In my previous post, I sang the praises of the Nikon D200 – first released in 2005. Back then, I could barely afford a decent digital point ‘n’ shoot, let alone a premium DSLR like the D200 ! Even RAW photos from this Nikon feature similar contrast, punch, and compressed dynamic range to those from the Olympus E1 – yet another widely respected antiquarian among cameraphiles and CCD sensor enthusiasts. I’ll not expand fervently on that in this entry, as I’ve done previously! Just some more photos from the hefty and reassuringly solid Nikon D200:
A rusty old shed somewhere – Nikon D200 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 lensThe green shed – Nikon D200
Notice the old tin shed theme so far? I won’t deny that lonely sheds make for some nice pictures, especially when they’re decaying into the sun-beaten soil.
The yellow shed – Nikon D200
Seriously, I was going to post something other than a shed, I really was, but I couldn’t help myself! Back to another angle of the yellow shed you saw in my last post. Looking at these photos, I can’t help but wonder again about the image quality perfected in some of these old cameras. Makes you also wonder about the role of marketing and what we believe.
The Nikon D200 was released to market in 2005 – a long time ago in the world of digital cameras. Everything about it screams digital retro – the hulking black body, the 10.2 megapixel CCD digital sensor, 11 auto-focus points, and 5 frames per second shooting speed. Anyone who reads this journal regularly, knows that megapixels aren’t everything. Also, I’m a sucker for old and slow technology that does a good job and has a good feel.
Yellow shed – Nikon D200 and Tamron 17-50mm F2.8
I’ve kind of concluded by now that the best of the CCD sensor cameras produce punchy and colourful images. Even the RAW files look nice and punchy. I know that some people put it down to a thicker Color Filter Array above the photosites, and this may certainly be part of it, but I also think that the limited dynamic range of the sensor and the tonal response tuned by the engineers produces photos with extra contrast. Modern CMOS sensors have a much wider dynamic range and tend to produce flatter files for editing. You’ll find that shadows can be lifted more and highlights retain greater detail. In cameras like the D200 and the Olympus E1, the limited dynamic range of the CCD sensor results in less shadow and highlight detail, making for files that have compressed tonal range – more contrast.
The output from the Nikon D200 is reminiscent of the output from the Olympus E1 – a 5 megapixel beast I regard very highly. Of course, the lens makes a difference too, and the Tamron 17-50mm is a nice fast walk-around lens that balances well on this Nikon. It’s a bit on the soft side at 17mm in the corners, but at F8 and around the 35mm mark, it produces sharp images across the frame in my experience. It’s a great fit for the old D200.
Sand and sky and mangroves – Nikon D200
Just as with the Olympus E1, I’m not doing much editing at all with the RAW files from the Nikon D200 – minimal contrast boost if required, sharpening, and only a little vibrance for all of the photos on this page. In use, it’s a solid camera with all of the external control buttons you could ever want. This was a camera with pro features at the time, for sure. The magnesium-alloy skeleton and deep hand grip makes it feel secure and reliable, providing enough weight and heft for balancing longer lenses. Next to modern Nikon mirrorless cameras though, the D200 is an antiquated hulk! It makes the Nikon D70 seem like a cheap piece of plastic.
Shipping containers, a shed, and a caravan – Nikon D200
I received two original Nikon EN-EL3a batteries with the camera. I’d charged both of them before going out, but one of them drained to zero within minutes of fiddling with menu settings. I know the D200 had a reputation for poor battery life, but I think that particular battery may be done for! The other battery seems to have plenty of juice though. I’ve ordered some third-party replacements anyway, as Nikon don’t manufacture the official batteries anymore.
0000 – 9999 – Nikon D200
The Nikon D200 was the last Nikon camera body to feature a CCD digital sensor. The Nikon D300 featured a CMOS sensor, which enabled the use of higher ISO settings and low light photography with less noise. I’ve never used the D300, but I know it’s considered one of Nikon’s best early digitals. In my opinion though, the D200 remains a great camera and certainly scratches the retro digital itch – one of Nikon’s best cameras in the market transition between film and digital.
You can see more D200 photos in my follow-up post here.
Having been very connected to my Olympus E-1 lately, I decided it was high time to take out another old digital camera in the Nikon D40. I don’t always get the chance to engage in street photography but when I do it can be a lot of fun. It does require a different approach though – being on the look-out for likely scenes and waiting for the right moment. The D40 isn’t exactly a classic street machine but it’s also small enough not to be much of a bother unless a big lens is attached, like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I decided to go with!
Reaching for the stars – Nikon D40, ISO 200, F 2.8
I find that the D40 makes really nice photos, but the CCD sensor technology isn’t so great when you have to pull details out of heavy shadows during editing. The RAW files are flexible enough, but the heavy shadow areas can be a bit thin. These older sensors also aren’t so great at retaining highlights either, so you have to make the choice – expose for shadows or highlights when the lighting creates dynamic range that’s outside of the scope of the camera. This is similar to slide film.
Framed by yellow – Nikon D40
Even though there’s noise in shadow areas when you pull up the exposure during editing, the digital noise pattern isn’t objectionable. This is one area where CCD sensors had a clear advantage over their CMOS counterparts at the time – lower noise and a finer noise pattern. We seem to have come a long way since those early digital days, but cameras like the D40 still make perfectly excellent photos! How far have we really come, one might wonder?
Free hugs – Nikon D40
There’s also another nice advantage to using an old camera like this – 6 megapixels pairs really well even with a kit lens that doesn’t see a lot of love. The old 18-55mm Nikkor kit lens is much maligned but is nicely sharp on an old camera like this, since it out-resolves the 6 megapixel sensor. My Tamron looks even better and seems to pick up plenty of primary colours wide open. Still a perfectly excellent camera.
The clouds are slowly dissipating after months of grey days and this weekend provided an opportunity to drive around some of the vibrant towns of the Murray River. I packed my bag with the Olympus E-1, Nikon Z5, and the Sony RX100. I continue to be impressed with the output from the old E-1, but dynamic range is limited, and careful consideration of a scene is required before clicking the shutter button, I’ve discovered.
Shadows on emerald metal – Olympus E-1
Window of opportunity
Every digital sensor (and film, of course) has a limited window within which it can manage the dynamic range of a scene. If the dynamic range (brightest and darkest areas) of a scene exceed the window, then an exposure decision must be made: crush blacks or burn highlights? Modern sensors have a bigger window, so provide more latitude. The E-1, not so much.
Scenes with plenty of mid-tones and minimal strong highlights / deep shadows are good for this camera. Evenly lit scenes are great too. With excessive tonal ranges, I usually crush blacks because it’s less distracting for the eye, but it depends on how numerous the extreme tonal ranges are and the composition I’ve decided on.
Unused, catching dust and webs – Olympus E-1
The onboard tonal response of the Olympus is contrasty. Again, great for evenly lit scenes that could use a contrast bump, but not so great for extreme tonal ranges where pushing them further just causes distracting visual elements. The more I use this camera, the better I get at evaluating scenes in front of me before even picking the camera up. And if I can frame a scene and limit the extreme tonal ranges, I’ll do that. I also commonly dial in some negative Exposure Compensation to protect highlights but only when I want to preserve better gradation of tone over areas where distracting highlights could be a problem. Evenly lit scenes don’t need it unless that’s the look I’m going for.
Beneath the old machine – Olympus E-1
Calibrated for the old film pros?
It’s clear to me that the RAW files from the Olympus E-1 are different to the RAW files we get from modern cameras, but I don’t think this is a CMOS or CCD issue. The native tonal response of the E-1 produces files that are already contrasty and punchy. The images on this page are essentially the RAW output with barely any editing at all.
I know that some people will say I should use OM Workspace to get the colour goodness from this camera, but that software remains awful to use. And the few RAW files from the E-1 I’ve loaded into OM Workspace produce much the same initial result as the Adobe Standard profile in Lightroom, though my testing isn’t extensive enough to warrant strong views.
So, back to my speculation on the punchy files from the E-1. In 2003, when the camera was released, digital photography wasn’t mainstream. It’s entirely possible that early cameras like this were internally calibrated to produce images that were as close to certain film types as possible in terms of punchiness and also required less editing in software. Remember, there wasn’t a lot of RAW editing software around at the time.
None of that means these old cameras make filmic photos, but it may explain why there seem to be differences in output compared to our modern cameras. I think this is less about the inherent properties of a CCD sensor and more about what kinds of photos the film companies wanted us to see from their cameras via internal calibrations. Now that photo editing programs are numerous and commonplace, modern cameras are calibrated to output flat RAW files that can easily be edited. Just speculation, of course.
The Olympus E-1 is quickly becoming one of my favourite cameras. There’s a certain solidity to the photos from it. The mid-tones are strong and the tone curve applied in-camera produces really attractive images. If there’s anything to the CCD versus CMOS sensor argument, the E-1 is likely one of the best arguments for CCD being inherently superior. None of this is to suggest that modern cameras can’t produce amazing images, of course.
Crystal Lake – Olympus E-1
With my time currently limited, the fact that the RAW files from the E-1 require far less editing than expected is a big positive. And I still think that people are overpaying for cameras like this. It may be a really nice camera, but it lacks many of the niceties we’ve become accustomed to on our modern cameras. The limited dynamic range can be a problem in difficult lighting conditions and there’s no Histogram or highlight blinkies to check exposure. This does lead me to more carefully consider the tonal range of a scene and whether I use ESP or Spot metering, so it’s a good thing for learning, really.
Mine also has a few issues – a missing eye-cup and the mode dial is stuck in either Program mode or Manual mode. The eyepiece is not an issue but the mode dial is frustrating. I can live with it though. It does serve to remind me that this is an old camera now and it won’t last. Yet another reason not to overpay for old tech!
Table for Three – Olympus E-1
I’d also taken out the Finepix S5600 along with the E-1 in my camera bag, but once I opened up the Finepix files at the end of the day, I was disappointed. If I hadn’t been using the E-1 all day, the Finepix would likely have pleased me enough. But looking at those photos side by side, the E-1 completely blows the Finepix out of the water.
I feel a sense of melancholy when I use the E-1 though. Olympus isn’t the company it used to be, with the imaging arm now sold off and owned by OM Digital Solutions. The E-1 is every bit a lovely camera from a different time. It was a time when digital photography wasn’t quite yet mainstream and venerable companies like Olympus were putting every effort into the new digital market – enticing film shooters with the promise of not having to pay for film development.
I can’t help but feel that the E-1 contains as much technical mojo as Olympus could pour into it. The collaboration with Kodak represents the shared vision of two traditional companies focussed on surviving in a rapidly changing photography landscape. Ultimately, neither company managed to escape a brutal market where smartphone cameras defined the new rules, with severe decline causing them either to be sold off piece by piece or handed over to new owners divorced from company tradition.
It seems that every weekend is cloudy lately, but that’s not a bad thing when you have an old camera that doesn’t handle high dynamic range scenes well. I took out the Olympus E-1 recently and found it a really interesting device – it feels great and has the gentlest shutter sound I’ve ever heard. I had another opportunity to use it yesterday and set it to record RAW and JPG. The results surprised me.
Old Methodist Church – Olympus E-1
I’ve questioned the idea of CCD sensors rendering colour differently to their CMOS counterparts, but ultimately I couldn’t be entirely sure there was nothing going on. There really shouldn’t be, as digital imaging sensors themselves are colour-blind and it’s only the Colour Filter Array atop them that could influence colour, apart from usual suspects like White Balance and lens quality.
Imagine my surprise when I found that the RAW files from the E-1 look almost identical to the JPG and TIFF outputs, apart from some extra sharpening. Normally, you’d expect RAW files to look flatter and less saturated when contrasted to processed JPGs from the same camera, but this is not so with the E-1.
Strictly No Parking – Olympus E-1
I know that Lightroom applies a colour profile to each import, of course. I know that it does some sharpening and processing up-front to create a workable image. But what I’m finding with the E-1’s RAW files is that I don’t actually need to do much additional processing at all. The RAW files already look good and don’t look as flat as you’d expect a demosaicedfile to look. So, what’s happening? Why do the E-1’s ORF files (Olympus’ naming convention for RAW files) look so similar to the processed JPGs?
Keep Clear – Olympus E-1
I have a theory – I think the E-1 is not doing much JPG processing at all, apart from some sharpening. Where we’d normally see a flat RAW image and a punchy JPG file, I suspect the E-1 is converting the ORF and applying minimal processing. This may be why the files look similar.
Please bear in mind that none of this is scientific. I’ve not sat for hours and tested side-by-side photos. I also know that processors like Lightroom make substantial changes when importing photos. I write all this knowing that it’s simple first impression and could be an error in my perceptions/technical set-up. This is a journal and sometimes my thoughts meander, so please be kind!
Restricted – Olympus E-1
Back to Kodak Colour Science
I have my doubts about CCD sensors and their supposed inherent colour superiority. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of old junk CCD cameras out there too, so it may not be a property of the CCD sensor at all. Yet, I can’t help but think that there’s something interesting happening inside the Olympus E-1. There’s no doubt that in the right lighting conditions it can produce superb images.
So far, and I may be completely wrong here, the Olympus E-1 is the only digital camera I have that even comes close to the output of my Sigma DP2 Merrill camera (now with a sticky leaf shutter, sadly). That’s high praise, considering the Sigma uses a Foveon sensor – a very different image recording technology. Of course, when I say close, the E1’s photos are still not really like the Foveon produced images, but the E1 does have the feel of needing to be treated like a camera with old slide film loaded, where you have to really look after wide tonal ranges.
Old town waterways – Olympus E-1 with Zuiko 14-42 mm kit lens
It’s not as though my E-1 sports a spectacular lens that makes the photos look great. It’s the old Four-Thirds system Zuiko kit lens – 14-42 mm 3.5 to 5.6. Not that Zuiko lenses are poor at all, as even the so-called kit lenses are truly respectable. So, is there some Kodak colour science happening here? At the very least, it looks like a tone curve is being applied to create a punchier image and this is translated to the demosaicing process. I really don’t know what it is, but I’m certainly happy to keep using this camera. It may not replace my faulty Sigma, but it’s very satisfying to use.
When the Olympus E-1 was introduced in 2003, it was the first time a company had designed a camera exclusively for digital photography from the ground up. And the Olympus E-1 was, in every way, a camera designed for the pro digital photographer. Not only is it the best feeling camera I’ve ever held, it also features a dampened shutter sound that has been described by some as a soft hug. The sweet mechanical kiss of the, clearly over-engineered, shutter mechanism adds positively to the experience of using this chunky and well-made device.
Beyond grassy edges – Olympus E-1
Kodak Colour Science?
There’s some thought that the Kodak-made CCD digital sensor in the E-1 has some magical properties that produce amazing photos and amazing colour. It’s hard to comment on that, as I haven’t enough experience with it yet. However, I’m pretty certain that Olympus tweaked the on-board software to make some great looking photos so as to appeal to the professional film shooters of 2003 who were stubbornly holding onto their film stocks.
The photo above does look good after editing the TIFF file in Lightroom, and I didn’t need to do a lot of editing at all. You’ll see that highlights are easily burned out, so using negative Exposure Compensation to protect those highlights is a must-do in certain kinds of light. I recorded in-camera to TIFF format just to see if I could recover more detail from shadows and highlights. I was certainly successful at recovering plenty of shadow detail so it’s best to expose for the highlights and recover the shadows later.
Mostly in shadow – Olympus E-1
The Olympus E-1 is a very satisfying camera to use, and that’s mostly down to the ergonomics. Sporting a weather-sealed, thick magnesium-alloy body, the E-1 absolutely feels like a pro camera. Mine came with the old 14-45mm kit lens and it’s certainly a pretty good performer. They really don’t make cameras like this anymore!
It’s clear that Olympus threw everything at this camera and likely hoped it would attract the pro film crowd over to their Four-Thirds digital system. This makes me wonder what we’re really paying for these days when we spend thousands on a camera body and it’s not even built to the same specifications as this old E-1! Not that this camera was cheap at the time.
Built to the edge – Olympus E-1
Is the magic real?
In some ways, it doesn’t much matter if the Kodak sensor has some inherent superior colour properties or not. The E-1 is just a joy to use. That’s as long as you don’t mind limited dynamic range, and the need to protect highlights and do some editing. The camera does churn out some great looking photos and I look forward to trying it in many more scenarios. And lastly, no other shutter sounds this gentle!
In the days between film and the mainstream take-up of digital, traditional companies like Nikon were doing what they could to persuade people to finally make the jump to Digital SLRs. We’re now a long way from the days of the Nikon D40 – featuring 6.1 megapixels and an APS-C sized sensor – but it can still surprise with excellent image making. And after going out with a number of Finepix cameras recently, the D40 feels fantastically Nikonian, which is to say that the ergonomics are comfortable and familiar.
Dodge and polished chrome – Nikon D40
Note the lovely reds of the car body and the blue of the chrome preserved in the above photo. Plenty of detail with this old sensor too. I was using the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 Nikkor kit lens, version 1. Plastic feel for sure, but decent optics, especially for a 6.1 megapixel sensor, where any shortcomings of the glass aren’t a deal-breaker. It turns out that the shutter mechanism isn’t faulty at all, as I thought last week, just my inability to note that the Exposure Compensation goes in reverse on these Nikons! That’s some good news at least, and rather makes up for the Finepix 602z I recently purchased, with a bent CF pin and non-working EVF. At least it was cheap!
Garden of colour – Nikon D40
I was fortunate to have some great sunlight late in the day. These old CCD cameras definitely love the light, and I’m looking forward to also receiving my Olympus E1, even if it does have some usability issues. I’d heard a lot about the colour of the D40 and it doesn’t disappoint in this kind of light. I won’t say there’s something magical about CCD colour, like others do, but these photos do make you wonder whether image making has really advanced as much as we’re told?
As the leaves catch last light – Nikon D40
My Nikon D40 settings: JPG Fine, base ISO of 200, Exposure Compensation often set to -0.3 or -0.7, and Vivid picture mode. There’s barely any noise at 200 ISO and reputation has it that noise is not much of an issue up to 800 anyway. Old forums also suggest that the D40 has a tendency to overexpose, so I did often dial in a touch of negative Exposure Compensation just to preserve highlights.
The above photo was one that I made in Nikon’s native NEF Raw format. The Raw files from the D40 definitely have more latitude than the JPGs and it’s easier to tame highlights and shadows, but there’s certainly less editing potential in these files compared to the NEF files from modern Nikons. Nevertheless, the photo is pleasant, and working with NEF does provide the option to use a different White Balance setting and fine tune any sharpening.
The D40 was one of Nikon’s most popular early consumer cameras and I can understand why. I like that it’s so small and fits easily in a smallish camera bag. I’ll have to seek out the G version of the 50mm 1.8 lens for it, as the D version requires a screw drive motor, and the D40 lacks this feature. Really, the D40 proves that picture quality wasn’t a problem for digital cameras even in 2006.
Previously, I admitted to having developed a thing for the old Fujifilm Finepix bridge cameras from yesteryear. I didn’t have the money to buy them back when they were new and I’ve often heard good things about Fujifilm cameras in general. Given the recent fetish in the more feverish and magical corners of the internet with CCD cameras of a certain vintage, I think it’s a good time to explore their capabilities and features.
Blossoms – Finepix 6500fd
Where the S7000 is a bit clunky and shows its age, despite some amazing image making capacity for the time, the S6500 feels more modern and sleek. Start-up time is quicker, menus are cleaner and more responsive, and the nice histogram that overlays on the, slightly disappointing, EVF when the Exposure Compensation button is pressed is really useful for looking after highlights and shadows.
I set it to JPG Fine and the Chrome picture mode. This pushes contrast and boosts saturation, especially in greens. Unfortunately, the day was thick with cloud cover, but the Auto White Balance did an admirable job when photographing flower blossoms on the side of the road. Even in this grim light, there’s lots of detail.
Speaking of detail, can you believe that the above photo was made with a small sensor bridge camera from 2006? Even under heavy cloud, there’s amazing detail in the foliage and on the sign. I set Soft sharpening in-camera, preferring to sharpen up in Lightroom. At ISO 100, there is no discernible noise. Unlike the JPGs from the S7000, where pushing them even a little during editing shows plenty of digital noise and tonal fragility, the JPGs from the 6500 preserve a lot more noise-free detail in shadows. The photo above was pushed to +30 in shadow areas! Apart from that, there were small boosts to mid-tone Contrast and Clarity.
Machinery in the yard – Finepix S6500fd
More than megapixels and sensors
The quality of these photos is not just about the sensor. Though the sensor is the same one that’s in the much-loved Fuji F31fd camera, a great lens also makes a big difference. A quick trip out under heavy clouds and rain isn’t ideal for testing a camera, but just looking at the detail in the foliage from a 6.3 megapixel Super CCD sensor and lens combination from 2006 is something of a revelation.
Beauty on the side of a back-road
I think this camera is worthy of setting to record in native Raw file format at some stage, just to see how much detail can be pulled from shadows and highlights. What’s clear is that the Super CCD sensor in the S6500 handles higher dynamic range scenes much much better than the older and clunkier S7000. Two years of digital camera advancement makes a big difference, and I can only imagine how thrilled I would have been to have had this camera way back when!
I’m not a scientist. I’m not an engineer of any sort. I’m certainly not a designer of optical devices or digital sensors, just so you know. There has been debate in some corners of the web about old cameras with CCD sensors rendering better colour and their images looking more film-like. I think a pleasing photo is a subjective thing and people are free to decide what that looks like. I’m just curious about the nature of the debate and why people might think this way.
CCD sensors were the dominant type of digital sensors at the dawn of digital photography. Around 2010 or so, CMOS sensors started to appear in new camera models. At the time, I really didn’t think about it, as I couldn’t even afford any of the better CCD cameras anyway. And believe me, there are plenty of CCD cameras that make junk photos! Interestingly, the CCD colour is better pundits rarely discuss those junk cameras, perhaps because their output doesn’t suit the argument that CCD colour is better.
Of Nikons, Canons, Pentax, and Fujifilm
When people talk about those lovely CCD colours, they usually reference the same cameras: most of the early Nikon CCD cameras, the Fuji Super CCD cameras, early Canons and compacts of a certain model, the Olympus Evolt series, the Leica M9, and a handful of compacts with excellent output. Of course, those cameras were always considered excellent. Reviews at the time of their release praised them, so it’s no surprise that they’re still great cameras today.
I used a few CCD cameras at the time, and then moved to CMOS cameras because that’s what was being sold. I don’t remember anyone discussing the merits of CCD colour versus CMOS colour. I do know that the output of many cheap and cheerful CCD cameras at anything higher than 200 ISO is pretty awful – there’s lots of chroma and luminance noise, and the colours don’t look so great. If you read reviews of those old consumer cameras online, you’ll see there was a focus on accuracy of colour. This is because camera makers saturate certain colours to make the output more attractive for consumers.
Consider the quote above about an old CCD camera. Evidence that colour reproduction has always been on the mind of the photographer and that CCD cameras, for all their current hype, have issues with accurate colour reproduction. This is not to say that inaccurate colours are less attractive. Many cameras are sold based on how their on-board JPG conversion software renders colour, after all.
What influences the colour of a digital photo?
First of all, whether it’s a CCD sensor or a CMOS sensor, the sensor itself is actually colour-blind. The sensor only sees lightness/brightness and not colour. The Colour Filter Array on top of this slice of silicon filters wavelengths of light into Red, Green, and Blue. All of this data is transferred to AD converters and the signal amplified. The on-board software takes this data and, in the case of JPG output, it does some clever stuff to render a compressed file. To achieve the Canon look or the Olympus look, or whatever, the software also applies a tone curve, temperature and tint settings, and may saturate certain colours more heavily.
The Fuji-Chrome look in digital
Fuji is pretty well-known for offering users lots of film presets in their digital cameras. These settings emulate some of the qualities of certain films, including colour, grain, and tone curve. The photo above is from an old Fuji Finepix S7000. It’s a JPG straight out of the camera on the Chrome setting. Note that there’s a slight green bias in the white balance, as well as extra contrast. Definitely a pleasing photo.
On some makes of camera, the White Balance is known to bias warmer or cooler. Nikons tend to have a cooler look to photos, and this helps to produce better colour in some scenes where a warmer bias would create unnatural colours, such as in some types of skin tones. But these things largely matter only when JPG file output is needed.
Choice of lens also has some influence on how a photo looks. People talk about the Leica look, for example, noting that there’s some mystique about it. I don’t have the money to buy a Leica of any sort, so it’s hard for me to comment on this phenomenon. What I do know is that a poor lens can produce poor output, and a great lens can produce great output. Leica have always been known for the superiority of their optics, so it’s most likely that the signature Leica look has a lot to do with the contrast and sharpness imparted by the lens.
Hype and reality
So, why are some people talking about the inherent superiority of CCD sensors and how they render colour? Is CCD colour a question of hardware or software? Here are some common reasons and assumptions, including my thoughts on them, from people who believe that CCD sensors produce better or more film-like images:
The old CCD sensors have thicker Colour Filter Arrays that separate colour better and produce stronger images: As I said, I’m no engineer, so this is tough to question. If this is true, then all a camera maker would need to do is to put a thicker CFA on a new CMOS sensor, and it would approximate all of those great colour results from old cameras. I strongly suspect that the CFAs have very little, if anything, to do with it though, given that there are other strong influences on how a photo looks, such as white balance and camera software.
Camera manufacturers stopped using CCD because CMOS was cheaper, which led to less organic images: Companies do things to save money all the time, but would they really intentionally hobble the output of their cameras to the extent that many CCD enthusiasts believe?
Camera X with a CCD sensor makes photos that look so much better than camera Y with a CMOS sensor, so therefore the CCD sensor must be superior: Let us not forget that most CCD pundits never mention all the junk CCD cameras from that era (is anyone talking about those plasticky Nikon L series compacts that produce average photos?). They mostly talk about the CCD cameras that are still good, even today. They were praised then, and they are still making good photos now. I think that some people who were too young to remember the digital transition now cultivate the mistaken assumption that old camera technology is mostly inferior to today’s technology, and that those great cameras from yesteryear make photos look great because there’s some hidden and forgotten technology in them – the CCD sensor.
CCD cameras make images that are film-like: Let us be clear – only film looks like film. I grew up with film cameras and remember the cheap cameras (I couldn’t afford anything else), powerful in-built flashes, and cheap consumer film. I think the look that many young people talk about relates to the softer quality of many film photos due to low-grade lenses and the appearance of highlights from low-priced consumer film cameras. Those old CCD cameras have limited dynamic range, often creating blown highlights. The best CCD sensors, at low ISOs, do produce less digital noise due to the chip’s architecture, and some people say that this means it’s closer to film. But modern CMOS sensors have advanced greatly in these areas and have far more dynamic range, colour accuracy, and noise control. Just look at the crappiest CCD cameras at anything above base ISO and you’ll see some pretty ugly chroma and luminance noise. The best CCD cameras from that era can make some very nice low noise images, even up to 800 ISO, but none of this means it looks like film. Plenty of people know more about it than I do, but film grain is random and organic. Digital noise is square and uniform. Where an old and highly regarded CCD camera may be useful is at the lowest ISOs and almost no perceptible digital noise. That could make for some nice black and white conversions. The low noise might also make it a better fit for overlaying scanned images of film grain. I’ve never seen much point in overlaying film grain over digital photos that already have digital noise.
You’ll have unlimited film-like images if you buy this cheap CCD camera: There are lots of YouTube videos touting the benefits of these old digicams, even going so far as to label them Y2K cameras. This is a hook to lure people in to watching the videos so that the creators can game the algorithm and snag subscribers, with a little magical thinking and potential profiteering thrown in. Growing up, I saw thousands of photos from film cameras of all sorts. The so-called Y2K camera, the moniker itself a pointer to the generational interest in digicams, doesn’t make film-like images.
If you want to read a pretty in-depth, though only loosely scientific, article on CCD versus CMOS colours, take a look at this site. Spoiler alert: there isn’t a visible difference between them for most people, and any colour output differences seem to come down to company preferences with regard to on-board software processing. CMOS also offers so much more low-light performance that it’s little wonder CCD was replaced by it in the end.
There is something curious about the Olympus E-1 I’ve been using recently, in light of this speculation about sensors. The RAW files it produces are not as flat and dull as you’d expect. They require little editing when exposure settings are nailed. Is that the sensor? Maybe. More likely a tone curve applied, though it seems odd that this can be seen in the RAW files? You can read my thoughts about it here.
Nikon Z5, when paired with sharp lenses, can produce wonderful output
Does it matter?
People love the photos they love. And I’m not an engineer, so I don’t have all the answers. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. Humans are always looking for meaning somewhere and often latch onto narratives despite the data. And that’s OK. Creating and finding greater meaning in life is what we’ve always done.
What I do find interesting is how much prices have risen for the CCD cameras that get the most attention in these online forums and social media discussions. No doubt, some people in those corners have enough interest in profits and online followers that they’ll keep pushing the CCD vs CMOS colour narrative, even unconsciously. I think this is what bothers me the most: the fact that a lot of young people are being duped into paying a three figure sum for a point and shoot from the early 2000s just because some YouTubers told them that the CCD sensor it features produces filmic photos.
In the end, whatever the truth, it’s all part of the marketing and hype cycle. It’s a snake-oil trend that will eventually fade. A generation that grew up seeing family members use those early digital cameras are now looking back to find inspiration in a world that’s over-saturated by AI and overly processed images from smartphones. They feel nostalgic about those old cameras from their childhood and that’s perfectly OK and understandable.
Are digicams worth using now?
The short answer is: yes, of course old cameras are worth using now! Admittedly, I like some of those old cameras because I can afford some of the best ones and their history interests me. And where else would they end up? In the junkyard, thoughtlessly tossed and abandoned as old XD cards and Compact Flash cards molder and rot in their plastic slots? We don’t need the latest and greatest cameras to make interesting photos, that’s for sure.
I do have one thing to thank the Y2K digcam craze for: it has provided me with the impetus to explore some of the early digital cameras I always wanted and could never afford at the time. I can now appreciate some of the great technology in some of those cameras and see how we ended up where we are now. It has also taught me something else: image-making hasn’t advanced as much as the big companies want us to believe.
The Rusty Ruin Journal 