I give up. I mean, really, what if anything is lacking in the technical aspects of the Nikon D60 with 35mm f1.8 lens with which I took this photograph in 2010?

What has changed since 2008 when Nikon released the camera?

Well, one thing that has changed is the post-processing software. It has made it possible to pull out a more detailed and striking image.

The pre-processor I used to process this was not available in 2010 when I shot this image.

With DxO PureRaw 4 I am able to convert the RAW image to really pull out its qualities.

It does a better than Photoshop does.

And if I want I can then pull the image into Photoshop to make any other changes I want to make.

In fact I didn’t make any further changes. I just brought the image into Photoshop to re-size it to 1500px wide for the Web.

CCD versus CMOS

Whether CCD or CMOS technology, a camera sensor is a silicon chip that contains an array of photosensitive sites. The question is how the camera’s processor interprets the light that hits the photosensitive sites on the sensor.

The Nikon D60 has a CCD sensor. CCD stands for ‘charged coupled device’. Light hits the sensor and its output is converted to a digital signal that is then read by the processor from each photo-site sequentially to construct an image.

The Nikon D3000 that was released in 2009 was the last camera with a CCD sensor that Nikon released.

After that their cameras had CMOS sensors. The reason for that change was speed.

CMOS stands for ‘complementary metal-oxide semiconductor.’ A CMOS sensor converts the charge from a photosensitive pixel to a voltage simultaneously at each pixel site. The signal is then converted by row and column at high speed.

The bottom line is that CCDs are slower to read out, consume more energy than CMOS sensors, and are more expensive to make.

But they have higher capability to send a clean signal to the card and according to some photographers, the photographs have a special look that cannot be reproduced by CMOS sensors.

Putting It To The Test

All my newer cameras have CMOS sensors, so the plan was to pick up a Nikon D60 or maybe a Nikon D3000 cheaply and compare photos taken with the two systems, and see what I think.

The D3000 is basically the same camera as the D60, with a CCD sensor and a couple of tweaks to the autofocus system. So either of those will do the job.

I already have a Nikon DX AF-S 35mm 1.8G lens, and I found a D3000 for sale for very little money.

Most dSLR cameras are very cheap compared to mirrorless models. And now that all of the main manufacturers have stopped making dSLRs, my bet is that prices for dSLRs will start to rise when scarcity becomes more valued in the eyes of photographers than the downsides of dSLRs compared to mirrorless cameras.

Before buying the camera I doubled-checked that my lens will focus on the Nikon D3000.

That is not a given because unlike its bigger brothers, the D3000 does not have a motor in the body. So, it cannot power the lens.

The AF-S 35mm 1.8G lens itself has a motor inside it. That is what the AF-S designation means, and it means that it will autofocus with the D3000.

I Now Have A Nikon D3000

So, now that I have bought a D3000, here is a shot of a bar of soap in its wrapper, on a duvet cover. When I have the time and the light is right I will shoot the same scene with this and with a camera with a CMOS sensor, and we shall see what we shall see.

I processed it in Photoshop rather than DxO PureRaw simply because it is the first thing I thought to do. When I do a proper comparison of CCD versus CMOS I shall use DxO PureRaw.

Out walking with a friend yesterday, we came across a group of people that I wanted to photograph.

I started from further out and walked in, and eventually one of the group put a card with lyrics in front of me and I sang along with the group. The upbeat happiness was infectious and I was singing along happily. I like faces smiling at me. And considering I approached pointing a camera at the group, they were nice and positive.

After a moment, I told the man holding the card that I had to go, and I rejoined my friend waiting a little way away,.

I am interested in the varieties of human experience and the way different people react to the same situation, and how we act in the moment. I read that we can be ourselves but we cannot see ourselves. But sometimes we can catch a glimpse.

There were a lot of people wearing hats at the hat event outside the Tate Modern. I found myself interested in some people and not in others. It wasn’t just a matter of what they were wearing but of how they presented. Some people seem to invite people in, and others seemed to present such a strong appearance that I felt I had no part in their presentation.

This particular man was very nice. I asked him who he was and he said he was the president of the British Hat Guild. I caught the words but then forgot exactly what he said.

Back home, Google came to the rescue and I found that he is:

Stephen Jones OBE (born 1957) is a British milliner based in London, who is considered one of the most radical and important milliners of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. He is also one of the most prolific, having created hats for the catwalk shows of many leading couturiers and fashion designers, such as John Galliano at Dior and Vivienne Westwood.

His work is known for its inventiveness and high level of technical expertise.

Jones co-curated the 2009 exhibition Hats: An Anthology for the Victoria and Albert Museum.

There is more to his illustrious biography on this Stephen Jones Wikipedia page.

What is that expression? He is not exactly looking askance. It is not a look of suspicion, mistrust, or disapproval. But there is something analytical about his expression – not a unifying look that connects with the other. Rather, a standing back and analysing.

Of course the expression is frozen by the camera, but I remember this as being his countenance.

And it fits, given that this was at the annual Hat Walk, and he could be Freud, talking to a man who is either a cowboy from the wild frontier, or a potential patient with delusions.

I think this man has the idea. Apart from his hat, he is wearing unremarkable clothes, unlike some people who were dressed head to toe in stuff. There was for example, someone dressed like Neil Armstrong when he stepped onto the Moon, head to toe in a white padded spacesuit, with a helmet and backpack.

Writing the word ‘spacesuit’ makes me think how we can date the origin of this word because there was a time within some people’s living memory when there was no space into which humans could go that would require a spacesuit.