CCD vs CMOS sensor

[Dolby]

I always thought CMOS was better and used in higher model camera's - but then I read this :

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

Based on these differences, you can see that 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. CMOS sensors are just now improving to the point where they reach near parity with CCD devices in some applications. CMOS cameras are usually less expensive and have great battery life.

Don't DSLR's generally use CMOS?

 

[Submolecule]

Most use CMOS, but your lower end nikon cameras still use CCD's like the D60 and d3000 while its closest rival the canon 1000D uses CMOS technology.

Dont forget that technology like this improves every 6 months and the article might be a bit old or may have used references that were outdated.

 

[koffiejunkie]

From what I've read and heard CCD is still the superior technology but CMOS have become good enough and is cheaper to manufacture.

 

[RawElectrik]

Without being too technical, the main difference, from a manufacturing POV is that CMOS allows for greater modification in the image processing chain. That is, more manipulation can be done on sensor as opposed to the actual image processor. Primarily for compacts and modern DSLRs where features such as low high-ISO noise etc are desirable, CMOS is better. However, the commercial standard, medium format cameras still mostly (if not all) use CCD as on-chip processing is negligible or absent, think them blads or Kodak's MF range of sensors...

Personally, I prefer hardware solutions over the image processing pipeline changes, the light anti-aliasing filter on the 5D MK1 for example, or the gapless microlens array on the 50D.

 

[BigAl-sa]

Without being too technical, the main difference, from a manufacturing POV is that CMOS allows for greater modification in the image processing chain. That is, more manipulation can be done on sensor as opposed to the actual image processor. Primarily for compacts and modern DSLRs where features such as low high-ISO noise etc are desirable, CMOS is better. However, the commercial standard, medium format cameras still mostly (if not all) use CCD as on-chip processing is negligible or absent, think them blads or Kodak's MF range of sensors...

Personally, I prefer hardware solutions over the image processing pipeline changes, the light anti-aliasing filter on the 5D MK1 for example, or the gapless microlens array on the 50D.

Do give some references to backup your comments...

 

[RawElectrik]

Do give some references to backup your comments...

Which parts require clarity/further reading?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Which parts require clarity/further reading?

The part about on-chip image processing intrigues me - I've never heard of it. I know that more circuitry can be integrated into a CMOS, but that doesn't mean any image processing happens there.

Primarily for compacts and modern DSLRs where features such as low high-ISO noise etc are desirable, CMOS is better.

Except the vast majority of compact still use CCD sensors. Even the Powershot S90, which does a fantastic job of keeping noise down at high ISO and offers great image quality, uses a (Sony) CCD.

From what I've read CMOS used to have the advantage that it uses much less power and stays cooler, while CCD traditionally offered better image quality and beter high-ISO/noise performance. Both both technologies have developed to the point where there's little difference. I'm actually surpised that the video-capable DSLRs don't use CCD sensors, as that's one area where CCDs have a clear benefit - lack of rolling shutter.

 

[bwana]

Does CCD vs CMOS really ever influence consumers?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Doubtful

 

[RawElectrik]

The part about on-chip image processing intrigues me - I've never heard of it. I know that more circuitry can be integrated into a CMOS, but that doesn't mean any image processing happens there.

Precisely what I meant, the additional circuitry can account for features that would conventionally be dealt with in the processing pipeline, noise reduction being an optimum example. Think back to the 'cooked RAW' issue the Sony A700 suffered from way back when, I know there are similar examples that I've heard of...

Except the vast majority of compact still use CCD sensors. Even the Powershot S90, which does a fantastic job of keeping noise down at high ISO and offers great image quality, uses a (Sony) CCD.

Yup! They're cheaper and in the case of compacts where continuous shooting is not necessarily a headline feature, most of it gets handled in the processing pipeline.

 

[noxibox]

Precisely what I meant, the additional circuitry can account for features that would conventionally be dealt with in the processing pipeline, noise reduction being an optimum example. Think back to the 'cooked RAW' issue the Sony A700 suffered from way back when, I know there are similar examples that I've heard of...

And you think that was image processing happening on the sensor? More importantly why could the same thing not happen with a CCD?

 

[BigAl-sa]

Which parts require clarity/further reading?

All of it?

You have no credentials to back your comments ...

 

[BigAl-sa]

The sensor cannot do image processing. It is merely a collector of light...

 

[ponder]

The sensor cannot do image processing. It is merely a collector of light...

Not according to some people...