Winsor Crosby wrote:
> You have to realize that....
>
> It seems to me it is like disagreeing between unequal A arms or
> McPherson struts in a front suspension. There are good ones and bad
> ones in both. It is all in the details.
>
Exactly! The theory is just that, and practical applications often go
another way. Also, technology changes. Somebody is now making two layer
CMOS chips, putting the support circuitry on a lower level, leaving the
top level for higher fill factor sensor sites. So all the stuff written
about the fill factor advantage of CCD, including the LL article, is now
recycle fodder.
Not long ago, the conventional wisdom was that CCD couldn't go above x
mps in APS format without too much noise, so full frame sensors were
inevitable. Then Nikon went to work on low noise, multi-channel
amplification and suddenly that limit - wasn't.
Which brings me to the next point. It's the sensor system as a whole
that matters. N has overcome supposed limits of CCD and C overcame
supposed limits of CMOS. Some of the success has been in sensor design
and some in processor design. Since they are inseparable, it makes
little sense to me to focus on sensors.
And technology is still moving pretty fast. Up until a few days ago,
Live-MOS (N-MOS, I think, without the hype.), was the only route to live
view. Now C claims CMOS live view. And delivers a camera using it. Since
they do their own chip design and fabrication, it may be some time
before we know just what that means.
>
> On Mar 5, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Richard Ociepka wrote:
>> The CCD sensor is considered to have a better image quality than
>> the CMOS.
>>
By whom? I am of the opinion, based on way too much reading and peering
at full pixel samples, that the current sensor systems providing the
highest resolution and cleanest images are CMOS. Also, in another
performance area, in the recent color accuracy shoot-out, the winner was
CMOS, with CCD close but second place. The shoot-out is a sort of weird
trial, meaningful only to those who shoot JPEG event and portrait work,
although that's a lot of pros and a lot of images. I include it to
inclue more than one side of image quality.
>> However there are many more advantages to the CMOS sensor.
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/sensor-design.shtml
Sensor, schmensor, I don't think it means a thing until it's all
together with the processing circuitry in a working camera and image
output can been seen and evaluated. I wouldn't care if my 5D used a TRSH
sensor, as long as it made he same quality images it does.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|