>>3881573>and already people guessed it in 70%That wasn't strictly a test of ccd vs cmos, and it wasn't a very well-controlled experiment (notably, the difference between the Voigtländer 28mm and the 7Artisans 35mm probably confused things, and I revealed ahead of time that seven were from the Sony and seven were from the Leica which gave people a slight hint that they would be wrong if they were guessing more of one than the other). One person getting 70% is still consistent with a coin flip over the small sample size. If *everyone* had guessed 70% of them correct, and especially if that 70% was consistent, that would be a different situation, but the 10/14 result was an outlier. Plus, even if people *were* able to consistently pick which was which, it's not necessarily an indication that it's an obvious image quality distinction from CMOS vs CCD--it could be they were basing it on the corner sharpness smearing issue with Sony, which was the actual thing I was curious to test, or they might have been responding to Sony's CFA vs Leica's as
>>3881768 suggests, or it might be something more subtle like me taking slightly different pictures when using a rangefinder vs. a mirrorless.
It's certainly not a slam-dunk that I was right, but it doesn't conclusively prove I was wrong either.
But with regards to CMOS vs CCD specifically, other people have run a similar test with an M9 vs. an M typ 240--so, both Leica, both using Leica's sensor stack, both using the same lens, both shots of the same subject with the same settings, only difference being that one has a CMOS at the bottom of the sensor stack and one has a CCD, and the results were similar:
https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-1/http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/02/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-2/http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/03/the-great-debate-ccd-vs-cmos-part-3/ 
