CCD vs. CMOS

It is sometimes stated here that there is some sort of low ISO superiority to the old CCD bodies (K100D, K200D, K10D, etc). I believe that the supposed superiority of the "CCD look" is nothing more than a warmer white balance, easily replicated with a CMOS file in post-processing, if that is your preference. Frankly I find CMOS OOC white balance too warm, Sony CMOS (K-x to K-3) too cool, and the K20D Samsung CMOS just about right.

I recently tested this theory and it holds. Below are K-3 and K100D Super images, shot at 6mp resolution. Unfortunately I neglected to use the same lens. The 18-135mm is a little punchier than the original 18-55, and this is visible in the photos. I don't think it invalidates my conclusion. If you want your CMOS images to have the magic CCD look, just warm up the white balance.


K-3 out of camera jpeg


K100D Super OOC jpeg


K-3, adjusted white balance

Full-sized (6mp) images are available here: https://picasaweb.google.com/100586096103361553535/CCDVsCMOS?authkey=Gv1sRgCPnqpuOSt6eeIQ#

--
Dan

audiobomber said:

It is sometimes stated here that there is some sort of low ISO superiority to the old CCD bodies (K100D, K200D, K10D, etc). I believe that the supposed superiority of the "CCD look" is nothing more than a warmer white balance, easily replicated with a CMOS file in post-processing, if that is your preference. Frankly I find CMOS OOC white balance too warm, Sony CMOS (K-x to K-3) too cool, and the K20D Samsung CMOS just about right.

I recently tested this theory and it holds. Below are K-3 and K100D Super images, shot at 6mp resolution. Unfortunately I neglected to use the same lens. The 18-135mm is a little punchier than the original 18-55, and this is visible in the photos. I don't think it invalidates my conclusion. If you want your CMOS images to have the magic CCD look, just warm up the white balance.

K-3 out of camera jpeg

K100D Super OOC jpeg

K-3, adjusted white balance

Full-sized (6mp) images are available here: https://picasaweb.google.com/100586096103361553535/CCDVsCMOS?authkey=Gv1sRgCPnqpuOSt6eeIQ#

--
Dan

Click to expand...

Nice ..but I can't fool my eyes. I think the last pics is more saturated. The output of k 200 is natural and film like. The ccd sensors AS I THINK rendering the skin colors better than cmos sensors. This is why MF cameras LIKE THE CCD.
--
pentaxian .

I think the low ISO ccd argument was only valid for k20d generation cmos sensors and then only at base ISO.

CmoS has been better or superior ever since the Kx generation with it much improved black levels.

But as per most 'web' truths once stated always true irrelevant of obvious proof to the opposite as per your images.

audiobomber said:

I recently tested this theory and it holds. Below are K-3 and K100D Super images, shot at 6mp resolution. Unfortunately I neglected to use the same lens. The 18-135mm is a little punchier than the original 18-55, and this is visible in the photos. I don't think it invalidates my conclusion. If you want your CMOS images to have the magic CCD look, just warm up the white balance.

Click to expand...

I think your overall conclusion is probably right, but the parts I bolded really are a problem. After all, the results you're looking to confirm depend on small differences, quite possibly of similar magnitude you'd get by changing lenses.

Or maybe not, it's hard to draw conclusions from those shots given the test conditions.

---

Gravity will make you crazy until you get the hang of it.

zakaria said:

Nice ..but I can't fool my eyes. I think the last pics is more saturated.

Click to expand...

I only adjusted white balance. Saturation is the same in both K-3 photos, not boosted at all.

zakaria said:

The output of k 200 is natural and film like. The ccd sensors AS I THINK rendering the skin colors better than cmos sensors.

Click to expand...

If you repeat my experiment with a portrait, you will see that warming up a CMOS photo gives the same look as a CCD photo. I have done this many times, because the Sony CMOS sensors render skin tones too cool (blue) with my old K-x and K-01, as well as my current K-3 and Sony a6000 bodies.

zakaria said:

This is why MF cameras LIKE THE CCD.

Click to expand...

MF cameras have switched to CMOS (Pentax, Phase One, Hasselblad)

afterswish1 said:

audiobomber said:

I recently tested this theory and it holds. Below are K-3 and K100D Super images, shot at 6mp resolution. Unfortunately I neglected to use the same lens. The 18-135mm is a little punchier than the original 18-55, and this is visible in the photos. I don't think it invalidates my conclusion. If you want your CMOS images to have the magic CCD look, just warm up the white balance.

Click to expand...

I think your overall conclusion is probably right, but the parts I bolded really are a problem. After all, the results you're looking to confirm depend on small differences, quite possibly of similar magnitude you'd get by changing lenses.

Click to expand...

The K-3 images are the same, except for WB. The OOC K-3 image is clearly too cool, the K100DS and adjusted K-3 are more natural and quite close to each other, certainly closer than the OOC K-3 image.

afterswish1 said:

Or maybe not, it's hard to draw conclusions from those shots given the test conditions.

Click to expand...

The differences are plain as day to me. The only unsatisfactory image is the OOC K-3 with its excessive blue cast.

I agree though, I should have used the same lens. I originally included the K20D and DA 18-250, and I didn't want to keep changing lenses. In the end the K20D photo added nothing, so I just went with these.

Regarding color the only difference between CCD and CMOS is the choice of filter arrays (i.e. color and transparency). Both the CCD and CMOS sensels are photon counters nothing more.

Here is Dalsa's take on this comparison:


Basically, if you want good performance with live view you are going to require CMOS. CCD can still be good in slow readout situations, etc, but most consumers demand higher performance (frame rates, video, live view) and CMOS is better in most ways than CCD now.

However, I still think CCD can produce stunning image quality, but ever since K-x or K-5 I have been happy with CMOS results. Just as long as we don't go Nikon D2h JFET I think we are fine.

Eric

You are comparing jpeg processing, nothing else!

MightyMike said:

You are comparing jpeg processing, nothing else!

Click to expand...

I agree completely. IMO, that's all there is to the argument that "CCD has superior IQ at low ISO". The different look of a Pentax CCD photo vs. a Pentax CMOS photo is just a difference in processing, more specifically, a difference in WB.

-- For skin tones the Samsung GX10 (K10) in RAW was great in studio conditions, but the lack of dynamic range in bright sunshine, poor Jpgs and noise at higher ISO was a big price to pay!


Dave's clichés

audiobomber said:

MightyMike said:

You are comparing jpeg processing, nothing else!

Click to expand...

I agree completely. IMO, that's all there is to the argument that "CCD has superior IQ at low ISO". The different look of a Pentax CCD photo vs. a Pentax CMOS photo is just a difference in processing, more specifically, a difference in WB.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree. The Sony sensored K5/K5IIs/K3 tend to look slightly too cool at default WB, also in third party raw converters. A camera that is still praised for its color reproduction, the CCD sensor Olympus E1, had a slightly warm look at default WB

Chris

Of course.

There is no reason why CCD should get better colors than CMOS.

Do you have any comparative prints?
--
Cheers,
N

Interesting exercise, but I'd rather see something with less details; I think that it detracts the comparison. I might try the same comparing my K10D to my K01. TX for sharing your results.

rogerstpierre said:

I might try the same comparing my K10D to my K01. TX for sharing your results.

Click to expand...

That would be great Roger. I would love for someone to check my results, especially with different bodies (please use the same lens on both ;-)

I would suggest to shoot the K-01 in raw+ @ 10mp, use the same Image Tone as the K10D. Show the K-01 and K10D OOC jpegs. Warm up the K-01's WB so it looks like the K10D. My prediction is that it will look VERY much like the K10D image.

Out of curiosity, what is your impression of CCD vs. CMOS images?

--
Dan

Roland Karlsson said:

Of course.

There is no reason why CCD should get better colors than CMOS.

Click to expand...

Yet many believe otherwise.

DAVID MANZE said:

-- For skin tones the Samsung GX10 (K10) in RAW was great in studio conditions

Click to expand...

The K20D with Portrait image tone has the best OOC skin tones, IMO. This used to matter to me, now I just adjust WB.

--
Dan

I had a very heated discussion about how the k10d had the best tones and colors over the K20 K7 and k5. After seeing how to make profiles for a specific camera and how calibration of the cameras raw files with adobe DNG profile editor you can basically take any camera and fine tune the look of a an raw file to look like any output you want.

Here I went to the extreme to show and created a profile ( cooked) to show how much you can alter a camera profile in PS.



It’s not too hard to create your own profile for camera raw to match the look of any output you want.

Here is a common profile I use with a specific flash combo



Here is a final with the K10d I used a profile that was created for a film look that I often use







The only real world difference you can see in-between cameras is the noise (size and appearance )



I like that you have brought this up

--
The Camera is only a tool, photography is deciding how to use it.
The hardest part about capturing wildlife is not the photographing portion; it’s getting them to sign a model release

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

>After seeing how to make profiles for a specific camera and how calibration of the cameras raw >files with adobe DNG profile editor you can basically take any camera and fine tune the look of a >an raw file to look like any output you want.

I think you're absolutely correct on this Ian. However.......



I had a K10D, and It seems to me that there is a different tonal response from the later CMOS cameras, particularly in the dark-mid tones that gives a characteristic "look" to the pictures when minimal curves adjustment is done in raw conversion.

I fully realise that different raw converters will give different results, and it all can be compensated for with careful manipulation, but with the K10D that "look" is just there with minimal work.

I think it would be educational to take photos of a stepped grey card with both cameras and analyse at the numbers in the RAW file.

You'd need to carefully set exposure on both so that white barely clips, then compare the numbers for each grey level (expressed as % so that there was no argument about 12bit and 14bit files).

It would be also interesting to see if any non linearities found are the same in each of the RGB channels.

Unfortunately I don't have a K10D any more.