| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2006 04:09:15 AM · #1 |
which is better in terms of noise and resolution..
i know that CMOS has lower power consumption...
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 06:56:48 PM · #2 |
See this.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 18:57:10. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:22:14 PM · #3 |
"CCDs tend to be used in cameras that focus on high-quality images with lots of pixels and excellent light sensitivity. CMOS sensors traditionally have lower quality, lower resolution and lower sensitivity."
So, is the author trying to say that canon is lower quality, resolution, and sensitivity than say Nikon? Don't give me the "but it says that CMOS chips are just now becoming equal to CCD" story either. Look at the 1Ds, it has great quality, and resolution and clearly uses the older CMOS chips.
I ask another question, why if the CMOS chip is inferior does canon use it on all of their pro line cameras?
And if CCD sensors have been around for longer, why aren't full frame cameras sporting CCD sensors popular?
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 19:36:27. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:27:10 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jacbowron:
"CCDs tend to be used in cameras that focus on high-quality images with lots of pixels and excellent light sensitivity. CMOS sensors traditionally have lower quality, lower resolution and lower sensitivity."
So, is the author trying to say that canon is lower quality, resolution, and sensitivity than say Nikon?
I ask another question, why if the CMOS chip is inferior does canon use it on all of their pro line cameras?
And if CCD sensors have been around for longer, why aren't full frame cameras sporting CCD sensors popular? |
CCD's are just more expensive to manufacture. That's why most newer cameras don't use them.
Canon uses CMOS because it's cheaper...they can make more money this way.
And to answer your last question. There will probably never be a full frame CCD DSLR because the cost difference between an APS-sized CCD and a 35mm CCD is a lot bigger than its cheaper, easier to manufacture CMOS counterpart.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:28:03 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Jacbowron:
"CCDs tend to be used in cameras that focus on high-quality images with lots of pixels and excellent light sensitivity. CMOS sensors traditionally have lower quality, lower resolution and lower sensitivity."
So, is the author trying to say that canon is lower quality, resolution, and sensitivity than say Nikon? Don't give me the "but it says that CMOS chips are just now becoming equal to CCD" story either. Look at the 1D, it has great quality, and resolution and clearly uses the older CMOS chips.
I ask another question, why if the CMOS chip is inferior does canon use it on all of their pro line cameras?
And if CCD sensors have been around for longer, why aren't full frame cameras sporting CCD sensors popular? |
The original 1D uses a CCD.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:37:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by hsteg:
The original 1D uses a CCD. |
I meant the 1Ds I appologize for the confusion and have edited my original post to show this.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 19:37:43. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:38:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Jacbowron:
Originally posted by hsteg:
The original 1D uses a CCD. |
I meant the 1Ds I appologize for the confusion and have edited my original post to show this. |
Its all good.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:49:14 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by deapee:
CCD's are just more expensive to manufacture. That's why most newer cameras don't use them.
Canon uses CMOS because it's cheaper...they can make more money this way.
And to answer your last question. There will probably never be a full frame CCD DSLR because the cost difference between an APS-sized CCD and a 35mm CCD is a lot bigger than its cheaper, easier to manufacture CMOS counterpart. |
I have to dissagree with you where you say that most newer cameras dont use CCD's. Almost all new cameras use CCD's. Pick up any point and shoot canon, nikon, pentax, olympus, HP, Konica-Minolta, Panasonic, etc and the sensor inside is almost guaranteed to be a CCD. So, I guess I should make my question more clear.
Why does Canon use the "more expensive" CCD sensor on its entry level cameras (where more revenue could be generated due to larger numbers sold) and then decide to use the CMOS on its pro line equipment? There is generally little margin in digital cameras, so why wouldnt Canon decide to put the less expensive sensor into its higher volume items to make more money?
And you also say that there will never be a full size CCD sensor due to the increased cost of manufacturing. Let me pose this question to you: If the CCD sensor is much more sensitive and produces higher quality shots, wouldnt the extra price be worth it? |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 07:50:42 PM · #9 |
| CMOS chips are noisier than CCD (probably due to less of the CMOS pixel being used for light accumulation) but because of their design (each pixel containing an amplifier), CMOS chips are able to process that noise on-sensor before converted to digital. Even Canon admits that they process the noise (Charge Transfer technology) their sensors put out. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 08:38:00 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Jacbowron:
Originally posted by deapee:
CCD's are just more expensive to manufacture. That's why most newer cameras don't use them.
Canon uses CMOS because it's cheaper...they can make more money this way.
And to answer your last question. There will probably never be a full frame CCD DSLR because the cost difference between an APS-sized CCD and a 35mm CCD is a lot bigger than its cheaper, easier to manufacture CMOS counterpart. |
I have to dissagree with you where you say that most newer cameras dont use CCD's. Almost all new cameras use CCD's. Pick up any point and shoot canon, nikon, pentax, olympus, HP, Konica-Minolta, Panasonic, etc and the sensor inside is almost guaranteed to be a CCD. So, I guess I should make my question more clear.
Why does Canon use the "more expensive" CCD sensor on its entry level cameras (where more revenue could be generated due to larger numbers sold) and then decide to use the CMOS on its pro line equipment? There is generally little margin in digital cameras, so why wouldnt Canon decide to put the less expensive sensor into its higher volume items to make more money?
And you also say that there will never be a full size CCD sensor due to the increased cost of manufacturing. Let me pose this question to you: If the CCD sensor is much more sensitive and produces higher quality shots, wouldnt the extra price be worth it? |
Are you directing those questions toward me? I am not a professional and don't know. I shared the vast majority of my knowledge on the subject. I just know that the CCD is more expensive to make and that's about all.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2006 08:54:02 PM · #11 |
| Not at all deapee, those are just questions brought up to be answered in general. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 09:13:22 PM · #12 |
This is the misinformation police! Come out with your cams up!
I don't know where to begin so I'll just start anywhere. Canon CMOS sensors on their full frame DSLRs use less power than a comparably sized CCD sensor would. A lot less. This is one of the reasons that a full frame CCD isn't more widely used. The heat generated by this greater power consumption would also be a problem for increased noise as well.
Given everything else equal, which of course is never the case, but lets say it were possible, a CCD would have less noise than a CMOS. There are so many factors to the noise issue though, you may be wondering why this isn't seen much in practice. Well it is and it isn't. As an example Nikon's cameras tend to use less noise reduction on their CCD equipped cameras which exhibit a more luminance, rather than chrominance noise, in other words, it's noisy but it looks more like film grain than the Canon CMOS counterpart, which has a blotchier noise. But wait! What counterpart? Ah These sensors are too different to call one the other's counterpart. Look at the sensor sizes? different. This plays a major role. The size of the sensor will determine how much light gathering ability it has. The more the merrier in terms of achieving lower noise, but, CCD does not do well in large sizes, and large sized CMOS, while it beats the pants off a smaller CCD, costs much more to manufacture.
This explains why a full frame CMOS is better than the best CCD, but costs much more to manufacture as well.
Unless.....you were to cool that CCD and make IT full frame! You'd get lower noise due to cooling and low noise due to full frameness (frameness? did I just make that up? :-)) Well that would be called a peltier cooled CCD for astrophotography, you want to talk expensive, there it is the king of the hill in that regard.
I'm sure there's much more to it and I hope I have my facts straight but who knows, we all make mistakes, that's what we're here for, to learn from each other. Hope I helped someone out there gain some knowledge on the subject.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 21:14:44. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 09:14:29 PM · #13 |
.
Message edited by author 2006-09-05 21:19:30. |
|
|
|
09/05/2006 09:24:26 PM · #14 |
It is tempting to look at it in the "X technology is better than Y technology, so why doesn't everybody use X technology" fashion, but it is rarely that clear-cut. Like some have mentioned, cost is a factor, and I'm sure there are a whole slew of other factors which determine which is the better choice for a particular application. It's kind of analogous to engine technology. While many are quick to tout the virtues of overhead cam, variable valve, high-compression, high specific-output, modern motors, Corvette is a shining example of "low-tech" done right. Pushrod motors may be old-fashioned to some, but it's cheap, low-maintenance, high performance, great gas mileage... Point is, it's not necessarily the CCD/CMOS technology that determines the quality of the product. It's the quality of the particular sensor in question, the appropriate application, the engineering of all the other bits and pieces, and the integration of the sensor with those bits and pieces that counts.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:34:49 PM EDT.
