Further on the issue CCD vs CMOS
The whole FAQ is an excellent read, available at: http://www.swissarmyfork.com/digital_photography_ifaq.htm Good light, Frantisek Vlcek Thanks, Frantisek. If you follow the links to this guy's digital lens FAQ, he explains why ordinary TTL flashes do not expose properly with digital SLRs. The sensor has different reflectivity from film. That is the reason for the pre-flash. The metering is done off the shutter. Joe
Re: Further on the issue CCD vs CMOS
On 3 Aug 2004 at 22:19, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: The whole FAQ is an excellent read, available at: http://www.swissarmyfork.com/digital_photography_ifaq.htm And it's pretty accurate. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
I'm trying to remember if I've actually see you body but something tells me no... Norm Baugher wrote: I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm William Robb wrote: To excell at digital photography all you need is a brilliant mind, extraordinary sensitivity, unprecedented compatability and an attractive body -Canon advert: Photo Techniques, May/June 2004-.
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
--- Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to remember if I've actually see you body but something tells me no... Norm Baugher wrote: I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm Hmmm... This is the best I've got right now: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2449963 Looks a bit like Ed Wood, don't you think? -frank = The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
I do not believe anybody here has so much analyst background to prognose accurately which technology will prevail in the future. And that's because that's not a technical decision but a whole different matter. Like VHS/Beta and others. With complex technologies and big corporations, everything can change. I do not think battery power makes the big difference now, the new nikons can rung a long time on one battery, I think it's about the same like yours D60, Cotty. At least these I shot with were. Personally, I don't care whether it's CMOS/CCD/LBCAST/ETC... but how it shoots nad how it controls. I am not a prognosist, and frankly, I totally don't care. If I were debating whatever is a little bit better, I wouldn't shoot any pictures :-) I just shot some great shots with Leica and its super-sharp lens on 10 years old HP5+, which indeed is bit fogged. Did I mind :) ? Frantisek
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 26/7/04, Frantisek Vlcek, discombobulated, offered: I do not believe anybody here has so much analyst background to prognose accurately which technology will prevail in the future. And that's because that's not a technical decision but a whole different matter. Like VHS/Beta and others. With complex technologies and big corporations, everything can change. I do not think battery power makes the big difference now, the new nikons can rung a long time on one battery, I think it's about the same like yours D60, Cotty. At least these I shot with were. Personally, I don't care whether it's CMOS/CCD/LBCAST/ETC... but how it shoots nad how it controls. I am not a prognosist, and frankly, I totally don't care. If I were debating whatever is a little bit better, I wouldn't shoot any pictures :-) I just shot some great shots with Leica and its super-sharp lens on 10 years old HP5+, which indeed is bit fogged. Did I mind :) ? FYI, I was answering a question posted by John Forbes where he wanted to know why I chose a CMOS over a CCD and I gave my reasons. Technologies may have improved in certain areas, but there is no denying that a CMOS sensor uses less power than a CCD. But that is not to say that it is better, because the resolving power of the CMOS is less than the CCD (or so I am led to believe). There is no contest. I was simply explaining why I made a decision a couple of years ago :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Norm Baugher wrote: I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm It looked fine to me at GFM, Norm ;) annsan William Robb wrote: To excell at digital photography all you need is a brilliant mind, extraordinary sensitivity, unprecedented compatability and an attractive body -Canon advert: Photo Techniques, May/June 2004-.
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
C FYI, I was answering a question posted by John Forbes where he wanted to C know why I chose a CMOS over a CCD and I gave my reasons. Technologies C may have improved in certain areas, but there is no denying that a CMOS C sensor uses less power than a CCD. But that is not to say that it is C better, because the resolving power of the CMOS is less than the CCD (or C so I am led to believe). C There is no contest. I was simply explaining why I made a decision a C couple of years ago :-) Hi Cotty, sorry I did step in :) My message was only meant as a side-note. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 26/7/04, Frantisek Vlcek, discombobulated, offered: Hi Cotty, sorry I did step in :) My message was only meant as a side-note. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek Oops, i wrote: Hi Cotty, sorry I did step in :) My message was only meant as a side-note. Fully understood, no problemo. Astublift ;-) Ignore that last bit - I was mixing you up with a Dutch dude. být zavázán Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: CCD vs. CMOS
Canon EOS 1D, EOS 300D, EOS 10D, Kodak DSC SLR/n and /c, and DCS Pro 14n have CMOS sensors. Nikon DH2 has a LBCAST sensor )don't know what that is). It seems that high(est) end DSLR's have CMOS sensors. Even the consumer Canon Rebel EOS 300D has a CMOS. Most consumer cameras - as well as high end Nikons have CCDs. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Frantisek Vlcek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 26. juli 2004 18:26 Til: Cotty Emne: Re: CCD vs. CMOS C FYI, I was answering a question posted by John Forbes where he wanted to C know why I chose a CMOS over a CCD and I gave my reasons. Technologies C may have improved in certain areas, but there is no denying that a CMOS C sensor uses less power than a CCD. But that is not to say that it is C better, because the resolving power of the CMOS is less than the CCD (or C so I am led to believe). C There is no contest. I was simply explaining why I made a decision a C couple of years ago :-) Hi Cotty, sorry I did step in :) My message was only meant as a side-note. Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 26/7/04, Frantisek Vlcek, discombobulated, offered: Hi Cotty, sorry I did step in :) My message was only meant as a side-note. Fully understood, no problemo. Astublift ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 2004-07-24, at 10:17, Cotty wrote: I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go for weeks without recharging. I think power consumption is no longer issue with modern CCDs. Actually Nikon D70 despite using CCD with 1400mAh Li-Ion battery can do as much as 2000 shots without flash. For comparison Canon 10D can take about 650 photos with its 1100 mAh battery. So it seems power consumption is lower in case of CCD, at least the one used in Nikon (manufactured by Sanyo). But I suspect it can be as easy matter of the rest of electronics in camera too. But the other practical point is that CMOS sensors need less charge on its surface than CCDs and thus they attract less particles of dust and that's a real plus of CMOS for me. I also reasoned that as CMOSs were apparently cheaper to produce, the net result might be more affordable hardfware and/or better features in the future. I have not changed that view. Yes it could account for more features in hardware. But AFAIK manufacturing cost difference between CMOS and CCD is now neglible and relatively small comparing overall cost of this huge wafer of silicon. -- Best regards Sylwek
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 23/7/04, Norm Baugher, discombobulated, offered: I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm Oh, I dunno...big boy. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered: Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS? I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go for weeks without recharging. I also reasoned that as CMOSs were apparently cheaper to produce, the net result might be more affordable hardfware and/or better features in the future. I have not changed that view. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 24 Jul 2004 at 12:41, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: But the other practical point is that CMOS sensors need less charge on its surface than CCDs and thus they attract less particles of dust and that's a real plus of CMOS for me. Unfortunately this is an urban myth of the digital photographic type :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Cotty wrote: On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered: Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS? I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go for weeks without recharging. The battery life on the *ist D feels similar to me. I rarely charge it. One big thing about digital SLRs is that the image sensor spends a very little amount of time turned on. This is different from PS cameras where the users are typically using the CCD and LCD as their viewfinder. Given the tiny amount of itme that the sensor spends turned on I don't think that it makes a huge difference in battery life on our cameras. alex
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 24/7/04, alex wetmore, discombobulated, offered: One big thing about digital SLRs is that the image sensor spends a very little amount of time turned on. This is different from PS cameras where the users are typically using the CCD and LCD as their viewfinder. Given the tiny amount of itme that the sensor spends turned on I don't think that it makes a huge difference in battery life on our cameras. Using the LCD to review pics will limit battery life severely. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Thanks, and thanks too to Rob B for his treatise. It'll be interesting to see what the future holds. My view is that the winner will be whichever system can squeeze more pixels into an APS sized chip, whilst maintaining quality. John On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:17:04 +0100, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered: Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS? I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go for weeks without recharging. I also reasoned that as CMOSs were apparently cheaper to produce, the net result might be more affordable hardfware and/or better features in the future. I have not changed that view. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
CCD vs. CMOS
Hi all I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think? All the best Jens
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Gee, I always thought that it was because they were bigger than everyone else (more money) and more aggressive than everyone else. Technologies change all the time - the style of company doesn't. Bruce Friday, July 23, 2004, 12:45:56 PM, you wrote: JB Hi all JB I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is JB ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to JB CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics JB engineer, so what do guys think? JB All the best JB Jens
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Well, I thought it was the other way around. Everyone else used CCD's because they were better, and Canon used CMOS because that is what they had the FAB for. Also Canon's advertising budget seems to be about equal to the sum of everybody else's. Anyway, that is my opinion, a second beer and it is subject to change, especially if Canon pays for the beer. -- Jens Bladt wrote: Hi all I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think? All the best Jens -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On 23/7/04, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, offered: I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think? There were 2 reasons I bought some Canon gear: 1/ CMOS 2/ IS Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
I think they were the first ones to see moss on the north side of the tree. Norm (sorry, that sucked) Jens Bladt wrote: Hi all I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think?
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Yeah. While the rest of the pack only saw seeds. (sorry, that sucked too...:-)) nietsoJ - Original Message - From: Norm Baugher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 11:39 PM Subject: Re: CCD vs. CMOS I think they were the first ones to see moss on the north side of the tree. Norm (sorry, that sucked) Jens Bladt wrote: Hi all I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think?
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:45 PM Subject: CCD vs. CMOS Hi all I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photoraphy at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think? It might have something to do with the fact they are big enough to equip every known professional in the world as walking EOS billboards and buy a bunch of celebrities for the same reason, and then advertise the crap out of it. It might also have something to do with their ability to put a new model on the shelves a couple of times a year, thereby feeding the equipment angst of the needy photographers. It might even have to do with their ability to make a pretty decent camera, and then sell it at an almost dumping price point. To excell at digital photography all you need is a brilliant mind, extraordinary sensitivity, unprecedented compatability and an attractive body -Canon advert: Photo Techniques, May/June 2004-. Apparently, you don't need a lens. William Robb
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm William Robb wrote: To excell at digital photography all you need is a brilliant mind, extraordinary sensitivity, unprecedented compatability and an attractive body -Canon advert: Photo Techniques, May/June 2004-.
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
Don't you own a Spotty? Poor Boy! Norm Baugher wrote: I have everything but the attractive body; can I still excel? Norm
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
I think that's partially true, as they were unable to satisfy the huge demand for their DSLRs not long ago. They saw it coming, but it was coming much faster than they expected once they had made the move. But I think it is also true that if Canon did not make the move so quickly and so aggressively, and caught everyone off guard, film cameras might still be around. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan that's incidental. Canon had a vision, the marketing power, put a lot of money into RD, and has the manufacturing capability of making everything themselves. their management recognized the inevitable early and made a big commitment to what they saw coming. _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
RE: CCD vs. CMOS
Jens wrote: I just talked to a Canon guy on the phone. He said that the reason Canon is ruling the world of digital photography at the moment is, that they stuck to CMOS while everybody else left it for CCD's. I'm not an electronics engineer, so what do guys think? When Canon started dabbling with CMOS chips, they were considered inferior to CCD's in image quality but less expensive to manufacture. What Canon did right, IMHO, was to continue to develop the CMOS chip. That they are the only camera company making their own chip was a good business decision where they wanted to separate themselves from the other DSLR manufacturers. Butch
RE: CCD vs. CMOS
On 23 Jul 2004 at 23:03, Butch Black wrote: When Canon started dabbling with CMOS chips, they were considered inferior to CCD's in image quality but less expensive to manufacture. What Canon did right, IMHO, was to continue to develop the CMOS chip. That they are the only camera company making their own chip was a good business decision where they wanted to separate themselves from the other DSLR manufacturers. I venture to guess that it was their involvement in the copier business that fuelled their interest in CMOS technology also, as copiers/scanners and cameras are effectively parallel products. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Sensors in digital cameras: CCD vs. CMOS
I've been teaching myself digital camera jargon in preparation for a *istD. Finding that some cameras have CMOS sensors, and others have a CCD, I did some searching and found some useful web pages: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera3.htm http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/technologyFeatures/cmos.shtml To summarise: the *istD is CCD, which is the longer-established technology. It's expensive and uses a lot of power, but best for sensitivity and noise, at present. --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
