Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Colour Rendition Shootout: 6M CCD Vs 16M CMOS - *ist DL2 Vs K-5

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Colour Rendition Shootout: 6M CCD Vs 16M CMOS - *ist DL2 Vs K-5



It has been almost ten years since Pentax launched their first DSLR, the *ist D, almost ten years ago. I did buy my *ist D very shortly after it hit the streets and it may be interesting to read back my old textural review of it which was first published back to fall 2003.

Okay, nine years something has elapsed and now the new Pentax cameras have climbed up to 16 megapixels in pixel count and resolution. Yet, as we all know, they are all equipped with an APS-C sized cropped (still!) sensor in 16M. The noise level of the new CMOS sensor is undoubtedly lower and they are video capable. But how about the image quality besides resolution? What have we gained, or, actually lost?

So, I decided to do a shootout test myself, side-by-side and head-to-head for my two old and newer Pentax DSLRs, namely, the *ist DL2, which is the last *ist body actually, and the K-5, which is the first Pentax DSLR using the same never-upgraded but ever recycled Sony 16M CMOS sensor or its variant in all the newer Pentax DSLRs up till now! :-o

Test Conditions:

Both cameras set in RAW mode, manual white balance in daylight, fixed at ISO 200, the same lens of DA21/3.2 was used in Av mode, the same scene was then shot consecutively in pairs;

Custom image mode was set to "Natural" with all centre/zero/default settings except sharpness was set at +1. Pictures were then all converted from RAW to 6M Jpegs without any adjustment (using camera settings) with original Pentax Digital Camera Utility (Laboratory) Version 4.3, for both the *ist DL2 and K-5 pictures. The results are posted in the following album of mine:

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/RiceHigh/library/K-5/Colour_Test_Vs_DL2?sort=9&page=1

Full size original images are available for downloading per popped-up picture page in the above.

What I can tell is that the *ist DL2 images are far more natural and faithful to the actual scene in real world than all those made with the K-5! The K-5 images are yet whiter than the DL2's, though, despite that both cameras were actually set to daylight preset manual white balance already.

If you look at the leaves of the trees, the green colours of the K-5 pics are actually looking rather fake and odd. Ditto for the brown colours of the trunks of the trees. In fact, the flower I shot is in orange red, but not that red colour that K-5 has produced and rendered!

Besides, to my surprise, the dynamic range of the *ist DL2 pics is shown to be yet better than that of the K-5 despite that the DR mark measured by DxO is far higher for the K-5 and its 16M CMOS sensor! Just observe the shadow details.. :-o

In fact, the favourable colour rendition was top one big reason why I still stayed with Pentax system regardless of the low performance of the Pentax bodies plus all the various technical and quality issues that were associated with the Pentax system and Pentax themselves. Now, it seems that this main point and reason has also gone with the later and latest Pentax bodies! >:-[

At the end of the day, I am afraid that now putting those excellent Pentax glass on a Canon body do produce much more favourable results even in term of colour rendition, see my this set of recent examples here.

After all, you may have a different opinion than me, but I think my pictures have clearly spoken for themselves! And, this test should be scientific enough as I have already tried to keep all the possible variables and affecting factors to minimal, FWIW.

Comments (52)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Do you like the color rendition of your 5DIII ?
Tried RAW and DPP (in my case it is a 5DII), but I couldn't reach the rendition of Nikon(D600)/Sony(a350)/Pentax(K200D).
I don't know exactly, but the Canon colors have a yellowish tint, pictures from Nikon D600 (out of the cam) look way better.
I think Sony sensors are superior to the Canon ones in terms of pleasant color rendition and even sharpness, but I don't know the 5DIII,6D,1Dx.

Kindly Regards.
1 reply · active 611 weeks ago
Anonimity is Great's avatar

Anonimity is Great · 611 weeks ago

Pictures from the older Camera are indeed bit more pleasing to look at, also better exposed. Pics from the K-5 looks under exposed even with exactly the same settings as the *istDL2. I think it is because the engineers/designers of each cameras have different taste, or different request from the management, not only the difference in sensor technology.
I think it's the CCD magic. To me, the 645D has the best colour rendition of all current Pentax cameras, and of all current DSLRs on the market, regardless of brand. Leica M9 too has a beautiful natural look to files.
I have compared images coming out of Q to similar images taken with my old Minolta A1 digital camera pictures (A1 and A2 used a CCD). Well, even 7 years after, and with all the great tech advancement, the old CCD makes much more pleasing looking colours at usable ISOs and by default. And Yes, the feeling of the brightness of photographs goes towards natural warm whites, not bleached out, artificial whites (which give an illusion of a wider gamut).
We have gained something through the process of switching everything to CMOS tech, but we have lost something too. I think too much has been sacrificed to gain purely on noise performance, because that's what sensor tech was all about in the last 5 years — a mad race towards less noise, less noise. But we've lost the magic of colour and tone — the very essence of photography.
1 reply · active 611 weeks ago
These are from raw? jpeg? SOOC? Looks like a white balance difference more than anything. Also, the k-5 colors look more faithful overall to my eye while the ist has an amber color cast to everything. Again, probably differences in white balance. If it makes you feel any better, I think my k-7 has punchier colors than my k-5, but all of this can be enhanced quite easily in PP. I use a 5dmk2 for art reproduction work and it is certainly more accurate than my k-5, but the k-5 is pretty darned good if you ask me.
3 replies · active 611 weeks ago
At least, glad to see you didn't sell the DA21 .. yet :)
1 reply · active 611 weeks ago
istDL highlights are clipped badly. K5 much better in this respect.
DL is warmer, K-5 is cooler.
5 replies · active 611 weeks ago
I upgraded from a istDS to a K-5 two years ago. I found the K-5 to have much more dynamic range, which can result in a "flatter' image (not as punchy). However, I can fix this in LR quite easily, and it gives me the option of pulling in detail from the shadows that I couldn't get with the istDs. The improvements in the AF, shooting speed, lower shutter noise and larger images offered me additional benefits that justified the cost of the K-5 after 6 years with the istDs.
9 replies · active 610 weeks ago
Use colour profiles and stop crying!
11 replies · active 610 weeks ago
Dynamic range was the killer for me with the older sensors, even in faces in sunshine, the blown areas giving that greeny/pink halo before burning into bleached white, dynamic range is way greater with the K5, for general photography the modern sensors are far better, for studio work ( limited DR situations) the older sensors had nice rendering of skin tones.
There was an argument (I forgot where I read it) that CCD vs CMOS should not matter because both only sends electronic signals to the whatever processes the signals. The only difference is how the light is captured.

Kind of like a modern optical mouse and the old ones mechanical (balls) ones. They still send signals to the computer using wires (I know, now there are wireless mice), but how they collect input is different.

But still, you can't deny that the differences between CMOS and CCD images are perceptible. Could it be the change in image processing that has changed?
3 replies · active 611 weeks ago
Well, in the images where you say you see more dynamic range because of the shadow detail, it seems you didn't look at the highlights... they are much better conserved! I find it funny, because from my memory, my istDS2 (should be very similar to your camera, at least, the sensor was the same) exposed very cautiously and I alwaysy had an exposure correction of 0.5, sometimes switching it higher, while my K-5 is more on the bright side (I much rather use minus values). I think I'll do my own comparison these days.
2 replies · active 610 weeks ago
Pancakemaster 9000's avatar

Pancakemaster 9000 · 569 weeks ago

The curious thing about CCD's is not even necessarily the file you start out with, but how they respond to processing, at least in my experience. My old M8 was absolutely brilliant in that regard.

Mind you, I HAVE only used one CCD sensor camera (and three CMOS sensor cameras), namely the M8, so I can't really say for sure that that's the case for all CCD sensor cameras... but I have read up on this issue a fair bit, and other peoples' anecdotal evidence does seem to support my statement at least somewhat.
The cameras I had before were the 400D (fairly good colours, though the blues were difficult to work with), the 5D (overall kind of excellent to work with in terms of colour, but nowhere near the M8) and the Fuji X100 (the colours, other than skin tones, which were brilliant, were near impossible to get to a place where they are even somewhat pleasant to me).

Also, the colour differences may actually have more to do with the AD converters and how they work within the system than the actual colour filters and processing algorithms (would make the observation that CCD files respond better to processing, especially colour processing make more sense), which is to say, that overall the tonal response would be different. Apparently that's one of the main practical(which is to say that there are many, many other differences, but in terms of tonal output most of the variables along the pipelines either have no practical effect because software could easily compensate, but this one is pretty fundamental to how the image is recorded, and that's currently the thing being discussed) between CCD and CMOS sensors.
Interesting writeup! I think most people think this CCD vs CMOS debate is total bollocks but I have to agree, the raw output from CCD based DSLRs cannot be mimicked to 100% by colour profiling, fixing the white balance and hours of of raw editing. The CMOS DSLRs and ILCs I owned so far [Sony, Aptina and Canon sensors] don't output raw dumps as pleasant as my ageing A300 and A390. As mentioned before one big difference is also how those sensors' raw files respond to editing.
CCD is way better at low iso, this has been lost in the high iso trend
I own a k5 and a K100d súper and some Fa* lenses. The IQ is by far better with the k100d,!

Post a new comment

Comments by