Robin, your use of color in composition is masterful. I think that's a much bigger reason why your pictures are so vibrant than the fact you shot with a CCD camera.

You aren't the only person to love the old Canon 5D color renditions. I also hear the Nikon D700 is mentioned as having a unique quality. I do enjoy my old D80, and I still shoot it a lot. I recently got one of my favorite images with it. It was very overcast and a 1950's ere pickup truck just came out amazing. The local color in your photo's makes me want to visit your beautiful country some day. Thanks for all your hard work.

I recently bought a Nikon D50 due to seeing many videos about this CCD thing. I normally shoot with vintage lenses on my Sony mirrorless and love it. After seeing only a handful of pictures from the D50 (luckily I still had my 35, 40 and 50 primes from my D7000)....I was blown away. So I bought a D70 for the faster shutter speed and extra dial, the D40 for compactness, and the D200 (just received) for the extra MP and legendary status. I told my wife I was done buying after she counted my 100 vintage lenses ...so now I'm sneaking in to the house my Nikon cameras 😂. And now after just telling her I have all the CDD Nikons on my list ...I bought for $8 a Minolta Dimage 7 CCD 5MP camera because it can be used as Infrared without modification....😂

I just wanted to thank you for your amazing videos. You really inspired me to go outside and take some beautiful photos. I love the motivation you put into your videos.

Hi Robin, can I just say, thanks, thanks for your honesty, that really helps me to make my own informed choices.

Hi Robin. Love your explanations and outlook. Very unpretentious. I am long term user of Olympus and Lumix. Loved this piece about CMOS v cc'd. Have no opinion either way. Whatever does it for you is good. Thanks!

People conflate dynamic range and saturation with “better colors”. What they like about ccd sensors is the saturation values of reds, greens and blues they were coded with and the lack of dynamic range creating stark contrast and the perception of even more saturated colors. The one thing I would say is a true benefit of ccd is the representation of noise. The Bayer array on cmos sensors makes noise look more “digital” as color is simulated via an algorithm causing a blocky noise pattern that is not the most pleasing to look at.

Always pleased to see your videos Robin. My first camera was an Olympus E-420 with a 10MP CMOS sensor. Despite having a Pentax K3 mk.III as my main camera, i still take that Olympus around with the Olympus 25mm f2.8 Pancake lens, because i love those colours.

my first DSLR was an Olympus E500 I bought around 2007...8 megapixel, no live view, slow as a wet week to buffer photos shot in RAW format but I do still love the colours and was always trying to emulate them in post with images from my Canon 60D that replaced the Olympus to no avail. I still have it...along with a Canon 6Dmkii and a Fuji XS-10...and I still love shooting with it at times for the colours/contrast ratios and that something special about the look.

About color, i watched an interview with a colorist that said Hasselblad colors are the most accurate ones, then was Fuji (plain color without simulations) and Nikon. But he said no camera have perfect color, Sony put grey in skies and mess the skin in different ways, Nikon mess the greens and put cyan in skies, Canon put magenta all over the place (that he said is very difficult to correct), etc.

Thank you Robin .

Wow, I can't agree more, you are absolutely right. 5d classic, full stop. I already know your channel and I know that you're a m43 shooter and I can tell you I was super surprised by the Canon 5d classic. Actually I shot Canon for assignments (owned a huge number of canons, but also bought the 5dc because of nostalgia) and recently bought 2nd hand m43 camera + couple of lenses (BTW thanks to you I picked up a Pana 20mm 1.7 I for street photography, thank you, well spent money). Keep up good work :)

You have a really great energy in front of the camera, Robin!

Again! Great point! I have yet my e 3 and the e620 , what great cameras! Still using it!

Nice approach to this subject. Love seeing an Olympus pro user btw.

I've been shooting Nikon since the late seventies so my experience in color comparisons and rendering in digital is vast. Having said that I still have my D100 and D200, both 6 and 10Mp CCDs respectively. I now shoot with the D850 (BSI CMOS) and the Z5 (Non-BSI CMOS) and I have to say that at least with Nikon, they have stayed consistent with their native RAW colors, very true to life in my personal experience. What CCD differs I think is in its rendering or look. To me the CCD is the closest you can get to modern film look with it's grain and color & focus transitions. Black and White images has a certain "emulsion" look to them that I don't see much in CMOS unless I try to process in post, maybe the difference in Mps or pixel pitch has something to do with it because my Fuji X-E1 and X-E2 both with 16Mp CMOS come very close to what I see in my old Nikon CCDs. By the way; the reason the industry went to CMOS is Not "better" technology, initially, it's because CCDs were expensive to make and CMOS were much cheaper tech and design to manufacture. Who know if Live View and better AF would have made it to CCDs if we stuck with them, but I guess we'll never know.

Robin, another great video. I also could not afford the cameras you mention back in the early days of digital although I very much wanted a D50 at the time. Now I have a wide range of cameras from digicam to M43 to APSc and FF, some newer but most are used and date back as far as 2008 or so.

CCD sensors are passives, as film negatives are. They base on electron (fotons) stream force to give pics - electron sensors. CMOS sensors active are, they are electronic sensors which base is scanning system as in old tv tubes + noise dumping system.

Thanks so much Robin - yet another great video! I *still* miss my 5D mark I years after I traded it. I still have two 20D bodies, one infrared and one normal. I absolutely love them both and despite being a little brother to the 5D, I find my 20D delivers much of what I miss about the 5D. It says a lot that I use far more modern cameras for the wildlife and landscape photography I love to do the most, but I am constantly taking the 20D out and leaving my newer stuff at home because I love the results. If you can look at your pics and smile, I think that's the most important thing.

You are dead on with this one Robin. I still shoot my e-5 and e-510 all the time. These old Kodak sensors are amazing. Love these vintage videos. Now if we can get you to shoot some MANUAL vintage OM lenses that would be fun.

Such a big and complex subject! I have all these CCD pocket cameras, and I just love the different ways they reproduce colors. They may nor be technically perfect, but I don't think people see the way cameras do anyway. In fact, cameras are nowhere near being able to see as well as humans do. All I can say is that the colors never look "flat" and they are very easy to absorb. Thanks to Robin, I will be getting a 5D Classic for sure, this video decided me!!!!

Robin I Bought my Pentax *istDL in 2005 and my Pentax K100D in 2006 both are 6 megapixel CCD sensor cameras that I stil use I like the way the colors pop with modern photo editing software especially my pictures of fall foliage in New England.

At the beginning of the CMOS era, there was some drawbacks in CMOS technology compared to CCD. But CMOS was cheaper and consumes less energy, so that both advantages were the reason why industry put money in develop better and better CMOS sensors. An advantage of CCD up today is that even a cheaper CCD is a global shutter one, even in point and shoot cameras. I would love a CCD full frame sensor with today technology.

I liked your video a lot. I still find satisfaction when using my Nikon D3000 that I purchased in 2010. Apparently I am faithful to it and when battery died last year I decided to get a new battery and keep the camera.

I have a 2006 Kodak Z650 point and shoot camera. It does in fact have a CCD sensor. This little 6mp camera takes excellent pictures even compared with my modern Olympus mirrorless cameras. ( EM10 MarkII and EM1 MarkII). It has surprisingly good color rendition !!!

I think color accuracy vs. aesthetic appeal depends entirely on the purpose and situation. Photographing for a client, whether wedding, product photography, etc., is hands down about color accuracy and reproducing reality. Aesthetically pleasing colors (and shadow quality, etc.) come into play when representing a more subjective experience, maybe more in art photography or for hobby use. I've used multiple cameras over almost 20 years of taking concert photos. I've seen professional photos of those same shows that are far superior in technical quality, but they have the look of "that happened." My favorites of my own photos have the look of "I know what it was like to be there." The photos that most give that quality are from cameras from the golden age of the CCD era, ~2005-2009 in the case of my cameras. I've taken photos since then that have more detail, far better low-light tolerance, require less correction, but editing them is a technical pursuit, not an artsy enjoyment.

I, like you, am into collecting older cameras. BTW - older Olympus cameras are my favorites to collect! I have never found anything special about CCD sensors. In my opinion, I get better results from CMOS sensors which I find more accurate. I also find that Pentax cameras produce super results. I have a k-5 and a k-50. But in general, as for faithful results, Olympus color science cannot be beat! Thanks for your videos. I enjoy them.

I definitely agree that accuracy of colors must come first, then artistic interpretation of those colors if desired. I know a number of women who spent DAYS picking out the perfect shade of color for their bridesmaid dresses, and they would have been horrified if the photos came back with those colors altered. And yes, brand colors are also highly scrutinized for accuracy.

The good thing about photography as an hobby/art/documentary tool is everyone has different liking and interpretation of what they see and what they like. It’s personal, emotional, fun, experimental, and enjoyable, not how “colour accurate”!

Thank you :)

Some models in a camera lineup will "seemingly" excel at color science. I shoot Nikon, and that's why I haven't sold my old D300 and D700 cameras. I really like the way they render skin tones, so I'll dig them out to shoot portraits. Not sure if anyone else notices it, but it does matter to me.

Thanks!!!

Another thoughtful video Robin. Maybe if we all saw the world with the same eyes we'd all agree, but we don't so there will always be room for personal taste and we can agree to disagree. Take the same camera into different environments and you'll likely get different results. Light and colour can vary so much in different locations and from day to day. Is it hot, is it cool, how high is the humidity, how harsh is the mid-day sun, is it raining yet? You know much about this in your part of the world. Drawing conclusions becomes subjective. Thanks for posting.

My Olympus E-300, Canon Powershot G9, and Kodak ZD710 have amazing colors and the only one of my cameras that beats them in color science is my Leica M10. I plan on getting another Canon Powershot G9 soon as a backup to my current one just in case anything happens to it because that’s the camera that’s always with me because how pocketable it is and has a zoom range of 35-200mm full frame equivalent. CCD sensors seem to portray true to life colors and that’s what seems to make them special.

Just did a test recently : Sigma DP3 Quattro (foveon) vs Fx Nikon D780 (cmos) vs apsc Nikon D60 (CCD) all used with an equivalent sharp portrait prime lens.results are incredible. The Foveon offers lots of detail but the raw needs to be processed to avoid color shift. Once processed well, The Foveon portrait looks very filmic. The CCD file needs the less PP and is excellent and very sharp for 10Mp. The colors are the most accurate and just pop. Color separation is beautiful on CCD. The CMOS file is the most malleable but looks dull in comparison. It needs PP and still doesn’t look as eye catching as the CCD file.

Hello Robin. I also bought an old D40 because i wanted to make again pictures as i did with my D50. Nice colors again yes, maybe little warmer versus the OM1 OM10 ones. I also feel great light. I definitly love these images. May be its also a question of multicoating treatment of old Nikon lenses 18/140mm or 18/200 or 18/105...

Hi Robin, thank you for another fantastic video. It is interesting how various cameras (sensors?) have different colour signature. A very long time ago, I loved colours from my D200, and D2x even more, and never understood how could anyone see D300 to have better colours. But I also have strong sentiment to Olympus 16mpx sensor. While my EM1ii is a wonderful camera, I think I prefer colours from the old em5 (mk1) and pen epl7… I can’t articulate what it is, all cameras have ‘keep warm colours” set to “off”, but they are slightly different. Of course I agree accurate colours are a must for professionals, as the success of your projects depends on it. But for many hobbyists, it’s hard to ignore, what we like 😊 best regards, Steven

Olympus E1 is Kodak CCD sensor. Very special by itself. Bought 2 after seeing your video. 😂

I shot a wedding for a friend on a 6mp Nikon D40. Looking back on the images they are beautiful. (Sony ccd sensor) I also used fill in flash for the confetti shot. The D40 synchronised for flash at 500th of a second! Perfect. I still use a 2005 Ricoh digital 8.1 megapixel ccd sensor.

I had Olympus E-1 back in the day, and colours from that camera stood the test of time. And camera had great ergonomics, too. But aside from (too small) resolution, I did sell it however, when I still could get good money for it, course it was really, really too slow for mi liking...

i am Nikon user, but fell in love with Olympus, i got one.

Good one Robin, there is way too much hype for the older cameras and lots of other KZfaqrs promoting them as better. In my opinion, just get a camera that you can afford, like and "want" to use and create the photos "you" want. I have an old 2012 CCD Fuji S4200 camera (I love this camera) and I tried it side x side along side my old 2015 Olympus EM-10 mk ii. With the exact same subject, focal length, etc - and side x side "printed" photos - I prefer the 2015 CMOS sensor in the Olympus. My favorite pocket camera is my iPhone 7, it also produces great colours.

Seams like the price on used E1s have gone up. Glad I held on to both of mine. Now for colors they seam to be the same to me. However the transition between pixels of different color is what I see as having more pop. I think that had to do with the absence of micro lenses that scatter and mix some light between pixels.

I still have a Nikon D50. Got that as my first serious digital camera when it was new!

I still use Canon EOS 30D from 2006, which has CMOS sensor but it looks really different (and unique like the 5d) from current cameras.

I used 3 different brands' cameras to photograph some flowers at a flower show on auto everything. Then I asked the flower show judges to tell me which camera's play back jpg was closest in colour to the flowers I'd photographed. This was at the show, so they could compare reality to the captured image. They chose the Olympus colours. I've used Olympus ever since. There were 7 judges, so if I had a colour bias, it didn't count. Each brand has its own subtle bias or look that pleases its devotees. As I publish my pictures on the website of the flower society whose judges opinions, I sought they spared me the time to get it as close to what they perceived as right as was possible.

I particularly shoot Sigma with their Foveon sensors, because - as far as I can see it - this sensor captures the colors most naturally. I also still have one or two old digital cameras with CCD sensors, and I may try them again just to check and compare them on this aspect.

I find the discussion about different sensors interesting, but... a bit of relic from the celluloid period. I'll explain... Different film and paper had different color tones (I still believe there is something in Kodak Gold), but all camera sensors are capturing image in black and white, which is then processed using bayer filter. Its 4 color filter in front of every sensor consisting of one red, two green ad one blue filter. These values are then calculated from grey tones, to colors. At this stage there is a lot of automated calibration in process and most cameras are aiming for best color reproduction possible and the variations which occur among different brands can be changed upon post production. Like if you want to have yellowish tint of Panasonic Leica lenses, while using Olympus just add 350-700 Kelvins to white balance :) Also you may use different ways of color calibration, either in camera or in POST. On other hand discusion about CCD, CMOS and Live MOS is an interesting topic. For example there is a claim that M43 systems have higher noise because of smaller sensor surface. The thing is that on any system surface sensitive to light covers about 1/4 of each individual pixel. Rest is the analog signal amplifier and other electronics. These were made smaller on M43 and the design is different. Its not CCD, its not CMOS, but NMOS. In terms of electrical engineers, the design is not symmetrical and therefore the noise is higher. That lead to various misconceptions that F1.4 in M43 equals to F2.8 FF which is not true. Giving enough light for a certain time period will reduce noise in any situation, including higher ISO scenarios. All image sensors simply work to 'Signal to noise Ratio' or SNR for short. Its an interesting thing to know when using digital camera. Like this you can get nice clean image from bright and medium parts from the image, and you can make dark but noisier parts less noisy by making them bit darker and let noise fade to black. The other thing is with bits. The more bits per channel the sensor offers the higher accuracy of capturing the right color tone. However people tend to like warmer color tones, vivid, with slightly higher and punchier gradation. That usually means less colors rather than more. as with 10bit color gamuts in movies, those may look bit more muted even when properly displayed. Hope this helps.

In the films days, I shot mostly for magazine artilces and prints. Different positive films had different colors and I would match my film to my subject. I did use positive film although it had less dynamic range, it had a nicer contrast and color. Although sometimes, I would use a low contrast film. Velvia had its place. But was not for weddings as an example. Kodachrome just lacked in landscapes, but llooked lovedly for other thinbgs. Now today with post processing, I do not worry about it any more. I do have my LUTS I use with Adobe products to match Panasonic and Olympus as sometimes I would use both cameras on a job and wanted a profile I could batch use to match the photos. Still I could often tell in magazines such as Life and National Geographic what film was used for the photo. Which means none were accurate and for those uses accuracy was not an issue, the look and emotion of different films was what sold my works.

I can see many commercial situations where color accuracy is key. OTOH I think selection of sensors/pipelines is akin to selection of films. You pick the tool appropriate for the job. I enjoy having sensors with different looks. BTW I picked up an old e-m5 recently, and boy, those are raw files with an opinion! I love the colors but no way do I expect a faithful representation of the moment from that camera.

As a current member of Fuji World I currently use a CMOS. But in the last year I have re edited old images with new software (Luminar NEO, DXO Photoshop 5 ) The images from my Pentax ist* and K10 D both CCD sensors have a special quality. Not just the color. Initially the CMOS was not as good as the CCD and the biggest reason for the companies going to them was cost. I agree today they perform well but I wonder how the CCD would be today if they had a parallel improvement line.

The pleasing thing is just about art and nostalgia.

I’ve heard that the 6d ii has the same color profile as the original 5D. I loved my 5D wish I had kept it.

I also have Canon, and the way Canon renders the color is one of my favorite, Olympus colors are also on my list About old digital cameras, I have a few of them Olympus, Canon , Ricoh, HP, fuji, Toshiba, Nikon and a few exotic brands such as Traveler and all camera has its own touch and even the "worst" in terms of quality could provide this little tiny something unique that allows to have different pictures.

I totally respect everything you do and mean this in no disrespectful way. Maybe your eyes are just not as sensitive to colors as others. We're all different after all. Personally, I see the difference. It's a slight difference, but just enough to push an image over the top. I've shot ccd, Olympus 16 and 20 megapixel cameras, canon, Nikon, fujifilm. CMOS is a fantastic technology, because ccd can't shoot worth a darn in low light. They do however seem to grab rich color much more than cmos.

I still miss my E1's colours! I use a Nikon D7500 now and it's great, quality wise, but, the colours aren't so out and out pleasing as the E1's. I would also say that even my Olympus E520 (not a CCD camera) had a certain way of doing colour that I also wish I knew how to emulate on my Nikon. Something about the blues and the reds, that was always warm without turning too yellow like my Nikon tends to, and very pleasing in the brightness of the blues, without making the picture ever look cold. The E1, as well, at least, mine did, set at low contrast, had a really nice depth to the shadows.

Sony sensors often have the most 'tonally neutral' look but this is intentional. It allows for the widest latitude in terms of editing potentiality whereas if the colours are pushed/processed/saturated at the time of the capture that will impact the range of editing choices one can make. Having said that I still use my Nikon P7100 that has a CCD 1.7" sensor pretty regularly. The camera is super slow in capturing an image but it provides excellent results if the light is ample/great... it's a terrible camera if they volume of light drops off.

I heard that argument too. So I decided to compare my pictures taken on Canon bridge cameras. One lot taken on a Powershot Pro1 with CCD and another lot taken on a more recent Powershot SX50 with CMOS sensor. While I am generally pleased with both cameras, the SX50 has the edge on performance, IE, frames per second, zoom range, and faster auto-focus. But when it comes to colour rendition without editing, the older Pro1 has the edge.

Thank you Robin for this entertaining video, again. Because of your Canon 5D review I bought one and also I bought some Olympus Pen camera's. My questions are: why don't you use a protective filter for all your expensive lenses? I always buy a Skylight filter when I invest in some new glass. Also I am fond of your single hand straps. Where can you buy those? Keep up the good work and thanks from the Netherlands.

It would be interesting to compare cc'd to film

Nikon d200 is a beast and it tales beautiful pictures - colors is real result of this format. Not to mention the build quality and thoughtful menu and buttons location

I was hoping to see some pictures from the Canon 5D and that Pentax camera because you praised them.

Canon 5D original sensor has amazing velvety black lost in the 5D2….. the most sensual sensor

I think there are just some gems of cameras with sensor/readout hardware pairings (and JPEG engines) that work in perfect harmony, whether CCD or CMOS. I have one older Fuji P&S CCD camera that takes incredible photos for its size and age, but I also attribute some of that to its lens -- I have a few other older CCD cameras that take quite awful photos, however they do still have a 'point-n-shoot' look to them which can be interesting in itself. Variety is the spice of life and it's most true of photography, isn't it?

I'm with you. I don't see anything special about CCD sensors either, and I have used quite a few, as well as CMOS. I also agree about accurate colours over pleasing colours. Keep it up!

I've owned 4 4/3 cameras the e500,e410, e3 and e620 that is the order that they were released in not bought. But I can say that the e500 and e620 gave me the best colours with the least effort, the e3 was close. But the e410 was the worse- having a brown tinge that I managed to adjust our after many 10's of photos (but it could also have been that the e410 came from a market in Rebat morocco... similarly the e500 came from a pawnshop in Bogota). This experience/ancdote would support that it took a year or two for the engineers to get the cmos sensors to give a colour output similar to the CCD sensors.

I had an Olympus E-10 back in the day. The 4 megapixel photos were fine, but I sure wouldn't want to use that camera today.

I bought a D50 for $8 from a thrift store. I love the colors

I once had Olympus XZ-1. I got the feeling that the color (of photos) are more saturated than later cameras from Olympus which use CMOS sensors. But I never had XZ-2 to compare against XZ-1. As for the topic of accurate color vs pleasing color, mobile phones are usually biased towards the latter.

CCD power! The body and soft shutter of the E1 are simply inimitable.

Hi Robin, I assume when you say you like the 'organic looking' colour coming out of the 5Dmki it's from the camera's jpeg engine, not the 5Dmki RAW files....or is it both? Thanks

I used to be quite the Fuji fanboy but their colours were just off putting for me with every camera update (last camera was the x100v) Agree with a lot you said here, Robin. I own a E500, E300 and some other ccd cameras. I also own a Panasonic L1 (mos). The E300 gives lovely images for sure but I much prefer the output the L1 gives me. Has that pop to the colours BUT is accurate. I feel a lot of this boils down to the colour science. These earlier cameras (5D MK1 for example) came out at the time not far off from the film days so it seems the makers approach was to replicate closer to that or give out as accurate, true to life images. Modern digital cameras now compete with each other digital cameras. Including Fuji. I find skin tones really bad in most modern cameras. Side note:- Stop tempting me getting a K-01!!!!

Yes is true cmos has now good improvements nice vibrant colors less noise sharper . Ccd is still good too just some cameras as cmos cameras .

I do like the picture from the scene - 0:23 - which camera did you use?

I would say from my Nikon D200 that has a 10MP CCD sensor, the camera does give a warm orange tint on the pics, which does remind me of film photos I have from the 1970s. Now with that being said, I compared the Nikon D200 with the Nikon D300 which has a CMOS sensor. To my eye, the D300 colors are more realistic to what my real eyes see. The Nikon D200 does give a more film like appearance, but who said that is how the colors look in real life? To be honest, the old film colors to my eyes (mostly Kodak film), did not look like I see colors in person. However, the CCD sensor in my Nikon D200 gives a bit more even noise pattern more like film. That is my take. The modern CMOS sensors totally smoke the old CCD sensors for true to life colors in my opinion. However, if I want the more 70s film look, the CCD sensor in the Nikon D200 does a good job for this. True to life colors, the CMOS sensor in my Nikon D300 does better. However, I am waiting for my original Canon 5D to arrive in the mail. I have to see if the colors everyone is saying are so great in the original 5D is in fact true to my eyes.😅

I really like the CCD cameras I use - a Nikon D200 and sometimes a D70, but I also like some of the CMOS cameras I use, the D2Xs and the D700. I don't like the D300 as much, but it makes up for it with FPS and AF performance for birds, etc. With some newer Nikons, I haven't liked the color as much out of the camera, and find I spend time in Lightroom trying to get what I think I saw when I took the picture. Maybe some if it is the entire range of things Nikon did during that era to process the images back then - CFA's, color accuracy, tonal gain, photosites, etc. I think that the demand to get better and better ISO performance took it's toll in other ways - just a thought

halo, i am using nikon d50, d40, and d200 and i love their colour, specially when using them plus nikon flash (sb 800, sb 25)

Get yourself along to Specsavers. I worked for Kodak from 1968 for many years in the film process departments of many labs in England. Hand tanked 10x8 Ektachrome sheets at professional labs in Manchester but only took up photography in retirement. I worked my way through m43 and ended up at an A7Rii and non of the colours satisfied me. I eventually sold all my gear and bought a 16 year old CCD crop sensored M8 Leica. Job done, Kodachrome in a brass body, absolutely beautiful realistic muted yet vibrant colours. Wipes the floor with any cmos sensor no matter how fast, how much range, how much video crap it might offer,. If you want accurate colours and an unbelievably authentic enthralling experience get yourself an M8 mate.

I've used a few brands of digital still cameras and there is a big difference in color rendition. I think most of this is not per say the capture chip but instead the actual processor chip that creates the image. My experience is that I prefer the Canon brand for truer color and Sony for low light conditions. I have never liked Nikon there seems to be an overall flatness of contrast that bothers me. I've even gotten mixed images from different brands from wedding jobs and can pick out the Nikon ones immediately (I work as a lab tech. since the " old " film days ) .

Hi Robin, Did you try the Canon 6D mk1 ? It has best autofocus (centrer spot for sensibility and accuracy) and color science is very similar to 5D mk1

CCD is the way to go

I think it's more tones than colors that make CCD sensors kind of special. I can really see it when I shoot monochrome. I started shooting on film in the 80's and I definitely see how people say it replicates a sense of image quality similar to film. I also get where people like film simulations - it's not always about color accuracy. Sure for product stuff you have to be accurate but even back in film days different films rendered colors differently. And people would do things like shoot out of date film on purpose or process the film intentionally in the wrong chemical process to get certain odd 'looks'.

Hi Robin Can you let me know where and how to buy used cameras like yours.

No digital camera or film produces perfectly accurate color. I agree that Olympus colors are not perfectly accurate, because no camera does this. But to my eye, Olympus cameras have a good balance between accurate and pleasing colors.

I am always surprised by those vibrant colors that you get in your photos with Olympus cameras. Is it some form of revealed, the benefits of using the worspace? I don't remember seeing any video where you talk about it, otherwise I would appreciate it if you could guide me!

One thing I noticed with my old ccd panasonic camera is when capturing 720p video, it seems to have a global shutter. So there is no jello effect in video. This is very interesting.

You have to have at least 10mp for 300dpi 8x10 prints.

I am a novice JPEG shooter. I sometimes shoot in vivid mode. At a night carnival with colored lights is one example that comes to mind. A daytime photo of the same carnival doesn't seem to trigger the same emotion or memory. The adult entertainment district looks very different during the day. Perhaps the neon lights remind us of a childhood carnival? In my town we have hot air balloon events once a year. This is another time exaggerating reality is fun.

Love my jpeg colours out of my EM 1 mark II. But love the colours out of my Nikon D700 even more

I think Nikon cameras give the most true to life colours, when compared with Olympus and Canon. Nevertheless, I enjoy the Olympus colours.

Don't forget the screen for viewfinder...and ISP from Camera Processor...It all affects the accuracy of the colors displayed on the screen.

Yup, totally agree with you Robin. I don't buy into all this CCD colours are the best nonsense. I've even heard folk suggest it's more filmic and analog looking than images taken using a CMOS sensor. If they mean it's more grainy/noisy then I'd agree wholeheartedly lol. The only thing that looks filmic and analog to me is....film! CCD digital cameras were of their time, the best the technology could produce. Of course, many CCD based cameras can take very nice photos but I don't attribute their look as being anything to do with the CCD technology in and of itself. If that is the case perhaps undertake a blind test of several cameras, some CCD and some CMOS and see who can tell which is which 😁

Hi, is there any good second hand camera shops to buy this kind of cameras in kuala lumpur?

There's an in-depth website that compares a Leica camera with CCD with the later CMOS sensors by providing a blind test comparison. Honestly, I couldn't tell the difference.

The bayer filter is more "native" to how ccd renders the exposure over cmos where the foveon filter is more "native" to how cmos renders.

I'm planning to buy a "new" D3000 this year for this very reason.

Air quotes were plentiful and called for in this video. I also agree CCD sensors on cameras I’ve used don’t look special to me. All I remember is how slow my old digital cameras were compared to newer ones.

I agree with a lot you say. However, colour accuracy was an Olympus camera strength. Certainly the CCD sensors had more accurate colours. It been struggling to find newer camera which have accurate colour accuracy. It is made worse, as manufacturers have stopped making advanced compact cameras. Many big manufacturers are using the same sensors. So all the pictures look the same. The only other recent camera is the Fuji XT-100, which is the closest thing to the original CCD. Fuji uses a different sensor on that camera. The XT-200 is slightly different. For me it is frustrating for travel, as I do want an advanced compact camera, which can take great shots. Using a smartphone for photography is disappointing as the battery drains down. It does not give the control I need. Nor do I want a subscription to photo software to fix all the issues.

For product shots, and scientific/technical, colour authenticity is paramount. Authenticity meaning duplicating the original. For that Lumix Standard Photostyle is probably the most authentic of any camera brand. Seriously, if you're into product shots, you want this. Problem there is the Standard is often denigrated as boring, because it is. And so we have the Fuji film emulation, the PEN-F that can fiddle with its colour gain to emulate film and E-series CCD colours, so can the E-P7, and if we poke around inside it, so can a Lumix. Sadly most Olympus squash their magenta end and cannot reproduce violet at all well. Personally I like the CCD colour rendition out of my old Camedia C-2040Z even if it is only 2Mp and a bit clunky, but I am not going to rush out to buy another old CCD camera.

What are some cheap CCD cameras worth trying? Especially any with nice, affordable ultra wide lenses? I wonder if this might be a cheaper way to play with architectural photography rather than spending a few hundred on an ultra wide for my m4/3 lumix