Is The CCD Hype Over?
I've notices a uptick in content that disencouraging people from getting a camera with a CCD. Some just the usual "new is better than old" some however straight up "debunking the CCD benefits".
Personally I didn't really buy into the CCD hype. I have a couple cameras with CCD sensors and I got every single one because it was cheap and not because it has a CCD. I just like the SOOC look of many older cameras.
So if the hype is over maybe prices go down?
What do you guys think?
I think a lot of it was driven by an un-nuanced load of youtube/tick-tiok/etc content that was basically CDD = the best and it's just like shooting film.
The reality is a lot more nuanced and to a large degree subjective than that, I've got cameras with CCD sensors that I think do genuinely have something about them. That doesn't make them better than a modern CMOS sensor, it just gives them a look that a lot of people seem to like. However the same can be said for some CMOS sensors, I certainly feel that's true of the Canon 5D Classic.Â
Quote from Gideon Liddiard Photography on April 27, 2024, 2:41 pmI think a lot of it was driven by an un-nuanced load of youtube/tick-tiok/etc content that was basically CDD = the best and it's just like shooting film.
The reality is a lot more nuanced and to a large degree subjective than that, I've got cameras with CCD sensors that I think do genuinely have something about them. That doesn't make them better than a modern CMOS sensor, it just gives them a look that a lot of people seem to like. However the same can be said for some CMOS sensors, I certainly feel that's true of the Canon 5D Classic.Â
From my research about CCD and old sensor tech in general, I think what you, me an others see in the unedited files of old(er) cameras, has something to do with the color filters (That were used at the time CCD and CMOS coexisted in high-end cameras).
As for the cheaper cameras I think most of the "CCD-Look" is really just the default color profile from that time that still used film/prints as the reference.
More modern Cameras were more calibrated towards scientific accurate reproduction of what was visible to the human eye.
I never used the 5D myself but I used the 1D Mark II which is slight older but also had a CMOS not a CCD and I totally see the "CCD-Look" anyway.
Shot this with a 1D Mark IIÂ
Uploaded files:
Quote from Kamera Brand on May 2, 2024, 5:32 pmQuote from Gideon Liddiard Photography on April 27, 2024, 2:41 pmI think a lot of it was driven by an un-nuanced load of youtube/tick-tiok/etc content that was basically CDD = the best and it's just like shooting film.
The reality is a lot more nuanced and to a large degree subjective than that, I've got cameras with CCD sensors that I think do genuinely have something about them. That doesn't make them better than a modern CMOS sensor, it just gives them a look that a lot of people seem to like. However the same can be said for some CMOS sensors, I certainly feel that's true of the Canon 5D Classic.Â
From my research about CCD and old sensor tech in general, I think what you, me an others see in the unedited files of old(er) cameras, has something to do with the color filters (That were used at the time CCD and CMOS coexisted in high-end cameras).
As for the cheaper cameras I think most of the "CCD-Look" is really just the default color profile from that time that still used film/prints as the reference.
More modern Cameras were more calibrated towards scientific accurate reproduction of what was visible to the human eye.I never used the 5D myself but I used the 1D Mark II which is slight older but also had a CMOS not a CCD and I totally see the "CCD-Look" anyway.
Shot this with a 1D Mark IIÂ
I agree with most of your post. I also briefly had a 1D mkII and thought it was the most ccd looking camera I'd ever used. I also agree that it's less to do with the sensor tech and more to do with the era the cameras were built as modern cameras aim to be more clinical or neutral.
That being said there is occasionally something magical about some ccd's. Whenever I am struck by the aesthetic quality of the light in a photo, it's either a ccd or a foveon. Never a standard cmos sensor (foveons are technically still cmos devices). But maybe it's just purely psychological on my end or maybe it's that I like the look of having less dynamic range. I do think that at a certain point modern cameras become too good. It starts to look as good as, or better than real life and it no longer looks like a photo and it creates this really uncanny looking image to me. It was such a problem that I ended up selling my Sony a7R3 over it.
My still limited experience with high-end (albeit old) CCD sensors is that flesh tones tend for sure to be much nicer to boot than on most (if all) CMOS sensor I've used, plus it looks to me that CCD images tend to have higher starting acutance or perceived sharpness vs CMOS counterparts, almost in a "Foveon-like" manner (even if it can be then basically compensated in full in post through a well done sharpening/hi-pass filtering).
I agree with everything said so far. I think it was more something about cameras at the time, regardless of CCD or CMOS. Unless I'm mistaken, my D300 is CMOS, and while it is a year or so newer than my CCD K10D I feel it has that CCD look in spades. I also agree about skin tones. I often wonder if I should try to use my older cams for people more because the skin tones are so nice. Then there are times I wonder if it's all in my head... 😄
I'm a strong believer that in the early days of digital they were trying to make their "digital negatives" look like vibrant films that were popular at the time, saturated positive stocks, ektar, portra, Fuji 400H, etc. In doing so they created SOOC images that are far more colorful and vibrant and I think that really is what is compelling people. I have noticed one thing that's completely unique to CCD, the way it renders oranges, reds and browns. It doesn't quite make red, well red, it's almost like a burnt, but bright orange. Oranges are bright, very bright and browns tend to take that orange hue too because of this. Another thing that CCD and other early digitals have going for them is how contrasty they are SOOC, I think this is related to the limited DR if I had to guess.
https://www.streetsilhouettes.com/home/2019/7/29/the-myth-of-the-leica-m9-ccd-vs-cmos-sensors
These two articles are great because you can see how close they can edit CMOS to be but those reds still stand out like I said.
I realized I kinda didn't answer the original question of the thread. I think CCD hype as a whole is dying out because it's no longer the thread that social media is on. It was something that a few content creators had great success in pushing so everyone else bandwagoned, this is just how social media works. Trends are easy to hop on for some good exposure and once that resource has been tapped out, folks no longer click like they did. Now I think there's a bigger push for older, affordable bodies that aren't CCD. I'm noticing recently an uptick in specifically older mirrorless and DSLR bodies that have a lot of modern pro features, stuff like the original and second generation E-M1, which is a wickedly advanced camera body for its age.
And my personal take on CCD is that it's fun, it's unique and can definitely yield fun and unique results. The bodies also tend to be a lot more experimental since so much was being tried and tested. It's worth the dive into but not worth throwing a ton of money into to have something that can gain that experience. I really REALLY love my Pentax K10D, I think it's pretty much where Pentax hit their stride on body design and perfected the formula.
