It's an old school 6M K100D with CCD sensor 0:19 Exactly like my Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (£102 GBP), which I've just bought recently as my retro digital journey. Instead of spending small fortunes on latest and greatest, these cameras were really top notch expensive gear 16 years ago, and they still perform excellently.
great video. I have a k10d and a KP and an old Nikon d200. I also used to think that there was a difference between CCD and CMOS: However I think the differences are now more to do with how the individual camera processes the JPGs. Most of the time I am using my d200 because I just like the way the camera feels. I normally process the raw files myself "raw photo processor". What I found is that you can basically get the same result with any of the cameras. The advantage of the newer sensors though is that you get a little bit more dynamic range and more resolution. Low light is also much improved on something like a KP. But in good light both the K10s and the D200 still do a great job.
I screen capped the photos with MSPAINT and then exported jpegs out and loaded them into Lightroom and I got them to match almost 100%. I did very little editing. The red is a little more puncher on the k-100D and I change the white balance just a tad. At ISO 100 the color science is a little better on the k-100D.
Very interesting video... I couldn't see any difference! I thought there would be... but you dispelled that. It reveals a couple interesting observations. K-100D in ideal conditions is great value for money. Is the K-70 worth the extra stops of low light performance? I would say so. Thanks for the video.
Good test. Some noteworthy points; 1) I've heard that CCD likes ISO 100 the most, this is true from a colour perspective too, ISO 200 may be a little unkinder to its full potential. 2) Better colour is interesting because colour is somewhat subjective but also related to light. Less light = more saturation, more light = less saturation. So it can be that certain scenarios with difference in light can showcase a more viewable difference between CMOS and CCD perhaps 3) I've also heard CCD is about post processing potentials with the colours, if they highlight clip less etc. So straight out of the camera (jpg or RAW) might not show this, its about what we do in PP to push and pull these colours, if the CMOS falls apart sooner than the CCD. But all in all, I think we need to accept CMOS is better from a generic perspective, the sensor handles noise better and is why the industry changed. CCD colours may simply just be different, not even necessarily accurate but somehow pleasing to the eye. That's what I think I am discovering with my 645D, the colours sometimes feel richer or maybe just different, and its nice to see it, but perhaps 'better' is a wrong choice, the sensors just do colours differently and in certain scenarios the differences may be hard to tell, others more noticeable.
Well, I have been very dubious previously about various people saying CCD sensors have better colours as I can rarely see any differences. But I must admit that on this test, to me, the reds on the CCD camera shots look much nicer. However that said I imagine the same look can easily be achieved with the K-70 images with either a in camera setting (JPG) or some RAW tweaks PP.
Lee I still photograph with my *istDL and I have a K70 also. Daylight pictures I cannot tell the difference in the pictures. Low light the K70 excels. No contest at all. The *istDL is also more critical on white balance indoor lights throws it off without setting the white balance to fluorescent. Photoscape has no problems editing PEF files from my *istDL aside photograph in raw with it .
I'm thinking of buying K20D or similar, K-x would to too. An early CMOS camera. From the tests back in the day i don't remember there being any disadvantage from CMOS introduction, while internal processing was calibrated very similar; indeed you got more DR capability and larger equivalent ISO range on CMOS. But if someone else has experience or evidence to the contrary, i may yet change my mind and go for an older CCD device.
I have the k200d and the k70, colour difference is very, very small and only apparent side by side. Adding a little more red saturation on the k70 and they are identical. But it's not worth doing, really splitting hairs here.
I took some DNG photos of the colorchecker classic, one with flash, another in shadow and finally one in sunlight. This gives you a color gamut of your camera. If you want I can send the profiles and DNG's.
Since you're asking what you could do different: the video with this amount of information could have been one minute long, and the examples should have been framed exactly the same, which shouldn't be hard to do with a tripod and some reference points. It would also be nice to see areas of difference up close, without being pixel-peepping of course, and whether there's a difference in the quality rather than the amount of low-light noise or in the way they handle overexposure (I've noticed that some Fuji users are so in love with the way Fuji noise looks that they'll push the ISO up even in daylight). Having said all those nasty things, I like your personality, and that you set up a still-life for testing instead of some random motif. I can't see any meaningful difference either, which is very surprising. Only digital cameras I own and have used is the Canon 700D and Sony ZV-1, both of with have horrific-looking noise, but I love the noise of 400 ISO 35mm film, and that makes me interested in that sort of thing The question is if the difference between sensors only becomes apparent when you start massaging the raw-files.
Great video Lee. Is that lens manual focus?I Just picked up a k100D and 28-80 Dietz lens and can't seem to get the lens and can't seem to get them to work together.
Colors are better on the k-100D. Also the white balance is better. If you pause the video and screen cap it and flip back and forth you can very easily see the k-100D is better. If you are just watching the video its harder to tell but once you know what to look for its easy when watching the video.
The white balance on the K-70 is better, I think. Alternatively, it's more magenta-tinted than the K-100D. I think while the WB of the K-100D isn't correct, it still looks nice.
The point is not to take a picture (in this case) LOTS of colorful objects. It is necessary to photograph COMPLEX objects, both in shape and color (shades of color, gradations, structure, volume). Everything is too SIMPLE about for you, and it's not good...
I watched another video about CCD vs CMOS. CCD Vs. CMOS: Sensor type? or Color Science? th-cam.com/video/2x77sPknyRQ/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgwwBLzftPx3b7IV_7h4AaABAg.A1-x8NbD8y5A104rVs4nm4 And I think people just remember the older color science in some of the brands that they like. Also CCD has less dynamic range so there are darker shadows that makes the images look more contrasty and a lot of people like highlights and shadows. With CMOS the shows are more brighter but they can be crushed in the settings for jpegs or edited darker with raw files.
It's an old school 6M K100D with CCD sensor 0:19 Exactly like my Konica Minolta Dynax 7D (£102 GBP), which I've just bought recently as my retro digital journey. Instead of spending small fortunes on latest and greatest, these cameras were really top notch expensive gear 16 years ago, and they still perform excellently.
great video. I have a k10d and a KP and an old Nikon d200. I also used to think that there was a difference between CCD and CMOS: However I think the differences are now more to do with how the individual camera processes the JPGs. Most of the time I am using my d200 because I just like the way the camera feels. I normally process the raw files myself "raw photo processor". What I found is that you can basically get the same result with any of the cameras. The advantage of the newer sensors though is that you get a little bit more dynamic range and more resolution. Low light is also much improved on something like a KP. But in good light both the K10s and the D200 still do a great job.
I screen capped the photos with MSPAINT and then exported jpegs out and loaded them into Lightroom and I got them to match almost 100%. I did very little editing. The red is a little more puncher on the k-100D and I change the white balance just a tad. At ISO 100 the color science is a little better on the k-100D.
Very interesting video... I couldn't see any difference! I thought there would be... but you dispelled that.
It reveals a couple interesting observations. K-100D in ideal conditions is great value for money.
Is the K-70 worth the extra stops of low light performance? I would say so.
Thanks for the video.
Good test. Some noteworthy points;
1) I've heard that CCD likes ISO 100 the most, this is true from a colour perspective too, ISO 200 may be a little unkinder to its full potential.
2) Better colour is interesting because colour is somewhat subjective but also related to light. Less light = more saturation, more light = less saturation. So it can be that certain scenarios with difference in light can showcase a more viewable difference between CMOS and CCD perhaps
3) I've also heard CCD is about post processing potentials with the colours, if they highlight clip less etc. So straight out of the camera (jpg or RAW) might not show this, its about what we do in PP to push and pull these colours, if the CMOS falls apart sooner than the CCD.
But all in all, I think we need to accept CMOS is better from a generic perspective, the sensor handles noise better and is why the industry changed. CCD colours may simply just be different, not even necessarily accurate but somehow pleasing to the eye. That's what I think I am discovering with my 645D, the colours sometimes feel richer or maybe just different, and its nice to see it, but perhaps 'better' is a wrong choice, the sensors just do colours differently and in certain scenarios the differences may be hard to tell, others more noticeable.
How odd, I got my k10 out today and cleaned it ready to shoot tomorrow, want to experience the ccd again, and you made this video yesterday
Well, I have been very dubious previously about various people saying CCD sensors have better colours as I can rarely see any differences. But I must admit that on this test, to me, the reds on the CCD camera shots look much nicer. However that said I imagine the same look can easily be achieved with the K-70 images with either a in camera setting (JPG) or some RAW tweaks PP.
Lee
I still photograph with my *istDL and I have a K70 also. Daylight pictures I cannot tell the difference in the pictures. Low light the K70 excels. No contest at all. The *istDL is also more critical on white balance indoor lights throws it off without setting the white balance to fluorescent. Photoscape has no problems editing PEF files from my *istDL aside photograph in raw with it .
Great video again Lee.
Glad you enjoyed it
CCD sensor looks flatter more natural imo, CMOS sensor has a magenta tint.
I'm thinking of buying K20D or similar, K-x would to too. An early CMOS camera. From the tests back in the day i don't remember there being any disadvantage from CMOS introduction, while internal processing was calibrated very similar; indeed you got more DR capability and larger equivalent ISO range on CMOS. But if someone else has experience or evidence to the contrary, i may yet change my mind and go for an older CCD device.
You should shoot a IT8 target and see what the color gamma is compared from CCD to CMOS with i1Profiler
I've been wondering about CCD. I think maybe its because there is a tad bit of noise that looks like film grain is why people like them?
I have the k200d and the k70, colour difference is very, very small and only apparent side by side. Adding a little more red saturation on the k70 and they are identical. But it's not worth doing, really splitting hairs here.
I took some DNG photos of the colorchecker classic, one with flash, another in shadow and finally one in sunlight. This gives you a color gamut of your camera. If you want I can send the profiles and DNG's.
Since you're asking what you could do different: the video with this amount of information could have been one minute long, and the examples should have been framed exactly the same, which shouldn't be hard to do with a tripod and some reference points. It would also be nice to see areas of difference up close, without being pixel-peepping of course, and whether there's a difference in the quality rather than the amount of low-light noise or in the way they handle overexposure (I've noticed that some Fuji users are so in love with the way Fuji noise looks that they'll push the ISO up even in daylight).
Having said all those nasty things, I like your personality, and that you set up a still-life for testing instead of some random motif. I can't see any meaningful difference either, which is very surprising. Only digital cameras I own and have used is the Canon 700D and Sony ZV-1, both of with have horrific-looking noise, but I love the noise of 400 ISO 35mm film, and that makes me interested in that sort of thing
The question is if the difference between sensors only becomes apparent when you start massaging the raw-files.
Great video Lee. Is that lens manual focus?I Just picked up a k100D and 28-80 Dietz lens and can't seem to get the lens and can't seem to get them to work together.
The lens on Lee’s K100D is autofocus.I have the exact lens.I think it is a F series lens.
Colors are better on the k-100D. Also the white balance is better. If you pause the video and screen cap it and flip back and forth you can very easily see the k-100D is better. If you are just watching the video its harder to tell but once you know what to look for its easy when watching the video.
The white balance on the K-70 is better, I think. Alternatively, it's more magenta-tinted than the K-100D. I think while the WB of the K-100D isn't correct, it still looks nice.
The point is not to take a picture (in this case) LOTS of colorful objects. It is necessary to photograph COMPLEX objects, both in shape and color (shades of color, gradations, structure, volume). Everything is too SIMPLE about for you, and it's not good...
Good job I still love my k100d and could never part with it
No K-1 mkii silver yet...?
Hope he gets it soon. I think the silver was limited addition only 1000 made
The difference is at low light , ccd is superior.
I watched another video about CCD vs CMOS.
CCD Vs. CMOS: Sensor type? or Color Science?
th-cam.com/video/2x77sPknyRQ/w-d-xo.html&lc=UgwwBLzftPx3b7IV_7h4AaABAg.A1-x8NbD8y5A104rVs4nm4
And I think people just remember the older color science in some of the brands that they like. Also CCD has less dynamic range so there are darker shadows that makes the images look more contrasty and a lot of people like highlights and shadows. With CMOS the shows are more brighter but they can be crushed in the settings for jpegs or edited darker with raw files.