CMOS vs. CCD. Are the lines between these two technologies getting blurred?

[erictessmer]

<p>CMOS vs. CCD. Are the lines between these two technologies getting blurred? My Canon G10 15MP CCD photos look as good as my older Nikon large format CMOS SLR.</p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

Another variable in the sensors you are comparing, is their age.

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p>CMOS vs. CCD. Are the lines between these two technologies getting blurred? My Canon G10 15MP CCD photos look as good as my older Nikon large format CMOS SLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Large format? </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Wonder what's in my cameras, cmos or ccd:)</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>CCD is an older technology, used in TV cameras for years. it's technically closer to film grain and less "digital" than CMOS. But CMOS is cheaper to mass-produce and has better low-light characteristics. incidentally, a lot of what happens in-between image capture and jpeg rendering is software processing. at base ISO in a small print or on the web, a full frame CMOS camera's output might seem equal or even inferior to a CCD digicam. But as soon as you raise the ISO, the small sensor starts to become noise-challenged. this will be more apparent in a larger print. of course, FF CMOS has other advantages, like shallower depth of field.</p>

<p>fyi, the age of the sensor would probably not be field-relevant, as long as it still worked. newer CCD sensors aren't "better" than FF CMOS sensors, which in Nikon's case, are no older than four years. newer cameras may have more processing tricks, but CCD hasn't "improved" as a technology. it's not getting any better and CMOS isn't getting any weaker. </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>They are completely different technologies. CCD sensors have a higher fill factor (larger pixels) which gives you much better performance in terms of IQ and noise. Generally, CCDs are much, much better than CMOS, other than they are a bit slower to read and are pigs when it comes to battery consumption. The main reason most cameras use inferior CMOS sensors is that CCDs are several times the cost of an equivalent-sized CMOS sensor. </p>

<p>As for Eric's post, CCDs <strong>have</strong> improved as a technology as production costs have dropped and read speeds have increased, and thus it is no surprise to see a resurgence in their utilization, especially in small sensor cameras that need every possible advantage in terms of noise control and are not expected to have terribly high frame rates. I suspect that, absent a new technology being introduced, most cameras will use CCD sensors in 5 years time. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>.....CCDs are much, much better than CMOS..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ahh! That explains why most modern CMOS sensor cameras beat the pants off older CCD-based cameras for image quality then. And for dynamic range.</p>

<p>Craig, the fill factor isn't as important as the amount of charge that each sensor site can hold. Nearly all sensors have a colour filter and microlens matrix superimposed over them, and it's the microlens geometry that determines the light gathering efficiency of the system. Plus the extra heat generated by power-hungry CCD technology tends to negate any inherent noise advantage with extended exposures.</p>

<p>Personally I think it's the final image that counts, and as long as this keeps getting better with each new generation of camera - who cares what technology is being used? It's not as if any of us on this forum are going to be designing the next generation of imaging sensors. Is it?</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Rodeo, the amount of charge that each sensor site can hold is a direct product of the fill factor (holding technology constant of course). As the CCD requires fewer on-sensor electronics this means that each photosite is bigger and can hold more charge. Microlenses certainly help photons find the photosites so they aren't "wasted" striking the other sensor components found on CMOS sensors, but as you still have smaller photosites, the sensor saturates more quickly so you end up counting fewer photons per unit time, meaning lower image quality, higher noise, and a smaller dynamic range. Sorry, but that's physics for you. </p>

<p>As for the performance of old CCD vs new CMOS, you've built an irrelevant straw-man by comparing <strong>old</strong> CCD cameras to <strong>new</strong> CMOS cameras. If you compare modern CCD designs to modern CMOS designs, you will find that CCDs are still better sensor. While there are obviously no modern CCD DLSRs for our comparison, you can compare the performance of modern CCD compact cameras to modern CMOS cameras to see the difference. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Craig. Yes, I've compared a tiny 6mm x 8mm CCD sensor camera to my D700 CMOS sensor. As expected, there's really no contest. The D700 is clearly the winner on S/N, dynamic range and sensitivity. Not to mention far better resolution and more natural colour.</p>

<p>Just face up to the fact that even if CCD technology is inherently superior (which I doubt), there's no point at all in trying to champion it. You'll simply end up with a Betamax system when everyone else is using their 6-head VHS VCRs and getting better picture quality and more functionality from them.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Nikon uses whatever sensor technology that works best for the given aims of the camera. A technology that is optimal for

sensors with tiny photosites may not be optimal for sensors with large photosites. Similarly, a technology which gives

optimal results at low ISO may not give optimal results for high ISO. This is exhibited in cameras on the market which

have very different optimal applications.

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Rodeo, the only reason the D700 wins out is because the sensor is enormous compared to the 6x8mm sensor. Hopefully you at least understand that.</p>

<p>But I'm done with this thread. No one is interested in serious discussion and if we are just going to throw around spurious arguments (I really don't see the relevance of the Betamax/VHS example at all), there is no point in continuing. </p>

[erictessmer]

<p>Thanks to everyone who replied. I learned a lot reading through these posts, and appreciate the knowledge shared.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>CCD sensors... gives you much better performance in terms of IQ and noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, CCD sensors are noisier than CMOS for the reasons i and Rodeo mentioned. there's no comparison between my CCD d80 and my CMOS d3s. even my d300s is way better in terms of noise than the d80. I actually prefer my d80's output at base ISO to the CMOS look sometimes, but i don't always shoot at base ISO.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Generally, CCDs are much, much better than CMOS, other than they are a bit slower to read and are pigs when it comes to battery consumption. The main reason most cameras use inferior CMOS sensors is that CCDs are several times the cost of an equivalent-sized CMOS sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be cost-ineffective to make a FF CCD sensor for most camera makers, although i believe that's the technology used in digital MF, which are much more expensive than FF DSLRS. most of those cameras suck at high ISOs btw; some dont even go about 400. and "most" cameras don't use CMOS -- some do. compacts which use this technology generally have better battery life and low-light performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you compare modern CCD designs to modern CMOS designs, you will find that CCDs are still better sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the case of small-sensor cameras with CCD chips, they are optimized for performance at base ISOs. some advanced compacts use larger sensors which have less inherent noise and better hi-ISO results. But they clearly have less dynamic range than APS-C or FF DSLRs. Clearly, CCD small sensor performance is not equivalent to CCD on APS-C, so we can't assume all CCD sensors are created equal, regardless of size. similarly, we can't say all CMOS sensors are created equal, for the same reasons. thus, the modern vs. old argument isn't entirely correct, since we're talking about different sensor sizes which do impact performance in several key areas.</p>

<p> </p>