ccd or cmos?

CCD haves better IQ, CMOS is a lot cheaper to make that why the industry jumped on the cmos bandwagon.
--
Jorge Blanco

yomasa said:

CCD haves better IQ, CMOS is a lot cheaper to make that why the industry jumped on the cmos bandwagon.
--
Jorge Blanco

Click to expand...

Citation needed...
--
Chris.

A weather sealed ultra wide, is that too much to ask?

http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/chriside

GMT +9.5

Pentax SLR talk FAQ
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23161072

I don't think a citation is needed. I look at raw photos from my CCD and my CMOS and the IQ comment is clearly BS so I will assume the second part of the statement is also BS.
--
Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico

yomasa said:

CCD haves initially had better IQ at low ISO , CMOS is a lot cheaper to make allows video capability, that's why the industry jumped on the cmos bandwagon.

Click to expand...

--
Cheers,
sfa

A very limited photographer ...

yomasa said:

CCD haves better IQ

Click to expand...

You have never in your life seen two images to comapre where CMOS versus CCD was the only difference, so you really have no basis for this claim. As discussed earlier, photons are photons, whether counted by CCD or CMOS devices.

--
Marc Sabatella
http://www.marcsabatella.com/
Blog: http://marcsabatella.blogspot.com/
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcsabatella/

That is correct. Unless they both have the same pixel size, the same AA filters, the same electronics and the same lens in front of them direct comparison is a waste of time and typing effort. The AA filter has more to do with the coloration of an image than the chip technology ever will. That is one reason they tell you not to try and compare results across different camera brands and even different sensors of the same brand. The same technology dwebs who think you can get a FF DSLR into a body the size of an ME are the ones who think that sensor technology is the main difference.
Kent Gittings

KentG said:

That is correct. Unless they both have the same pixel size, the same AA filters, the same electronics and the same lens in front of them direct comparison is a waste of time and typing effort. The AA filter has more to do with the coloration of an image than the chip technology ever will. That is one reason they tell you not to try and compare results across different camera brands and even different sensors of the same brand. The same technology dwebs who think you can get a FF DSLR into a body the size of an ME are the ones who think that sensor technology is the main difference.

Click to expand...

Kent, you are correct that for an absolute comparison for all parameters in one set of images, but there are things that can be done for interesting comparisons of different parameters, as follows:

1) Obviously, by using the same brand of camera, we can then use the same lens on each and focus in a way that is repeatable for each camera.

2) Although most common APS-C DSLR CCD cameras topped out at 10 Mega Pixels (MP), the density between that and a 12 MP camera is isn't very much, would only affect the amount of noise and not the sharpness or colour rendering, and with gains in photosite packing density and efficiency even that won't be much at all or actually in favour of the newer CMOS sensor designs.

3) By using raw image file captures, one minimizes the amount of electronics actually used but is is true that data acquisition electronics do inject noise that adds to the black read noise. However, this can be measured by comparing the amount of black read noise at high ISO sensitivity gain where this injected noise is negligible compared to the amplified photosite black read noise to low ISO sensitivities where it may be significant and then choosing cameras for these types of tests where virtually no black read noise is injected by the electronics.

4) The Colour Filter Array (CFA) is the only thing that affects colour rendering for low contrast medium exposed areas, so one can separate this effect by the proper use of colour profiles to neutralize CFA differences.

5) The strength of the Anti-Aliasing (AA) filter primarily affects the appearance of sharp edges and thus "sharpness" (although it isn't really higher resolution) although a weak AA filter has the disadvantage of producing jagged diagonal high contrast lines and colour fringing artefacts along those same sharp edges. Due to this, edge accutance between CCD and CMOS sensors cannot be done. In fact, it can't really be properly done between any two cameras even if both are CCD or both are CMOS when the AA design is different between the two.

6) Different micro lens designs (the light gathering lenses immediately in front of the light detecting elements) may produce different amounts of artefacts as to chromatic aberration, especially in the corners for high contrast and highly exposed areas. Of course, evaluations can be done where these effects are minimal.

So within limits CCD and CMOS cameras could be compared, although especially not for edge accutance. Specifically, most CCD sensor proponents claim something magical about colour rendering, which could be specifically tested.

Regards, GordonBGood

photee said:

So which is the better sensor? ccd or cmos. I have tried to compare my k200 ccd sensor with my cmos kx camera. All things being equal, it sure seems to me that the ccd wins. Much brighter, clearer iQ, etc. Isn't the ccd a less expensive to make sensor? Isn't the 645 sensor a ccd sensor? What are your thoughts? Thanks and Merry Christmas to all!

Click to expand...

CCDs are actually more expensive to make.