Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
If you fully understand what is sunk cost and know what is a rational decision then you would not be bothered by seller's remorse. I have never had a single moment of regret since dumping my IQ260, because it is not suitable for my use cases. I actually had relief instead as I no longer had to face something that depreciates every single day without bringing me the images I want. CCD had its golden days and will eventually go. Even the site owner (Guy) is using the Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor (A7R). You know which is the future. (645Z/IQ250 is a larger version of the A7R/D800E.) If these are not enough, keep in mind that Antony Spencer (who shot the advertisement image for the IQ260 and Phase One A-series) dumped the IQ280 and settled with a D800 (Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor). CCD for me is just like film - they could make nice images but are technically obsolete for me. It is pretty easy for me to ignore the 645 format CCDs, just as easy as ignoring the 8x10 films.Thanks guys. The last four posts have given me a lot of comfort. I did not want to suffer from seller's remorse, looks like that is not going to happen. It is heartening to learn that I am not the only one who has had doubts.
Hold on pal. Do NOT use me in your lame sales pitch for CMOS. You have no ****ing idea why i sold my CCD sensor backs. This really pisses me off. My wife has breast, lung and brain cancer for the last 5 years and I sold it all to pay her medical bills which runs in to hundreds of thousands. So do not use me as your escape goat to bolster your pitch for CMOS. Do NOT ever assume anything in life. I earned my respect here your still working on it and using me is not the route to take.If you fully understand what is sunk cost and know what is a rational decision then you would not be bothered by seller's remorse. I have never had a single moment of regret since dumping my IQ260, because it is not suitable for my use cases. I actually had relief instead as I no longer had to face something that depreciates every single day without bringing me the images I want. CCD had its golden days and will eventually go. Even the site owner (Guy) is using the Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor (A7R). You know which is the future. (645Z/IQ250 is a larger version of the A7R/D800E.) If these are not enough, I would let you know that Antony Spencer (who shot the advertisement image for the IQ260 and Phase One A-series) dumped the IQ280 and settled with a D800 (Sony IMX094 CMOS sensor).
I don't think CMOS just has a better ISO.I am so sick of the claim CMOS is better than CCD which has been repetitively commented all over the places.
The 2 best photographers @ GetDPI, in my opinion, Ed and Dan, using CCD sensor.
We've had a forum "Fun with MF images". If you want to convince me CMOS is better than CCD by showing me your own artistic pictures that better than both of them, I will sell all my CCD DB and never look back.
Please understand, I am not biased and I don't have to as I've currently owned both CMOS and CCD cameras. I've had to be honest I don't see the difference in IQ. It's just one has a better ISO. That's it!
Best regards
Pramote
I've owned IQ 180/260 for many years since they came out. I've also owned Leica S2, P1 25+ and Pentax 645Z. I've still owned them all. Each ones of them have their own advantages.I don't think CMOS just has a better ISO.
One month ago I decided to step into the MF and since the 135 system has completely taken over by CMOS , I have few knowledge on CCD so I looked for answers. Some 'veteran' photographers told me that
' CCD has unique colors which CMOS will never be able to present',
'CCD preserves more high light details',
'CCD has more color sensitivity',
&'CCD is of course better than CMOS because CCD is more expensive( to be mass-produced)' etc.
Fortunately I didn't easily believe them and got quite opposite opinions by simply checking DXO for data.Then I saw Void's detailed tests on CCD/sony CMOS backs which totally crush those fallacies. Personally I believe in his tests because he's got really concrete evidence and responsible attitude ,most of all , I could find nothing to contradict except for superstition. It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.
As a hesitating newbie , I do need these tests and plainspoken conclusions. More or less , we enter MF for its superior I.Q ! One day we will say good bye to BKT , HDR and they will be all replaced by simply moving sliders in ACR.
What you have plainly missed (as well as many other armchair quarterbacks happy with sitting at home with DxO and shooting brickwalls) is that photography is not "quantifiable to numbers.".... It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.....
As a hesitating newbie , I do need these tests and plainspoken conclusions.
He also has an agenda. His test are extreme and they are biased. I am not saying there is not a technical advantage to CMOS over CCD, there is and DXO Mark scores shows that (imaging system have always been quantified by numbers), but what is the actual significance? Voidshatter has a very narrow view of photography that is extreme and his conclusions are not really saying anything beyond examples of confirmation bias and WYSIATI (What You See Is All There Is).Personally I believe in his tests because he's got really concrete evidence and responsible attitude ,most of all , I could find nothing to contradict except for superstition. It is the digital world now and a camera sensor can be surely quantified to numbers.
This thread's moved on since I last looked.