An old D40x pic taken in 2007 ( caution if @ work )
Jared Huntr wrote:
and color reproduction. I wish they kept making DSLRs with CCD sensors, a 18MP CCD FX camera would have been amazing.
I'm not understanding your statement. Are you commenting on color accuracy or color appeal? Unless you were actually there in person, how do you know the skin tones match reality? If you are referring to appealing skin tones, why can't you tailor your post-processing workflow to output whatever skin tones you prefer, regardless of the type of sensor. Sure, there may be slight differences between Nikon models but Nikon generally stays very consistent to it's particular palette of colors.
The distinction in skin tones that is often made of CCD vs CMOS reminds me of people who mistakenly spot CG created animals or effects in movies when in fact the animal or scene was shot live for real without the use of computers.
this is certainly the reason why all medium format cameras keep using latest CCD technology. Maybe you should read all the complaints in those forums about native cmos tones vs their older ccd cameras, it is a fact but naysayers will just argue against it without even comparing them.
Yes, if you shoot raw, you can apply settings to recover skin detail (blown by the over saturated red gammas), and recover tones, but you must know how to do it and this requires an extra step of work. Also, all my cmos DSLR show blue shadows when pushed, especially in the brown-red underexposed areas, this is typcial cmos behavior. CCD images, in comparison are pure, will not over-saturate any specific color, over or underexposure or shadow recovery are perfectly controlled when recovered.
cmos sensors are cheaper to produce, and better for live view, but also suffer from rolling shutter when recording motion, CCD dont.
|Post (hide subjects)||Posted by||When|
|Feb 26, 2013|
|Feb 26, 2013|
|Feb 27, 2013|
|Feb 27, 2013||1|
|Feb 28, 2013|