Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: CMOS or CCD?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southen Sea
    Posts
    1,467

    Default CMOS or CCD?

    Which one is better?
    Pros n cons?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    information from this website http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________
    1. CCD sensors, as mentioned above, create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.

    2. Because each pixel on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower. Many of the photons hitting the chip hit the transistors instead of the photodiode.

    3. CMOS traditionally consumes little power. Implementing a sensor in CMOS yields a low-power sensor.

    4. CCDs use a process that consumes lots of power. CCDs consume as much as 100 times more power than an equivalent CMOS sensor.

    5. CMOS chips can be fabricated on just about any standard silicon production line, so they tend to be extremely inexpensive compared to CCD sensors.

    6. CCD sensors have been mass produced for a longer period of time, so they are more mature. They tend to have higher quality and more pixels.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________
    Last edited by eikin; 17th September 2005 at 01:34 PM.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by erizai
    Which one is better?
    Pros n cons?
    To a certain extent, this is an irrelevant question. The answer you should be asking is which camera produces the cleanest image at the lowest cost. Theoretically, although CCDs should technically produce cleaner pictures than CMOS, advances in CMOS and processing technology made closed the gap significantly. Canon DSLRs, which use CMOS chips exclusively, are generally well regarded with respect to clean high-ISO performance. At the end of the day, its the image that matters, not the chip. And of course, the price. Test it out for yourself and see which you prefer.

    Cheers,

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    666

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Does it make a diff since our decision to buy a camera is usually not based on what sensor it uses...

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    but i heard that CMOS got more static. thus it attracts more dust and harder to blow the dust off......got this prob liao....

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    598

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by JediForce4ever
    but i heard that CMOS got more static. thus it attracts more dust and harder to blow the dust off......got this prob liao....
    I thought it would be CCD having more static as charges are involved unlike in CMOS

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    I dunno leh....but heard from another photographer that CMOS got more static...can anyone confirm this??

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by JediForce4ever
    I dunno leh....but heard from another photographer that CMOS got more static...can anyone confirm this??
    There are a lot of myths circulating out there. Is the dust affecting your image quality? If not, don't sweat it. I've had a 300D for about 2 years and a 20D for about 9 months, and I've only ever cleaned the 300D sensor once when a stray hair got in.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Yes....its affecting my image quality real bad....two big dots on the pic....but got no money to clean....

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by JediForce4ever
    I dunno leh....but heard from another photographer that CMOS got more static...can anyone confirm this??
    Dude! You got it wrong... Its the CCD that attracts more dust.
    CMOS attracts less dust but it does not mean no dust.
    All DSLR sensors will attract dust.

    The only self cleaning sensor to date is the Olympus system. Using ultrasonic vibrations to shake the dust off the sensor.

    Currently, CMOS found in Canon DSLR have been known for low noise even in high ISO. But Nikon's high end DSLR using CCD also has very good noise control. Personally, I think technological advances would always overlap one technology over the other.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Southen Sea
    Posts
    1,467

    Talking Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Wow!! you guys are pretty cool man...

    Learnt new tricks! Thanks!!

  12. #12

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

    Comparing CCD to CMOS is like comparing apples to oranges--there can never be a conclusive winner between the two. Although the above article does not specifically refers to the sensors manufactured by companies like Nikon/Sony or Canon, I believe it very much applies to CCD and CMOS sensors in general.

    Any EEE graduates care to comment?

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    eikin's link (HSW) got most of the fact right basically. But that was mostly in the past. when CMOS image sensors first started out in mid 90s where ppl were searching for a cheaper alternative to CCDs which were very expensive back then.. (it still is)

    as what HSW said, CMOS has very low fill factor. Meaning the useful area to gather light is less than CCD. But this has been overcomed by using micro lenses over each sensor site that spreads over the 'unused' areas to focus light into the photosensitive areas. This has lead to a significant jump in photo sensitivity.

    -CMOS were fabricated on the 0.8 micron structure back then.. where CCDs were on the .35 micron. UMC is currently looking at .18micron for CMOS sensors.
    Layman terms: The 'usesless' area for circuitry are getting smaller giving more way to useful light sensitive areas.

    - Tech for A/D conversion on the CMOS chip has improved significantly that the noise is now very well controlled and dark current noise for CMOS is as low as 65pA/cm^2.
    CCDs perform at about 1nA/cm^2 (fyi:1nA = 1x10^-9 amperes, 1pA=1x10^-12 amperes)
    layman term black is represented as black more accurately instead of other colours especially in higher ISOs. This results in the 'noise grain' we usually see in the darker regions of any pictures. A perfect sensor with NO dark current shows black as total black.

    -most importantly, cost. It is significantly cheaper to produce CMOS sensors as compared to CCDs. This is a major factor that drives most manufacturers towards CMOS.

    There are many marked improvements but it's late now and I'm too lazy to type anymore. To me, the clear winner is CMOS as there is always space for CMOS to imrpove but CCDs have reached maturity to the point there is little to improve upon it. Probably only rearranging the way the pixels are located like the SuperCCD. CCDs with the bayer pattern are about there. Matured.

    EDIT: changed from "eikin" to "eikin's link"
    Last edited by yanyewkay; 20th September 2005 at 10:50 AM.
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by yanyewkay
    eikin's got most of the fact right basically. But that was mostly in the past. when CMOS image sensors first started out in mid 90s where ppl were searching for a cheaper alternative to CCDs which were very expensive back then.. (it still is)

    as what eikin said, CMOS has very low fill factor. Meaning the useful area to gather light is less than CCD. But this has been overcomed by using micro lenses over each sensor site that spreads over the 'unused' areas to focus light into the photosensitive areas. This has lead to a significant jump in photo sensitivity.

    -CMOS were fabricated on the 0.8 micron structure back then.. where CCDs were on the .35 micron. UMC is currently looking at .18micron for CMOS sensors.
    Layman terms: The 'usesless' area for circuitry are getting smaller giving more way to useful light sensitive areas.

    - Tech for A/D conversion on the CMOS chip has improved significantly that the noise is now very well controlled and dark current noise for CMOS is as low as 65pA/cm^2.
    CCDs perform at about 1nA/cm^2 (fyi:1nA = 1x10^-9 amperes, 1pA=1x10^-12 amperes)
    layman term black is represented as black more accurately instead of other colours especially in higher ISOs. This results in the 'noise grain' we usually see in the darker regions of any pictures. A perfect sensor with NO dark current shows black as total black.

    -most importantly, cost. It is significantly cheaper to produce CMOS sensors as compared to CCDs. This is a major factor that drives most manufacturers towards CMOS.

    There are many marked improvements but it's late now and I'm too lazy to type anymore. To me, the clear winner is CMOS as there is always space for CMOS to imrpove but CCDs have reached maturity to the point there is little to improve upon it. Probably only rearranging the way the pixels are located like the SuperCCD. CCDs with the bayer pattern are about there. Matured.
    those are not my words, as indicated they are taken from the website (as linked)

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by eikin
    those are not my words, as indicated they are taken from the website (as linked)
    yah i know. Not saying you were wrong.

    Peace
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    東京 Tokyo
    Posts
    10,193

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by yanyewkay
    yah i know. Not saying you were wrong.

    Peace
    not saying that you're saying i'm wrong, cause those are not my words.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cons digger.
    Posts
    3,924

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    edited my previous post.
    “How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” - Adolf Hitler

  18. #18

    Default Re: CMOS or CCD?

    Quote Originally Posted by erizai
    Which one is better?
    Pros n cons?
    Totally irrevelent in 99% of the time. It's the entire package, the camera, the lens, the mother board, the firmware, and most important of all, the photographer. CDD and CMOS each has it's own strength and weakness. Each camera is designed differently, and has its strengths and weaknesses. the right package with the right photographer will yield the best result.
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •