Do CCD DSLRs Produce BETTER COLORS Than Mirrorless Cameras?

Рет қаралды 15,352

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 168

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

If you enjoyed this video, you may enjoy this video on buying budget DSLR: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHPSpmigmZKmppIsi=JpMBS5usJU0lceLo

@sophietucker1255 9 ай бұрын

I have both the Olympus E500 and the E330. The E500 has the Kodak CCD sensor and the E330 has a LiveMOS sensor. So far my favorite is the E330 with the LiveMOS sensor. I shoot mostly flowers and landscapes. I also like my Fujifilm GFX 50SII. The Fuji has fantastic resolution and the colors are good right out of the camera in both JPEG or RAW images. I really think that in the end the outcome is more based on the color handling of the profile of the manufacturer than the sensor. My favorite image from this last Summer was taken with the E330 but I also think that the lovely Golden Hour light had more to do with the final image than the sensor.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching & taking the time to relay your experience here! In retrospect, I think I agree! The color profiling from manufacturer/camera has the largest impact on the feel of the overall image along with your photographic technique and creativity! I kept hearing only good things about them Olympus cameras!

@photo1416 9 ай бұрын

I also like the E-330. What lenses do you use with?

@imac3355 9 ай бұрын

The Sigma Foveon sensor is a gem! Full rgb at every pixel location 😍

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

Interesting! Never heard of it, but looked it up and now I do! For you, do you get very organic and radiant colors? What’s your experience like using it?

@mibnsharpals 6 ай бұрын

The sigma produces very sharp pixels because it doesn't have to interpolate. Unfortunately, the sensor has problems displaying the colors correctly. You can imagine the principle as having 3 sensors stacked one behind the other. The electronics determine the color by the depth of penetration into the silicon, which unfortunately reduces the sensitivity. I love and hate the camera, if it gets the colors right, extremely sharp images come out with high micro resolution. Otherwise, extreme color distortions will occur. In the end I have to say, if I want sharp, very sharp, images and can afford to get by with ISO 100, it's a wonderful camera.

@dct124 9 ай бұрын

Also if you want the most from the D200 like Nikon secret sauce which is encrypted. You need to use Nikon NX Raw software before LR.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

You know, that’s what I thought too! I’ve been blown away tho from using it in Darktable recently of all things. Darktable is a very honest and neutral rendering software, before you process it. You’d think the lack of profile would lead to a loss in that “specialness”. But I’m finding the exact opposite. In fact, I’d say using the D200 in Darktable has given me the most credence to the idea that CCDs might be special. There’s something about the way they render color. No video on that yet, but the idea is cooking ✌️

@pdcorlis 9 ай бұрын

When I shot these CCD Nikons I was always shattered when I saw what LR did to their glorious colors. I finally came to the conclusion that if I wanted to see those beautiful colors - Nikon’s software was the only answer..

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

@@pdcorlis I totally get that! NX Studio is the only way to get Nikon colors. That being said, I’ve honestly been getting amazing results with the D200 and Darktable. Not Nikon exact colors, but amazing results.

@jimmackayvlog 11 ай бұрын

Hi Nick, Great video. I liked the saturated look of the D200 myself.

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

Hey Jim! Thanks for watching & commenting. I’m glad you enjoyed it! +1 vote for D200

@Another-Layer 2 ай бұрын

Great comparison, thank you. It’s very subtle the differences as you discovered but I find the ccd images look a bit more organic and film like than modern cameras. I have the Kodak 880, with a ccd sensor. I’m biased but I prefer the old ccd “thick” colors.

@hertsman5 9 ай бұрын

The price difference between a D200 and a Z50 is not very subtle. I paid £95 ($125) for my mint condition D200 after selling all my Sony gear. The stupid thing is I sold my old D200 ten years ago chasing the megapixels. Older and wiser now I fully concur with your findings.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

No joke about the price difference! Megapixels don’t take good photos, photographers do that ✌️Cool story for ya: so I’ve been using Darktable now for some months and I’m blown away by it. You think with a neutral rendering software like DT that doesn’t have camera profiles you’d lose that “specialness”. But I’m finding the exact opposite! There’s something about the D200 CCD!

@capturedbyhisdesign8656 9 ай бұрын

Great video! There is definitely a difference. I have been meaning to post a similar video comparing a D80 (CCD) to a D500. I stripped the RAW files of any NR and applied a neutral profile. I also matched the white balance. I was shocked at how much more contrast and detail the D80 had over the D500 both using a 24mm 1.8G...At one point you gotta dump the scientific stuff and just go with your heart. After all photography is art and once you shoot with something you love then you know what you have. I'm not about to get rid of modern stuff for CCD's but they sure are fun and I do prefer the rendering over the newer sensors in certain situations...also I hate editing since I'd rather be shooting-and for .jpg's CCD's are pretty sweet!

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

Ya with this video I tried to balance the mindset of an objectivist with a subjectivist. Your 100% right! ✌️At the end of the day art isn’t logical, it is felt. You gotta go with what gives you that vibe and feel that suits your artistic vision right? Over focus on the technical can lead to insipid photographs. Btw the D80 was and is and awesome camera. I’ve really been liking the older rendering too. In fact I’m just entered a orchid photo contest with a D200 photograph haha. If you put up that vid looking forward to seeing it! Thanks for watching and commenting.

@marte1153 7 ай бұрын

I'd also be interested in seeing the comparison

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

Haha!! I’d love to see this comparison too. I don’t have a D500, but my Z50 has the same or almost identical sensor. As as you saw in this video, they do behave differently. Do you like the D80 more?

@alberte6109 3 ай бұрын

Cool, my dad got the D80, and I used it often around 2018-2019. Always wanted a wider prime than the 50mm f1.8. I liked taking photos with it, and there was a time when I had like a hangout/camping event at my school, and I took it with me. Took a lot of photos, low light was an issue, though I don't remember much of what exactly I thought about the low light performance then. Right now I plan to get a used XT3, and technically my budget can allow for a used Nikon D200 + lens, I saw a very good deal consisting of the D200, battery, CF card, 2 lenses. ( the lenses look alright, but I might buy a really old fast prime of my choosing) (now that I think about it, I technically could've bought a wider prime myself with the money I saved at the time, but meh, it's in the past.)

@JaredTremper 9 ай бұрын

I like to think of this as a painter having different brushes and color choices. I recently picked up the D60, and I’m also testing the D300 (I normally shooting D850). I went to downtown Chicago this past Friday on a picture postcard blue sky day. I did shoot in jpg vivid on the D60 just to see the results, but RAW on D300. I do RAW processing/editing in Capture One Pro (latest version). While the D60’s colors were very nice, I was surprised how nice the D300 kept pace. I think there are a lot of variables to consider. Even lens choice can make a difference (coatings etc.). I still love my D850, yet these vintage Nikons are capable of some lovely colors and with good lenses are certainly produce beautiful images.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

For sure exactly! I like your points about it being like a painter. Some people still prefer to shoot slide film or color negative film because of the look it has even though its slow in modern terms, doesn’t give you immediate feedback, and at best has 6-8 MP of information. But the tonal qualities and light are what makes a good photo right? The D300 is a good camera!

@JaredTremper 7 ай бұрын

@@deepskypics absolutely, and a good story. For me, the camera sensor, lens choice, post processing style etc are the painter’s brushes and canvas. The story and vision is more important.

@drawerganizer785 4 ай бұрын

I think if you want a neutral starting point colorwise, using a color checker to calibrate the colors in your photos is a much better option than trying to hunt down an older camera. I've started doing this my self and it's made a huge difference. Colors are much more vibrant after calibration, and it's fixed a few technical issuess like blues tend to be less saturated for my camera. Newer sensors are going to have less noise, more resolution, and more dynamic range, which is a bigger advantage. Any differences in color response can be dealt with in software.

@williamcurwen7428 3 ай бұрын

Hi Nick, the look of a CCD sensor is based upon the camera engine producing jpeg files. Forget about comparing ccd with CMOS, it just confuses the issue of what CCD colour is like. I have a number of CCD DSLR cameras, my favourite being the Olympus E1 camera with its fabulous Kodak CCD sensor. I shoot RAW+JPEG simultaneously, with the JPEG output dialled in to the specific kind of colour I want. The RAW file is then processed in Olympus Studio RAW converter to create a B&W TIFF monochrome image that represents the luminosity that I desire from the original image exposure. I then combine the two in Photoshop. I get a really fantastic result that actually represents what the Olympus E1 is capable of. CMOS sensors were invented to have a higher base ISO, greater dynamic range, and significantly cheaper and easier to produce. It is unfair to compare CCD with CMOS as they are both capable of outstanding results. The real difference being early CCD cameras from the early 2000’s had their colour filter arrays tuned to look like filmic colour to entice photographers away from film to digital, and after CMOS was introduced this aspect was glossed over as a marketing ploy in favour of multiple menu features. This is why Fuji has captured the market share in funky colour, as they can draw upon their own intellectual property about their own film stocks are emulated during in camera JPEG processing. Again, it is always wise to shoot in RAW+JPEG, and no I don’t use Lightroom for RAW image processing, preferring OEM proprietary RAW software.

@treyedean 10 ай бұрын

This video really demonstrates just how good the Nikon D200 is despite its age.

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

Absolutely agree! More than anything when I did this comparison, I was just stunned at the performances of the Nikon D200. Photography is all about artistry and technique, not gear. Thanks for watching & leaving your thoughts!

@sbrazenor2 3 ай бұрын

Just for shits, I recently got a Nikon D3 to play around with. It's actually much better than I expected, given the age. It was a flagship camera at the time... but that tims was like 16 years ago. It still holds up and they're pretty cheap now.

@treyedean 3 ай бұрын

@@sbrazenor2 I mean I think it just reinforces the fact that it's not gear that makes the photographer. A competent photographer can pick up a 20 year old camera and produce amazing images without the need for the latest high resolution, dynamic range and sharpest lenses that modern systems have to offer. Go get a camera, any camera and start taking pictures. Modern systems make it easier to make great images, but they don't make the images themselves. I just managed to score a D300 for cheap too. So, I have a D200, D300, D5 and D850 and I love them all.

@sbrazenor2 3 ай бұрын

@@treyedean I also have a more modern D750. The cameras I use the most are a Sony RX100M7 and a Sigma DP2. Those are pocketable. The Sigma has a Foveon sensor, which when paired with the software, produces really good color representation and it's extremely sharp. (It's basically using three separate sensor layers, rather than a Bayer filter.) The main reason I use those cameras more is that they are pocketable and more places allow them. (Like concert venues.)

@incargeek 2 ай бұрын

@@treyedeanTry a D700!

@ironmonkey1512 Ай бұрын

I can't say I was crazy about the images you picked. A lot of the CCD look is the way color contrast with the unsatured parts of the image. It's pretty obvious if you look through any D200 galleries...

@L.Lyubomirov 7 ай бұрын

Pentax K1 is one of the cameras that is not so old,but the colors are very very right in place,every subtly hue is there always using Natural picture profile or Portrait,they are booth stellar !Also those 2 profiles are exact match as if you open them with Pentax Software,which is great !

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

I have only heard good things about Pentax cameras and the K1! Do you mean Lightroom’s profile is spot on? Thanks for watching & commenting!

@L.Lyubomirov 7 ай бұрын

@@deepskypicsI use Camera Raw profiles matching (Natural and Portrait) and i have tested with Pentax Software and they are 99% identical.I have been 8 years Canon user,i have changed from 1200d to 70d,6d,Eos R...then Nikon d750 and d7200 just for couple of months,none of them have impressed me as Landscape photographer in dynamic range and color science and user interface as Pentax.K1 color science is combination of warm+cold hues,but in the good way.I believe Canon 5d mark ii and 5d classic can impress me as Pentax regarding only colors !

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

@@L.Lyubomirov 99% identical is really freaken close haha! With Nikon, I find that there good enough and the benefits of LR out weigh using Nikon’s software. Those Pentax cameras I know are good! I have never used one. Maybe I should? Haha the Flickr page for the K1 looks beautiful.

@L.Lyubomirov 7 ай бұрын

@@deepskypicsI will not talk about dynamic range power from K1,you will find yourself someday if you grab this camera :) Good Luck !

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

@@L.Lyubomirov hahaha the camera looks amazing.

@d3xmeister Ай бұрын

I switched 3 times from CCD to CMOS and every single time I preferred the CMOS output. I switched my Canon S90 to S100, my Nikon D40 to Olympus E-520, then my D200 to the D7000. Every time I found the CMOS sensors gave me better everything and especially colors

@munarong 2 ай бұрын

I watched a few videos from multiple channels about CCD produces film look photos . (I like film photos by the way) It seems there's something differences going on the way these two type of sensors do color producing, but I feel that those who overpraise CCD would bias so much in their videos. Good job on your video, it's kind of none bias approach.

@julioestebanperezescudero6246 4 ай бұрын

As far asI know. CCD are more accurate with color and highlights roll of as film. The reeds are better. Maybe you could try te same test with skin tones. Thanks for sharing!

@luka_III 3 ай бұрын

D200... my first DSLR. First love! 😅 really, it is unbelievable how close it is to a modern camera.

@chrisboxone3653 2 ай бұрын

Still use and love my Fujifilm S5 Pro and never disappointed me. You just have to keep in mind to think before you shoot, cuz you can‘t crop that much with such low megapixels in postproduction compared to modern cams. Btw the D200 images looked great.

@johnirby493 2 ай бұрын

Which produced the best images per dollar?

@VinceWatches 3 ай бұрын

My best flowers picture was made with my D200. Great camera under good light conditions.

@bardofhighrenown 6 ай бұрын

I think you nailed it. I think the sensor does play a role, but the majority of what people see is the internal processing, even with RAW files. I've done my own tests on cameras I've used over the years and I've found that older cameras by design and by limitation of the technology were more warm and had less dynamic range, giving a more (unintentionally) nostalgic look. While newer cameras tend to be more flat and blue-shifted. I think manufacturers now don't want a 'look' imposed on their files and try to give people a blank slate to work from which causes older cameras to feel different, which just so happens to coincide with when CCDs were still being manufactured.

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

I’ve noticed this point with my Modern Z50. Ive recently calibrated my Z50 in Darktable to a defined standard with a color checker and it makes the results look a lot like the in camera JPEG. Hence making me think that the modern Nikon JPEG must be calibrated to to a simular look or same standard.

@bardofhighrenown 6 ай бұрын

@@deepskypics That doesn't surprise me. I've heard lots of similar comments about other cameras and manufacturers. But it does make me a little sad. It's fun to experiment with different older cameras and find a color science and output that resonates with you and fits the images you want to take.

@WaistingBob 6 ай бұрын

I think that’s exactly it. With today’s processing a blank slate from the raw file is what’s expected.

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

@@WaistingBob absolutely agree!!

@MrKenrwi 11 ай бұрын

Wow 200 wins IMO. CCD Is a win.

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching & posting your vote. +1 for CCD! It’s interesting to see what others think of this analysis, trying to be objective. What’s your favorite CCD camera?

@aceofswords1725 4 ай бұрын

CCDs shine in portraits most of all. And almost older the CCDs the better - the best portraits I ever did is with Canon G10, G11 with newer CCD portraits were not as... I can't describe it other than "organic", "alive"? It has something to do with how it treats grain and color gradients, how the picture is almost dithered in a way, giving it a kind of paradoxical "sharp softness" which is especially well suited for portraits.

@jamesclarke8564 6 ай бұрын

In the past I owned the Nikon D50 (CCD), Nikon D80 (CCD), Nikon D300 (CMOS), and Nikon D700 (CMOS), I currently use a Nikon D7500 (CMOS), I did not notice much of a difference moving between them, but I only started shooting RAW since the D300 which makes a huge difference. Back when I was using the D80 a couple of friends had Canon 30D (CMOS) and I noticed when we went shooting together the reds from my D80 looked more natural, but the reds from the 30D had a bit of a pinkish hue. On the other hand the 30D seemed to have better skin tones. I think the difference is more in the colour science between Canon and Nikon, Canon started using CMOS a few generations of cameras before Nikon switched over.

@dandan2077 11 ай бұрын

Raw files are not impacted by chosen picture profile. You can shoot in b&w and in lightroom your raw files will be colorful. Picture profiles are used to create in camer jpgs.

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

Very true! To add to that, for our eyes to view the raw file, it has to go through some raw processing and ‘interpretation’ (like camera profile)to visualize it. Thanks for watching & commenting!

@luzr6613 10 ай бұрын

Hey there.... Thanks for that - interesting comparison. I can draw on long experience with a particular range of cameras, some of which i still use. These are the Olympus 4/3 cameras, starting with the 2003 5MP Kodak CCD E-1 (still my favorite camera), and running through the 8MP Kodak CCD E-300 and the Live-MOS 10MP E-510, the 12MP E-620 and the 2011 12MP E-5. The E-1 is noticeably different from all of the others, with the E-300 being a bit of a mid-point. The E-1 i would describe as being genuinely 'filmic', especially when paired with good vintage glass. I don't find this surprising as, being the first Oly Pro Digital, it necessarily referenced the film era for its aesthetic. I suspect that, as the potential of digital became more apparent and the technology better established in the marketplace, the need to look backwards diminished. If i shoot the E-1 and the E-5 for the same subject the difference is pronounced, but this is most noticeable in particular light. My view from all of this is that the CCD case, as a general claim, is overstated - my slightly later E-300 is already looking more 'digital' - and from 2005 onwards the differences seem minimal to me. Cheers.

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching & commenting! Especially writing such a lengthy response. V much agreed! I think it’s overstated as well and theres a lot of confounding factors. I have only heard good things about those Olympus cameras and people love them so much. You can get exquisite results from them!

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

Hey, I’m noticing there’s a pain point with many photographers on YT. There’s lots of people doing reviews of expensive new tech, but most people can’t afford to keep upgrading every year and some even feel diminished because there somehow not a photographer if they don’t have the new tech. Hence videos about getting exceptional results with old tech is very inspiring. What’s your thoughts on that?

@WOLFTICKVIDEOS 10 ай бұрын

@deepskypics I think the whole "old school" or "vintage" dslr and point and shoot cameras are going to become more and more popular on KZbin. It definitely makes more sense as a content creator to not get into all the newest gear and burn up all of your profits. If you grind away at this consistently for a year or so, alot of companies will be willing to send you some newer gear to review(if that's what you want). I'm glad to see you start publishing content again. I really like your style. 👍🏼

@PhotoswithArt 2 ай бұрын

Might you try testing with photos that have valiant colors in the same material such as soil, dirt rocks, any nature that have a gradient shades, you might see more differences between the two. I'm no professional, but I've been looking into the sample image from CCD quite a bit, it doesn't seem to be effecting much on pure color like primary red, green, blue, but when the on materials with multi-tone color, the image from CCD seems glowing, while compare to image from Cmos and even from my own D3400, almost every color on the image looks deadly monotone (like grean grass has only one green tone, dry soil has only like brown tone, shadow has pure dead gray tone). Again I'm not a pro and expert, If I wasn't fooled by those film simulation and all color grading stuff on the sample images of D200, we might find something more concrete than this. Good video regardless. 👍

@crawford323 Ай бұрын

Test the color space offered by the Hasselblad H3D-39.

@outfield1988 6 ай бұрын

Good video Nick. I love old DSLRs

@quazisanjeed6395 Ай бұрын

CCD sensor cameras are loved by seasoned photographers. This feeling is not driven by publicity or hype; rather it is based on experience and eyes that can differentiate. Therefore, they are unlikely to be distracted by noisy promotions. Long live CCD sensors.

@dunsunyt 9 ай бұрын

Hi, Olympus generally does have a very nice color science. But there is 1 special camera that is different - Olympus E-1. It has really unique I would say filmic look. I love it. Yes it;s 5Mpix only but who cares. Above all ergonomically it's a stunning camera. Cheers

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

Tonality and lens quality matter way more! Megapixels don’t take good photos, only photographs can do that right? ✌️

@frstesiste7670 11 ай бұрын

I've been curious about the CCD-myth for a while and watched a couple of videos about the color-differences, including yours. So far I haven't seen anything that's convinced me that the sensor is the cause of any differences. Processing on the other hand has certainly changed a lot over time. Nikon even offer "CCD-profiles/presets" for their RAW conversion software that will emulate colors from earlier cameras. I've never tried those as I don't use Nikon, but it could be interesting if someone did a serious comparison. So far my impression is that CCDs might produce slightly different output than CMOS (after all, different technologies), but the color filters in front of the sensor are much more important and the post processing can basically make the results from any RAW file look indistinguishable from any other RAW file within reason (differences in DR, bit depth and noise is real enough).

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

I know my D300 has some D200 presets. Is that what you mean by CCD presets for Nikon for earlier colors? Maybe I’m missing out on something to test out. Thanks for watching & posting your opinion! I’m not 100% convinced either, there’s too much going on with processing & color science, which is the main story. The filter I didn’t know much about! That effects the output significantly I guess?

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

One more thing, I’m glad you found this valuable amongst other videos too. Many have talked about CCD colors. I tried to be objective as possible. Many haven’t talked about other mitigating factors that skew colors and “look”.

@frstesiste7670 11 ай бұрын

I appreciate that you've tried to be thorough and objective, but there are just so many factors that influence the end results so in the end it is (IMO) impossible to pin it on one specific factor (as the sensor type). And on video I watched (don't remember who) just compared out of camera JPGs to "prove" that the sensor make the difference. One source of data you might be interested in is DXO. They have several interesting detail measurements concerning color, not only the sensor, but sensor + color filter array. Check for example the "Color Response"-tab and the diagrams there and also the "Sensitivity metamerism index" on the same page. Interesting data, but it takes some effort to understand how to interpret the data. Btw, I tested at least two small sensor cameras that were available in both CMOS and CCD-versions and the CCD-versions measured and to me looked (slightly) better at base ISO, but that was first generation CMOS vs last generation CCD and 1/2.5" sensors so hardly representative for APS-C or FF modern CMOS.

@TB-ni4ur 10 ай бұрын

@@frstesiste7670 I agree it's hard to quantify the differences in a scientific and repeatable way. My own experience is that the ccd sensors have far less dynamic range than new cmos sensors, but they don't start clipping the colors as dramatically when that dynamic range is exceeded if that makes sense. So you wind up with less fidelity and color "busyness" within a photo, meaning the shadows aren't as dark, and the highlights aren't as bright. IMO this can give a very natural, smooth, and balanced feeling photo that really draws attention to the subject, whereas new sensors capture way more tonal detail, but that detail can at times seem busy and distracting, leading to that sterile, kind of industrial look. I've heard many people compare that to the way film gets exposed, where exposure of the film is non-linear and at the highlights saturation slows down, and at the low end saturation is faster, which yields more even renditions. This kind of makes sense to me, though I don't have much experience with film. Of course, all this assumes you have plenty of light to start with, the ccds fall apart pretty quick at higher iso...

@frstesiste7670 10 ай бұрын

Slide film and digital has a lot in common in that if you start clipping highlights then there is no recoverable information. The difference is that digital has much better/larger dynamic range than slide film and to avoid abrupt clipping of highlights the camera makers can choose to expose a bit darker which reduce the risk of clipping. A certain sensor will have a fixed DR, but different producers using the same sensor can decide how much darker they will expose and that will also decide how the roll-off towards completely (clipped) white will appear. Of course, protecting the highlights isn't without "cost" since when they process and normalize the exposure for JPGs they introduce more noise in the image if they have to bring up the exposure a lot. That's where large DR improves things as there are simply more data to work with. That's also why (IMO) most modern cameras with sensors with higher DR has better/more natural and more negative filmlike roll-off towards blown highlights than older ones. I've used many older CCD and CMOS cameras and particularly with smaller sensor I've had lots of images with too much clipped highlights. It's still a problem but much less of a problem with all newer cameras and I've been pleasantly surprised by what's recoverable when shooting raw both from fairly small one-inch and MFT sensors. Shooting raw with my cell phone camera doesn't help that much so small sensors is still fairly sensitive to blown highlights even though the advanced processing in the phone do an impressive job. When it comes to negative film (which I assume you were referring to) they handle high contrast scenes much better than slide film. Slide film is designed to be projected and viewed directly and that makes it necessary to make them fairly high contrast and saturated. How much depend on the film. Since you'll never look at the negative film directly it can be made to be much "flatter" and the "punch" is added when the prints are made (or in scanning). You're correct that negative film isn't linear (sensors are) and this allow the film to pack fairly high DR into film with low contrast that to some extent can compete with digital in DR and handle highlight roll-off well.

@dwaynepiper3261 9 ай бұрын

My understanding is that the color filter array on the sensor is not 100% effective for each of the RGB channels. This leads me to question if in the quest for low light, reduced noise, and high ISO performance has the color filters on modern sensors been slightly compromised for increased sensitivity.

@ghostviggen 6 ай бұрын

If you reduce color in the filter you increase sensitivity with the camera.

@uniktbrukernavn 11 ай бұрын

I had to stop using Lightroom because the Adobe color profiles gave me generic colors with the D750 files. I just couldn't get Lightroom to give me Nikon colors, which is why I bought into the Nikon system in the first place. I use NX Studio which is a bit clunky and a bit laggy, but at least I get the colors right. That being said Nikon people always say that everything was much better in the past and "you can't get colors like that no more", "the D700 was built like a tank, you can't get build quality like that no more" :)

@JB_inks 11 ай бұрын

I'm also not impressed with that default Adobe camera raw colour profile. I have several cameras but my favourite is probably the canon 5d which just seems to produce the most beautiful and unique photos out of the camera

@uniktbrukernavn 11 ай бұрын

@@JB_inks Thanks for replying. I thought I was the only one that couldn't get the Adobe Lightroom profiles to look accurate. I thought something was wrong on my end, maybe the Adobe Camera Raw didn't install properly or something... I've embraced the Nikon software and it's fine for what it is, for advanced editing I'll use Photoshop.

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

Yo! what’s your personal experience/opinion with the Nikon’s Camera Standard profiles in LR? I’ve used NX Studio and it’s super exceptional and free! What’s kept me in LR is the ease of getting a particular look with things like LR’s clarity slider (I like negative clarity), dodging & burning, masks, etc… I don’t like Adobe Color with my older cameras. I don’t have a D700, but I have a D200 & D300. Agreed! They are both built like tanks. There’s something about the JPEGS outa the D300 honestly, very colorful, vibrant, and warm. I’ve heard that D300 & D700 are from same heritage.

@JB_inks 11 ай бұрын

@@uniktbrukernavn I think that the current auto preset in ACR makes photos look like they were taken on mobile phones, the colours look really garish. But unfortunately a lot of people like the tonemapped look so I guess they're responding to feedback from the masses

@deepskypics 11 ай бұрын

@@JB_inksI’m not a super fan of Adobe Color either, especially with older cameras. The Camera standard profiles look much better! Thanks for watching & posting your thoughts! I’ve only heard goi things about the Canon 5D.

@normanq1206 10 ай бұрын

I love my Nikon D200. Shoots great images SOC.

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

It does right!? And the more limited dynamic range and filmic look really forces you to expose correctly and think about what your doing - resulting in a better photograph.

@doulos5322 3 ай бұрын

Try using nikons editing software nxstudio vs lightroom

@PaulSafford 6 ай бұрын

Enjoyed your video... Curious, did you just show up at a flower retailer with tripod and a bag of equipment or did you get prior approval? I've observed the same thing with the greens. In trying to understand what's different between CCD and CMOS with the understanding that between the two sensors it's just ones and zeros assigned to RGB channels. So it leads me to think maybe the color green used on sensor filters was different a number of years ago - perhaps the chemical used to make the green became an environmental problem or maybe it became costly so at some point all manufactures migrated to a different green? Just a thought. I do feel the graduation between tones is better on the older cameras. Just an opinion but as the emphasis to retain shadows and highlights became more and more the measure of sensor quality perhaps the way the achieved good benchmarks was to pull back from other aspects of the image processing in camera...?

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

For the flower shops, I just show up with my tripod and camera and they have been nothing but kind and welcoming to me. They even said a women comes here from time to time and her work ended up in our local big museum

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

I can’t be for sure what specific physical properties of the sensors cause these effects, but what I do know I observe these effects in Darktable too, which is more neutral rendering than Lightroom. Making me think it’s really not the color science but something about the physical properties of the CCD sensor.

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

When you build a sensor/processing perhaps you can’t optimize everything. That’s a good point. Maybe the “imperfections” is what made it look real? Ive heard that modern cameras are tuned towards a modern, refined, accurate look, whereas old cameras were tuned in a way to be attractive to people who shot film. Because at time it was a goal to appeal to people who wouldn’t leave film. Think there might be truth in that?

@PaulSafford 6 ай бұрын

@@deepskypics This makes sense, if there was a brand that had a close in spec CCD and then shortly later released a CMOS sensor version that might make an interesting comparison...

@mr.joshmateo 3 ай бұрын

Check out the ccd cameras using the Kodak sensors. Like Olympus e1, e300, e500 or leica m8. The color science is modeled after kodachome. The Nikon you’re using has a Sony sensor and their science is actually more neutral. Try a Kodak sensor if you want those real punchy colors.

@scrptwic 3 ай бұрын

I have 2 Pentax CCD cameras a istDL, & a K100D I bought both new . I have 2 newer Pentax cameras a K3-11 & a K3Mark 3 in order to make the CCD Pictures more vivid I use modern photo editing software I believe the greens are more vivid with the CCD sensors The old CCD Cameras have limitations ISO above ISO 800 are useless . Fast lenses are more critical on the CCD cameras because of the low ISO number I have been able to recover older dark pictures by moving the espourser slider making the colors really come out

@Nick_lolllol_ 3 ай бұрын

D200 looks better

@patrickcazer 6 ай бұрын

didn't the leica M8 have a CCD sensor and was also mirrorless?

@WOLFTICKVIDEOS 10 ай бұрын

I like all of it! 👍🏼

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

Hey thanks mate!! Glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching & taking the time to comment!

@arthurgphotography 4 ай бұрын

So simply put, yes

@deepskypics 4 ай бұрын

Haha yes!!

@timatwater8247 9 ай бұрын

Makes no sense that Nikon and other camera manufacturers would drastically change color rendition or any other major imaging parameter when going from CCD to CMOS sensors. Of course there were probably some minor variables that had to be tweaked over time. I'm testing a Canon S95 vs Canon S100 currently, S95 has a CCD sensor, the S100 has a CMOS sensor. Not much difference in color rendition generally although high ISO is certainly smoother on the S100 but that's another profile/processing variable. The CCD sensor fad is mostly a fad.

@tonetonic2013 10 ай бұрын

The only reason for me to want to switch to a new system is iso performance.. maybe.

@deepskypics 10 ай бұрын

I totally get that and it’s a very valid reason to desire a new camera. My Z50, which I use for filming my latest videos, has much better ISO performance than my D200/D300. I can get away with shooting in the 10,000-12,400 range if I expose well and touch it up with noise reduction. Even higher if I hit the NR hard and give up dynamic range. Pretty remarkable when you really think about that. And, that performance also takes the edge of your lenses (can use lower aperture). If you haven’t yet, check out my vid on LR’s new features where I legitimately shot at ISO 51,200. You might find it intriguing: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6TaiJyeg6x-q7csi=YituqbnOQs0yEUiY

@danielsteinmann6106 4 ай бұрын

The mirror gives beautiful colors.

@benfromatlantis 6 ай бұрын

When you know how to expose and create you don't need to post process most of the time. And THEN you can shoot easily with CCD and you have those beautiful colors. Why do I long for the modern gear when I turn everything upside down in lightroom which means imho that I don't like what the newer gear brings out.

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

Technique and artist vision will always trump technical performance. The photographs Ansel Adams did for example. Did his stuff pass the test of time? Yes indeed!

@pjimmbojimmbo1990 5 ай бұрын

Yes the CCD Sensors are far better at Colour and Contrast than the CMOS. My D200 is still better than my Z9 for Skin Tones

@aceofswords1725 4 ай бұрын

Yup, CCDs are totally better for portraiture. Something to do with how they treat color gradients, almost dithering them in a way with grain, giving a kind of textured softness to skin while preserving contrasty detail where it counts. And I even found that its almost the older the CCD the better, with sweet spot somewhere in 2006-2009 crop of chips.

@dct124 9 ай бұрын

Short answer, Yes. The D200 produces film like images. Also one of the best skin tone cameras ever made.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

I’ve been loving my D200! Been having most fun with it out of my 3 bodies: D200, D300, Z50

@elmelmon 7 ай бұрын

The problem is when you compare side by side but how many times does the admirer of a photograph have the option to compare photos, they don't. I think that the ccd sensor does well as a stand alone image, no one will tell or care if it's a ccd sensor or not, in other words it's the final product that will please or displease. If it has limitations so be it, you just have your work cut out for you, learn to work through the limitations which is what they did and people loved the images.

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

These are words of truth my friend! A good photograph is a good regardless of what equipment was used to take it. New camera/old camera. New mirrorless lens/vintage lens etc…

@TheManFrayBentos 9 ай бұрын

I had a Pentax K10d (CCD) immediately followed by a K20d (CMOS) and didn't notice any difference.

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

Thanks for watching & taking the time to put your thoughts here! In retrospect, I agree! The color profiling from manufacturer/camera has the largest impact on the feel of the overall image. Those Pentax cameras I’ve only heard four things about!

@photo1416 9 ай бұрын

Is there no difference at all in shades of green and blue?@@deepskypics

@deepskypics 9 ай бұрын

@@photo1416 hey mate! I didn’t explain myself very well I think! There is difference! I just think people exaggerate and camera profile is a confounding factor. Also I’ve been using Darktable the last few months and am blown away by it. This is counterintuitive, but you’d think with a very neutral rendering software with no camera profiles, yet miss that specialness, but I’m finding the opposite - hence there is something to the CCD sensor 👌 No video on this yet. Thanks for watching and commenting.

@photo1416 9 ай бұрын

The commentator writes about the specifics of the transition from the ccd 10d to the cmos matrix 20d. I bought a 10d pentax precisely because of the color rendering. I was thinking about buying a pair of 20d for it (the camera fully matches the components of the 10d camera, it's convenient), but another format is confusing. According to a complete and detailed analysis of the color rendering, it is worth comparing in different conditions, and on different textures, including with people, the color tone of the skin is interesting. Differences do not appear everywhere. For example, I noticed a more correct rendering of skin tone color at different ambient color temperatures. When transmitting blue-green shades also in ccd, I did not notice purple influences in the shades of the evening sky, for example, as in later sensors. But it is also not entirely correct to look for features specifically in the ssd factor. For example, a specific color rendering, which is closer to the philosophy of the ssd 5d canon, and this is already a cmos. & I noticed a very close color scheme at the junction of the sensor transition in Olympus.Good luck with your research!)@@deepskypics

@outfield1988 6 ай бұрын

Have a z 50 as well.Good camera

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

Love the Z50! I’ve been using it recently with many quality manual focus vintageNikon’s and have bern having the best time with it. Gotta love that focus peaking.

@GenX_in_the_wild 26 күн бұрын

I have a D40 and the standard colors are already a bit better then life. Only neutral gives you more reference colors. I think modern cameras are just more accurate

@exitar1 7 ай бұрын

YES

@deepskypics 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for stopping by!

@zenden6564 6 ай бұрын

No-one says the Kodak CCD sensor in the M9 has only a milquetoast difference between it and following M10 with CMOS. The difference (for the nerds at least) is quite dramatic. Arty souls tended to prefer the M9's CCD. But higher production costs of CCD and all the R&D went CMOS, so game over. We will never know what bsi (backlit) CCD sensor would've been like. We are all super neutral now, comparatively speaking between the camera makers.

@deepskypics 6 ай бұрын

I did not know that history with the Kodac sensor, but would love to know what a modern CCD would be like! It’s very true, only thing that separates cameras now is the processing science.