CMOS Vs CCD sensor

<p>Hi Technical bugs,<br>

I want to know whether the CMOS sensor is equally efficient as a CCD sensor?<br>

A brillinat photographer told me that CMOS is cheaper to make than CCD and everybody is switching to CMOS. But if you see like the slightly earlir generation cameras like Nikon D200 gave comparatively better pictures than the newer D300. Is it due to the change of CCD sensor to CMOS?<br>

Please see the attached link:<br>

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm<br>

Can somebody enlighten me on this?<br>

Lets see if now your minds are ignited or not?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Rajnish</p>

<p>Can you be more specific about the ways in which you consider the D200's images to be better than the D300's? I own and use both of those bodies, and say that though the D200 (within the bounds of its clean ISO range) makes lovely image files... the D300, I think, is qualitatively better at it. Ever so slightly. And of course, once you get into high ISOs, the D300 is certainly much more useful.</p>

<p>I'm no engineer, but by nearly every account of sensors (other than your link) I've seen, the switch to CMOS from CCD is because the latter is technologically inferior. Is this not right?</p>

<p>Dear Matt,<br>

I think your D300 score a poin in higher ISOs I agree, but you cant say that regarding sharpness in lower ISOs, I find the pictures marginally better. Only problem is that D200 had some technical problems for which it is withdrawn from the market.<br>

Dear Weinberg,<br>

The switch from CCD to CMOS is entirely due to cost cutting by the companies. Canon initiated it and Nikon followed suit. Off course you benefit with increased battery life in CMOS compared to CCD.</p>

<p>Search the Canon site for a discussion on this subject. I can't remember the reasons for CMOS very well, but I think it has something to do with power consumption or heat in larger sensors. CMOS sensors are supposedly not not as accurate as CCD sensors, but the manufacturers have worked out ways to correct the CMOS output to the extent that it is even more accurate than CCD. This is just off of the top of my head, so I might not remember correctly. Again, I think it's on the Canon website, <a href="http://www.canonusa.com">www.canonusa.com</a>. </p>

Very soon we should be able to do a direct comparison. The Canon SX1 is the same camera as the SX10 with CMOS instead of CCD sensor. Shot-to-shot times are much faster with CMOS, but early reports indicate high-ISO noise is similar. I bet the SX1 battery lasts longer.

<p>To put it simply it depends on what the application the sensor is being used for. CMOS run on less power and have less heat issues than CCD which is why you are seeing them in full frame and Medium format cameras. But there are trade offs. CMOS cameras require more components. I have not shot the D200 or D300 but your test seems somewhat subjective. If you want detail comparison between sensors take a look at this link. http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx</p>

<p>Thanks Bill,<br>

Your guess is as good as mine. But I think these companies cannot do tradeoff of image quality with newer "fuel efficient" sensors like CMOS. Maybe the newly developed CMOS sensor in the latest Canon and Nikon cameras are different than the first generation ones?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>'I've seen, the switch to CMOS from CCD is because the latter is technologically inferior. Is this not right?'</p>

<p>Depends what you are coming from. If you are coming from the view that the latest and greatest must be the best then you are right.</p>

<p>If you are looking at the actual mages produced from the cams a different story unfolds. It seems to my eyes the CMOS sensor has a more plasticky PS look while the CCD has a more natural film like look. </p>

<p>But i suppose it 's about individual taste and the satisfaction of having the latest technology.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to my eyes the CMOS sensor has a more plasticky PS look while the CCD has a more natural film like look.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The discussions I'd seen had nothing to do with anything being the latest, but in any case now that we've heard that CMOS is "more plasticky", I guess that pretty much settles the question in a scientifically tested way. LOL</p>

<p>I guess the discussion of digital versus vinyl is still alive too. Somewhere out there, there must be at least a few fans of Beta over VHS.</p>

 

<p> "I guess that pretty much settles the question in a scientifically tested way. LOL'<br>

Yor own eyes are the best scientifically test, JDM von Weinburg. We all have our own take on what we prefer whenn it comes to image quality....we do not need little graphs to tell us otherwise.</p>

<p>Be happy with your enjoyment of the latest technology.</p>

<p>My Canon 1D has a CCD, it is only 4.2 mp but the images from it can be spectacular, I have used all the other 1 series cameras and none of them look the same as my oldest, the 1D, and it is the only one with a CCD. It is blindingly fast, even today, the AF has never had "an issue" and for 90% of my work the lowly resolution is not a problem. You can buy one for $500 too!</p>

<p>But the CCD was dropped for cost and heat reasons. I wouldn't be surprised to see it re-emerge though.</p>

<p>Sure, and no eye could be tricked by a pre-existing bias, could it?<br>

I'm sure Nikon changed to CMOS just because they're cheapskates like Canon. What other explanation could there be? It's funny but my eyes just don't seem to see that "plasticky" effect, but your vision is probably much better than mine.</p>

<p>Be happy, live long and prosper as the guy with the funny ears used to say. Enjoy your vinyl records and lament the march of so-called "latest technology".</p>

<p>'Sure, and no eye could be tricked by a pre-existing bias, could it?'</p>

<p>And should that eye be tricked into a bias that all which is new is better?</p>

<p>"I'm sure Nikon changed to CMOS just because they're cheapskates like Canon."</p>

<p>And JDM von Weinburgon upon the road to somewhere heard the name Canon and fell down unto the dusk and worshipped...Jeez, give me a break.</p>

<p>'It's funny but my eyes just don't seem to see that "plasticky" effect, but your vision is probably much better than mine.'</p>

<p>And the word was that new is always better and ones eyes are false and decieved if they do not believe.</p>

<p>Reality is manufactures are always looking at cost savings. If the quality falls well the marketing department will take up the slack to help the punters believe.....</p>

<p>Thanks for the entertainment,JDM von Weinburgon. Cool name.</p>

 

<p>Here's a few snippets from a response I posted in the Pentax forum back in November. Hope this provides some insight.</p>

<p>There are significant differences in sensor technology CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) and CMOS (Complimentary Metal Oxide Semiconductor) sensors work in very different ways. Both types of technology have been around for a long time, CCD in the 60's and CMOS as an early computer component in the 70's.</p>

<p>CCD sensors have had a very early head start for imaging applications, a few decades of lead in a technology arms race with a reputation of delivering quality for photographers. How it works: the charge in a CCD is created when light photons strike the sensor. Each pixel essentially acts as a bucket and as photons strike each photo site the charge is passed from one bucket to the next until every pixel has delivered it's charge in this slow bucket brigade process. A very simple concept, but accurate making for a clear signal. The charge then goes through voltage conversion and is processed by the imaging engine with amplification and analog to digital conversion. Slow but effective. The disadvantages of CCD is a sensor that requires more voltage and thus shorter battery life. Also, higher voltage can cause more noise particularly if there are more pixels on the sensor. Another key thing to remember is that as long as the camera is turned on the CCD is turned on consuming power - eating up that rechargeable power supply.</p>

<p>CMOS is entirely different. Image processing begins on the sensor itself which has contains a significant amount of electronics. As a result data moves more quickly than with the CCD bucket brigade and lower voltage is consumed on the whole. As good as that sounds it's not entirely perfect, the sensor is subject to more heat from it's complexity increasing the likelihood of failure and noise can also be created as collateral damage. To overcome the heat issue in a CMOS sensor the sensor powers down between captures which makes for great economy with your power supply. If you have a look at some of the recent reviews on the video capture performance of the new Nikon D90 you'll see that sensor overheating with CMOS is a fact of life given current technology. That's a big reason why extended video capture will continue to be based on video camera's and not tripod mounted DSLR's for the near future. For those of us who utilize Sony DSR 570's, DSR-PD170's or any similar 3 CCD technology, the switch to video enabled dslr's is a long way off.</p>

<p>Ultimately both types of technology have advantages and will be around for a very long time yet. Don't expect to see CCD disappear anytime soon.</p>

 

<p>The funny thing is that I actually made no firm claim which technology was superior, I just asked if it was not true that there were advantages to the CMOS. I have yet to see any response that actually provides links to scientific tests of equivalent generations of each technology in terms of image quality.</p>

<p>Alan Hurburt, didn't "yor" Mom teach you that it's not polite to make fun of names? Especially when you can't read them "rite"?</p>

<p>JDM, the misspelling of your name was merely a typo....</p>