Chuck, I really beg to differ on this point. It would be revisionist
history for you to say that people didn't associate clean images with CMOS.
You and both know that technically both technologies are capable of
equivalent image quality, but that didn't matter because we, the consumers
clamored for CMOS because Canon proved how much superior it was even though
Canon would have been just as successful with CCD. But CCD was the
established standard dominated by Kodak and Sony in fabrication.
Ag
On Sunday, March 4, 2012, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I was following you until you made the following (IMHO) preposterous
> statement. Part of the reason for buying a Canon 5D was its low noise
> performance at high ISO. I couldn't have cared less whether Canon
> achieved that with CMOS or CCD or baked mud pies with embedded
> circuitry... and still don't. Buyers choose CMOS over CCD because of a
> "change in the lettering"? 98% of them haven't a clue what any of it
> means. Gimme me a break!
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 3/4/2012 10:40 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Within the digital world, we had CCD and CMOS.
>> CCD was superior (and could still be superior), but the challenger
(Canon)
>> came out with a decent CMOS product and the customers identified (either
>> correctly or incorrectly) that the advantage was due to the change in
>> lettering. Companies that stuck to their CCD guns lost. Those that
quickly
>> adapted did well.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|