NMOS v CCD - my experience.

TrapperJohn · Feb 10, 2007

Being out and about, I run into a lot of other camera owners.

And, yes, some of them are diehard gearheads, always with a few quick specs to quote, always ready to fall into that 'brand defensive' attitude.

I've learned to get around that by asking them what's great about their gear (plenty of answers there) and what they've done with it (uncomfortable silence on occasion). Then, I show them my E1 and E330. And say - yes, you're right about high ISO, but look what I've done with this setup. Always have a few 8x10 prints stuck in the camera bag's lid to show. A couple of shots from The Macro Machine usually do the trick.

And a funny thing happens. Their eyes seem to open a bit, and you can see them start to think... hmmm, maybe this 4/3 thing has some benefits after all.

It all began because I spoke to them as a reasonable person, with an interest in photography in general, and an interest in their experience and opinion. I'm not about to buy a Canon camera because some pompous measurebater shouted it in my face. But I would give it a serious look if a real photographer showed me what they could do with it.

And, yes, I also deal with non technical people. As a project manager, I have to assemble user needs, and then spec out and complete the software to implement those needs. From my experience, it never pays to be arrogant in that capacity. You don't get their needs, and they don't recommend you after the fact.

vlatko · Feb 10, 2007

TrapperJohn said:
And, yes, I also deal with non technical people. As a project
manager, I have to assemble user needs, and then spec out and
complete the software to implement those needs. From my experience,
it never pays to be arrogant in that capacity. You don't get their
needs, and they don't recommend you after the fact.

And sometimes it isn't worth dealing with some people, regardless of the recommendation.

I tend to share Louis's opinion, at least a bit. And by "thick" I don't mean intellectually incapable of understanding, but just what Jay says - people are lazy. I don't mind explaining stuff to people who want to understand, but the intellectual lazyness gets me almost every time.

I know some people who need things explained to them time after time. Things they use practically every day and which they themselves need. The need is not imposed on them. And I really despise that lazyness and disregard for other people's time and effort.

jay bo · Feb 10, 2007

Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:

refering to "my hypothesis".

I don't have a hypothesis, so you are either not reading or not
grasping.

Click to expand...

Actually you do. Your very first statement was, "I've long got the
feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by extension NMOS, but
not by much."

I guess someone else wasn't reading or not understanding, but perhaps it's harder to "see" ones own words than words of another. Some like a monologue, where the self-perceived erudite discussion flows in one direction.

Jay Turberville said:
Personally, that raised an eyebrow for me as well. My observation
is that the character of a camera's images usually has more to do
with other factors. For instance, Nikon D2X images look a bit
different than images from a 5D. I raise the same eyebrow when I
hear people say that the E-1, SD-10, and film all have a "3D" look.

Yep. It could even be the raw converters. Or the lenses as I stated. But alas, all I asked was to see the "sheen." Just one itsy bitsy example. I asked several times.

Oh well. Guess we won't.

Well, to put numbers to it, as Mr. Dobson likes:

1. Dobson asserts that there is a difference between the look of processed raw files that his two Olympus cameras produce and a Canon 5D that he once used.

2.Dobson asserts that the difference in no 1 is due to the difference in sensor construction, cmos vs ccd.

3. Fellow photographer that has used E330, E500, and several other cameras including a 5D, 20D, 10D, S3, D200, Pentax D100 and E300, attempts to explain to Dobson that this "sheen" difference he sees between two camera could also be due to a dozen other differences between the systems he used. Fellow also asks to see a couple of samples so we all can perceive this sheen, (assuming that Louis Dobson is not the only person who is able to perceive this sheen differential.)

3. Dobson denies he has asserted no 2, accuses others of not understanding or not reading what he wrote. No samples forthcoming.

4. Fellow forum member points out inconsistencies of Dobson's posts.

Remember all the hoopla about "auras" many years ago? Some claimed that they could perceive a person's life energy field as a field of color around the person. These posts also bring me back to mood rings. Remember mood rings? Ah, the feeling of nostalgia! I think I have one of those dang things buried in my junk drawer. Here it is!

Hey, it says I'm in a good mood! It is correct.

I think I am finished responding in this thread. Just going to lean back and read the rest of the posts here, especially Mr. Dobson's. And for anyone that wonders, I sure when I read, my fanciful ring from the '70's will be glowing a bright blue...

wwollert · Feb 10, 2007

Louis,
My 2c.

One of the reasons Canon has such a high "plasticy" look is that CMOS was designed for the computer industry and is inherently digital not analog as CCD and nMOS are. Actually nMOS is also some what more noisy since it is also a bulk resistive gain device(voltage gain) vs CCD(current gain) but with only one transistor(N-Channel) the noise is lower than CMOS. The noise is high for CMOS and needs aggressive noise reduction to make an image acceptable. The Canon in-camera noise reduction destroys the detail. That causes the flat look.
I like oly because they allow the noise reduction to be turned on/off.

MOS allows the access to the data the same way RAM is accessed. Random and single point. No complicated clocking, parallel shifts and serial outputs that CCD's have. With the real estate saved, A-D converters can be added to the chip for space savings and short signal paths that don't go off-chip.
Actually I think that was 5c worth. Oh well.
Walter

Bootstrap · Feb 10, 2007

Louis_Dobson said:
Other people have different priorities and use cameras in different
ways.

Agreed.

Louis_Dobson said:
I very nearly bought into 35mmFF a few months ago because I though
I might go shooting stock as a retirement job. With that different
set of priorities, I'd have wanted different equipment. If my
usage changes, so will my chosen cameras.

And your thoughts are well founded.

Louis_Dobson said:
As to the more philosophical point, I AM arrogant. 25 years of
being paid to advise people on technology has taught me that 50% of
people refuse to think rationally, indeed hold rationality in
contempt, of the remaining 50%, 50% are too poorly educated to
grasp the issues, and of remainder, 50% are simply too thick to
have anything explained to them. I have a rather jaundiced view of
the human race...

I couldn't agree with you more! The company I currently work for is run by accountants and Cuban immigrants. These people have no understanding of what happens in real life.

I've been involved in my choice of career fo rnearly 40 years and have the right to be arrogant about what I do. I'll, typically, tell it like it is and usually with a large dose of sarcasm.

Louis_Dobson said:
So everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I don't have to
"respect" it - in fact, if it irrational, ill thought and dim, I'll
sneer openly at it. And if they feel the same way about me, fine,
I don't give a stuff.

Like you, Louis, I rarely 'respect' an opinion coming from someone who has no experience in the field that's being discussed.

Louis_Dobson said:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

--
Twice Banned!
Troll Whisperer
(Previous iteratrions: Bill 46, Wile E. Coyote, Bill_Turner)

Jay Turberville · Feb 12, 2007

Why?

Even though I agree with you that Louis did assert a premise or hypothesis, I don't appreciate the generalization you made that a ad-hominem attacts are the norm on this forum. I asked you to prove it and all I heard was crickets.

I'm still waiting. The crickets continue to chirp.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

jay bo · Feb 12, 2007

See this post. Look how shiny. Scroll down.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=22037504

Louis_Dobson said:
I've long got the feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by
extension NMOS, but not by much.

Bearing this in mind, I expected the E330 to produce marginally
less attractive RAWs than the E500.

It doesn't. After three weeks of use, I'm confident the E330
produces better images than the E500 (yet another reason to read
the E330 review on this site for a good laugh).

So, score one for NMOS.

By the way, this isn't about high ISO noise. I've no idea (nor do
I care) which camera has better or worse high ISO noise.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

jay bo · Feb 12, 2007

You eat your own young here!

Seriously, the faith is defended here with more zeal than any other forum except the Sigma forum.

Jay Turberville said:
Why?

Even though I agree with you that Louis did assert a premise or
hypothesis, I don't appreciate the generalization you made that a
ad-hominem attacts are the norm on this forum. I asked you to
prove it and all I heard was crickets.

I'm still waiting. The crickets continue to chirp.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

dodger421 · Feb 12, 2007

Caught in the landslide, no respect from reality.

Open your eyes, look up to the skies and see. I'm just a poor boy...

Little bit of Bo' Rhap' there ;-)

Seriously Jay, I have to ask this one; If you're a big fan of Canon, why do you keep coming to the Olympus forum and bashing the Olympus cameras for being not as good (in your opinion). Do you honestly expect that people are going to be civil to you?

I'll illustrate this point with a real world example, football (soccer) and bars.

In real life it is generally accepted that if you walk into your favourite teams worst enemies bar, and say something along the lines of "You're not a real team, we are", it is expected that you will be beaten to within an inch of your life. If not killed.

Applying similar logic to a forum and you see that you should perhaps expect to be "flamed" and attacked as being no more and no less than a troll. Or excrement stirrer.

Ah well, what do I care. It provides some entertainment, and I get to type some Queen. So it's all good.
--
Cheers, Neil
http://dodger.photoblog.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dodger421/

N.B. I am in no way implying that I would like to see you physically injured, I am only using that example to provide an illustration to my main point.

dodger421 · Feb 12, 2007

That should of course say "no escape from reality" rather than "no respect from reality). Though that too probably...
--
Cheers, Neil
http://dodger.photoblog.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dodger421/

Olyinaz · Feb 13, 2007

Ridiculous. How two people wound up bitterly slamming each other over the M8 and 5D is beyond me considering what vastly different cameras they are, but I get the feeling it's par for the course over in the Canon SLR forums.

Best,
Oly

Louis_Dobson · Feb 13, 2007

Jay Turberville said:
Jay Turberville said:

refering to "my hypothesis".

I don't have a hypothesis, so you are either not reading or not
grasping.

Click to expand...

Actually you do. Your very first statement was, "I've long got the
feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by extension NMOS, but
not by much."

Yes, and then I went on to comment that, now I had a second MOS camera to try, that hypothesis didn't appear to stand up!

That's the point of the post. MOS or not, the E330 sensor (or sensor chain), subjectively, seems to do a better job than the E500 one.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

John Bean (UK) · Feb 13, 2007

Louis_Dobson said:
Jay Turberville said:

Louis_Dobson said:

refering to "my hypothesis".

I don't have a hypothesis, so you are either not reading or not
grasping.

Click to expand...

Actually you do. Your very first statement was, "I've long got the
feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by extension NMOS, but
not by much."

Click to expand...

Yes, and then I went on to comment that, now I had a second MOS
camera to try, that hypothesis didn't appear to stand up!

That's the point of the post. MOS or not, the E330 sensor (or
sensor chain), subjectively, seems to do a better job than the E500
one.

Unbelievable. You made a simple statement based on your personal observations and everyone wants to turn it into a pseudo-scientific "analysis".

I have also noticed that undefinable "look" from Canon's CMOS sensors, but I put that down to the camera's processing chain rather than CMOS sensor itself. Whatever the reason it's one of the factors involved in choosing the cameras I choose, and since I'm one of the minority who dislike the "look" I avoid those products. I don't need to analyse what causes the "look", I need only know that I'd rather not have it.

The huge marketing success of Canon tells me that a lot of people don't share my opinion, but that only goes to prove that choice is good - and certainly not an excuse for yet another tedious "my brand is better than your brand" at the first mention of CMOS in a non-Canon forum.

FWIW I found your original comment that the Panasonic NMOS sensor showed no similar "look", so that reinforces my own thought that the "look" is more down to processing than sensor.

--
John Bean [GMT - is there any other?]

PAW 2007 Week 6:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/1/128885602/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April 2006): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

Big Ga · Feb 13, 2007

wwollert said:
The noise is
high for CMOS

Correct.

wwollert said:
and needs aggressive noise reduction to make an image
acceptable.

To be correct, this should read 'noise reduction or compensation techniques'

wwollert said:
The Canon in-camera noise reduction destroys the
detail. That causes the flat look.

I really don't think Canon RAW data does suffer from lack of detail through noise reduction. I haven't got around to checking the amount of JPG smearing they do but I don't believe its particularly worse than many other manufacturers. It might have a different look, but that's another issue

Barry Fitzgerald · Feb 13, 2007

Louis_Dobson said:
I've long got the feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by
extension NMOS, but not by much.

Bearing this in mind, I expected the E330 to produce marginally
less attractive RAWs than the E500.

It doesn't. After three weeks of use, I'm confident the E330
produces better images than the E500 (yet another reason to read
the E330 review on this site for a good laugh).

So, score one for NMOS.

By the way, this isn't about high ISO noise. I've no idea (nor do
I care) which camera has better or worse high ISO noise.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Thats not what phil said!

He stated the E-500 was using less NR..and the newer NMOS sensor just slapped more on! having looked at the shots...I think the kodak sensor is the better one.........
--

MrXpress · Feb 13, 2007

jay bo said:
You eat your own young here!

Seriously, the faith is defended here with more zeal than any other
forum except the Sigma forum.

I will definitely agree with this, which is why I've learned to stay out of the Oly vs. all debates. The fanaticism can be pretty annoying, although I don't really think it's attacks so much as Oly owners simply harping on what their cameras do well and ignoring what the Oly cameras don't do well or don't have (or dismissing it as inconsequential).

I like my Olympus a lot, but I don't love it, which is I guess why I don't really fit in here.

--
http://psygnotist.smugmug.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/psygnotist/

PIXSurgeon · Feb 13, 2007

...If you answer correctly, I will not post here your self-portrait. If you do not answer correctly, I will let the monkey (and the Oger) lose:

1. Please, describe the main differences between Canon's Noise Reduction approach on 20D and 5D, as compared to Canon's 1D-class cams (Mark II series).

Let us see what kind of "REAL" expert you are...

PIXSurgeon · Feb 13, 2007

Louis_Dobson said:
I've long got the feeling that CCD was nicer than CMOS, and by
extension NMOS, but not by much.

Coming from an Oly. background, just had to ask you:

...What RAW converters do you have and regularly use for your current cams?

thebard37 · Feb 13, 2007

(nt)
--

--
Zach Bellino
'I prefer my lo-mein of the veggie variety.'
--ZJB
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

thebard37 · Feb 13, 2007

. . there is little difference AFAIK. Don' they all use a method that samples the read noise and ADC noise, identifies its pattern, and then selectively removes it from the data which makes for images that only contain dark noise and shot noise and some noise chokced up to pixel irregularities?

I wonder if there are patent issues behind the other manufacturers not emplying the same technology. The Canon technology is quite sophisticated.

--

--
Zach Bellino
'I prefer my lo-mein of the veggie variety.'
--ZJB
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

NMOS v CCD - my experience.

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Barry Fitzgerald

Guest

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts