[cycomanic]

That sounds like the stuff you read on audiophile websites where they are trying to sell you a special "audio-tuned" ethernet cable for thousands of dollar. The sensor simply converts photons into electrons binned into colors based on the bayer pattern, how can they "render" colors differently? That's a function of the digital processing pipline.

Also I don't understand how a CCD can introduce less noise than a CMOS, but is less sensitive at the same time? Light sensitivity is largely governed by the noise floor of the sensor I would say.

[aeturnum]

I don't really know either. My understanding is that the process of increasing ISO (i.e. boosting signal) works a lot better in CMOS, but also that because of how CMOS works read noise is higher overall. So a CCD will give you a cleaner record at base sensitivity (generally iso 100) or slightly elevated iso, but as soon as you get away from that CMOS sensors will do better. Whatever read noise they introduce is less impactful than the fact that they are much better at amplifying the light you did detect in a clean(er) way.

You are also welcome to dismiss me as a goofy photophile. I am not trying to sell you anything, just reporting what I understand people think. Maybe this article seems less snake oil-y[1]?

[1] https://petapixel.com/what-is-ccd-cmos-sensor/

[cycomanic]

Sorry if it came across like it, I didn't mean to accuse you of snake oil pandering. I just read the article and I think you misremembered, the article states CMOS has in fact a significantly lower noise floor (I wondered about this, because I remember when the next gen CMOS sensors came out in the pentax K5 and the Nikon D400(?) it was possible to push the shadows so strongly that you could essentially take a completely black photo and push it up to the same as if you would have taken with higher ISO). CCDs have a "more pleasing/film-like" nonlinearity, but I believe if you shoot raw a linear response is always better, because it gives you more flexibility for post processing.