Do CCD DSLRs Produce BETTER COLORS Than Mirrorless Cameras?
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- In this video, I look to see if an old CCD DSLR can render better colors than a modern CMOS/Mirrorless camera. I compare images of colorful flowers taken with a Nikon D200 and a Nikon Z50. I also look at the effect of the camera profile and how it colors this analysis.
My Photography Website: nicklongphotography.com/
Equipment:
Camera: Nikon Z50 and Nikon D200
Microphone: Shure SM58 in 3D printed DIY SM7B housing with Tonor Boom Arm
Key Light: Mountdog softbox with honeycomb mesh
Background lights: Govee Glide Lights
Video editing: Davinci Resolve 18
00:00 - Intro
01:51 - Nikon D200 vs. Nikon Z50 Comparisons
06:12 - Conclusions
08:02 - Outro
If you enjoyed this video, you may enjoy this video on buying budget DSLR: czcams.com/video/fBou5jd-sp0/video.htmlsi=JpMBS5usJU0lceLo
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!
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.
I'd also be interested in seeing the comparison
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?
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.
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 ✌️
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..
@@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.
Hi Nick, Great video. I liked the saturated look of the D200 myself.
Hey Jim! Thanks for watching & commenting. I’m glad you enjoyed it! +1 vote for D200
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.
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!
I also like the E-330. What lenses do you use with?
Good video Nick. I love old DSLRs
The Sigma Foveon sensor is a gem! Full rgb at every pixel location 😍
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?
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.
This video really demonstrates just how good the Nikon D200 is despite its age.
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!
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.
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!
@@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.
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.
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.
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!
I like all of it! 👍🏼
Hey thanks mate!! Glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for watching & taking the time to comment!
I love my Nikon D200. Shoots great images SOC.
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.
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.
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!
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?
@deepskypics I think the whole "old school" or "vintage" dslr and point and shoot cameras are going to become more and more popular on CZcams. 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. 👍🏼
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 !
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!
@@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 !
@@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.
@@deepskypicsI will not talk about dynamic range power from K1,you will find yourself someday if you grab this camera :) Good Luck !
@@L.Lyubomirov hahaha the camera looks amazing.
Wow 200 wins IMO. CCD Is a win.
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?
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.
If you reduce color in the filter you increase sensitivity with the camera.
So simply put, yes
Haha yes!!
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.
didn't the leica M8 have a CCD sensor and was also mirrorless?
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...?
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
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.
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?
@@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...
YES
Thanks for stopping by!
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
Tonality and lens quality matter way more! Megapixels don’t take good photos, only photographs can do that right? ✌️
Your comparison is about one lightroom colors to another lightroom colors.
Get the RAW processor that has separate color profile for each body and try again.
Hey mate! Adobe Lightroom’s camera standard profile does use a separately optimized profile for each individual camera. Why the camera standard comparison looks so similar. Whereas Adobe color is the same for all cameras. This was exactly the reason I added the Adobe color comparison as well because one could say that using a differently optimized profile for each sensor skews this analysis - and they’d be right to question that. So, I simply showed both and then the viewer can make a determination for themself. Thanks for watching and taking time to comment.👌✌️
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).
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?
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”.
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.
@@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...
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.
Yes.
Have a z 50 as well.Good camera
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.
The mirror gives beautiful colors.
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.
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!
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!
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.
The only reason for me to want to switch to a new system is iso performance.. maybe.
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: czcams.com/video/yswWihNGKuU/video.htmlsi=YituqbnOQs0yEUiY
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" :)
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
@@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.
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.
@@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
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
I think that’s exactly it. With today’s processing a blank slate from the raw file is what’s expected.
@@Brian-mp6bg absolutely agree!!
Ccd are very hard on batteries but I agree I'm sorry I got rid of my d200
CCDs do eat batteries quicker, but nothing eats batteries like a a mirrorless camera! My Z50 eats batteries just a fast as I can eat a box of cookies. Haha.
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.
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!
I had a Pentax K10d (CCD) immediately followed by a K20d (CMOS) and didn't notice any difference.
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!
Is there no difference at all in shades of green and blue?@@deepskypics
@@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.
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
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
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.
Short answer, Yes. The D200 produces film like images. Also one of the best skin tone cameras ever made.
I’ve been loving my D200! Been having most fun with it out of my 3 bodies: D200, D300, Z50
The native development program ViewNX-i or Capture NX-D has a significant impact on the overall image of the Nikon D200. Without using the native program, this test is not entirely adequate. You will learn about this nuance when you take a deeper look at the features of older Nikon cameras
Hey friend! What specific features of these old cameras are you specifically alluding too? Help me understand you better. You mean things like active D lighting etc…? NX Studio (Nikon latest software) does have internal integration of Nikons unique color science and camera profiles. Though, the challenge is still the same regardless of what software you use. If you use a different profile or color science for different cameras (which Nikon does for D200 and Z50) how do you know that the difference your seeing isnt due to the profile instead of the sensor, filter, or any other physical trait? Hence the addition of Adobe color profile and my points and hesitations in this video about profiles.
@@deepskypics It's interesting that you entered the discussion... I believe that Nikon RAW file from CCD sensor cameras should be considered because of the work of the colorists who worked on the colors captured directly by Nikon. As my experience with the Nikon D40 has shown, this difference is significant. For example, here is a link to the same photo displayed by two different editors without editing. One of the programs is native to Nikon, and one third-party is modern. Note that this is a RAW file. To summarize, the raw photo looks much more attractive and brighter in the native editor from Nikon with CCD-sensor cameras (ViewNX-i or Capture NX-D)
drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AGOncEi1oFKzTdS2MjFJO7maD3mQesi_?usp=drive_link
@@deepskypics Open the link, there is a RAW file Open it in your editor. Compare with the screenshot of the native editor, it is also present there. It will be interesting for you to look at this difference
I wanted to give a link to an example of photos, but it is now prohibited
drive,google,com/drive/folders/1AGOncEi1oFKzTdS2MjFJO7maD3mQesi_?usp=drive_link
How can "more vibrant" be "more natural", I think there isa confusion if not a contradiction here.
PS" what are "organic" colours?
Vibrant can sometimes be more natural if vibrancy exists within the natural scene. Have you ever found that your camera rendered colors less vibrant than you remembered them, it’s one way to communicate that to your viewer. There’s of course the issue with human visual memory but that’s a separate issue
@@deepskypics Vibrant yes ;o) but "more vibrant" not a little excessive for "natural"? Not mentioning the fact here that you never spoke of colour accuracy in the video whether in natural or artificial scenes, even in your comparison of CCD and CMOS sensors. To answer your question, the tendency of most cameras, a perfect heritage to what already happened with film (remember Fuji's Velvia), is to produce JPG images with increased saturation and contrast for "pop", (artificial) "impact." Badly-processed film, or old film or film that had been exposed to excessive heat could actually render colours less vibrant than what they were in front of the camera. Fortunately this is a thing of the past with digital cameras. As a result the first thing I have been doing for years with most new cameras (except the Leica M240 (not the case with the Qs, M10s and M11s whose saturation is very slightly increased, and Hasselblad) is to set saturation and contrast of JPGs down at -1. So far I have never used a camera that, out of the box with its default settings, has given me a less "vibrant" image than "the reality of the scene" in front of the lens.
The good thing with digital cameras is that even if someone's memory is "an issue," i.e. failing, it is easy to check the back of one's camera just after taking the image and get some idea. It is also always easy to check one's camera and its colour rendition at home, with colourful items or even better, a colour chart, and compare. No memory needed.
And by the way what about "organic colours"? How do you define that?
Now, as far as my photographing is concerned I just wish for a camera that gives me accurate colours then I can always modify them, boost them either with a polarising filter for instance (good for increasing saturation and contrast), or in an image-processing software. The opposite, getting accurate colours ("accurate" in comparison to what they were "in the natural world") from images whose saturation and contrast have been massaged one notch up by the camera's software can be problematic, all the more so, as you pointed out, if one completely relies on one's memory... which is an issue indeed. So I think the right question should be which sensor / camera renders colours the more / most accurately This would actually speak of the precision and excellence of the colour science at play.
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.
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.
OK, and now can you explain your weird hand movements ?
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.
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…
Serious question, why do people use post processing as a way to prove something is different? Wouldnt just the raw photos pulled from the cameras be best to compare to each other? So much is put onto editing that most photos aren't even "real" or close to real as people like to believe.
Just my thoughts and being honest indont know shit
Hey great question! It’s interesting because I’ve been thinking a lot my self about how the best photos often need minimal processing, because people often use processing as a way to compensate for a deficiency in the photo itself. So your camera will provide its own unique “spin” to the way it processes each photo - camera jpeg. How accurate it is is up to the manufacturer. DT gives you a more neutral base to start and doesn’t and have access to your cameras processing, but it technically isn’t 100% neutral. It’s technically speaking determined by the Adobe Standard Color Matrix. Your colors would be UGLY without the matrix. How truly color accurate it ends up being is much a function of how you edit it. The idea behind a color checker is, it takes some time to setup, but actually brings ease to the editing process, especially with colors, because you know your starting from the foundation of accurate colors. You don’t have to end up with accurate colors if that’s your own unique desired state, but it’s a great foundation to start from. In the deer photo, I let the white background go slightly cool because I wanted it that way for example. This is complex, took me a full month to get this video out for a reason haha, but I hope it helps!
@deepskypics hands down one of the best answers I've gotten and I appreciate the thought and time you put into your reply as well as the time you out into testing things. Thank you boss.
@@dancrile5640 Ha! I think you’ll find immense value in video I just put out this morning about using a color checker. I actually thought you were commenting on that video hahaha. It’s about Darktable, but it talks about this in lots of details! And my reply will make even more sense. ✌️
D 200 is a decent camera
I’m genuinely surprised at the photos that come out if it myself haha
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.
The greens are far better with the D200 you hardly need to correct them. And of course skintones and so on. CMOS is cooler but perhaps more realistic.
I’m still loving the colors on the D200 and just entered an orchid photo contest with a D200 photograph.
I don't think CCD colors are any better. I've seen three videos so far with side by side with Pentax, Olympus and Nikon doing CCD vs CMOS. CMOS will have for detail in the shadows because of dynamic range. Some cameras even within the same brand of CMOS or CCD will have different colors.
Those videos I've watched Pentax the color was 99% the same and the same with Olympus. The Nikon one I saw was also about 99% the same.
I'm not saying people are not noticing that they like the images from CCD better. I'm saying some brands and colors people like the older color science better.
I think your right on here mate! People over exaggerate the differences and don’t factor in how the color science distorts the analysis. Is the sensor actually better or is it really the color science and interpretation of sensor data that people prefer? Many confounding factors. Thanks for watching & commenting!
CCD sensors are the best
They do produce something special don’t they?
What does this side by side match tells?
Absolutely nothing! It's just two pictures out of contest.
What does the flowers look to naked eye? Are they more pink or more red?
You are taking picture of an object in real life, not looking at a paint and then deciding which inspires you more! 😒
I think they are different. Better?? That is a you thing. I shot both CMOS and CCD and sure they are very much different. Depending where you are and what you might do in post it won't really matter that much anyway. The D200 is a bitchin camera inside its world. The Z is today sure, but your images and story don't really care. You are going to do what you want with you like in post.