CCD and CMOS sensor

[TCav]

On the other hand, according to DxOMark, Sony's 14MP (CMOS) A560 has less noise and much greater dynamic range than its sibling, the 14MP (CCD) A390.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by surplusshooter

A good comparison between a CCD sensor and a CMOS sensor as far as "image quality" goes is to simply look back at all the reviews comparing the old Fuji S200 EXR with the newer Fuji HS-10 EXR and HS-20 EXR models. The old Fuji S200 EXR used what Fuji called the Super CCD sensor. The newer Fuji HS-10 and HS-20 models came with CMOS sensors. In every review when comparing "image quality only", the experts all agreed that the image quality was far superior with the old Fuji S200 with it's CCD sensor as compared with the other two newer models that used CMOS sensors.

I don't know about that. But, you're comparing "apples to oranges".

The older sensor is physically larger, with larger photosites for each pixel compared to the sensors used in the newer models.

Using smaller sensors allow the manufacturers to offer more zoom range in a smaller camera, since the actual focal lengths of the lenses can be shorter when a smaller film or sensor size is being used.

There are tradeoffs to either approach.

Bottom line... you really need to compare each camera model on a case by case basis, without regard to CCD versus CMOS, as you'll find that sensor technology is constantly improving and you can find a number of examples where a CMOS Sensor produces better IQ compared to a similar CCD Sensor and vice-versa.

[surplusshooter]

You are correct, the Fuji Super CCD sensor in the old Fuji S200 EXR model was physically larger than the smaller CMOS sensors of today. It's really not a very fair comparison. Like you said, like comparing apples to oranges.

[BillDrew]

There is an interesting article at http://improbable.com/airchives/pape...-3-apples.html

[surplusshooter]

When it comes down to the question of "which sensor is better, the CCD or the CMOS" ? You need only to read about the extensive testing that was done by some of the best scientific minds in the world. I'm talking about the NASA engineers that were in charge of which imaging technology to put into the Hubble space telescope. The reading is very interesting but rather technical. Their extensive research showed that when comparing the CCD and the CMOS sensors, the CCD sensor was proved to be far superior (their words) to that of the CMOS sensor in regards to absolute image quality. I guess you would have to have the best if your trying to capture super sharp clear images of a galaxy that is ten thousand light years away from earth.

[JimC]

The Hubble, huh?

Technology advances at a very rapid pace. ;-)

Anymore, you've got CMOS sensors with A/D converters on each column of pixels, with sophisticated noise canceling circuitry built into the sensor, versus the need for a separate A/D converter (and added noise from the analog signal path getting to it) with a CCD type sensor.

You'll also have a differences in microlens design amplifying the signal to each photosite, transmission characteristics of the filter arrays, noise generated by the sensor electronics and more; with a lot of work going into the latest designs.

Again, you have to take each sensor on a case by case basis, versus what type it is (CMOS versus CCD versus other types).

[TCav]

Are we still rehashing this?

If ALL cameras that used CCD sensors produced better photographs than ALL cameras that used CMOS sensors, then there wouldn't be anything to argue about.

But the fact of the matter is that the technology used to create the sensor is one small part of what makes one camera better than another.

And, I might add, the photographer is the biggest factor in what makes one photo better than another.

[VTphotog]

I will certainly concede that a CCD camera costing several billion dollars is far superior to any CMOS or CCD camera that I can buy.
BTW, the CCDs used in astronomy are generally cooled to near cryogenic temperatures in order to reduce thermal noise, which makes the comparison rather useless with respect to consumer cameras.

brian

[SIMON40]

Being very basic about things- from what I've seen- even in sensors of similar size and pixel count- the CCD equipped camera seems to me to yield a slightly crisper,sharper shot at lower iso settings- though seem to be slightly inferior at increased iso settings.
Of course- how much of that is down to the processors in each camera is hard to say..!
Many of the current "high end" compacts- LX-5,XS-1,P7100,G12 etc... still use CCD's.
Does that tell a story..? Only Canon's S100 bucks that trend.... for now...!
There's no doubt however,that most CMOS equipped cameras perform quicker,with higher fps on offer and improved movie capabilities.

[surplusshooter]

I guess you could say that NASA's engineers proved that a camera that cost several billions of dollars that has a a CCD sensor in it is better than a camera that cost several billions of dollars that has a CMOS sensor in it. The Hubble space telescope was launched in 1990. It no longer has it's original CCD camera sensor due to it being updated several times by space astronauts. However, they still use CCD sensors even to this day due to fact of not being able to find any other type of sensor technology that is better for their number one criteria and that is absolute best still image quality. Look it up, read the NASA engineers findings of the still on going research to find the ultimate camera sensor. You might just come away with a totally different view of the CMOS sensor as compared to the CCD sensor. If the CMOS sensor was proven to be better than a CCD sensor, you can bet your last dollar that NASA would be using it.