MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Ah, that nice CCD rendering!
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2025 7:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2025 7:40 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I go on tasting Canon S45, and find its rendering truly sensual. It looks like 3 to 5 Mp is ideal for a 1/2.3" sensor. And yes, Canon's mid-2000s jpg processing was top notch.

#1


#2


#3


Post
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 5:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 5:57 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Like 1

By the way, that cat looks very pissed off at having its photograph taken. Did you manage to get away without any claw marks? Wink


Post
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 7:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2025 7:50 pm
Post subject:
Reply
alex ph wrote:
I go on tasting Canon S45, and find its rendering truly sensual. It looks like 3 to 5 Mp is ideal for a 1/2.3" sensor. And yes, Canon's mid-2000s jpg processing was top notch.

#1



This image - and especially the nuanced rendering of the greens - reminds me of the Konica* (!) Minolta** Dynax 7D and its 6 MP CCD sensor.

That said, also the Sony Alpha 850 / 900 series with ist 24 MP CMOS sensor has similarly well and differntiated greens. Both theses cameras are so much better in this regard, compared side-by-side to the Nikon D800 or the Fuji X100 and GFX 50 series (Sony A7, A7II and A7RII are somewhere in between). That's one of the reasons I still use mainly the A900 series for calendar images. I hate that "flat", intense and uniform green that is characteristic for so many post-2010 cameras ...

S

* Konica had lots of experiemce with color negative and slide film
** Minolta was / is a leading manufacturer of color measuring eqipment - combined they had a huge knowledge about color rendering


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:02 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 10:02 am
Post subject:
Reply
Mark, I survived frome the pissed off cat, in the final account it revealed to be more declarative than active!

Stephan, no doubt that the way mid-2000s cameras are processing the image, as compared to more modern ones, can be described as more nuanced and accentuated, opposed to a more event and "flat" processing which tends to pull the shadows and favour microcontrast to global contrast. This must be the lost heritage of the film era. I mean, earlier digital cameras were trying to follow the taste of film era, while the megapixel rush broke this trend. Maybe A900 is the last of the film-oriented cameras?

Your allusion to the digital Dynax is interesting, to explore deeper!

Meanwhile I acknowledge that Canon S45 manages well not only green shades, but also reds and blues.

#1


#2


#3


Post
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 11:55 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2025 11:55 am
Post subject:
Reply
alex ph wrote:
Mark, I survived frome the pissed off cat, in the final account it revealed to be more declarative than active!

Stephan, no doubt that the way mid-2000s cameras are processing the image, as compared to more modern ones, can be described as more nuanced and accentuated, opposed to a more event and "flat" processing which tends to pull the shadows and favour microcontrast to global contrast. This must be the lost heritage of the film era. I mean, earlier digital cameras were trying to follow the taste of film era, while the megapixel rush broke this trend. Maybe A900 is the last of the film-oriented cameras?

Your allusion to the digital Dynax is interesting, to explore deeper!

Meanwhile I acknowledge that Canon S45 manages well not only green shades, but also reds and blues.

#1



That one really looks nice - although the real problem with "reds" usually occurs if there's "just red"; as long as there's a fair amount of orange and yellowinsh tints the problems usually are well managed by those digital cameras I have been using.

That said, it would be interesting to have side-by-side comparisons of a few interesting cameras.

While I don't collect digital cameras (I just buy those I need or consider interesting, usually after testing them for few days), I do have a few of thos "icons": the original Nikon D1 and Canon D30 (early professional DSLRs with 2.7 and 3.1 MP) , the Canon 1D MkII, the Nikon D100 and Minolta 7D (both with same 6 MPP CCD!), the A900 (first 24 MP DSLR), and so on. I have been testing quite a few others because I was considering to buy them for professional work, but didn't because of their color rendering (Nikon D800, the origimal Leica S as well as the M9, the original Fuji GFX 50, and so on).

I'll keep that in mind. Probably we should have about three subjects:

1) Landscape with lots of different shades of green, including a part in sunlight and another part in the shadow
2) red and orange / yellowish flowers
3) something blue a) cyan tints, b) deep blue, abd c) blue-purple tints. Probably flowers as well.

I'd clearly prefer daylight, as the current LED lights have lots of blue, lots of yellow, and usually very little red. Often there's also a problem in the cyan range as in this sample here:


All this will cause hefty problems with important colors (greens, skin tones, wood, red flowers and reddish food, let alone correct reproduction of artwork including paintings)!

Let me know what you think about such a comparison, and what (not) to include ...

S

PS I know for sure that the Minolta Dynax 7D was far superior in reporducing the orange / yellowish sodium lamps often found when doing townscapes at dawn ... Sony A700, A900, A7, A7II, A7RII all give red results instead of the yellowish orange my eyes do see ...


Post
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2025 7:20 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2025 7:20 pm
Post subject:
Reply
That sounds interesting! I agree that natural light reveals better lens and cameras particularities, including dull light which does not push contrasts.

Maybe in terms of comparison it would be useful to widen the range you propose and take
1) close-up pictures of flowers of different colours, those tending to primary ones,
2) mid-range land- and city scape pictures (at distance of 5-20 meters) in presence of colour contrasts. Regarding city scape I mean something like that.

I naturally anticipate two issues of comparability.

The first is the obvious difference of visual material and light, if several persons participate in gathering the shots.

The second is the divergence in classes of cameras which may participate. You mention mostly professional high grande ones, with interchangeable lenses. My current drive are compact cameras, often having a limited control over shooting parameters. When I compare my results from them with even older Sony Nex line, the difference in overall detail is too obvious. So, I am not driven with an idea to replace modern cameras for some particular tasks, but mostly complete their perfection with some interesting and attractive, in some extent "tech art" experience.

I still find any form of comparison or, to put it milder, cross-camera exploration interesting and stimulating.


Post
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2025 9:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
alex ph wrote:
That sounds interesting! I agree that natural light reveals better lens and cameras particularities, including dull light which does not push contrasts.

Maybe in terms of comparison it would be useful to widen the range you propose and take
1) close-up pictures of flowers of different colours, those tending to primary ones,


Yeah, that should be feasible - some red, some blueish.
And something (landscape) with a vast array of differing shades of green Wink

alex ph wrote:

The second is the divergence in classes of cameras which may participate. You mention mostly professional high grande ones, with interchangeable lenses. My current drive are compact cameras, often having a limited control over shooting parameters. When I compare my results from them with even older Sony Nex line, the difference in overall detail is too obvious. So, I am not driven with an idea to replace modern cameras for some particular tasks, but mostly complete their perfection with some interesting and attractive, in some extent "tech art" experience.

I still find any form of comparison or, to put it milder, cross-camera exploration interesting and stimulating.

I don't have many "consumer grade" digicams, but I have a few - usually (probably) working. I got them from the waste bin of a local photo store, and they usually came without accus, so getting those might be a problem (usually the old ones can be charged with an universal charger; luckily no need for the original charger). I have to chekc what I can find ... Even the professional cameras are tricky; probably I cannot charge my Nikon D1 accus any more - the Canon 1D MkII may stiull work, but I haven't been using them for ages ... All the Minolta stuff - even those Minolta 7D accus from 2004!- is still working like a charm ... even more reliable than the Sony A7 series accus!

S


Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 7:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 7:05 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I am impressed too with some of accumulators which still work 15 or even more years after their production date. I'd like to know the formula which allows them to keep the charge and to find the similarly long living accus today.


Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 7:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 7:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
"accus"? ac charger ...?

sorry never seen before here. what is accus?


Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 8:02 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 8:02 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Sorry, I just resized the word "accumulators" in this way.


Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 8:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed May 14, 2025 8:08 pm
Post subject:
Reply
alex ph wrote:
Sorry, I just resized the word "accumulators" in this way.


No problem! Actually a more inclusive term than "battery".


Post
Posted: Thu May 15, 2025 8:50 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 15, 2025 8:50 am
Post subject:
Reply
Thank you for the tip, I like your way to see the tech inclusiveness.

I've taken some more green/red shots with Canon S45 which continues to charm me. A note in passing: bokeh is not at all bad for a P&S camera.

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


Post
Posted: Mon May 19, 2025 10:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon May 19, 2025 10:13 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Just bought an Nikon D200; as far as I know it was Nikons last top camera with a CCD sensor (10 MP CCD, probably the same as in the Sony A100/A200/A300). Maybe I'll also get Sony's last CCD, the 14 MP ... used in the A350.

S


Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 6:11 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 6:11 am
Post subject:
Reply
stevemark wrote:
Just bought an Nikon D200; as far as I know it was Nikons last top camera with a CCD sensor (10 MP CCD, probably the same as in the Sony A100/A200/A300). Maybe I'll also get Sony's last CCD, the 14 MP ... used in the A350.

S


Like 1
Fun, "little" camera!
The rendering takes a little getting used to.
Like to see some of your samples with it, a/f or other-wise.

-D.S.


Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 6:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 6:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Doc Sharptail wrote:

Like to see some of your samples with it, a/f or other-wise.

-D.S.


Right now it's pretty rainy ... but I'll take the camera with me when I'm in town again. Apart from some elder 1st gen AF Nikkors (and the old MF Nikkors of course) I discovered a few APS-C Nikkors such as the 18-105 G ED end the 18-200 G ED in my collection of "not-so-pristine" stuff (from the wastebin of local photo stores). At least to start with they seem pretty much OK though Wink

The D200 is massive (same size and weight as the 24 MP FF Sony A900!) and feels really nice, but I'm not familiar at all with the user interface. Some operations that are very easy on the KonicaMinolta / Sony DSLRs seem rather quirky (such as enlarging an image to 100% on the camera screen) or even impossible (MLU combined with 2 s self timer to get blur-free long exposures) on the Nikon D200. But I'm sure I'll also detect things that are easier to do with the Nikon ... Shutter noise on the D200 is way smoother than on the contemporary KonicaMinolta D7D, for instance. Certainly a nice addition to my small collection of CCD DSLRs ...

S


Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 7:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue May 20, 2025 7:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
stevemark wrote:





The D200 is massive (same size and weight as the 24 MP FF Sony A900!) and feels really nice, but I'm not familiar at all with the user interface. Some operations that are very easy on the KonicaMinolta / Sony DSLRs seem rather quirky (such as enlarging an image to 100% on the camera screen) or even impossible (MLU combined with 2 s self timer to get blur-free long exposures) on the Nikon D200. But I'm sure I'll also detect things that are easier to do with the Nikon ... Shutter noise on the D200 is way smoother than on the contemporary KonicaMinolta D7D, for instance. Certainly a nice addition to my small collection of CCD DSLRs ...

S


Wait until you handle a f/f nikon DSLR. The d-810 is even bigger yet, but that size becomes second nature. I recall someone telling me that the D-6 is even bigger yet, but haven't been able to confirm. Still haven't seen one in person. I think if I had my choice, I'd go with the D-850, and be done with it.

You'll probably find that your D-200 is going to require a bit of red correction when used with older m/f lenses. Nothing insurmountable, especially in post- just something to be aware of with that older sensor.

I gave my D-200 to my sister- the Apsc sized sensor never really did it for me, personally. Despite all that, the camera is still capable of making some very interesting imagery. Sister is still happily snapping away with it, and the A/F-d 24-50 that I gave her.

-D.S.


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 9:33 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 9:33 am
Post subject:
Reply
stevemark wrote:
Just bought an Nikon D200; as far as I know it was Nikons last top camera with a CCD sensor (10 MP CCD, probably the same as in the Sony A100/A200/A300). Maybe I'll also get Sony's last CCD, the 14 MP ... used in the A350.


Looking forward to see the results!


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 3:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 3:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Nikon D200 (10 MP APS-C CCD, 2006) vs Sony A900 (24 MP FF CMOS, 2008)

The greens ...



JPGs out of cam (resized).
Both cameras set to "normal" mode, base ISO (100 ISO @ D200, 200 ISO @ A900), 7100 K color temperature, automatic exposure (AE), Dynamic Range Optimization off (Sony A900).

What do you think? Other colors will follow ...

S


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 5:18 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 5:18 pm
Post subject:
Reply
stevemark wrote:
Nikon D200 (10 MP APS-C CCD, 2006) vs Sony A900 (24 MP FF CMOS, 2008)

The greens ...


JPGs out of cam (resized).
Both cameras set to "normal" mode, base ISO (100 ISO @ D200, 200 ISO @ A900), 7100 K color temperature, automatic exposure (AE), Dynamic Range Optimization off (Sony A900).

What do you think? Other colors will follow ...

S


As a matter of personal taste, the D-200 wins here, and has very little to do with the technical abilities of the sensors.

Hint: on the D-200, setting exposure compensator to 1/3 stop under works wonders- brings the old Kodachrome to mind.

As a minor matter of curiosity (I may have missed it), what lens was used?

-D.S.


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 5:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 5:52 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Doc Sharptail wrote:

As a matter of personal taste, the D-200 wins here, and has very little to do with the technical abilities of the sensors.

Very much possible - since I didn't use any of the many built-in features of the A900 for "enhancing" the JPGs - such as Dynamic Range Extension (DRO) in combination with underexposure plus brightening up the images ... those features can create quite unusal effects "on location" ... but of course the D200 (as well as the Minolta Dynax 7D and the Sony A100) are one generation older than the A900.



Doc Sharptail wrote:
Hint: on the D-200, setting exposure compensator to 1/3 stop under works wonders- brings the old Kodachrome to mind.

I doubt it, but I'll try it for sure (and admit I was wrong if works wonder indeed). On the A900 series the exposure is on the lights mainly (often leading to 1-2 EV faster shutter speeds than with corresponding CaNikon cameras), so your advice is "built-in" already. In addition - whenever I use DRO and maybe an additional brightening of image whithin the camera - and additional underexposure of 1-2 EV (!) can be very usefzul on the A900, but only if you are using ISO 100. Otherwise the shadows will have terrible noise.

Doc Sharptail wrote:
As a minor matter of curiosity (I may have missed it), what lens was used?

-D.S.


Nikkor 3.5-5.6/18-200mm ED G @ f=18mm ... (one of only two Nikkor APS-C wideangles I own!)

These comparisons are rather tricky (since camera image processing software is heavily involved) ... I'll go one publishing occasionally a few images from different cameras, taken side-by-side - but of course they have to be taken with a grain of salt!

S


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 7:18 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 7:18 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Why not use raw & consistent PP instead of old in-camera jpg?


Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 7:29 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 22, 2025 7:29 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Here a few more green / greeninsh colors, just during sunset. Both cameras (Nikon D200 [left] vs Sony A900 [right]) were set to "normal" / "standard", both at ISO 100 and 5500K, both with the 1.4/50mm lens. Since both cameras basically have 6 micrometer pixel pitch, the two images can be superimposed perfectly. Of course the A900 image is bigger (being FF), but the APS-C crop shown here fits perfectly.

(RAWs developped identically using Photoshop)



As you can see the A900 is exposing slightly darker - and the D200 indeed may profit from about -1/2 EV exposure Wink. I'll try that later on when the light isn't changing as quickly as it was this evening ...

S


Post
Posted: Fri May 23, 2025 8:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri May 23, 2025 8:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
stevemark wrote:
Here a few more green / greeninsh colors, just during sunset. Both cameras (Nikon D200 [left] vs Sony A900 [right]) were set to "normal" / "standard", both at ISO 100 and 5500K, both with the 1.4/50mm lens. Since both cameras basically have 6 micrometer pixel pitch, the two images can be superimposed perfectly. Of course the A900 image is bigger (being FF), but the APS-C crop shown here fits perfectly.

(RAWs developped identically using Photoshop)


As you can see the A900 is exposing slightly darker - and the D200 indeed may profit from about -1/2 EV exposure Wink. I'll try that later on when the light isn't changing as quickly as it was this evening ...

S


Dang variables.

That D-200 actually bears a Sony made sensor, but the processors are completely un-related. Nikon went with their own, which probably accounts for the exposure differences. I found that in shooting monochromes to return to the camera's original exposure settings to be more pleasing to the eye, but this is getting into some fine hair-splitting.

The convoluted aperture control on the nikon cameras with A/F lenses leaves a lot to be desired, especially in A-mode. (this actually has a lot to do with me being turned off A/F in general) On the AF-d lenses, there's already an aperture ring there- all that messing around to get the thumbwheel to control aperture is totally extemperaneous. I understand it for the ringless "G" series lenses, but it's still a head scratcher.

-D.S.


Post
Posted: Thu May 29, 2025 8:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 29, 2025 8:04 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Sony's DR is clearly wider. Meantime Nikon's yellow is impressively popping. Which one renders closer to the real landscape, is there so much of yellow?


Post
Posted: Thu May 29, 2025 8:55 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu May 29, 2025 8:55 pm
Post subject:
Reply
alex ph wrote:
Sony's DR is clearly wider.

And that's while all "Dynamic Range Optimization" on the A900 was set to ZERO ...!
Wait until we compare the two cameras when using all the refinements of the A900 Wink

alex ph wrote:
Meantime Nikon's yellow is impressively popping. Which one renders closer to the real landscape, is there so much of yellow?

I was pretty astonished about that as well. I'm sure i had set the WB identically on both cameras, and color profiles were "standard" or "normal" on both cams, too. I'll check that in more detail later on ...

S
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 3 Next
Page 2 of 3