Ah, that nice CCD rendering!

[alex ph]

Finding back the taste of the mid-2000s and the easy enchantment of digital photography.

#1


#2


#3


Canon Powershot A720 IS, automatic settings.

Just to be clear: the shots are taken recently, with an older pre-CMOS digital camera.

[55]

Interesting shots as always, alex.

Can you put into words what characterizes CCD rendering compared to other sensor types?
I haven't learned to recognize the differences.

[RokkorDoctor]

Somehow that last shot gives me "PlayTime" vibes, as in the film by Jacques Tati...

[alex ph]

Thank you fellows!

What a splendid reference, Mark. Tati was mocking at the aseptic ultramodernity which has to do with the design of the building shot.

[calvin83]

I have been a Canon G5 camera for many years. The amount of adjustment in the RAW files is much less than the later BSI CMOS sensor. I do enjoy the SOOC jpeg which give vivid color.

[55]

[RokkorDoctor]

I agree images taken with those low DR older cameras do have their own charm, esp. if you take care not to blow the highlights too much.

A bit like shooting high contrast slide film in a high contrast scene. Depending on the subject, used judiciously it can make for pleasing images.

With these older digital cameras it is certainly a lot cheaper to do those will it work/won't it work type experiments than with film

[alex ph]

Canon colours are special. And yes, one should not be too much surprised with its DR limits.

I've got a Fujifilm F31 from the same era, praised for its low light capabilities thanks to a special CCD sensor (with two diodes per pixel), and find the SOOC jpeg having a bit larger DR. Still shadows has a sensibly narrower plasticity than Nex gives.

[alex ph]

An interesting pragmatically oriented text speaking not really about CCD vs CMOS, but about pixel count and the role of sensor surface to pixel size in machine vision. I appreciated its fresh effect coming from a calm discussion of technical variables, far from holy wars between makers and sensor types.

[alex ph]

Out of curiosity and for the sake of a not-so-old nostalgic experience I've recently got several more CCD cameras for a small price. It's quite a feeling to spend today 5 or 20 quids for a perfectly working and slightly scuffed gadget which costed from 200 to 600 quids just 15 years before. So, most part of the set comes from the mid-2000s, and one is roughtly older and was produced in 2000.

The sensor sizes vary from 1/1.7" to 1/1.25", processors which are in charge of noise suppression embetter, megapixels are growing from 3Mp in the first camera to 8-10Mp in the later, image stabilisation is implanted to some of the younger models. All this has a more visible impact on low light performance of each camera.

Meanwhile what I wanted to know this time is how much their rendering differs in good light and colourwise. I reduced all the images to a uniform 1200px on the large side, otherwise they are SOOC jpgs taken with automatic settings.

The year of production (launch) of each camera is indicated before the camera name. Just to keep a trace.



The image is clickable.

It is noteworthy that colours of the earliest 3Mp Olympus are neutral and the later models add more saturation. Also true that, even though Camedia was not a pro camera line, it was neither a compact unlike Olympus Mju, Canon Ixus or Fujifilm Z lines.

Also to note that the first three samples have more visibly blown out highlight zones, and starting from 2006 compact camera processors do a better job of keeping a larger DR (Ixus 900 launched in 2006 was subject to criticism for the highlights issue, referring to outdated hardware components and image processing).

Still, in a good light the difference among all of them is not cracking, besides the resolution. And having slightly darker shadows or slightly warmer main tones is more a matter of taste.

[laenee]

[chhayanat]

[alex ph]

Thank you, fellows!