Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Started 10 months ago | Discussions
Maoby
Maoby Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor
2

Comparison between Olympus E-1 (2003) and Pentax 645D (2010)
Two cameras with a Kodak CCD sensor !!

Here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157718212739438

Olympus E-1 (2003)
4.95 MP (2560x1920) 4/3 (17.3 x 13 mm) sensor
The 1st 4/3
Price: $ 2,000 USD
Photos taken with the Leica 14-50mm f / 2.8-3.5
(with a multiplication factor of 2)
ISO 100-3200

______________________

Pentax 645D (2010)
40 MP (7264 x 5440) MF CCD (44x33mm)
Price: $ 9,400 USD
Photos taken with the Pentax FA 645 120mm f / 4 Macro
(with a multiplication factor of 0.8)
ISO 200-1000 (100-1600)

Olympus E-1 (2003) / Pentax 645D (2010)

N°01 Olympus E-1 (2003)

N°01 Pentax 645D (2010)

 Maoby's gear list:Maoby's gear list
Olympus E-10 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1Ds +78 more
Olympus E-1 Pentax 645D
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
The Point and Shoot Pro
The Point and Shoot Pro Senior Member • Posts: 1,846
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

They are REALLY close looking to each other!

 The Point and Shoot Pro's gear list:The Point and Shoot Pro's gear list
Canon PowerShot A570 IS Kodak DC220 Fujifilm X10 Fujifilm X-S1 Apple iPhone 11 +4 more
kodacolor
kodacolor Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

i did something similar sometime ago with an Olympus E-500 and a Hasselblad H3Dii-39 both with 50mm equivalent lenses. It was interesting how close the images looked alike.

 kodacolor's gear list:kodacolor's gear list
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n Olympus E-3 Sony a7R Leica T Olympus E-M5 II +76 more
Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Not that much "Kodak" CCDs. I mean, CCD itself is made by them, but color array is not. Olympus one on first glance has issue with green/blue channel, basically looks a lot like original 1Ds (Canon).

645D has much more modern CFA so color separation is okay, still subpar, but okay.

Compared to 645 from Kodak (Pro H or C and so on) they seem colorwise very weak. Same goes for SLR/n vs Kodak made CCDs (but not CFAs).

Magic of Kodak wasnt that much about sensor itself, but about CFA and very specific tweaking of CFA which no manufacturer today even attempts.

CCD or CMOS didnt actually matter as SLR/n is actually CMOS and still colorwise one of most pleasing to look at (not saying accurate :D).

Leica had Kodak sensors inside too.

M8 and 8.2 is Kodak CFA made for Leica, DMR is similar. Downside is that M8 and M8.2 needs extra IR filter and bit of trick to output 16-bit images like DMR (sensors are otherwise the same .. electronics probably not that much, but who knows, M8 was intentionally crippled for 8bit output, even while internal parts are 16bit).

Not saying that Kodak sensors are bad, but most stuff with those sensors wasnt really Kodak. Best example would be Leica M9 which did have Kodak sensor, but colors are completely different (closer to Fuji Velvia than anything else).

SQLGuy
SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,114
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Mescalamba wrote:

Not that much "Kodak" CCDs. I mean, CCD itself is made by them, but color array is not. Olympus one on first glance has issue with green/blue channel, basically looks a lot like original 1Ds (Canon).

645D has much more modern CFA so color separation is okay, still subpar, but okay.

Compared to 645 from Kodak (Pro H or C and so on) they seem colorwise very weak. Same goes for SLR/n vs Kodak made CCDs (but not CFAs).

Magic of Kodak wasnt that much about sensor itself, but about CFA and very specific tweaking of CFA which no manufacturer today even attempts.

CCD or CMOS didnt actually matter as SLR/n is actually CMOS and still colorwise one of most pleasing to look at (not saying accurate :D).

Leica had Kodak sensors inside too.

M8 and 8.2 is Kodak CFA made for Leica, DMR is similar. Downside is that M8 and M8.2 needs extra IR filter and bit of trick to output 16-bit images like DMR (sensors are otherwise the same .. electronics probably not that much, but who knows, M8 was intentionally crippled for 8bit output, even while internal parts are 16bit).

Not saying that Kodak sensors are bad, but most stuff with those sensors wasnt really Kodak. Best example would be Leica M9 which did have Kodak sensor, but colors are completely different (closer to Fuji Velvia than anything else).

Interesting. I had always thought that the CFA was applied at the fab as part of the sensor production process. You're saying, IIUC, that Leica, Olympus, and Pentax got bare sensors from Kodak, with no CFA or microlenses, and then installed those themselves. Is that correct?

On a sort-of related note, my 460c requires an external IR filter since the sensor doesn't have a cover glass at all. Most of the DCS cameras seem to be similar in this regard, using an on-lens or clip-in in-body hot mirror. I'm guessing that this is because there just wasn't room in a converted film camera to have a hot mirror on the sensor stack and still clear the shutter. Just as there wasn't room to fit a full frame sensor, even if they had had one available at the time. Kind of explains, also, why nobody have ever been able to offer a practical full frame digital back for film cameras...

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +33 more
Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Back then there wasnt tech to make FF and electronics that small. I think today it actually can be finally done, cause some cameras have "everything on chip", even FF ones.

Dont know if they got bare CCD and used own CFA (back then that wasnt as unrealistic as today) or Kodak just whipped something that reasonably fit specs they gave them.

But basically nothing apart Kodak own cameras and early Leicas have "Kodak color". and that magical CFA of theirs. Leica DMR was even tweaked on their request to resemble Ektachrome if I remember right. M8 was probably sorta left-over from DMR which didnt sell that great.

Given age, DMR was sorta achievement I think, only reasonable large digital back for analog camera (which still can be used as analog camera, if DMR is removed). Plus that DMR combo is sorta hand-holdable and possible to use in rather regular way.

DMR had optional AA filter and removable IR if I remember right. Same as Kodak own digital backs for 645. Sensor stacks back then wasnt that much "stacks" as today, when they are basically near impossible to pull apart.

There is also possibility that CFA was really Kodak, just much cheaper and only to fit some basic color separation specs made by Olympus/Pentax. Pentax for sure has own idea about colors and pretty much all of their cameras seems to have nearly same or similar CFA. Even fairly old ones. Difference between 645D and 645Z seems to be mostly just CCD vs CMOS, not that much about CFA.

Given Ricoh can make own sensors (or at least could) its not unrealistic that they could either design and let someone else make CFA for them or they could make it themselves (which would probably also made sensors for them a lot cheaper to buy, since CFA is definitely not cheap part of stack).

SQLGuy
SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,114
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Mescalamba wrote:

Back then there wasnt tech to make FF and electronics that small. I think today it actually can be finally done, cause some cameras have "everything on chip", even FF ones.

Dont know if they got bare CCD and used own CFA (back then that wasnt as unrealistic as today) or Kodak just whipped something that reasonably fit specs they gave them.

But basically nothing apart Kodak own cameras and early Leicas have "Kodak color". and that magical CFA of theirs. Leica DMR was even tweaked on their request to resemble Ektachrome if I remember right. M8 was probably sorta left-over from DMR which didnt sell that great.

Given age, DMR was sorta achievement I think, only reasonable large digital back for analog camera (which still can be used as analog camera, if DMR is removed). Plus that DMR combo is sorta hand-holdable and possible to use in rather regular way.

DMR is more elegant looking for sure, but the 460c is pretty easily convertible back to an N90S as well, and it predates the DMR by almost 10 years. Kodak actually got in trouble with Nikon (I still can't understand why) for shipping the original F3 backs with the DCS100 in case people wanted to switch back and shoot film. But, yeah, the DCS100 wasn't hand-holdable; the DCS460c is.

DMR had optional AA filter and removable IR if I remember right. Same as Kodak own digital backs for 645. Sensor stacks back then wasnt that much "stacks" as today, when they are basically near impossible to pull apart.

That wasn't my point about the 460c. My point was that film is very thin, so its focal plane is very close to the back of the frame that holds the shutter and there is basically no space between that plane and the shutter. To convert a film camera to digital requires a sensor that can fit into the frame (so, smaller than FF, unless you're going to replace the frame/shutter carrier) and that has little to nothing in front of its focal plane, so that the focal plane of the sensor can sit in the focal plane of the camera without interfering with the shutter.

There is also possibility that CFA was really Kodak, just much cheaper and only to fit some basic color separation specs made by Olympus/Pentax. Pentax for sure has own idea about colors and pretty much all of their cameras seems to have nearly same or similar CFA. Even fairly old ones. Difference between 645D and 645Z seems to be mostly just CCD vs CMOS, not that much about CFA.

I read up on this a bit earlier today. Seems that some CFAs were glued to bare sensors after the fact, but these days they're applied as part of the fab process late in the cycle. At least that's what Wikipedia seems to be saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_filter_array

Given Ricoh can make own sensors (or at least could) its not unrealistic that they could either design and let someone else make CFA for them or they could make it themselves (which would probably also made sensors for them a lot cheaper to buy, since CFA is definitely not cheap part of stack).

Ricoh didn't acquire Pentax until 2011. The 645D came out in 2010.

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +33 more
Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Might be wrong, but I think Pentax and Ricoh cooperated since Pentax dumped Samsung.

kodacolor
kodacolor Regular Member • Posts: 291
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Whatever the mechanics are, the images I took are very close in color appearance, with the Hasselblad whites being a bit brighter. Both had the film colors that a CCD has. The main difference could easily be attributed to the resolution difference as highlights and shadows where somewhat better on the Hasselblad but had the same noise attributes.

I'm looking for the images in my files, (but not a priority at the moment).

 kodacolor's gear list:kodacolor's gear list
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n Olympus E-3 Sony a7R Leica T Olympus E-M5 II +76 more
borissimo86 Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

I don't think that these are similar at all. From the foliage, to the sky, the yellows and the dirty snow... there are too many color differences between them. The Olympus image is more pleasing to me, but I suspect that the Pentax image is more accurate.

bobogdan78 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Very interesting but what does "Kodak color" mean, what's its signature? I just acquired a Slr/n and it has the deepest, richest colors I've ever seen, it even beats my Fuji S5 Pro! I shoot raw and I use Photo Desk and Digital Photo Interpreter (since I can't use RPP). I also tried other converters each of them naturally giving different results. I suppose Photo desk displays the "Kodak colors" (Kodak looks) just because it's been made by Kodak ?!

 bobogdan78's gear list:bobogdan78's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus E-PL7 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +1 more
Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor
1

bobogdan78 wrote:

Very interesting but what does "Kodak color" mean, what's its signature? I just acquired a Slr/n and it has the deepest, richest colors I've ever seen, it even beats my Fuji S5 Pro! I shoot raw and I use Photo Desk and Digital Photo Interpreter (since I can't use RPP). I also tried other converters each of them naturally giving different results. I suppose Photo desk displays the "Kodak colors" (Kodak looks) just because it's been made by Kodak ?!

People often fail to understand that most important part when it comes to color is CFA. Color filter array (CFA) is thing that filters individual wavelengths of color and then let them hit cells behind it.

Quality of CFA dictates how much color shades can camera differentiate between, how much each channel of color is clean and in some aspects it can dictate even "feel". Altho final feel is usually how well manufacturer tuned software inside camera for interpreting what CFA (well cells of sensor) feeds to it. And last, but not least how well is RAW software you or anyone else using interpret that RAW file.

Original Kodak software has rather okay colors, but as far as I know most folks were happiest with regular Adobe ACR engine. It doesnt give really accurate colors, but definitely gives very pleasing ones. Photodesk I think has/had some issues with different color spaces. Depends how you like it yourself, really.

But to be honest I saw rather amazing results from Kodak camera and Leica R lens, which I think was developed with some old Adobe software. Pics were insanely life-like in color.

Kodak messed up a bit with ppl head cause they didnt aim for truest colors, but more like colors that ppl remember (memory colors). Which is why some consider colors of their films, for example Kodachrome 64 as pinnacle what can be done colorwise. They had certainly long time to perfect their color alchemy. Much like Fuji (I have S5 Pro myself).

Colors can be twisted around a lot, but no color profile can fix lacking quality of CFA. And Kodak CFA definitely was exact opposite of lacking. Sadly not the case of any modern camera. For example last Canon camera that had really good colors was 1Ds MK3 and 1D MK3. Sony now and then produces some good stuff too, but best was probably A900, except it had absolutely horrible way of handling RAW, which made it shine only sometimes.

Manufacturers in general dont invest/interest much in good quality CFA, they mostly just happy if result looks like what their company produces and thats it..
To be honest, most ppl cant tell the difference either, or they dont really care. So cant blame manufacturers only.

Even here you can notice ppl not seeing difference, cause everyone has some degree of color vision (or color blindness) and for male part of the world, having so to speak 20/20 for colors is kinda rare. And it does require color profiles and decent monitor to view it on.

To answer your question. I think Kodak signature is colors that in same time look real (they not) and most ppl find them beautiful. Or at least I do. It can be mythical balance between beautiful and life-like colors. Myself I even remember some pics that were done with SLR/n or 645 cause those colors were that good.

Ofc sadly, those cameras are ancient and horribly outdated, prone to fail a bit due age too. And not that easy to work with. Unfortunately no sight of same color quality even decades after they were made.

borissimo86 Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor
1

Mescalamba wrote:

Sony now and then produces some good stuff too, but best was probably A900, except it had absolutely horrible way of handling RAW, which made it shine only sometimes.

The Sony A900 also has horrible shutter shock. I would've bought it had I not learned that it's very hard to get sharp images with lower shutter rates.

Manufacturers in general dont invest/interest much in good quality CFA, they mostly just happy if result looks like what their company produces and thats it..
To be honest, most ppl cant tell the difference either, or they dont really care. So cant blame manufacturers only.

I like to download raw samples from the imaging-resource.com and look at the crayon box. Somewhere around the year 2009 or 2010 was when color started taking a very noticeable hit. Older cameras may have even better color but the raw samples on Imaging Resource don't go that far back. Particularly if you look at the pink/magenta crayons, they keep getting paler and look closer to same with each new camera generation. The new cameras don't recognize those color nuances; they don't see them! A side effect is that images from new cameras have less presence. The mood of the light is often lost. I've seen comparisons on the web between images from Nikon's old (D40) more recent (D750 and D810) cameras that clearly show it.

Even here you can notice ppl not seeing difference, cause everyone has some degree of color vision (or color blindness) and for male part of the world, having so to speak 20/20 for colors is kinda rare. And it does require color profiles and decent monitor to view it on.

People don't know unless they know what to look for. They need a reference. Once they see the colors that are missing, it becomes obvious.

To answer your question. I think Kodak signature is colors that in same time look real (they not) and most ppl find them beautiful. Or at least I do. It can be mythical balance between beautiful and life-like colors. Myself I even remember some pics that were done with SLR/n or 645 cause those colors were that good.

I like the SLR/n's colors but my camera has a problem with smearing of details. It doesn't render pinpoint detail; instead, it smudges it vertically. I compared it to a Nikon D700, using the same lens, and that is when I noticed it. It isn't obvious in every image, but there is always some loss of detail. Could be only my camera though!

Ofc sadly, those cameras are ancient and horribly outdated, prone to fail a bit due age too. And not that easy to work with. Unfortunately no sight of same color quality even decades after they were made.

My observation too, maybe until Sigma makes that full-frame Foveon camera and solves their sensor issues.

Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Yea, I hope they will make eventually Foveon with clean base ISO. That APS-H isnt bad, just its not true Foveon (plus colors are kinda hit or miss).

Maoby
OP Maoby Veteran Member • Posts: 4,146
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor
1

I would like too!

Notice to interested parties, I have here a comparison between the Pentax 645D (2010) and the Sigma sd Quattro H (2016-17)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157717212477666

Pentax 645D (2010) / Sigma sd Quattro H (2016-17)

 Maoby's gear list:Maoby's gear list
Olympus E-10 Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS-1D Mark II N Canon EOS-1Ds +78 more
bobogdan78 Forum Member • Posts: 50
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Thank you very much for the detailed insight. I also think there is such thing as "color science", those people from Kodak and Fujifilm have been working with colors for decades and they knew how to get some sort of "color harmony" pleasing to the eye.

 bobogdan78's gear list:bobogdan78's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Olympus PEN E-PL3 Olympus E-PL7 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +1 more
SQLGuy
SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,114
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

borissimo86 wrote:

Mescalamba wrote:

Sony now and then produces some good stuff too, but best was probably A900, except it had absolutely horrible way of handling RAW, which made it shine only sometimes.

The Sony A900 also has horrible shutter shock. I would've bought it had I not learned that it's very hard to get sharp images with lower shutter rates.

I did not realize that. I searched a bit, but couldn't find reviewers saying it either, except in the context of people experiencing some shutter shock when using an A7R and comparing to their A900.

What shutter speeds and focal lengths should I try to see this? And is it really shutter shock, or mirror shock?

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +33 more
borissimo86 Regular Member • Posts: 261
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

SQLGuy wrote:

borissimo86 wrote:

Mescalamba wrote:

Sony now and then produces some good stuff too, but best was probably A900, except it had absolutely horrible way of handling RAW, which made it shine only sometimes.

The Sony A900 also has horrible shutter shock. I would've bought it had I not learned that it's very hard to get sharp images with lower shutter rates.

I did not realize that. I searched a bit, but couldn't find reviewers saying it either, except in the context of people experiencing some shutter shock when using an A7R and comparing to their A900.

What shutter speeds and focal lengths should I try to see this? And is it really shutter shock, or mirror shock?

My apologies! I was thinking of mirror slap, not shutter shock! The A900 seems to have a a particularly strong one. I've read complaints about it on forum posts.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64958010

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40296085

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/40296496

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57116741

https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a900-one-year-later_topic56854_page2.html

You can also see it in a comparison here. Between three Sony DSLRs on a tripod, the A900 was the only that didn't have a sharp image: https://stealthmodephoto.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/a99-vs-a900-vs-a77-part-iv-a-book-shelf-test/

Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Mirror shock probably. A900 had huge pentaprism and equally huge mirror. It slapped quite a bit. With delay I cant say I noticed any shutter shock. Just needs mirror lock up.

Not only camera with this issue, nearly everything with big mirror needs it, down to physics and even with serious damping not really avoidable. Mirrorless does have advantage there.

SQLGuy
SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,114
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Mescalamba wrote:

Mirror shock probably. A900 had huge pentaprism and equally huge mirror. It slapped quite a bit. With delay I cant say I noticed any shutter shock. Just needs mirror lock up.

Not only camera with this issue, nearly everything with big mirror needs it, down to physics and even with serious damping not really avoidable. Mirrorless does have advantage there.

It's actually a very different mirror in the A900 than most anything else. It folds up more than flips up. As I understand a different mechanism was needed to accommodate the 100% viewfinder.

So, at what shutter speeds and focal lengths were you having issues? For mirror shock, I'm surprised that IBIS didn't help...

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +33 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads