[acoulter]

Strange question but I always shoot raw and post process my images. Does this negate any of the color advantages I hear about with the CCD sensor? Debating 645D vs 645Z.

[Breakfastographer]

No, shooting raw makes no difference to that.

[BigMackCam]

The reasons for CCD sensor cameras producing such appealing images are debated, since our appreciation of them is subjective. Some folks believe the in-camera colour profile - applied when shooting JPEGs - is responsible; others believe it's the way the sensor reacts to light. Still others believe it's a combination of both factors, while a few would even argue there is no specific "look" or benefit to CCD images - that it's all in our imagination.

I shoot raw using both CMOS and CCD sensor cameras, and I'm absolutely confident the way the sensor reacts to light is a major factor... but there's no doubt that with cameras such as the K10D (one of the bodies I shoot), the not-especially-accurate in-camera colour profile contributes to nice-looking JPEGs. Raw conversion software also plays a part, as does the application of camera profiles in raw processing. By creating and applying a custom profile, you can make any camera's raw files look broadly similar to JPEGs from any other camera (including one with a CCD sensor). I did this for my K-3, to make images look more like those from my Samsung GX-10 and K10D. The result isn't an exact match... far from it, in fact; but it's a reasonable facsimile and certainly a good starting point.

[texandrews]

Roughly speaking, raw shooting is going to minimize if not negate any "advantage" a ccd sensor is going to have. The reason being that when shooting raw, you're going to be adjusting the color anyway.

With respect to jpgs...considering they can be adjusted, again I am not sure I see the "advantage" to the ccd sensor.

In terms of color accuracy....well, they may be different, but not sure one is better than the other---I'd have to research what the gamut of each would be. But for this one would be shooting a color card I'd think, or would have profiled the camera. One thing I'm pretty sure about: ccd sensor tech is not advancing AFAIK.

[w2ck]

Hi,

CCD does just fine as long as you have good light. The CMOS will work better in low light. The CCD just can't boost ISO in the same way. And so, the CCD will have more noise than CMOS when you do boost ISO.

The CCD also has to move the analog signals to the A to D in the dark. CMOS does not. So, CMOS gives you Live View and Video.

The 645D sells for quite a bit less than the 645Z on the used market. And you can still get the Z new. For as low as $3k usd from Ricoh USA for a refurb last I looked.

I went for a 645D as I knew I'd be using it in daylight and so opted for the lower cost and accepted the limitations.

Stan

[Ed Hurst]

Overall, I find the 645Z (with its CMOS sensor) to be much more flexible and effective in use. The malleability of the files in post, the wonderful low noise, high ISO performance, live view, etc.. And, incidentally, all the other benefits the Z has over the D which have nothing to do with being CMOS over CCD (such as frame rate, etc.). I had to use bracketing and blending files (and/or grad filters) much more with the D than I do with the Z. I simply couldn't do my high ISO, quick frame rate astro stuff with the D.
But, despite that overall decision in favour of the Z, I do think the colour rendition of the D was slightly better in my subjective opinion, especially in the reds. I cannot get the Z files to look the same as a D file in its colours, even with lots of post-editing (which, of course, could be a result of my limitations as an editor). In the end, I accept the balance in favour of the Z and rarely look back. But if your style of shooting doesn't require the benefits of the Z, and you prefer the colours of the D, then it remains a very good option (if rather dated these days).

[stevebrot]

The reasons for CCD sensor cameras producing such appealing images are debated, since our appreciation of them is subjective. Some folks believe the in-camera colour profile - applied when shooting JPEGs - is responsible; others believe it's the way the sensor reacts to light. Still others believe it's a combination of both factors, while a few would even argue there is no specific "look" or benefit to CCD images - that it's all in our imagination.

One might also add the specifics of the Bayer filter used with a particular sensor along with the image processor, both are customer, not vendor, specific.

To the OP...I went from the K10D to the K-3 and do not remember any particular "advantage" to the former or shocking sense of disappointment with color performance on the latter. Unless I had something very specific in mind, I cannot imagine basing a significant purchase on magical qualities of a particular sensor technology unless I was clear on what the advantage might be.

By creating and applying a custom profile, you can make any camera's raw files look broadly similar to JPEGs from any other camera (including one with a CCD sensor). I did this for my K-3, to make images look more like those from my Samsung GX-10 and K10D. The result isn't an exact match... far from it, in fact; but it's a reasonable facsimile and certainly a good starting point.

I remember that project and it is that knowledge that balances my perspective on the subject.


Steve

[Breakfastographer]

Hi,

CCD does just fine as long as you have good light. The CMOS will work better in low light. The CCD just can't boost ISO in the same way. And so, the CCD will have more noise than CMOS when you do boost ISO.

The CCD also has to move the analog signals to the A to D in the dark. CMOS does not. So, CMOS gives you Live View and Video.

The 645D sells for quite a bit less than the 645Z on the used market. And you can still get the Z new. For as low as $3k usd from Ricoh USA for a refurb last I looked.

I went for a 645D as I knew I'd be using it in daylight and so opted for the lower cost and accepted the limitations.

Stan

The above explanation is correct. Three addenda may be in order. Firstly, it is my understanding that CCD had better low ISO performance at the time that it was abandoned in favour of CMOS. Secondly, stronger colour filters were in use at the time, and so colours are thought to possibly have been more clearly defined because of that. Since then, colour filters have tended to become weaker, straying away from a narrow-band RGB model and a little closer to YCM, improving light yield but losing colour definition. Thirdly, picking white balance correctly is easier with more light being available, and has a major impact on the perceived quality of an image. So a collection of images from a camera that restricts shooting to low ISOs may tend to look better.

However, on my first point I should add the counter-point that as attention shifted from CCD to CMOS, CMOS sensors have continuously improved and benchmarks suggest that the 645Z was already better across the board in various metrics, as you may see on the DxOMark website, particularly if you click through the various graphs under "measurements".

[DWS1]

I've got cameras of both type from the same time frame, and frankly I can't tell any differences.

[er1kksen]

I've come to think the differences may have more to do with the bayer filters than CCD vs CMOS technology specifically. Having only ever shot RAW, I definitely see differences in how pretty much every camera I've used renders color, including shooting the same lenses across K10D, K20D, K-x, K-5, and K-3 ii.

The profile BigMackCam developed to make the K-3 look closer to the K10D also needs tweaking to produce similar results with files from other CMOS cameras, again suggesting this varies sensor to sensor (or filter array) and not just between the two technologies.

(And BigMackCam, thanks- my default LR profiles are based on your original CCD-mimic profile)

[w2ck]

Hi,

When it comes to color, keep in mind that the P645D CCD is a Kodak device. And, having shot with Kodak sensors since the late 90s, I can say that their colors were always very good. And, who better to make that so?

Stan

[leekil]

I own 11 CCD cameras and 6 CMOS cameras. I shoot RAW files with them all and use the same RAW developer software on all of the RAW files. The CCD RAW files are so intensely/richly saturated with color, that I have to reduce their saturation in the RAW developer from between -9 to -13. While with the CMOS RAW files I edit in the same RAW developer, I usually either leave the saturation at 0, or sometimes add around +3 of saturation.

There's a few relevant questions here; one is whether the intense CCD colors are appropriately intense, or if the raw development is inaccurate, or maybe a non-flat development preference. Related, how accurate are the colors for the development of photos with those sensors in general? And how well does this carry through the entire color workflow?

With some older Pentax cameras, I have had to reduce the intensity of reds and oranges when printing, as they were unnaturally bright. In other cases I have seen digital photos printed where certain colors were too intense compared to the rest of the scene. These cases seem to be anomalies, or errors in developing, in that they are uneven responses compared to the rest of the scene.

[ChristianRock]

I shoot my older CCD cameras in RAW and I see differences in how the light is captured in CCDs vs CMOS - so it is not releated to the JPEG engine.
I have a soft spot for how CCD renders an image but CMOS sensors have come a long way, and can give pleasing results as well.

[Michail_P]

I also think my previous CCD camera produced a certain color quality. Very pleasing RAWs. But color is objective. I may like my reds, my blues or whatever, but this doesn’t mean that my colors are perfectly realistic. If you like the hues and you’re happy with the saturation of the jpeg just go with it. Otherwise shoot raw. If you get your pp at a level, you should be able to get the color you want. IMHO as always.

[stevebrot]

I shoot my older CCD cameras in RAW and I see differences in how the light is captured in CCDs vs CMOS - so it is not releated to the JPEG engine.

It may be related to your RAW processor and the camera profiles that it uses. If using the embedded profile on DNG, it would have been provided by Pentax.


Steve