical performance of CMOS (and the lower cost).
I also have Canon, and the way Canon renders the color is one of my favorite, Olympus colors are also on my list
About old digital cameras, I have a few of them Olympus, Canon , Ricoh, HP, fuji, Toshiba, Nikon and a few exotic brands such as Traveler and all camera has its own touch and even the "worst" in terms of quality could provide this little tiny something unique that allows to have different pictures.
Again! Great point! I have yet my e 3 and the e620 , what great cameras! Still using it!
Both are awesome cameras
Hi Robin, thank you for another fantastic video. It is interesting how various cameras (sensors?) have different colour signature. A very long time ago, I loved colours from my D200, and D2x even more, and never understood how could anyone see D300 to have better colours. But I also have strong sentiment to Olympus 16mpx sensor. While my EM1ii is a wonderful camera, I think I prefer colours from the old em5 (mk1) and pen epl7… I can’t articulate what it is, all cameras have ‘keep warm colours” set to “off”, but they are slightly different. Of course I agree accurate colours are a must for professionals, as the success of your projects depends on it. But for many hobbyists, it’s hard to ignore, what we like 😊 best regards, Steven
almost exactly my experience with the D200, D2Xs, and the D300. I simply don't like the colors from the D300 as much - it brings a lot via the FPS and AF it has, but it takes me more work to get the final images in lightroom
The D200 and D2Xs (and I'd add the D700) all are pretty special, IMO
Interesting for the discussion here is that you experienced the D200 (CCD) and the D2X (CMOS) with obviously the same conclusion as my observations between my D200 and my D3.
I still use Canon EOS 30D from 2006, which has CMOS sensor but it looks really different (and unique like the 5d) from current cameras.
I had an Olympus E-10 back in the day. The 4 megapixel photos were fine, but I sure wouldn't want to use that camera today.
You should check out the Fuji film s5pro. CCD sensor has amazing colors and skin tones.
I once had Olympus XZ-1. I got the feeling that the color (of photos) are more saturated than later cameras from Olympus which use CMOS sensors.
But I never had XZ-2 to compare against XZ-1.
As for the topic of accurate color vs pleasing color, mobile phones are usually biased towards the latter.
Mobile phones just oversaturate, oversharpen, and overly reduce the noise. The images look overbaked.
@@robinwong Fully agree.
@@robinwong Try an iPhone 7 (Plus). No oversharpening and oversaturated colors. After the 7 (Plus) Apple's colorscience and algoritms start becoming more and more meh.
I’ve heard that the 6d ii has the same color profile as the original 5D. I loved my 5D wish I had kept it.
I have not tried the 6D II, but for modern cameras, I'd go mirrorless if I can.
Good one Robin, there is way too much hype for the older cameras and lots of other RUclipsrs promoting them as better. In my opinion, just get a camera that you can afford, like and "want" to use and create the photos "you" want. I have an old 2012 CCD Fuji S4200 camera (I love this camera) and I tried it side x side along side my old 2015 Olympus EM-10 mk ii. With the exact same subject, focal length, etc - and side x side "printed" photos - I prefer the 2015 CMOS sensor in the Olympus. My favorite pocket camera is my iPhone 7, it also produces great colours.
Thanks Neil, I don't get the hype either! I just shoot with what I can and enjoy the whole process.
Sony sensors often have the most 'tonally neutral' look but this is intentional. It allows for the widest latitude in terms of editing potentiality whereas if the colours are pushed/processed/saturated at the time of the capture that will impact the range of editing choices one can make. Having said that I still use my Nikon P7100 that has a CCD 1.7" sensor pretty regularly. The camera is super slow in capturing an image but it provides excellent results if the light is ample/great... it's a terrible camera if they volume of light drops off.
I still miss my E1's colours! I use a Nikon D7500 now and it's great, quality wise, but, the colours aren't so out and out pleasing as the E1's. I would also say that even my Olympus E520 (not a CCD camera) had a certain way of doing colour that I also wish I knew how to emulate on my Nikon. Something about the blues and the reds, that was always warm without turning too yellow like my Nikon tends to, and very pleasing in the brightness of the blues, without making the picture ever look cold. The E1, as well, at least, mine did, set at low contrast, had a really nice depth to the shadows.
I think there are just some gems of cameras with sensor/readout hardware pairings (and JPEG engines) that work in perfect harmony, whether CCD or CMOS.
I have one older Fuji P&S CCD camera that takes incredible photos for its size and age, but I also attribute some of that to its lens -- I have a few other older CCD cameras that take quite awful photos, however they do still have a 'point-n-shoot' look to them which can be interesting in itself. Variety is the spice of life and it's most true of photography, isn't it?
Yeap, we don't lack choices when it comes to gear these days.
Hi
What the model Fuji you got?
Thanks
@@shogun4612 The F30 is the one that I like -- It takes really nice photos.
I shot a wedding for a friend on a 6mp Nikon D40. Looking back on the images they are beautiful. (Sony ccd sensor)
I also used fill in flash for the confetti shot. The D40 synchronised for flash at 500th of a second! Perfect.
I still use a 2005 Ricoh digital 8.1 megapixel ccd sensor.
I bought a D50 for $8 from a thrift store. I love the colors
i am Nikon user, but fell in love with Olympus, i got one.
You have a really great energy in front of the camera, Robin!
Nice approach to this subject. Love seeing an Olympus pro user btw.
I had Olympus E-1 back in the day, and colours from that camera stood the test of time. And camera had great ergonomics, too. But aside from (too small) resolution, I did sell it however, when I still could get good money for it, course it was really, really too slow for mi liking...
One thing I noticed with my old ccd panasonic camera is when capturing 720p video, it seems to have a global shutter. So there is no jello effect in video. This is very interesting.
That is true. CCD is a global shutter. I can shoot passengers inside a train passing my train from the opposite direction as if they're standing still. Isn't that what a camera is supposed to do? The reason CCDs were abandoned was to save on manufacturing cost.
I guess we also have to consider other aspects like high ISO, higher resolution without losing too much dynamic range, all which the CMOS sensors can surpass CCD very well. The drive for technical perfection is getting a bit out of hand.
And yet, I see a difference between the images you share. It is subjective (as in I can't really specify exactly what the difference is) but the first batch you shared are much more pleasing to my eye than the last ones. It's not the color, however, it's something to do with the rendering, particularly in out of focus areas.
Thank you Robin .
Cheers Christine.
I think it's more tones than colors that make CCD sensors kind of special. I can really see it when I shoot monochrome. I started shooting on film in the 80's and I definitely see how people say it replicates a sense of image quality similar to film. I also get where people like film simulations - it's not always about color accuracy. Sure for product stuff you have to be accurate but even back in film days different films rendered colors differently. And people would do things like shoot out of date film on purpose or process the film intentionally in the wrong chemical process to get certain odd 'looks'.
I still have a Nikon D50. Got that as my first serious digital camera when it was new!
There's an in-depth website that compares a Leica camera with CCD with the later CMOS sensors by providing a blind test comparison. Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference.
Is it reddotforum. If it is, yes the results speak by themselves.
I totally respect everything you do and mean this in no disrespectful way. Maybe your eyes are just not as sensitive to colors as others. We're all different after all. Personally, I see the difference. It's a slight difference, but just enough to push an image over the top. I've shot ccd, Olympus 16 and 20 megapixel cameras, canon, Nikon, fujifilm. CMOS is a fantastic technology, because ccd can't shoot worth a darn in low light. They do however seem to grab rich color much more than cmos.
CCD power! The body and soft shutter of the E1 are simply inimitable.
Thanks so much Robin - yet another great video! I *still* miss my 5D mark I years after I traded it. I still have two 20D bodies, one infrared and one normal. I absolutely love them both and despite being a little brother to the 5D, I find my 20D delivers much of what I miss about the 5D. It says a lot that I use far more modern cameras for the wildlife and landscape photography I love to do the most, but I am constantly taking the 20D out and leaving my newer stuff at home because I love the results. If you can look at your pics and smile, I think that's the most important thing.
Same here.
Despite having pretty good gear, i really enjoy taking my old point and shoot out in the wild. Such as my first camera ever, the Sony P100 and the recently purchased P200 (7,2 vs 5,1MP, faster AF and startup,...). I mean, yes, im "mildly" dissapointed if i see a nice scene of a bird and i dont have anything usable to take the shot since my point and shoot with 3x optical zoom is by far not enough when it comes to range, let alone the super slow burst speed and limited burst anyway.
Its just such a charme to have something compact in the pockets which still gives better looking images (at 5.1MP!!!) compared to any modern 12-50MP phone.
I would say from my Nikon D200 that has a 10MP CCD sensor, the camera does give a warm orange tint on the pics, which does remind me of film photos I have from the 1970s.
Now with that being said, I compared the Nikon D200 with the Nikon D300 which has a CMOS sensor.
To my eye, the D300 colors are more realistic to what my real eyes see.
The Nikon D200 does give a more film like appearance, but who said that is how the colors look in real life?
To be honest, the old film colors to my eyes (mostly Kodak film), did not look like I see colors in person.
However, the CCD sensor in my Nikon D200 gives a bit more even noise pattern more like film.
That is my take. The modern CMOS sensors totally smoke the old CCD sensors for true to life colors in my opinion.
However, if I want the more 70s film look, the CCD sensor in the Nikon D200 does a good job for this. True to life colors, the CMOS sensor in my Nikon D300 does better.
However, I am waiting for my original Canon 5D to arrive in the mail. I have to see if the colors everyone is saying are so great in the original 5D is in fact true to my eyes.😅
This video demonstrates perfectly how the latest progressions and updates in camera development are marginal and more or less irrelevant for most practical purposes, at least when it comes to image quality alone.
I think in terms of image quality, we have reached a point of sufficiency some time ago, any camera can deliver great results. However to say that the progressions and developments are marginal is also not true, there is significant progress in AI AF tracking, and computational photography, which simplified overall photography workflow and enabled more sophisticated photography done in camera.
@@robinwong What you say is also true, Robin. But for purists that find pleasure in manual, slowed down shooting processes anyway, old school tech can be more than good enough. Gear also get a longer life that way.
I'm not sure why CCD should have better colors compared to CMOS in the first place. They are different in converting photons to electrons, but the colors should mostly be affected by the color filters that are applied onto the sensors (plus the algorithms creating the picture from the sensor data). So I'd assume a change in color filters over the years plus a lot of subjectivity that lead to the idea of better CCD colors.
Olympus E1 is Kodak CCD sensor.
Very special by itself. Bought 2 after seeing your video. 😂
I heard that argument too. So I decided to compare my pictures taken on Canon bridge cameras. One lot taken on a Powershot Pro1 with CCD and another lot taken on a more recent Powershot SX50 with CMOS sensor. While I am generally pleased with both cameras, the SX50 has the edge on performance, IE, frames per second, zoom range, and faster auto-focus. But when it comes to colour rendition without editing, the older Pro1 has the edge.
I've used a few brands of digital still cameras and there is a big difference in color rendition. I think most of this is not per say the capture chip but instead the actual processor chip that creates the image. My experience is that I prefer the Canon brand for truer color and Sony for low light conditions. I have never liked Nikon there seems to be an overall flatness of contrast that bothers me. I've even gotten mixed images from different brands from wedding jobs and can pick out the Nikon ones immediately (I work as a lab tech. since the " old " film days ) .
No digital camera or film produces perfectly accurate color. I agree that Olympus colors are not perfectly accurate, because no camera does this. But to my eye, Olympus cameras have a good balance between accurate and pleasing colors.
No, there is no perfect color, but there are also severely bad, inaccurate colors.
I am a novice JPEG shooter. I sometimes shoot in vivid mode. At a night carnival with colored lights is one example that comes to mind. A daytime photo of the same carnival doesn't seem to trigger the same emotion or memory. The adult entertainment district looks very different during the day. Perhaps the neon lights remind us of a childhood carnival? In my town we have hot air balloon events once a year. This is another time exaggerating reality is fun.
JPEG is great, and I also rely on JPEG for quick delivery that does not give me enough time to sit down and process.
I was hoping to see some pictures from the Canon 5D and that Pentax camera because you praised them.
Then look around, I have made so many videos about those cameras. Feel free to find them, easily.
Hi Robin. I totally agreed with you camera should produce “accurate” color. However, at the end you said Pentax and Canon 5D ccd camera color is the most pleasing. Well…are they “accurate” as well? I am a bit confused…😅
Maybe a bit of your confusion stems from the fact that you believe that the Pentax K-01 and Canon 5D have CCD sensors. They don't.
Pentax and Canon cameras mentioned have CMOS sensors
@@robinwong So have you got any comment which CCD camera is the most “accurate” to return true situations of color in reality?☺️
The pleasing thing is just about art and nostalgia.
Thank you Robin for this entertaining video, again. Because of your Canon 5D review I bought one and also I bought some Olympus Pen camera's. My questions are: why don't you use a protective filter for all your expensive lenses? I always buy a Skylight filter when I invest in some new glass. Also I am fond of your single hand straps. Where can you buy those? Keep up the good work and thanks from the Netherlands.
As a reviewer, having a filter on the lens will introduce another layer of glass, that can affect the image quality.
Colour accuracy depends on the RGB filters which cover each pixel, and on how the pixel values are combined in the camera, not on the underlying sensor technlogy. My guess is that over the years the filters and processing were refined to produce more accurate colour rendition, which may be less pleasing than the less accurate colours produced by older cameras. The improvement in colour accuracy may have coincided with the switch to CMOS sensors, but if CCDs had continued in use it would probably have happened anyway.
Hello Robin. I also bought an old D40 because i wanted to make again pictures as i did with my D50. Nice colors again yes, maybe little warmer versus the OM1 OM10 ones. I also feel great light. I definitly love these images. May be its also a question of multicoating treatment of old Nikon lenses 18/140mm or 18/200 or 18/105...
Certainly, the D40 is a fantastic camera too!
I think this argument at the end of the day boils down to the simple fact, people see different colours, I did not used to care for colours in real life in my early days of photographing, but I got more and more jobs as colourist for video production suddenly I am colour grading cinema movies, and noticed that I see colours differently IRL, everything has become more contrasty and punchy, everything is just more colourful now and its probably in the same way that people grow near sighted when sitting in front of a screen all day, you train your eyes.
So some people who do not care for CCD or punchy colours, *shrug* who cares, they do what they want to do and people who like contrasty and punchy colours, they do what they want to, I love the Olympus XZ1 but the thing is I always shoot all my cameras on the most contrast looking colour profile by default and I raise the colour contrast almost 2 times in post.
Thats where the problems starts, with CMOS you start seeing really ugly results when increasing colour saturation and contrast in post-prod, stuff can turn ugly orange because the camera sensor itself did not capture those deep reds that were present instead they are represented as orange hues.
I also noticed colours can start to blow out very easily, remember colours have dynamic range too so its definitely in my experience that CCD sensors or cameras with strict CFA (Colour Filter Array) which were common pre-2011 before the high ISO craze took over and we got loose CFA instead.
One prime example is the Canon 400D you can push the colours in the RAW files like insane, and the footage turns into slide film, I never seen so many hues of green in my entire life in a picture before until I started editing my old 400D files, I own a S1R and never seen it capture such insane colour fidelity in shots before specially in daylight landscape photography.
But again, just because I love that old school contrast punchy Kodak look, does not mean everyone has to, at the end of the day, there no right or wrong, there is obviously a science behind everything and the science is CFA which dictates the colours that are allowed to reach the sensor, the thicker it is, the less light the sensor receives but the more accurate the light is meaning the colours are broader and more defined, a forest might have 5 million shades of greens whereas with a sensor that has loose CFA and is made in 2022 might only have 1 million shades of greens, if you do nothing with the image you wont loose out on anything, but if you try to work those colours and compare you will quickly see the limitations of modern sensors but the negative of strict CFA is of course a lot worse ISO performance, take Sony A900 / A850 for example, its the colour master machine yet its CMOS but its also got ridicules poor ISO performance even for its time, tops out at 1600 ISO at "barely usable" and 800 really being the most useful high ISO setting. This camera is one of the few that could distinguish a certain type of orange colour that no modern camera is able to do, even medium format fail, of course Foveon are the other type but these sensors are more like negative film in how they work.
Good point, often ignored about the dynamic range of colors (very often reds, for instance, have a tendency to lose details because of their apparent lack of dynamic range (for lack of a better word). As for "old school contrast punchy Kodak look", for those who have not used Kodak film I would like to point out that not all Kodak film were punchy. Having work in the wedding and portrait industry for a while I have learnt to use Kodak Portrait film for its smooth tones and the quality of its reproduction on skin tones (and wedding dresses) far away from saturation and contrast.
Just one question: what is a "strict color array"? (and while at it "Loose CFA"?) Never heard of it. Never heard of the differences in the thickness of the filters either (which does not mean it does not exist but the question is why is it never mentioned if it so important (besides manufacturers looking for more efficiency in their sensors have little interest in building them with "thick" CFA, don't you think? Plus I do. not see why thicker filter would mean more accuracy, with "broader and more defined colours"?!?
Where do you get your 1 million shades of green from? Most RAW format records colours in 14 bits which means a maximum of over 16 000 shades of green! By the way how many do you think our eyes can discriminate ;o)
As for ISO, the last time that 1600 iso was barely usable was probably 10 years ago.
As for medium cameras, your assertion kinda puzzles me as it is a well-known fact that both Fuji and Hasselblad use the same SONY sensor for their respective GFX and XD lines. ??
@@BrunoChalifour
I am not gonna go over everything you said I am just gonna answer the CFA questions.
The Colour Filter Array is what tells the black and white sensor, what colour the light that hits the specific pixel is.
Look at it as a grid and under that grid is their respective pixel, the light ray hits the CFA grid and then passes through the grid layout lets say and hits their respective pixel.
The strict CFA means the light has to travel a longer distance through the array to reach the pixels on the sensor.
This means the light will be more defined and have less bleeding into other nearby pixels.
A loose CFA means its thinner, the light has to travel LESS distance, this means more light will hit the sensor at any given time which means overall brighter image but each pixel have tendency to get colour bleeding, green light can hit red pixels for example which causes a reduction in colour accuracy for that given pixel and thus needs to be data corrected internally.
The million shade was an example to make the reader understand the difference between a thicker and thinner CFA, certainly you did not need a large flashing neon sign to tell you that?
Because thicker CFA have light travel longer distances, means there is less light overall reaching the sensor but there is also less bleeding, but this has the effect that noise gets worse just because not every pixel gets saturated in time this a mix of darker and brighter pixels which is seen as noise, but of course noise comes from a lot of other sources like processing, cosmic radiation, magnetic field disturbance, and overall just sluggishness of sensors at the time many not being perfectly manufactured had defective pixels that did not work 100% etc.
But in turn, modern cameras have WAY more colour noise than older cameras, because like I said the light travels so quick, it bleeds onto other pixels and thus it creates errors, what happens when a red pixel receives way too much blue light? Well it just shows up as a blue pixel and there you have colour noise in a nuttshell, processing removes a lot of it today but if you were to look at a complete unprocessed RAW image from old and new camera, you would see shocking amount of colour noise on the modern sensor.
Modern cameras get away with a lot of this because for one, most people do not care, secondly most people have no idea of this concept, noise is a lot more perceived than colour depth is in an image and people care about what they can see.
Secondly, modern cameras have amazing processing power, like I said modern sensors are exceptionally prone to colour noise, but good processing helps reduce this using predictable colour patterns, for example taking pictures of a green sofa, and there is a blue carpet in the image, on a modern CFA you would get just that, green sofa and blue carpet, on a thicker CFA you can actually see that the sofa has a pattern on it thats a slight brighter green colour and the blue carpet actually has a man on a fishing boat sewn into it, the modern CFA throws these information away because it cannot perceive it, there too much colour bleed and this the predictive colour algorithm just assumes its all just the same blue colour.
There are a lot of good examples online about old sensors versus new ones, and giving good examples, specifically modern sensors are hopeless at taking pictures of patterns on fine woven materials whereas old sensors while less sharp are able to perceive far greater colour details out of those patterns.
@@SMGJohn
Hmmm, still several issues here that kinda puzzle me. So I"ll explain:
I asked about what a "strict", and a "loose" CFA were (notions I had never heard of before reading you), not what a CFA is. Could you give me examples of what a "strict" CFA is in "real life", what camera using either a CCD or a CMOS sensor incorporates a "strict" (thick) or a "loose" (thin?) CFA ? It is not still that clear to me. Wouldn't the opposite of "thick" be "thin" instead of "loose" (another notion I doubt many people are familiar with, except you, of course).
I thought that Bayer-array filters were basically mass produced to rather identical specifications and what could make a difference were the micro lenses added on top of photo diodes (especially for CMOS sensors. For instance the difference between the micro lenses depending on the distance between flange/mount and sensor (different with various cameras brands, or within the same brand as for Leica Ms and SLs, Fuji X, TX, and GFX).
How can the difference between 16 000 and 1,000,000 not require a neon flashing light and help your audience understand your point?.
"But in turn, modern cameras have WAY more colour noise than older" that is another point where you may have convinced yourself but facts seem to say exactly the opposite. ;o)
The sometimes observed "bleeding" as you call it, usually called "blooming" is something CCDs are more prone to when they receive too much light (it has nothing to do with whatever speed the light travels at... which, by the way, is constant).
Your theory about blue light being cast on a red-filtered photo site and producing noise is an interesting one, I doubt that it is accurate (noise is part of the deterioration of the electric signal while being processed and not the light signal).
"Modern cameras get away with a lot of this because for one, most people do not care" ????
" if you were to look at a complete unprocessed RAW image from old and new camera" please tell me how you do that, I am really puzzled. That would certainly require a rather sophisticated physics research lab? Have you ever seen "an unprocessed raw image" [sorry but it really sounds like an oxymoron as for a raw file to be seen as an image it has to be processed]
"noise is a lot more perceived than colour depth is in an image" aren't you comparing apples and oranges here?
"modern sensors are hopeless at taking pictures of patterns on fine woven materials whereas old sensors while less sharp are able to perceive far greater colour details out of those patterns." If I translate this into what I know (and that is close to common knowledge) modern sensors with their higher resolution are in fact better at rendering details, patterns even of woven materials. What you may be referring to is the phenomenon commonly called "moiré" that has to do with the frequency of minute patterns and the resolution of the sensor. The traditional way of dealing with that has been to add an "anti-moiré" or "anti-aliasing" filter in front of the sensor (to somewhat blur the image and eliminate high-frequency pattern that creates artefacts (moiré pattern) when meeting the sensor. Higher resolution sensors have somewhat partially solved the problem so that most high-end cameras have done away with the anti-aliasing filter. The consequence being that they generate sharper images (and better details of the material your sofa is covered with).
I think Nikon cameras give the most true to life colours, when compared with Olympus and Canon. Nevertheless, I enjoy the Olympus colours.
Don't forget the screen for viewfinder...and ISP from Camera Processor...It all affects the accuracy of the colors displayed on the screen.
You have to have at least 10mp for 300dpi 8x10 prints.
Seams like the price on used E1s have gone up. Glad I held on to both of mine.
Now for colors they seam to be the same to me. However the transition between pixels of different color is what I see as having more pop. I think that had to do with the absence of micro lenses that scatter and mix some light between pixels.
I can see many commercial situations where color accuracy is key. OTOH I think selection of sensors/pipelines is akin to selection of films. You pick the tool appropriate for the job. I enjoy having sensors with different looks. BTW I picked up an old e-m5 recently, and boy, those are raw files with an opinion! I love the colors but no way do I expect a faithful representation of the moment from that camera.
I tried upgrading to a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS45 (Lumix DMC-TZ57) and it was worse than my old Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS7 (Lumix DMC-TZ10) so I went back to the latter!
Yes is true cmos has now good improvements nice vibrant colors less noise sharper . Ccd is still good too just some cameras as cmos cameras .
The bayer filter is more "native" to how ccd renders the exposure over cmos where the foveon filter is more "native" to how cmos renders.
I am In Taiepi, Taiwan. Since I changed from Nikon D50 and Fujifilm CCD S5Pro to Nikon CMOS camera, D700, D3s, D4s, D800E, I could not get clean blue sky in my photos, no matter there is CPL filters or not. The sky color from CMOS camera is dirty blue inaccurately. Besides that, CMOS sensors peform better than CCD. I think CCD lacks the color depth in CMOS sensor or the on-body processor in CCD camera are old technology.
Robin, another great video. I also could not afford the cameras you mention back in the early days of digital although I very much wanted a D50 at the time. Now I have a wide range of cameras from digicam to M43 to APSc and FF, some newer but most are used and date back as far as 2008 or so.
CCD is the way to go
I'm with you. I don't see anything special about CCD sensors either, and I have used quite a few, as well as CMOS. I also agree about accurate colours over pleasing colours. Keep it up!
It would be interesting to compare cc'd to film
Air quotes were plentiful and called for in this video. I also agree CCD sensors on cameras I’ve used don’t look special to me. All I remember is how slow my old digital cameras were compared to newer ones.
Yeah I just don't see the magic!
I agree with a lot you say. However, colour accuracy was an Olympus camera strength. Certainly the CCD sensors had more accurate colours.
It been struggling to find newer camera which have accurate colour accuracy. It is made worse, as manufacturers have stopped making advanced compact cameras. Many big manufacturers are using the same sensors. So all the pictures look the same. The only other recent camera is the Fuji XT-100, which is the closest thing to the original CCD. Fuji uses a different sensor on that camera. The XT-200 is slightly different.
For me it is frustrating for travel, as I do want an advanced compact camera, which can take great shots. Using a smartphone for photography is disappointing as the battery drains down. It does not give the control I need.
Nor do I want a subscription to photo software to fix all the issues.
I use CCD and CMOS digital cameras. I can see no difference. However, my clients seem to prefer the images from my Fuji S5 Pro CCD sensor cameras.
Nikon D80 the colour seem more muted partly because of lower dynamic range.
Thank you :)
Thanks Lecky
Get yourself along to Specsavers. I worked for Kodak from 1968 for many years in the film process departments of many labs in England. Hand tanked 10x8 Ektachrome sheets at professional labs in Manchester but only took up photography in retirement. I worked my way through m43 and ended up at an A7Rii and non of the colours satisfied me. I eventually sold all my gear and bought a 16 year old CCD crop sensored M8 Leica. Job done, Kodachrome in a brass body, absolutely beautiful realistic muted yet vibrant colours. Wipes the floor with any cmos sensor no matter how fast, how much range, how much video crap it might offer,. If you want accurate colours and an unbelievably authentic enthralling experience get yourself an M8 mate.
The main reason to switch from CCD to CMOS was the cost. It is much more expensive to produce a CCD sensor than it is CMOS. The CMOS sensor also has all the electronics onboard the chip and can be produced on existing chip manufacturing equipment, but not the CCD. Suffice to point out that the majority of sensors used in scientific and industrial applications are still CCDs and not CMOS, including the Wide Field and Advance Survey Cameras of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Yes, this is true. CCD uses more engery than a CMOS chip, but CMOS is inherently more noisy, hence the need for all these highpowered processors onboard the camera and sophisticated algorithms to clean up the image. @@ronmurray7349
I used to be quite the Fuji fanboy but their colours were just off putting for me with every camera update (last camera was the x100v)
Agree with a lot you said here, Robin. I own a E500, E300 and some other ccd cameras. I also own a Panasonic L1 (mos).
The E300 gives lovely images for sure but I much prefer the output the L1 gives me. Has that pop to the colours BUT is accurate. I feel a lot of this boils down to the colour science. These earlier cameras (5D MK1 for example) came out at the time not far off from the film days so it seems the makers approach was to replicate closer to that or give out as accurate, true to life images.
Modern digital cameras now compete with each other digital cameras. Including Fuji. I find skin tones really bad in most modern cameras.
Side note:- Stop tempting me getting a K-01!!!!
Yup, totally agree with you Robin. I don't buy into all this CCD colours are the best nonsense. I've even heard folk suggest it's more filmic and analog looking than images taken using a CMOS sensor. If they mean it's more grainy/noisy then I'd agree wholeheartedly lol. The only thing that looks filmic and analog to me is....film! CCD digital cameras were of their time, the best the technology could produce. Of course, many CCD based cameras can take very nice photos but I don't attribute their look as being anything to do with the CCD technology in and of itself. If that is the case perhaps undertake a blind test of several cameras, some CCD and some CMOS and see who can tell which is which 😁
Yeah if you want to have a film look, then why not shoot film?
dunno if it's really nostalgia or what, but when you hit a CCD with bright light, damn that blooming is really the secret sauce
One has to like blooming, in the same way some appreciate flare in old lenses I guess. Definitely not my cup of tea though.