CMOS x CCD sensors.

Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. writes …

I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ?

Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images, so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

Dear members:

I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ? Which provides the best image quality, color fidelity and reproduction, greater color space or color gamut, … ?

I am also interested in reading reviews on published in either print journals/photo magazines or online publications. Are there any reviews you would recommend ?

If you haven’t already, I recommend you check out www.imaging-resource.com they have comparison images that you can download for a very large number of cameras, as well as quantitative tests on image quality. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Bill Hilton wrote:

Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. writes …

I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ?

Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images, so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.

Agreed with the list of "bigger impacts". Although each item plays an important role, some would argue that special attention should be on software. If the software cannot capture or process the data well, or does not offer a user friendly interface, an user cannot get optimal results from the other items on the list, regardless of how good they are. While it is easy for the manufactures to market their hardware by the numbers, it is much more difficult for them to convey how good their software is. Many believe that’s this is the primary reason why the Canons are ahead of the Nikons.

On 15 Jun 2005 14:11:10 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

Joseph Chamberlain, D.D.S. writes …

I am interested in your opinions on the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors for SLR digital cameras. Which one is the best ?

Cameras using either sensor type are fully capable of excellent images, so most of us probably feel this is an irrelevant question. Things that have a bigger impact on image quality are the sensor size, number of pixels, pixel pitch, quality of the lenses available for the system and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.

I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person who shots Raw.

********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous, singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866

Things that have a bigger impact on image quality (than sensor type) … and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.

John Stovall writes …

I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person who shots Raw.

I would say this is nonsense, since there is considerable processing going on just in creating the RAW file. You don’t think those powerful Canon Digic-II chips are there just to do in-camera conversions to jpeg, do you?

Bill

On 16 Jun 2005 06:55:16 -0700, "Bill Hilton"
wrote:

Things that have a bigger impact on image quality (than sensor type) … and sophistication of the built-in image processing software.

John Stovall writes …

I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person who shots Raw.

I would say this is nonsense, since there is considerable processing going on just in creating the RAW file. You don’t think those powerful Canon Digic-II chips are there just to do in-camera conversions to jpeg, do you?

They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into the RAW file not "processing" the image.

******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person who shots Raw.

Unfortunately, that is a false impression. The sensor is not like film where only camera and lens factors make the difference. RAW is still the outcome of software rendering.

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into the RAW file not "processing" the image.

Mr. Stovall, your assertion deserves a thorough explanation, and to that end we need to take a decent digital camera and crack the interface. I have to believe it can be done. To that end, I’m willing to sacrifice an Olympus 8080w. This is a serious offer. How do we begin?

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:49:33 -0500, "johnboy" wrote:

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

I would say in camera processing is largely irrelevant to the person who shots Raw.

Unfortunately, that is a false impression. The sensor is not like film where only camera and lens factors make the difference. RAW is still the outcome of software rendering.

You are the one under a false impression.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-se ries/u-raw-files.shtml

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/raw-files.html

******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:59:28 -0500, "johnboy" wrote:

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into the RAW file not "processing" the image.

Mr. Stovall, your assertion deserves a thorough explanation, and to that end we need to take a decent digital camera and crack the interface. I have to believe it can be done. To that end, I’m willing to sacrifice an Olympus 8080w. This is a serious offer. How do we begin?

Just go read some:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-se ries/u-raw-files.shtml

******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

You are the one under a false impression.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-se ries/u-raw-files.shtml
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/raw-files.html

With respect, I simply have no confidence in the manufacturer’s claim.

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

Just go read some:

I did and I remain unconvinced.

John Stovall writes …

They are for data collection an organization of the sensor data into the RAW file not "processing" the image.

Think about these two different cases, which indicate there is indeed "processing" going on between exposure and writing the RAW file …

1) firmware updates that change the quality of the output data (RAW file) … best (worst?) example I can think of here is the Kodak 14n (full frame sensor in a Nikon mount), which was clearly released before it was ready to compete with the Canon 1Ds … the first models had some terrible image problems with banding, noise, moire etc and Kodak went thru maybe 40 firmware updates trying to fix these. The quality of the RAW files was much improved from the first rev to the last rev, indicating there is processing taking place since the sensor was the same.

2) most sensors are sold by a handful of companies like Sony, Kodak, Panasonic, maybe others (Canon is one of the few that brews its own), so the same off-the-shelf sensor is sold to different companies and appears in competing cameras. If what you imply is true (no pre-processing, just "data collection") then the RAW files from different cameras using the same sensors should have equal quality, yet this is demonstrably not true. Some companies do a better job with the signal processing than others.

Just go read some:

Hecate

Jun 16, 2005

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 13:07:30 -0500, "johnboy" wrote:

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message

You are the one under a false impression.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-se ries/u-raw-files.shtml
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/raw-files.html

With respect, I simply have no confidence in the manufacturer’s claim.

A sensible decision. One should never believe any manufacturer’s claims. Especially in this case. It is patently obvious that there is an analog-digital conversion which requires processing and it’s not just shifting one number value to another.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…