Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Difference In Cmos And CCD Sensor?  
User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

What is the difference in CMOS and CCD Optical sensor types?

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJofa From Sweden, joined Apr 2002, 320 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Google, search "CMOS", third hit:
---------------------------
CMOS image sensors draw much less power than CCDs. This allows the finished digital camera system to run longer on batteries—a major advantage in hand-held products.

Since CMOS sensors use the same manufacturing platform as most microprocessors and memory chips, they are easier to produce and more cost-effective than CCDs. See CMOS Advantages for more details.
---------------------------
From http://www.micron.com/products/imaging/


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3070 times:

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm

Explains it well.


User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3059 times:

JeffM,

That article does a good job explaining the basic differences in the technology. However, I think the information they state, while true overall, may give a prospective D-SLR buyer the wrong idea. CMOS sensors are indeed cheaper and noisier in most situations, especially in small cheap devices, but digital SLR's with CMOS sensors are well-known for "buttery-smooth" images, presumably due to stronger Ant-Aliasing (AA) filters which trade sharpness for noise, I believe. But if the original post was questioning a decision which camera to buy based on the type of sensor, I'd say it is a lesser consideration. The latest CCD cameras still consume more power than the CMOS counterparts, but their images are generally sharper straight out of the camera. But even CMOS images can be produced to be VERY sharp indeed. Hope that helps.


-Ken


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

Are you trying to convince me about something Ken? Your opinions are of no importance to me, unless you can back those statements up with personal experience, which presumably you have? I've yet to run out of battery with my Nikon CCD device in a year and a half. That includes sessions of over 500 images with heavy lcd useage. The article is not biased.

Your buttery smooth images may be fine for aircraft, but are cursed in other types of photography.

"What is the difference in CMOS and CCD Optical sensor types?
...is the original post, I see nothing about a decision as to which camera to buy based on the type of sensor. Am I missing something?

Hope that helps...  Big grin


User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Sorry if my post offended you, Jeff, and I am not trying to convince you of anything! Sheesh!  Smile It is well documented that CMOS uses much less battery power than CCD, and I have my own experience plus thousands of other D-SLR shooters to back me up. I have owned a Canon D30 (CMOS) 10D (CMOS) 1D (CCD) 1Ds (CMOS). Does that count as experience? The D30, 10D, 1Ds all have CMOS chips and all outlast the 1D (CCD). The 1D and 1Ds are virtually identical in all areas except resolution and chip type (and a few minor updates on the 1Ds), and shooting side-by-side the 1Ds lasts longer with its CMOS.

I am not saying the article is biased by any means. It is true, although obsolete in a sense, or at least misleading in today's world of digital SLR cameras. However, Canon and others have found ways to make CMOS very noise-free (my 10D and D30 have less noise at ISO 200 that my 1D). What I am trying to state merely is that the article you posted sounds like it could talk someone out of CMOS by talking about all the noise. Take a look at some D30, D60, 10D images and tell me those are noisy sensors. Here is a D30 images from way back when: http://www.pbase.com/image/2300971/original . I don't know what drives you to say CMOS isn't good for other types of photography. Do you realize that the 1Ds, one of the hottest camera for ultra-serious professionals is CMOS?

I see nothing else in the original post about choosing cameras. That is why I said "IF the original poster...", which would be a very reasonable assumption with this type of question.

Again, no offense intended but I do believe I know what I am talking about, so go easy dude.  Smile

-Ken

[Edited 2004-03-19 01:01:13]

User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2997 times:

No offense taken on my part Ken. All I did was post a link. I was not trying to "sway" anyone. He asked, I linked.

v/r
Jeff

Very nice website you have too by the way.

[Edited 2004-03-19 01:55:33]

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

I think a couple of years ago there were quite distinct differences to the look and operation of the CCD and CMOS sensors. However, today, I think its the onboard electronics which matter more - coming from different directions Nikon (CCD) & Canon (CMOS) - or for that matter, Foveon sensors are producing remarkably similar results. I suspect that apparent differences are largely down to processing rather than the sensor used (all else being equal).

As for battery use - well if you think about it, the percentage of any camera's battery power devoted to the sensor recording the image must be very small. Consider how long the shutter is open in a given session compared to the power used in processing, AF, LCD etc. etc. While on the bench it is true that CMOS draws less power, I'd suggest this is largely of acdemic interest and other camera and battery factors determine how long a charge will last.

However, it has been suggested that because of the lower power requirements, CMOS sensors generate a lower static charge and are therefore less susceptible to dust. My own experience suggests environment is more critical - I've had long dust free periods followed by bouts of dust problems.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Jeff,

I admit it is hard to get a feel for what one is trying to say when it is typed sometimes. I may have misinterpreted the tone of your post--

(Are you trying to convince me about something Ken? Your opinions are of no importance to me, unless you can back those statements up with personal experience, which presumably you have?)

--to somehow think that you thought I was trying to convince you. You are free to believe what you want- I am just trying to post helpful information based on my honest experience. You may disagree, but I am not out to convince everyone. Like you, I just responded with what I thought to be the best answer I could give.

I still don't understand what you mean here:

Your buttery smooth images may be fine for aircraft, but are cursed in other types of photography.

And this statement is hard to understand what you mean--

I've yet to run out of battery with my Nikon CCD device in a year and a half. That includes sessions of over 500 images with heavy lcd useage. The article is not biased.,

--when the article you posted clearly states that CCD drains more power than CMOS. Is that what you meant about the Nikon battery life?

He asked, I linked.

I have no problem with your link. Your followup post really confused me, though, and I am just trying to understand what you meant by it. Thanks for the comment on my website! Maybe we can come to understand each other after all!  Smile  Smile

-Ken


[Edited 2004-03-19 02:12:14]

User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

Colin,

I think you put it very well. I think the electronics and processing have a lot to do with image quality, and LCD usage probably matters most for battery life. However, I do think that the chip does matter at least somewhat for battery life, as I found from my own and others' experience with the 1D and 1Ds side by side. The difference is battery life was quite noticeable to me,a actually.

As far as dust, the 1Ds has CMOS, and it gets FILTHY- so I agree that environment plays a bigger part than sensor static charge IMHO.

-Ken



User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2978 times:

Ken,
My comment on the "buttery smooth" images being cursed, comes from numerous posts I have read on many photographic based forums. Before I purchased my Nikon I was a firm believer in Canon's "smoother" images. But, at that time the d60 and 1d I was about to purchase would not focus on an object in the dealer's showroom. The Nikon did, and did it fast. Thus my decision. That and the fact I have been using Nikon film cameras in the past as well.

I don't normally spend much time or effort sugar coating anything I write, so it is not un-common for people to think I am upset or offended. Actually, that could not be farther from the truth. Life is too short to get upset over an internet forum.

Keep up the good work, sorry for the misunderstanding.


v/r
Jeff


User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2968 times:

Thanks for the answers and the lively debate, but surely we couldn't be talking about much noise here? I am very new in this hobby, but I have never heard a digital camera that is anything near 'noisy' by camera standards.

And to those wondering I am trying to choose a new camera. I just did not reacall what those two differences were. I think I am aiming for the Nikon D70 or the Digital Rebel. I know they are KIND of similar, but I think the D70 offers me more room to grow as I become 'better' at photography.

Thanks again for the help.

[Edited 2004-03-19 03:21:30]

User currently offlinePlanedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2950 times:

Armitage,

This might be stating the obvious, but when we mention "noise" it is the type in the picture (like digital grain, so to speak), not the sound the camera makes. You probably already knew that, but when you say you never heard of a digital camera being noisy, that made me think you were talking about sound, because almost all digital cameras get noisy (grainy) if you set their ISO setting to their highest level.

I think the D70 or Digital Rebel both would be good choices, and I agree that for the time being, the D70 is probably the better value if you don't already have lenses for another system.

Good luck!

-Ken

PS- to JeffM... Cheers!  Smile

[Edited 2004-03-19 05:04:25]

User currently offlineArmitageShanks From UK - England, joined Dec 2003, 3625 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2935 times:

LOL, that noise. I understand now. I need to think before I post.

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 740 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

As always in these cases I think to much attention is paid to the camera at the expense of the system.

Yes, a DSLR is an expensive purchase, but if you continue photography, I would bet you will replace either your 300D or Nikon D70 in a few years. The real investment is in lenses and other system specific accessories.

While I would agree, from the published specs, the D70 does seem to be a better buy than the 300D, I'm also pretty sure that Canon will come back with something better still in 6 months to 1 year ... and in turn will be leap frogged by Nikon. And while yes, the D70 offers more potential, I also think it unlikely that you would outgrow the 300D anytime soon.

In short, forget about the camera and start looking at the lenses and other accessories you would like to acquire in the immediate and longer term. Once you start buying glass, you become financially "locked in" to the system, so you want to be sure you've chosen the right one for you.

Ken - interesting comparison of the 1D and 1Ds battery life, and you may well be right that the sensor is making the difference. But do remember that these cameras are a digital generation apart, and the 1Ds will be using a more advanced set of processing algorithms and power management. Note the battery life claims for the MkII - same battery, better performance and yet more frames per charge (nearly double the 1Ds!) albeit with a 20% smaller sensor.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Spotting In AMS And DUS - Help Needed! posted Mon Jul 17 2006 21:33:26 by Airimages
What To Do In CLE And IND? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 07:34:33 by N808NWatMSP
Aviation Shops In NYC And Miami posted Sun Jun 11 2006 15:46:25 by Jiggles
Flash In Cockpit And Cabin Shots posted Fri Apr 7 2006 12:47:34 by LIPH
Photo Was In Screening...and Then Disappeared! posted Thu Mar 16 2006 22:42:52 by Xpfg
Spotting In MAN And LHR posted Wed Mar 1 2006 20:53:03 by DLX737200
Difference Between Optical And Digital Zoom. posted Wed Feb 8 2006 15:17:28 by TACAA320
Taking Pictures In Alicante And Valencia posted Sun Jan 8 2006 22:57:32 by Diezel
Spotting In HKG And PEK posted Mon Nov 7 2005 16:22:36 by Flying-B773
I'm A New Spotter In LHR (and I Need Help!) posted Thu Sep 8 2005 13:30:42 by PipoA380