Modern CMOS vs Classic CCD: Image Quality Battle | MPB

[@michaelbell75]

Thanks. I have a ton of old CCD sensor cameras, mostly digicams, but I have a few DSLRs as well. It's not so much CCD specifically but how the camera companies wanted the look. In the early days of digital cameras, these companies were trying to emulate a film look to entice film shooters to go digital, which MANY were strongly against. Thats why early Canon and Nikon DSLRs with CMOS sensors (like the 5D and D700) have a more filmic look.

[@paristo]

Setting up a still life scene in studio (full control of lighting). With various items for pure colors, mix of colors and shades etc. Placing two cameras on the cage for easy mounting on the tripod for same perspective, using a same lens on both bodies for exact same optical effect. And then taking photos with identical settings (framing, exposure time, f-stop and ISO) and produce a raw and JPEG. Then open the files on the computer, with color calibrated display, software and all, brought next to that exact same scene. And compare the image shown on the monitor to the naked eye view on the exact same view from still life set. As the CCD sensor produce almost exactly the same colors as one can see in naked eye, and CMOS renders them incorrect by lot, like blue is not blue but purple, or green doesn't have the shades and reds are crushed. How can it be said that CCD is "more filmic" when it is what you see on monitor and on the setup, and CMOS is off so much that you question everything... It can even be done so that the files are printed from color calibrated printer, and then looked next to the actual items, and the CCD is still so close to the real thing that without lot of comparison to minute it is same, but CMOS is like on screen, off by a lot. The "Filmic" look needs to be specified exactly that WHAT film is one referring to, and developed in which way, and printed by what manner! The "film look" is like saying "It is a strange taste", without specifying what kind taste, salty, sweet, sour, bitter or umami, as you can't even specify flavor without those.

[@SD_UK]

I used and loved film for a looong time. I have a D700 and I still really like its image qualities. Is it 'filmic' ? - I don't know if it is. Maybe, a little. But it is definitely 'different' to many and I pfrefer it to anything newer, so far. I read somewhere that the D700 has a Panasonic sensor, possibly because (Sony?) had not got their act together for Nikon to use by that time. That could certainly be another difference. But 2 mins in Lightroom or with Nik collection and any Jpeg straight out of a phone can look more filmic than film ever was ;)

[@stevenjames5611]

@@paristo Which CMOS sensor are you using that produces such "off" colours? Even the D800 has great colour accuracy. It would be worthless comparing an old CCD to a CMOS ftom the same era because the people who say CCD is magic are thinking of modern CMOS cameras when they say that.

[@stevenjames5611]

@@SD_UK Exactly. Those who exclusively shoot JPG talk about Canon or Nikon colours....well, that's the camera taking the RAW and applying some basic image editing. I think this is what a lot of people think about when they talk about old cameras - the processing of the JPG! My old 1MP Kodak was dreadful to use but it produced great looking JPGs...but all that was just bumped saturation and contrast. No magic to it.

[@paristo]

@@stevenjames5611 "Which CMOS sensor are you using that produces such "off" colours? Even the D800 has great colour accuracy." Example from elsewhere (as I don't publish those): kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ_Wio18iJWMh6M And Olympus CMOS sensors are wonderful in that sense, that how accurately they reproduce the colors. And you can easily choose some warmer colors as you see in sun or incandescent light bulbs. And if you prefer blue/green to be popping, you can enable as well that to be boosted to look like in slide films, like ektachrome or kodachrome. I have that era CCD sensors vs CMOS sensors, as well modern CMOS sensors to compare to those two, from Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax etc. Many doesn't understand that 4/3 system that Olympus created, they did it perfect. They knew what is required from optics and all the camera side. And they partnership with the KODAK that knew back then everything about film, colors, papers, chemicals and practical requirements for the final image quality. And Olympus designed and developed a camera system that does produce higher quality of images than was required for > 90% of the photographic requirements. They didn't never design the 4/3 system to be 100% or 99% system. They picked what is for everything than most specialized and custom requirements, and concentrated to make a smallest possible fully digital system that delivers more than required, so that photographer has more freedom to get the photo than what they required, without being the limitation. But that doesn't stop those bashing the system that don't even understand the concept of the photography.

[@dozzaz]

One very important CMOS advantage is ofter overlooked (like in this video) - it's the energy efficiency. CCD cameras were power-hungry to a point where consumer products were not capable of video or even live-view. I mean, it was possible, but would run battery dry very quickly. Professional video cameras with 3 ccd sensors were huge and heavy, with large batteries. And any cameraman would carry many many spares, because they lasted minutes, not hours. So CMOS reaelly was a technology that allowed more power efficient cameras with little tradeoff in image quality (that since has been overcome). Rolling shutter issue for photography makes little different, no more than issues with curtain-shutter vs leaf-shutter back in film days. Yes, for video it is more prominent, but for most consumer grade cameras - video feature would not even be there (as we understand it today) if it wasn't for CMOS.

[@mpbcom]

You are absolutely right, thank you for sharing! There was a paragraph about the 'invisible' differences between the sensors in the script in the beginning but I removed it (along with a few other ones) so to video is not 30 minutes long! I discovered the topic to be much more complex and fascinating than I expected! Thank you again for your input and for watching. - Jakub

[@Desuetus]

MBP prices in Europe are sooo greedy for a second hand shop. Used cameras 5-10 years old at not more than 10% discount. Right now they sell a used Fujifilm X-S20 for 1350eur when a new one is1299eur !! After browsing several times this year, I'm convinced there isn't a single item listed at a fair price on that site.

[@villegas24]

Depends on the camera, i have found good deals on old canon and Nikon DSLRs. The problem with Fuji is that dumb hipsters drove the prices up and made OK cameras way too overpriced so even the used market is overpriced.

[@KSCuberOfficial]

I bought a 5d mkII for $200 in the US during covid, probably a mistake. There are deals but I agree mostly their prices are tight to the market.

[@jeromekahn480]

Il fallait comparer 2 Nikon entre eux, pas un Nikon et un canon sachant que déjà les couleurs sont complètement différentes à la base quel que soit l'appareil vu la différence de colorimétrie, des 2 marques!

[@paristo]

Those can be greedy, but you need to remember that you get a gear that is checked, it is cleaned, it is serviced. Something that you don't really get from the normal second-hand purchase manner. Anyone can clean a gear up to the point, but example how many dare to perform a sensor cleaning? Is it worth to extra? How about 1-6 months warranty to the item? Easy return and money back? I am not defending the high prices, but there is a reason why those things just happen to be so high.

[@Desuetus]

@@paristo MBP say they do a visual check for damage and a basic operation test, that isn't much. Even then, it's still a second hand camera. For used items I am expecting at least 30% discount as a rule. 50-60% for anything older than 2 years. Their discounts for 3-4 year old cameras are 25%, and about 10% for newer cameras. Totally not reasonable from a buyer perspective.

[@mihalyvarju8901]

10 days ago I photographed an event with 2 cameras. A Nikon D3000 ccd camera which I bought from your webstore and a Nikon Z6II Bsi cmos camera. This event was held inside a church, I used the same Nikon speedlight flash, I was shooting raw. Amazingly the old D3000 ccd consumer camera with a much cheaper lens made so nice and true to life puctures that they did not need too much postprocessing in general. The Z6II cmos camera produced not so true to life images. Particularly problematic was that there was a black preacher, the newer camera did not really like this scenario. The old one had no issue with it, even when white and black people were in the same shot. This old consumer level Nikon D3000 is a really super good camera.

[@FactLOCO]

New cameras are racist

[@BrunoChalifour]

Same ISO for both cameras? What color balance did you set the cameras at?

[@banksterkid5930]

Nice to read this... fellow D3000 user.. I got mine in 2010. Best investment.

[@christianmurphy1907]

It didn't like the black preacher? So, the cmos in the Z6II is racist?

[@Brukner841]

a D200 in a D40 body, I should get one too

[@key2adventure]

Great overview, thanks. I shoot both extremely modern CMOS and old style CCD, but I always opt for the older CCD cameras when I'm doing artistic work and not just documenting. To me the images from the CCD looks more "alive" that may be the same as other call more film like, I don't know. I actually sold my newer Fujifilm cameras and went back to a model with the first generation of X-Trans sensor, a Fujifilm X-E1, 16 mpx is plenty enough for most of my work, and the look of that sensor is just amazing in my eyes. But all the Fuji cameras are CMOS, but there's even here a change towards more clinical looking images. I actually had the famed X-100V for some months, but it didn't give the look I was hoping for, just too perfect, however lovely a camera it is to use in other respects.

[@iamaparanoidandroid1]

It's really interesting: I have had a CCD Nikon D50 since they first came out in 2004, and have shot many, many, weddings and events (in a non-professional capacity) with it. Recently, I managed to snag a bargain on a brand new, but old stock CMOS D5500 - Effectively the same market segment camera from the same manufacturer, but a decade or more newer. I have been terribly disappointed with the results - technically much better quality images, but without any of the character of the older camera. So much so, that I am considering selling it, and using the money to send the D50 back to Nikon for a full service, so that it keeps going for another 20 years! Tempted to do a comparison video similar to this one, but showing that the change in colour rendering is not just a manufacturer choice as suggested...

[@key2adventure]

@@iamaparanoidandroid1A suggestion from my side is to get a Nikon D100 which is ofter VERY cheap. It's a 6 mpx CCD sensor just like the D50, and it's a semiprofessional oriented camera with a top display. I still use mine occasionally and it gives awesome looking images. Or you could opt for a D200 with a 10 mpx CCD sensor. It's famed for its image quality, though it's a bit more expensive, but maybe not more than a full service on the D50.

[@alexmirza5210]

A lot must be subjective, but the colours and look from my fuji X-M1 pleases me no end.

[@DI-cm5xc]

Everything is pretty subjective, of course. However, my experience, having previously shot Kodachrome for 30+ years, is that CCD's are a little better when "trying" to match Kodachrome, which I've toyed with for years. Nothing gets really close to Kodachrome, but I find it easier to get somewhat close with CCDs than CMOS. I suspect it's due to the reduced dynamic range and the noise being a bit more grain like. Plus, I like the shutter sound of my D200!

[@mpbcom]

Thank you, it's always good to hear from someone with such a rich experience! I 100% agree about the shutter sound, the old DSLRs have just the crunchiest, pleasant sound when taking a picture. - Jakub

[@Cotictimmy]

“Go capture those clipped highlights.” 🤣

[@joanarling]

Underexpose by 2/3EV and you'll have next to no problem 🙂

[@stevenjames5611]

In many cases, there's very little detail you'd want to recover from a clipped highlight, unless you want to see the filament in a bulb.

[@m.i.andersen8167]

The biggest difference between CCD and C-Mos is the manufacturing cost. C-mos technology revolutionized and democratized the distribution of top notch quality cameras at a price many could afford. I am happy with my modern SONY A7R4 but still use my old CCD 10mpix Leica D-Lux 3.

[@mpbcom]

Definitely, there are pros and cons to each technology. I'm happy to deal with the rolling shutter if the camera is more affordable. Thank you! - Jakub

[@flixfan1]

CCDs look more beautiful in good light. It's as simple as that.

[@davidkellymitchell4747]

That's right. An oil and canvas painting are never as sharp as a photograph but it's nonetheless art that stimulates the senses. If old tools inspire you then use them.

[@fujiuser1968]

As an avid Fuji S5pro user I feel there is something magical and mystical about CCD sensors,although the Fuji pro series used a super CCD sensor which captured the highlights separately..still shooting weddings with a S5pro after all these years and still getting great results,even in jpeg 🙂

[@mpbcom]

It's really impressive you're still shooting weddings with the S5 Pro! It only shows how a great camera it is, despite its age. Thank you! - Jakub

[@SMGJohn]

CCD vs CMOS is misunderstood, its more the CFA (Colour Filter Array) that dictates the colours, older cameras had thicker CFA both CMOS and CCD, so even older CMOS did shoot punchy colour images, check out Canon 400D has a trichromatic sensor that famous among hardcore colour enthusiasts in the camera world alongside beasts like Sony Alpha 900, both are CMOS sensor cameras. The problem with a thick CFA is two folds, poor ISO performance the Sony Alpha 900 quite modern sensor yet only 1600 ISO peak performance, obliterated by Nikon bodies at the time that easily do 12800 without issue but they had a THINNER CFA. The second issue is actually performance in multiple light scenarios, a thicker CFA is very good, in good lighting, but extremely bad in poor lighting whereas a thinner CFA actually produces a more acceptable results in varied conditions. And thats primarily why a thinner CFA won in the long run, it had better ISO performance, it performed better on average versus just really great in good lighting. There are still cameras made today that come with thicker CFA than the norm, like Panasonic full frame bodies such as S1, S1R for example have the thickest CFA then any other modern body. But they do also suffer from the same issues I mentioned, weaker performance in varied lighting and poorer high ISO performance being far noisier then usual.

[@mpbcom]

Thank you for the detailed explanation! I din't know about the CFA but I know I still really like the images coming from the Canon 400D. - Jakub

[@stevenjames5611]

But none of this matters if you only edit RAW files. Olympus colours, and so on, are added by the camera software to JPG outputs. You can edit any RAW to look any way you want, so the hype around CCD colours is only a big deal for those into JPG output.

[@SMGJohn]

@@stevenjames5611 You do realise Colour Filter Arrays are physical thing added to the sensor, it dictates how much dynamic range colours essentially have and how wide colour gamut the sensor can see. Older cameras had strict (thicker) CFA while newer cameras have loose (thinner) CFA duo to thinner CFA gives superior dynamic range in shadows and highlights, while also giving the sensor more light hence better ISO performance, while a thicker CFA gives superior colour accuracy and wider gamut at the loss of DR and ISO. So no, there is a lot more to it then just JPEG colours, just look at RAW files from various cameras from various eras, they are wildly different in colour output. You also cannot crank saturation on colours in a Sony A7r5 to 200% without blowing the colours duo to their limited dynamic range, but do the same thing with a Canon 400D and you will find the colours do not blow out, because its colour dynamic range is far superior.

[@stevenjames5611]

@@SMGJohn Surely you are joking? Better dynamic range and colour accuracy? Modern CMOS sensors kill those old sensors in both departments. The CCD cameras that some people are hyping up, likely so they can sell them at outrageous prices, have limited dynamic range compared to modern sensors. I used plenty of CCD cameras back then, and they all blew highlights into white blobs and crushed blacks to mud and noise. Sure, the pricier ones may have handled it better, but CCD lost out for good reasons. The tests that people do with old CCD cameras versus old CMOS sensors is rubbish. Those people are claiming the old CCD cameras are more magical than modern CMOS cameras, so why not compare them? As for colour...I don't know what you use to edit, but colours can be altered without blowing gamut values. If you want to alter a modern image to give it vibe, nothing wrong with that. I see value in using old tech because it can be fun and challenging, but there is no magic in CCD. The only sensor I'd say that provides measurable difference to both CCD and CMOS is Foveon. Those images have vibe. I've owned and used 2 and they can produce fantastic photos. Plenty of reasons to use old cameras, and I understand why many younger people find hipster vibe in old digicams, but there's a lot of hype, like vinyl versus CD quality arguments. Audiophiles argue similarly all the time. When people are selling Coolpix L10 cameras for $150, that's hype at work.

[@SMGJohn]

@@stevenjames5611 Colours have dynamic range, read my comments and stop reading the first sentence before you go on a complete rave that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

[@kathrynhopkins]

My first DSLR was the D3000. I used it for travel and I loved it because the colours in certain light slightly overexposed were gorgeous and reminded me so much of shooting film - I couldn't replicate it with the D700, but perhaps a bit closer with the D800. I've always found something missing with the CMOS sensors that I can't put my finger on.

[@mpbcom]

It's interesting considering that many people praise the D700 for its "film-like" image quality. I guess it's a very subjective thing! Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts! - Jakub

[@marxiewasalittlegirl]

Finally a video on this topic that makes sense!

[@mpbcom]

Thank you, that's a great compliment! We're glad you enjoyed it. - Jakub

[@MattAtchinson]

CCD definitely has a unique look to it. With heavy editing you can get CMOS to render colors that are pretty close, but I hat having to spend hours editing photos. Software and how the companies programmed color rendition is definitely another factor. I can look through all my Nikon shots and instantly pick out shots from my D1H and D200.

[@mpbcom]

That's a great eye you have, impressive! Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts. - Jakub

[@stevenjames5611]

@@MattAtchinson This doesn't apply to all CCD sensors though. My Olympus C725 isn't making mystical images that are somehow superior. And most old CCD cameras are in that category. Yet, there are people trying to sell them and claiming they are somehow superior when they clearly are not.

[@c0smoKram3r]

The key point is what you summarised with. Older digital cameras were made to look like film cameras of the time and also technology limited their clarity. They just all happen to be on CCD sensors...

[@mpbcom]

I'm glad you agree, thank you! It was really hard to draw a conclusion as the topic of "CCD sensors colours" is a very subjective one. - Jakub

[@dangilmore9724]

The early CMOS sensors and late CCD sensors had or developed sensor read issues. That, and newer editing software for newer operating systems can produce reed error type artifacts. For example, the Canon 1Ss MK II will often show read error streaking or repetitive pattern errors if you edit them on Windows 10, but not when you edit using old software on Windows XP.

[@mpbcom]

That is very interesting, thank you for sharing! - Jakub

[@d.photovids]

Bought a Nikon D200 from MPB a few months ago. Definitely it has a different look from my D7200.

[@mpbcom]

Are you enjoying shooting with it? From my experience it is (still) a great camera. Thank you! - Jakub

[@JGBMix1]

I have 3 ccd cameras, all 3 by Olympus, the E-1, E-400 and the XZ-1, they all produce beautiful images and I use them for specific photos, colours are Kodak look. I have also the Olympus live mos sensor cameras like the OM1, what I can tell is that the old cameras makes more film like photos and that is what many people likes.

[@mpbcom]

It looks like the Kodak-produced sensors have an almost cult-following amongst some photographers! It's a shame Kodak is not involved in the sensor manufacturing anymore as many people praise those sensors for the specific look of photos they render. Thank you for sharing, those are great cameras you have! - Jakub

[@paristo]

@@mpbcom "It's a shame Kodak is not involved in the sensor manufacturing anymore as many people praise those sensors for the specific look of photos they render." What is interesting as so many praise, like you said "cult-following" way the Olympus E-1 colors. Yet when compared to other Olympus m4/3 bodies like E-M1 or E-M10, the CMOS sensor gives almost identical colors. This is from the Olympus own color profiling to stay in that old school colors it is famous really. So it doesn't matter do you get old CCD or CMOS with Olympus, you get same colors basically.

[@scarabeobop]

I agree, I have owned numerous Olympus models, 4/3rds and micro4/3rds and the color rendering is very similar on all. Right now I have an E500(ccd) , E420(l-mos), and a Stylus1 (CMOS). When looking through files I often have to check to see which camera I used and I am usually surprised. The Kodak CCD has a slightly more muted color rendition but the e420 is so close and can be adjusted closer. Also I have read that the l-mos/n-mos sensor design increased the light gathering or something that puts it's characteristics closer to the CCD, but I am not certain about that. I think it is safe to say that one-way or another Olympus has attempted to keep the color signature the developed with Kodak.

[@averywagg1839]

Thanks for your description of the differences between the two types of sensors. I have a Nikon D90 as well as a Leica M11. While I use them for very different tasks, I love them both (I had to look up the fact that my D90 actually uses a CMOS sensor).. ..Avery

[@mpbcom]

You're welcome! Thank you for watching and enjoy shooting with your cameras! - Jakub

[@tomfenn7149]

I have two Ricoh GR's. One, a GR3, has a CMOS sensor. The other, a GRD IV, a CCD. The latter isn't 'better', instead it's different. It has slightly less contrast. Most cheap 35mm film camera lenses, the lenses most everyday people used, were cheap lenses and often lacked the snappy contrast of say, Nikon lenses. High contrast can be imitated on the GRD4 and Ricoh does this well but only in jpeg mode, but the slightly softer image along with the more controlled grain structure and then having to push clarity in post leads to a more 35mm film-like effect. It's subtle, but it's certainly there. However that all said, the biggest improvement CCD has over CMOS is that the sensor being smaller increased the depth of field meaning that one can get deep DoF even with relatively large apertures. This is perfect for street photography, and when added to the gritty, but softer lower contrast image from the CCD, gives a more 35mm experience. Of course all this is generally subjective, and to many I will possibly be talking a load of shite. Isn't photography a wonderful thing?!

[@mpbcom]

It is, we 100% agree! It is amazing how having access to the same tools, photographers make different choices. Not one camera is 100% perfect and suits everyone. Thank you for watching and for sharing your experience! - Jakub

[@whateverrandomnumber]

CCDs are terrible at: high ISO (i.e. high gain) and long exposures - both cause exaggerated grain. Having said that, I love the colour rendition of my Leica M9 (bought used), but that is probably more related to manufacturer's internal LUT processing and Bayer colour filter selection. Medium format also used CCDs exclusively until very recently (2017), producing undeniably great results (with the caveats described above).

[@mpbcom]

I'm sure if the manufacturer's haven't abandoned the development of consumer CCD sensors we would see the improvement in noise performance but these days only the older CCD based cameras are available. We have a really interesting review of medium format CCD digital backs on our content hub: www.mpb.com/en-uk/content/kit-guides/review-phase-one-p45-plus-medium-format-digital-back Thank you! - Jakub

[@whateverrandomnumber]

​@@mpbcomyou reminded me that even the models released in 2017 (IQ2) were based on sensor technology from 10 years prior, and that may indeed explain the noise penalty. P65+ and IQ1 had a long exposure limit of 30 seconds is in not mistaken, and the IQ2 pushed it to 2 minutes - even though people still don't recommend trying to use that long exposure due to noise. So maybe you are right in that CCD wouldn't have fallen behind CMOS, had the manufacturers continued to invest in it's development... 🤔

[@luzr6613]

I think the argument regarding the manufacturers of early digitals needing to emulate the look of 'proper photographs' - film - is almost certainly correct. As digital market penetration increased and its potential became more apparent, it's reasonable to think that the 'film-look' imperative became less important. Certainly, the most 'filmic' of my CCD cameras is also the oldest - a 2003 Oly E-1. I'd love to see minutes and discussion notes from around that period that document manufacturers thinking on just how they were going to crack the market and make the new technology fly - i think this would be very revealing.

[@mpbcom]

That would be a very interesting read, indeed! Thank you for watching. - Jakub

[@xeentjelief]

I miss (my) old Pentax K10d. CCD does indeed have that same effect on younger people that Older people have who are still rocking their Nikon FM’s, Canon AE-1’s or Pentax K1000’s or Spotmatics occasionally. Unfortunately the K10 was on loan. Otherwise I’d probably still have it and use it too sometimes.

[@mpbcom]

You can get the K10D used for under £100 / slightly over $100. It is still a great camera if you know how to work around its limitations. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@joelee24]

Thanks for the video, you made a fair and logical comparison between the 2 types of sensors. You are right that modern CMOS sensors corrected most problem and surpassed CCD in many use cases, it is up to the users to determent the kinds of image they wanted from the camera. CCD is not dead, just like film is not dead, it is just not for every one depends on use cases.

[@mpbcom]

It definitely isn't dead! It's just another brush we can use if we want to. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@richardwalker4518]

Thanks for the constructive discussion on this. There is definitely a group of aficionados online who believe in the 'magic' of CCD's. I don't particularly agree, I see them more as older tech, lower resolution and with less dynamic range than more current CMOS sensors. That said I have no doubt they can still produce great images and I think the real draw for those older cameras is you can get something built for professional use, tough and reliable for beer and chips money (although fairly big and heavy with it). Probably a great option if you want a cheap workhorse for your vintage lenses. If you really want the film look on digital, I would say go for any Fuji mirrorless. Not only because of their film simulations and the facility to create your own ones, but because of the characteristics of the X Trans sensor with respect to noise, which to my eyes looks much more filmlike than the modern CMOS designs.

[@srri8912]

I would like to hear your definition of a 'filmic' look...what is it exactly? Is it something one can put in words?

[@mpbcom]

That's a tough one! The easiest way of putting this would probably 'one that looks like analog film', but it doesn't explain much, I imagine. There are so many film stocks and I wouldn't call the look of Velvia or Ektar very 'filmic'. So let's say 'filmic' lives in the same space with phrases like 'tones', 'cinematic' and 'creamy bokeh' - everyone feels what they mean but it's hard to put it into words. Would you agree? - Jakub

[@wakkowarner8810]

I just bought an arri alexa studio camera with optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter from your site. It’s so nice to have the same camera that Roger Deakins loved to use. I am glad you guys sell vintage video cameras. I would love to get my hands on a working Sony F35 just to play around with.

[@mpbcom]

Ah, sounds like a dream, enjoy your Alexa! As for the F35, I would love to try one myself but they are so rare to come by. Fingers crossed you'll find one some day. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@Jim-BobWalton]

Exactly! I love the imperfections! Somehow the “perfect” can often be meh.

[@mpbcom]

Agree! I also really like the imperfections and happy accidents while taking photos. - Jakub

[@thenexthobby]

Good overview. Every piece of gear needs to support whatever you’re trying to achieve, in the way you need it accomplished. And if you can’t get an old CCD camera working, there are endless KZbinrs who will sell you a Lr preset pack to achieve the same look.

[@mpbcom]

Thank you! We need to think of creating a "MPB CCD camera" preset pack then 😉 - Jakub

[@xmeda]

I like Olympus XZ-1 RAW images with ISO100 and maybe ISO200, but anything else looks way worse than what XZ-2 with BSI CMOS can do easily up to ISO800. Another comparison might by my Pentax K10D with 10Mpix CCD vs my K20D which has 14.6Mpix CMOS. K10D images above ISO400 are worsening very quickly, ISO800 is ceiling for normal use. K20D with its Samsung CMOS sensor has plenty of fine data and is good up to ISO1600. K5 with Sony 16Mpix CMOS then beaten them both with dynamic range, although those images tend to have a bit of pinky tint even in uncorrected RAW while K20D was more towards green. But then K3 or Olympus EM5III which I also use now are levels above with image output. Crisp images thanks to no AA and fine resolution.

[@mpbcom]

ISO performance is definitely a weak point of CCD sensors... I wonder how would it look if both types of sensors were still being developed? We will never know! Thank you for watching and sharing your thoughts! - Jakub

[@TheOffertonhatter]

I think you are right. I love both CCD and CMOS for different reasons, and some of it is the manufacturers processing units in the camera. I loved the 10MP CCD by Sony, and indeed you can create wonderful images. And yet, for a wonderful reason, Pentax managed to create a superb blue from the CCD, that neither Canon nor Nikon could match. Indeed the resulting images had whet may photographers who used the other brands called "Pentax Blue" which they loved and could not match with their cameras. I cannot even match easily with my CMOS Pentax bodies. The flip side, is that the low light ability of CMOS is somthing I need and my old K10D could never meet. So horses for courses really. If you love playing with an old CCD, go for it. If you prefer CMOS, then again, go for it. Photography is fun and it is great to see old cameras still being used creatively and lovingly.

[@mpbcom]

Photography is fun, indeed! I had loads of fun while playing with the older CCD sensors, mostly due to their limitations. It's an interesting fact about the "Pentax Blue", I didn't know that. Thank you! - Jakub

[@scotthullinger4684]

Both CCD and CMOS are capable of very high image quality. Hmm, so which differences actually matter? CCD are more expensive to manufacture, require more battery power, and exhibit more digital noise especially at high ISO. But seriously, both are easily capable of very high image quality. CCD might have a slight edge in color.

[@The157ra]

Very instructive video thanks.My take is to compare Konica Minolta 5D to Sony A100. Both are CCD cameras where the A100 was an upgrade to the 5D. Yet, to me, the A100 has the same CMOS look that both the later Sony CCD and CMOS cameras have. I think Minolta colours were better than Sony colours, but plainly it had nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS. Regards.

[@mpbcom]

I agree, it may have more to do with a Minolta/Sony approach to rendering colour than the sensor tech itself. Thank you! - Jakub

[@phant0m597]

I have just been gifted a Fujifilm FinePix s3200 CCD sensor camera. This is my first ""real" camera and it has been a joy to learn the more in depth settings and configurations associated with a slightly more high end (than a smart phone) sensor. PLEASE forward any tips or wisdom to my comment section! I have received tons of praise from strangers so I believe I am on the photography track! I desperately wants to learn from you all.

[@ericfernando4296]

CCD Global shutter has the advantage of syncing flash at any shutter speed. But sadly, not all CCD sensors are capable of that because they're hindered by physical shutter blades.

[@mpbcom]

Global shutters are extremely exciting! It was nice to see Sony popped one in the new A9 III! We hope that means we'll see the technology infiltrate through to a lot of new bodies! Thanks for watching! Amy

[@Koji-888]

I believe the Nikon D70 can do flash at 1/8000

[@ericfernando4296]

@@Koji-888 yes they can! But CCD cameras after d70 like d200 or sony a350 can't sync that fast

[@slr7075]

Nikon D200 for CCD and D700 for CMOS.

[@mpbcom]

Thank you for the recommendation! I've enjoyed shooting with the D200 a lot, and I've heard a lot of good things about the D700. - Jakub

[@alexmirza5210]

It's just that the D750 may be better for not too much more outlay used.

[@robertdavenport6705]

My second photo show was comprised 0f 20x30" photos shot on my first camera , a Nikon D80 , a Nikon DX700 (?) and a Nikon D750 full frame. The D80 could not be pushed past ISO 400 without degraded imaging , nor could the other two be pushed much further. But the sharpest images and maybe the "best looking" photos came from the D80 . This was probably from being aware of its limitations and shooting within certain limits . Just an observation. Some of my favourite more recent photos , however , were shot on an old shirt pocket sized ( maker forgotten ) camera with really limited pixel count , very limited dynamic range and base ISO reasonable lighting. Very Tri-X looking and very satisfying . But meant for small print size only . Small prints are vastly under-rated as show works.

[@mpbcom]

It's definitely true what you are saying: there is just so much more ingredients of a good photo than just the camera. And being aware of its limitations really helps. I even dare to say, those limitations actually push us to be even more creative! Thank you! - Jakub

[@jamespowers8826]

A distinction without a difference. At least in a practical sense. Most folks are more interested in the subject of the photo than the tech that produced it. I shot film from 1960 when I got my first real camera at age 10, until I started working with the early digital cameras in around 2000. And I use the latest stuff today. I have no nostalgia for any of the technology, especially film. Even though I shot 10s of thousands of photos on film, I was alway frustrated with its limitations. And after thousands of hours in a darkroom looking at magnified film grain on the printing frame, I never wanted to see grain again. Never could tell any real difference between CCD and CMOS that couldn't be attributed to the difference in camera CPU's and image processors. I have observed that a lot of younger folks carry around "vintage" digital cameras more as eye candy than photographic tools, so I guess it's harmless.

[@stevenjames5611]

It's mostly about lower res, softer images, and in-camera colour processing. My old Kodak 1MP made great JPGs, but it was horribly slow, ate batteries (6-8 shots max), used a serial connector, tiny memory, had a tiny screen, no useful controls, and only output JPG. Great colours, but it was just the processing.

[@neilpiper9889]

I use an original Ricoh GR digital with 8 megapixels for black and white set to 800 iso. Lovely filmic images like a pushed Kodak TriX film. I use a Nikon D40x for colour. Images look like my older Kodachrome slides.

[@mpbcom]

That's a great idea to intentionally use the Ricoh GR's lower resolution and the higher ISO to achieve a specific look! As for the Nikon D40x, it proves that indeed, there is something that resembles the old Kodachrome in photos coming from CCD sensors. Thank you! - Jakub

[@alexmirza5210]

I think the best pro cameras have had a lot of work done on the colour science and noise reduction algorithms. In conjunction with the high dynamic range they probably give the best images irrespective of the no of megapixels.

[@rsrocket1816]

Cameras like the Olympus e500 uses a Kodak CCD sensor. Kodak put a lot of effort to make their sensor output "look" like color film or color slide (Kodachrome) colors. Early sensors did not have a strong IR cut filter in front of their sensors. I get great IR photographs with nothing more than an R72 filter in front of my Nikon D100 and e500. The photos look a lot like Konica 750 or better yet, Kodak HIE IR film. I even have a Kodak DSC 210 Plus 1MP camera! The jpegs produced 300 kB images but the colors were great and I could even make 8x10 prints that were presentable back in the early 2000's.

[@mpbcom]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! There is definitely a great potential in the older tech. It look like the Olympus e500 has quite a cult following amongst some photographers, it's not the first time I'm hearing about it. - Jakub

[@GenX_in_the_wild]

I sold a few of these older CCD digi cams and the buyers where all young. They use them for parties and play evenings to make pictures with the flashlight. Because smartphones have LED flashlight and it does not look the same. I have to agree that with the Xenon flashlight there is some retro vibe happening. They hand out the camera and everybody makes a few pictures so at the end they have pictures from everybody from that party. I think it is a cool idea..

[@mpbcom]

It is a cool idea! It's a bit similar to people handing disposable film cameras at weddings to the guests, I think. Definitely a different experience than taking photos on smartphones. Thanks for watching! - Jakub

[@StripedTailz]

the film like look only comes from ccd camera that do not use anti aliasing or noise reduction, newer cameras that use ccd (2004>) have this and it removes the filmic look that the older cameras have it's a bit weird.

[@C_iMAGE]

Try comparing outdoor images in good light, and compare straight out of camera jpegs. Perhaps it’s just the jpegs engine, but the difference between a Kodak ccd to a modern Sony cmos …. Is undeniable.

[@mpbcom]

I think it is mostly the in-camera JPG rendering but I agree, the JPGs coming from cameras equipped with a Kodak CCD are loved by many photographers. So it is true, they may look better straight out of camera for some. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@villegas24]

I think people just feel nostalgic and most of what people like about the CCD is that influencers are editing the pictures a certain way.

[@mpbcom]

That might be the case as well. Thanks for watching! - Jakub

[@blubberflutsch]

I also was sceptic about that. But after using a Leica M8.2 for two weeks, I can say that the colors right from the camera are significantly more vibrant compared to my "modern" Sony cams. A am also not sure, if this has something to do with the CCD principle. I guess it is more due to the different CFA (color filter array) and different signal processing by the camera software in order to look closer to film.

[@villegas24]

@@blubberflutsch as a Sony shooter I can honestly tell you, it’s not difficult to get more punchy files compared to the Sony ones 😂 I love my Sony but the files are just boring af

[@villegas24]

@@blubberflutsch as a Sony shooter I can honestly tell you, it’s not difficult to get more punchy files compared to the Sony ones 😂 I love my Sony but the files are just boring af

[@richardclements2134]

CCD Vs SuperCCD? The Fuji marketing (and my own experience) was that the low light level capability of the SuperCCD was great.

[@mpbcom]

I could definitely see some advantages of the SuperCCD sensor in terms of capturing details in the highlights. I need to check the shadows detail as well then, thank you for sharing! - Jakub

[@VinceWatches]

This video is proving that classic DSLR (CCD or CMOS) have the best value today and are absolutely able to compete with mirrorless expensive camera in term of image quality (except perhaps on extreme wildlife photography due to new AF tracking ability)

[@mpbcom]

I was surprised myself how well the older cameras performed in the tests. Of course, it was in a controlled environment and I didn't need any of the advanced features like tracking AF or extremely high ISO performance. But I agree, there is still plenty of life in those DSLRs. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@VinceWatches]

@@mpbcom Thank you for this very instructive video !

[@nanoulandia]

Whether both images can be made to look the same color-wise is a bit besides the point. Sure, modern tech can do a lot of things but I don't want to spend hours in front of a screen tweaking things. I have been using digital cameras for almost 20 years now but I never felt quite 100% happy with the results. I am now slowly understanding why.

[@mpbcom]

I think modern Fujifilm cameras with their powerful JPG engines may be an answer to your needs then! Me too, I don't like spending hours tweaking things in front of a computer but I'm always curious what is happening 'under the hood', hence the RAW tests. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@nanoulandia]

@@mpbcom Thanks but that won't work for me (publication, exhibits). I have also owned (and sold) several Fuji cameras. Not crazy about them (bought them because I prefer having analog dials). My comment was that I prefer to get the results I want from the sensor rather than post-processing to achieve a specific look.

[@GenX_in_the_wild]

Haha.. Love the intro!

[@mpbcom]

Thank you, I had fun making it! 🙂 - Jakub

[@garylouis493]

One of the key things is price. I only bought a second hand*istDL2 and a K10d the other week, last SLR i had was a ME Super. Digital cameras are far to expensive, but the K10d was £43 with kit lens. We miss the point about this Vs that. The quality of the older camera and cheaper by miles and great fun, colourful and small and easy to use. For under £50. You can compare because it's like say my car that cost so much money from 2004 (vw polo) compared to a new car.

[@samwang5831]

The old CCD have a film look that a lot of people like. Most people want to post the pics right away without spending any time on pp. If CCD gets the young people use dedicated cameras more that can only be good in the long run.

[@kennyadvocat]

CMOS is a game changer. I finally upgraded my Nikon D90 camera. Modern cameras have way less noise!

[@mpbcom]

It definitely is! That's why CCD consumer cameras are no longer produced. Thank you for watching and I'm glad to hear you like your D90. - Jakub

[@daviehudson4270]

Most of my sensors are CCD mainly because when they were made they contained hopes dreams and fairy dust.

[@bobmorr2892]

I think you pretty much got it

[@mpbcom]

Glad to hear you agree, thank you! - Jakub

[@stevew7779]

Not all modern sensors are alike. X-trans sensors give a far more film-like look straight out of camera and even more if edited in raw. I get the appeal of the old cameras but will be sticking to my XT2 and XH1 :)

[@mpbcom]

You're right, some people also praise the Foveon sensors for their look and image quality. It's just good to have a choice! Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@scrptwic]

I have 2 CCD DSLR 6 Megapixel Crop sensor cameras and 2 CMOS 24 Megapixel Crop sensor cameras. I use all my cameras modern editing programs make the CCD sensor camera pictures colors stand out and more vivid over the CMOS cameras to me but a part of it is the subject you are photographing like fall foliage or Roses

[@DianneStudio]

nice video. thank you... but same tech is ther in old time why companys try to push cmos for this much year and use the CCd tech tech shows now as a new tech. i feel its all marketing to keep there business so people buy there product and and keep what they sell. and make buyers always waiting for new product...

[@JikoMuskato]

When I started with photography it was pretty much like "look for a CMOS, avoid CCD!"

[@mpbcom]

It's very interesting how our approach to any tech changes over time. Eg. why do we still shoot film? There is no logical explanation to it. Thanks for watching! - Jakub

[@Juventinos]

complicated subject imo. I'm in an unique and privilaged position of having a GFX 50s ii and a Hasselblad h4-50. and my god the differences are huge. I thought the GFX would replace my hasselblad, but no. The GFX is a much better experience, fabulous camera. . but the images from that CCD huge sensor are to die for.

[@mpbcom]

It is a complicated subject, I agree. And there is definitely a room for both sensor types to coexist so we can choose which one to use. Thank you for sharing! - Jakub

[@victorboucher675]

It is the artist, not the brush.

[@erichstocker8358]

My belief is that the sensor issue is an illusion. The CCD had certain limitations. The camera manufacturers understood these and developed processors with color science that took advantage of these limitations and therefore set their colors to be like old slide film that also had similar limitations. The CMOS sensor had different types of limitations but allowed a more expansive view of dynamic range, etc. So the processors provided my the manufacturers maximized their use of the CMOS more expansive restrictions. I think that it has been shown by others that one can take an image from a CMOS sensor and make it look just like one from an old CCD. It depends upon what one wants.

[@ulfjonsson2122]

Very interesting video

[@mpbcom]

Thank you! Glad you found it interesting. - Jakub

[@dadautube]

as said in the video already, each one of these two types of sensors have their own advantages as well as disadvantages ... and again, as said already in the video, there are no high-res CCD sensors out there unless in highly specialized applications, which the average photog out there cannot afford to own and use them anyways ... so, making a fair comparison between the two sensor types is not easy ... as for the global vs rolling shutter, there are CMOS sensors with global shutters as well just as some older CCD sensor cams came out with rolling shutters ... either way, none can beat film in terms of 'true resolution' ... and probably never will ... with film, the resolution is 'inherent' in the emulsion ... with digital, resolution has to be 'achieved' in post by tweaking the image, often highly, very highly, which results in what i'd call a 'mock resolution' ... there are at least a few other 'bad' issues which digital sensors suffer from as well, such as when they are exposed to direct harsh sunlight for a long time for example, which can and will damage the sensor ... film doesn't have that problem ...

[@stevenjames5611]

Have you seen the resolution of a Z9 with high quality Z glass? No 35mm film comes close. Even an old Foveon like the DP1 is amazingly sharp. Have owned 2 Foveons and they are amazing, but one died and the other has a bad shutter. So, my days using them are over I think 😢

[@dadautube]

@@stevenjames5611 sorry, i'm not sure if this comment is in response to mine ... i'd answer anyways : yes, digital photography and videography have so many advantages over film that it would be stupid to use film for most commercial works now ... but as for 35mm film emulsions resolution lacking in comparison to digital sensors, then you are probably not aware of certain facts about film emulsions of all kinds ... for example, cine positive film, both B&W as well as color, can have ISO as low as 0 (yes: ZERO! NOPE! NILL!) resulting in super fine grain / ultra high resolution images suited for extremely large screens ... while the lowest resolution of digital sensors right now is barely 50 to the best of my knowledge ... and i'm only scratching the surface in here ... (and if you don't know what that means when it comes to photographic resolution talks, then you and i have nothing more to talk about in here ...) just to top it off and end the conversation, let's consider this for a change : great cinema directors like Scorsese for example, still prefer to use film material for their movies ... (but yes, then after the film is developed, it's scanned and edited using digital editing technologies ...)

[@Narsuitus]

I shoot weddings and other social events with two Fuji S5 Pro APS-C bodies and I keep one brand new and unused body as a backup. I rarely shoot my S5 Pro above ISO 800. My S5 Pro does not do video. I shoot weddings and other social events with two Fuji X-Pro1 APS-C bodies and one X-Pro2 APS-C body. I shoot my X-Pro1 up to ISO 25,600 and my X-Pro2 up to ISO 12,800. I shoot stills and video with my X-Pro cameras. Excluding ISOs over 800, at the same settings, I see no significant difference between the S5 Pro CCD still images and the X-Pro CMOS still images.

[@mpbcom]

I imagine shooting weddings with S5 Pros requires a lot of knowledge and experience! Even though its image quality holds up well, its AF definitely is not the fastest out there. But still, it clearly shows that it is still a very capable camera. Thank you for sharing! - Jakub

[@Narsuitus]

@@mpbcom Back in the 1900s, I shot weddings with manual focus prime lenses on film cameras. When I went digital in the 2000s, I started using auto focus zoom lenses on digital cameras. Auto focus speed and auto focus accuracy were never a problem for me on my Fuji S5 Pro or X-Pro mirrorless digital cameras. However, I am still unable to manually focus as quickly and as accurately on my APS-C digital cameras as I can on my full-frame film cameras.

[@TheManFrayBentos]

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

[@mpbcom]

I don't think you can see much difference without a proper pixel-peeping session. So it looks like, in fact, the manufacturer's approach to color has bigger impact than the sensor itself. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@Sasha-Good]

CCD cameras are great, but CMOS cameras are faster and usually have more MPx. I love the images by Nikon D70 & D70s, but it is only a camera. I think we all need a new CCD DSLR camera for fun and new experiences.

[@mpbcom]

I 100% agree, they all can be good if used by a skilled photographer. It would be great if manufacturers were open for such experiments! Thanks for watching! - Jakub

[@lensman5762]

My introduction to CCD sensors was with Nikon D70, and then D200. I was also in deep sky imaging where Peltier Cooled CCDs were the only viable option due to their low noise and high dynamic range. The colour produced by a sesnor is mainly the result of the algorithms used to reconstruct the data from the sensor into a photograph. CCD renders differently from CMOS, but I am not so sure that one is more valid than the other one, as these are quite subjective to evaluate. CCDs do not suffer the ill effects of a rolling shutter, and are inherently less noisy than a CMOS, but they are slower and much more expensive to produce. The sensor used in the majority of scientific applications, though is always a CCD.

[@mpbcom]

Thank you for your input on the topic. When researching the topic, I found quite a lot of contradicting articles about the use of CCDs in scientific imaging. Some of them said CCDs are still superior while others said CMOS has already caught up in terms of image quality. I guess it depends on whether the company commissioning it is a producer on CCD or CMOS sensors 😉 Thank you! - Jakub

[@danMdan]

Since when did light come in particles as said at the beginning in the explanation of how sensors work.

[@mpbcom]

From my research I learned that light is both a particle and a wave. I'm no expert on physics but quite a few trusted sources say that about light. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@danMdan]

Saying that light has the "properties" of a particle and of a EM wave is not the same as saying it is composed of one or the other, or even of both at the same time. We have to head for the complexities of Quantum mechanics. However - love the video.

[@mpbcom]

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining! Glad you liked the video. - Jakub

[@fthprodphoto-video5357]

4:01 the orange cast is so strong on the cmos camera despite all the color matching post processing ! This is exactly the issue with cmos : it’s a nightmare in mixed lighting conditions

[@portofino8823]

It's the combination of CCD, old glass and color science.

[@deejayiwan7]

I still use D3s, D810 and even D90...

[@josgeusens4637]

I don't care what sensor type is used. What I care about is that the information that I can get out of my sensor is usable for me. Kodachrome was one of the most used films back then and it's resolution, contrast and colour reproduction was very good, but I never liked what it did to overexposed highlights, especially when clouds were overexposed. It is also important what our lenses transmit, not only the sensor or film. The dynamic range can be influenced by a lens and definitely the colours. So, there is that. CCD or CMOS? who cares?

[@jls2975]

CCDs dont have the same sprectral response They cost much more than CMOS maybe higher quality bayer color filters than cheap CMOS

[@jan-martinulvag1962]

I have 30 cameras and I only shoot jpegs and all cameras produce different pictures. Its like coffee. You drink a lot of different brands and that way you learn more about the particular brand you prefer.

[@mpbcom]

I'm jealous of your camera collection, that's impressive! I like your approach to taking photos in jpg only. Thank you for sharing! - Jakub

[@paulsebring5326]

MPB it's cool you're making videos, but the sound effects i found obsessive, and CCD or CMOS doesn't make much difference if you sell one that's filthy.

[@AnnmarieBierce-n1f]

Turcotte Lock

[@ahmedkhalad-lf9sl]

nice

[@WallisMamie-f8y]

Cole Hollow

[@Javifoto]

Why no “photo KZbinr” goes deep into the topic? You missed the critical difference at the beginning that explains all outcomes.

[@mpbcom]

What is that critical difference you have in mind? I think photo KZbinrs don't go deep into the topic as they are mostly interested in the output of the sensors, leaving the technical nitty-gritty to engineering KZbinrs. - Jakub

[@lopemac]

CMOS sensors were hyped up when they came out, like the best thing since sliced bread, but all they did was disappoint me, since I love capturing video. CMOS was tech going backwards to make things cheaper. It's gotten much better now, but still not for video. Now CMOS is going to start being like CCD sensors and I can't wait for that tech to spread everywhere. Like drones, action cams, and cellphones. I hate the jelly effect 🤢

[@mpbcom]

Fortunately there are more and more global shutter CMOS sensors in video cameras! It will probably be a matter of a few years for us to enjoy jello-free video in consumer cameras. Thank you! - Jakub

[@lostson1st]

CCD hype gives new live to old cameras.

[@georgemoua7349]

Foveon is the superior sensor.

[@SpencerLupul]

Leica m8 forever!

[@mpbcom]

It is such a pleasant camera to use! Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@eltinjones4542]

I couldn't tell the difference 😂

[@mpbcom]

Don't worry, you are not the only one! 🙂 I've spent a long time examining the full-res photos so I found some differences but still I wouldn't call them evident. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@CocoKoi321]

People who die for ccd sensors never shot film in their life Digital will never look film like Let me explain The difference and thing is, is that film works by not only reversing negatives through light and using special dyes and chemicals to make the film. But film also does not have blacks. It's like LCD vs amoled. Amoled can make inky blacks through turning off individual pixels while film is like LCD where the blacks are still backlit Film you have blacks in low light that still look grayed out and still will never be a natural black like pixels turned off as an example. While Digital you need the fastest as possible f1.2s of the world and good shutter speed to really capture a whole scene without grain to light up the whole area! Not just getting rid of grain it's about lighting up the whole SCENE as well It's just down to the technology. You can tell when somethings blacked out and you need more shutter speed to light up an area on a Digital display. My sony and tamron at f2.8 I'll still have areas in the background where they're blacked out when shooting at a street lamp post We will only get film like Digital technology until we get new sensor technology that somehow mimics this design inside film photography. Where like the lcd vs amoled comparison. Get the whole frame still lit up instead of blacked out black areas in frame Stop chasing gear is my recommendation stop chasing fads stop wondering if you need to sell your sony or nikon or canon or leica to get fuji 🙄 If you have a camera and a prime lens you're all set that's all you need and all your mission is... is to get good at shooting photos you're proud of and figuring out what style of photography you love to shoot THATS it. It's not about brand either I mean so yes colors are a big thing to want to be perfect and brands have certain colors but if you just chase taking the best photos. Colors won't matter and especially the fad of *film like* excuses If you chase wanting everything in Digital to look film like.. shoot film then... you just really need to practice being good with anything Anyways sorry the long tangent

[@mpbcom]

Thank you for sharing your view on the topic, it was an interesting read. Of course, digital will never be exactly like film but I still believe that if a camera inspires you to go out and take photos (even if it's just because it has a retro-styled body) then it's worth it! "your mission is... is to get good at shooting photos you're proud of and figuring out what style of photography you love to shoot". I couldn't agree more, thank you! - Jakub

[@RandomLifeProductions]

Here is the thing all this is hype, and people with gear acquisition syndrome. A good filmmaker can work with the least expensive cameras. I use a Leica SL2 s and have used a Contex Carl zeis 50 year old lens… results fantastic….

[@mpbcom]

I think people are also looking for something new, something that inspires them. And an old, re-discovered tech can be one of those things. You're using a vintage lens on a high-end digital body, that's also something that sparks your creativity, even though you have access to a much 'better' equipment 🙂 Thank you for your take on the topic! - Jakub

[@dwaynepiper3261]

Actual Optics quality has not advanced a lot in the past 50+ years. The major improvements have been in useability features such as image stabilization, autofocus, and glass coatings. In fact, I would bet actual optics have been compromised for profit and compensated for with digital processing correction. More glass elements may not mean better either. With better coatings, you can use more elements that are cheaper to manufacture to replace a higher quality expensive single-glass element with high curvature requirements.@@mpbcom

[@RichardFraser-y9t]

'light particle', erm, ok.

[@mpbcom]

I'm aware it is a simplified and not 100% accurate explanation. I didn't want the video to be 30 minutes long and my main focus was how do the actual photos compare. Thank you for watching and hopefully you can turn a blind eye to some not-so-accurate technical explanations! - Jakub

[@PalmerZora-e1s]

Hugh Turnpike

[@1225KPH]

Every model in your videos should wear a nose ring.

[@crawford323]

I'll keep my Hasselblad H3D-39 . If you stay within its ISO sweet spot, it is fantastic! The camera is clunky and does not compare to the versatility of modern features but each pixel at 6.8 microns is big light gulping buckets of image making joy. But, no you wouldn't like it so avoid them please so we can buy them real cheap. Seriously the camera will frustrate you. It's for your own good. Seriously. Trust me.

[@mpbcom]

Haha, one viral review of a Hasselblad H3D-39 that will make it very expensive coming your way then! Did I understand you correctly? 😉 Thank you for watching and enjoy your camera! - Jakub

[@Bullcutter]

The beeps/clicks accompanying text or scence change are very loud and annoying.

[@mpbcom]

I'm sorry you found them too loud. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@Bullcutter]

@mpbcom Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, there are a lot of odd video practices on YT that tend to get copied on. It's originally copied from computer games, but is totally irrelevant to video!

[@Koji-888]

Take it easy Bull. Hope you can feel better soon. 🤗

[@Leptospirosi]

Let's be honest the CCD "superiorty" was invented by hypsters and influencers going around with strange hats ridiculous beards and improbable pants. This being said, as someone coming from film (when it was the only medium) then CCD (Sony and Canon) and then CMOS (Canon Panasonic and Olympus) I have to say that OLD CCDs in point and shoot cameras, were better and more organic then slightly more modern, but MUCH cheaper CMOS point and shoots. I think this has something to do with the "MegaPixel rush" between 2005 and 2015, with cheaper and cheaper point and shoots that were advertised as 18/20MP with HORRIBLE digital image quality, while being sold for less then 100$. My first digital camera a CyberShot 5.1MP CCD was sold for more then 600$ and I think that's where the difference in image processing lies> there is only a limited effort you can pour in a camera that would be sold in the offer bin after a few months form release, while you are trying to stay ahead of the competition in the amount of pixel you can fit in a few millimetres sensor.. I can say with confidence that my 2008 Powershot G9 produces less digital images then a 2013 Sony P&S with 18MP that I don-t even remember how I got. On the other hand, my Fuji XF1 with a weird 2/3" EXR-CMOS sensor did a lot better to my eyes. When it comes to DSLRs , the effort in creating the best possible quality quality image was generally a given, and I don-t think comparison is meaningful. I only ever had Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro with 6MP and a weird diagonally rotated CCD, but I must say the 450D and the 5D MkII were such a huge leap that I never looked back!.

[@scotthullinger4684]

CCD cameras are capable of VERY high image quality indeed - The issues ... ? CCDs drain your camera batteries more quickly, they're more prone to digital noise at high ISO, and they're more costly to manufacture, so your camera would be more expensive.

[@mahmoudiamir]

I believe that CCD was limited by ram and storage speed and lack of electronics shutter. And cmos was cheaper to produce, so it was obvious choice to go with cmos, but now it’s different and its better to try manufacturing ccd once again

[@mpbcom]

That's true, CMOS was cheaper to produce, allowed for the sensors to be made smaller and require less power. From my understanding that's what caused it to win over CCDs. Thank you for watching! - Jakub

[@CO8848_2]

The clinical look is not more realistic, in fact, nature does not look so saturated, contrasty or over sharpened as modern CMOS cameras present it. That's especially problematic in photo oriented cameras and consumer oriented cameras. The smartphones take it a step further and that's when most people realize it's fake looking. But many of the photographic cameras do it, too just slightly less offensive. Frankly mamy of the "award winning photos" are fake looking but "pops". That grabs attention on first impression but over time grates on your senses. That's also why cinema cameras treat videos in a flatter way and people like that look. However, most just interpret it as having more "dynamic range". Yes, DR helps, but it also is more realistic because nature is not so contrasty. More details might be good, but it is the "pop" that is fake.

[@mpbcom]

Like they say, there is always blue sky on your iPhone. I think the look of smartphone photography has impacted how we expect photos to look like and hence the 'popping' look of the award winning photos you mention. Most cameras can still produce neutral looking images but the style of editing has changed. Thank you for watching! - Jakub