If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
I have read a little on the differences between a CMOS sensor and a CCD
sensor. The article I read is that a CCD sensor costs more to make. From a practical user standpoint, is one significantly better than the others? Anybody know the advantages of one over the other (advantages that are meaningful)? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
measekite wrote:
I have read a little on the differences between a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor. The article I read is that a CCD sensor costs more to make. From a practical user standpoint, is one significantly better than the others? Anybody know the advantages of one over the other (advantages that are meaningful)? Others will give you a more detailed account of the differences than I can but from a user standpoint perhaps the biggest advantage the CMOS sensor has over a CCD sensor is lower noise levels at high ISO settings. CMOS sensors tend to run hotter and are not as good, or practical, for shooting video like the CCD based cameras. CCD sensors are smaller and, on a per unit basis, are typically cheaper to manufacture than CMOS sensors which is why most P&S cameras use them. As for which one is better for a particular user really depends on the user's wants or needs. I have DSLR and P&S cameras and depending on my needs I may choose one over the other. If I am photographing something I deem very important then the DSLR is the hands down choice. It offers flexibility far beyond a P&S but at the expense of size and the need to carry more equipment but this also gives me the greatest chance of obtaining the best photographs possible. If you are not extremely demanding regarding the quality of photos you take then a good quality P&S will likely be all you need you. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
measekite wrote: I have read a little on the differences between a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor. The article I read is that a CCD sensor costs more to make. From a practical user standpoint, is one significantly better than the others? Anybody know the advantages of one over the other (advantages that are meaningful)? Others will give you a more detailed account of the differences than I can but from a user standpoint perhaps the biggest advantage the CMOS sensor has over a CCD sensor is lower noise levels at high ISO settings. CMOS sensors tend to run hotter and are not as good, or practical, for shooting video like the CCD based cameras. CCD sensors are smaller and, on a per unit basis, are typically cheaper to manufacture than CMOS sensors which is why most P&S cameras use them. Hmm. Seems not quite right to me. CMOS is cheaper to manufacture than CCD. I am not sure about the operating temperature differences, but I suspect CMOS runs cooler [which would explain the reputed reduced noise levels at high ISO]. Chip size has nothing to do with it (you mentioned the CCD is smaller .... not true). CCD is an older technology, and it was incorporated into video cameras early on, but I am not aware of any reasons why a CMOS sensor could not be used [in fact, I bet Canon does use them in their cameras]. -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote: measekite wrote: I have read a little on the differences between a CMOS sensor and a CCD sensor. The article I read is that a CCD sensor costs more to make. From a practical user standpoint, is one significantly better than the others? Anybody know the advantages of one over the other (advantages that are meaningful)? Others will give you a more detailed account of the differences than I can but from a user standpoint perhaps the biggest advantage the CMOS sensor has over a CCD sensor is lower noise levels at high ISO settings. CMOS sensors tend to run hotter and are not as good, or practical, for shooting video like the CCD based cameras. CCD sensors are smaller and, on a per unit basis, are typically cheaper to manufacture than CMOS sensors which is why most P&S cameras use them. Hmm. Seems not quite right to me. CMOS is cheaper to manufacture than CCD. I am not sure about the operating temperature differences, but I suspect CMOS runs cooler [which would explain the reputed reduced noise levels at high ISO]. Chip size has nothing to do with it (you mentioned the CCD is smaller ... not true). CCD is an older technology, and it was incorporated into video cameras early on, but I am not aware of any reasons why a CMOS sensor could not be used [in fact, I bet Canon does use them in their cameras]. CMOS may be cheaper to manufacture on an area basis but where CCD catches up is they are smaller more fit on a wafer (or the photo chip equivalent) so there is better economy of scale. Maybe I am wrong. Also, I thought the reason CMOS sensors aren't ideal for video is they can't do the rapid frame rate for extended time periods needed for smooth video without overheating. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
CMOS may be cheaper to manufacture on an area basis but where CCD catches up is they are smaller more fit on a wafer (or the photo chip equivalent) so there is better economy of scale. Maybe I am wrong. Also, I thought the reason CMOS sensors aren't ideal for video is they can't do the rapid frame rate for extended time periods needed for smooth video without overheating. Really? Which is bigger, the CMOS 6.3MP sensor that the Canon Digital Rebel uses or the CCD 6.1MP sensor the Nikon D50/D70 and D70s use (among the Nikon branded cameras ... many others use that sensor). There are plenty of CMOS based video cameras out there. This one comes to mind with a simple Google search. http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/s...-Camera/Detail CCD, when properly cooled, can achieve higher image quality than the CMOS counter part, and is why CCD is still used for astronomy; however, I am not sure that there are many DSLRs around with portable liquid cooling systems in them ... -- Thomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
Michael Johnson, PE wrote: CMOS may be cheaper to manufacture on an area basis but where CCD catches up is they are smaller more fit on a wafer (or the photo chip equivalent) so there is better economy of scale. Maybe I am wrong. Also, I thought the reason CMOS sensors aren't ideal for video is they can't do the rapid frame rate for extended time periods needed for smooth video without overheating. Really? Which is bigger, the CMOS 6.3MP sensor that the Canon Digital Rebel uses or the CCD 6.1MP sensor the Nikon D50/D70 and D70s use (among the Nikon branded cameras ... many others use that sensor). There are plenty of CMOS based video cameras out there. This one comes to mind with a simple Google search. http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/s...-Camera/Detail CCD, when properly cooled, can achieve higher image quality than the CMOS counter part, and is why CCD is still used for astronomy; however, I am not sure that there are many DSLRs around with portable liquid cooling systems in them ... CCD verses CMOS sensor size in a DSLR has more to do with lens design than in a P&S. There is full frame or, more commonly, the 1.6x crop size. Whether CCD or CMOS the physical size of the sensor has to be more consistent to conform to the lens properties across differing camera models while maintaining future compatibility. P&S cameras have dedicated unchangeable lenses which allow CCD sensors to be smaller without any of these concerns. The sensor size in a Sony DSC-W100 (8.1mp) is 7.18x5.32 mm or 38.2 square mm. The sensor area of a 1.6 crop DSLR is roughly 338 square mm no matter what the megapixel rating. Out of this same area you can get 8-9 CCD type sensors. It is a similar effect that AMD and Intel sees from going to a 65nm process from a 90nm one. They get more product from the same wafer size which means higher yields/profits and/or lower prices per unit. As for the original poster's question, P&S camera's typically use CCD sensors. I have seen very low quality (and low mp count) P&S cameras use CMOS sensors. The camera you referenced is one of these since I could buy five of them for $550. I would also suspect the quality of the video to be low resolution. If CMOS were the better choice for the manufacturers of P&S cameras then I would expect them to be the norm and not the rare exception. CMOS does appear to be making inroads in the camcorder market. Personally, I think the camcorder will merge with the P&S camera in the coming years and if this happens the CCD sensor may be the ultimate winner. As for the end user's considerations, CCD based cameras tend to have higher noise levels. This is changing somewhat with the newer crop of higher ISO, lower noise P&S cameras. P&S cameras using a CMOS sensor are typically low end with low megapixel counts. Maybe this is because a CCD can pack more pixel sites in the same area compared to a CMOS chip. This promotes the design of smaller cameras while retaining high resolution which seems to be what the P&S manufacturers have been striving for the past several years. There are high end DSLR's using CCD sensors. However, I don't know of any high end P&S cameras that use CMOS sensors. Take what you will from this observation. Finally, I am basing the heat issue of CMOS compared to CCD sensors on what I have read here in this newsgroup. Maybe what I read was incorrect. IMO, this is a minor point of the discussion at hand. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:10:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote: CCD verses CMOS sensor size in a DSLR has more to do with lens design than in a P&S. There is full frame or, more commonly, the 1.6x crop size. Whether CCD or CMOS the physical size of the sensor has to be more consistent to conform to the lens properties across differing camera models while maintaining future compatibility. Are you sure? Then why do EF lenses work on both APS-C sensors AND full frame sensors? And, on Nikon cameras, why do their non-Digital (I don't know the appelation) work on both their APS sensor cameras and on their (old) full frame DSLRs and in both cases (Canon and Nikon) these leneses also work on the (obviously) full frame film cameras? P&S cameras have dedicated unchangeable lenses which allow CCD sensors to be smaller without any of these concerns. The sensor size in a Sony DSC-W100 (8.1mp) is 7.18x5.32 mm or 38.2 square mm. The sensor area of a 1.6 crop DSLR is roughly 338 square mm no matter what the megapixel rating. Out of this same area you can get 8-9 CCD type sensors. Well, of course you can. But those sensors won't fit in a camera that uses an APS-size sensor, like a Nikon D70s. Using he same size (or approximately, as with nikonCanon, the sensors will be the same size, whether CCD or CMOS. It is a similar effect that AMD and Intel sees from going to a 65nm process from a 90nm one. They get more product from the same wafer size which means higher yields/profits and/or lower prices per unit. But that's not the reason they do this - it's to get faster speed while keeping heat down. The higher yield is a happy byproduct. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
Bill Funk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:10:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" wrote: CCD verses CMOS sensor size in a DSLR has more to do with lens design than in a P&S. There is full frame or, more commonly, the 1.6x crop size. Whether CCD or CMOS the physical size of the sensor has to be more consistent to conform to the lens properties across differing camera models while maintaining future compatibility. Are you sure? Then why do EF lenses work on both APS-C sensors AND full frame sensors? And, on Nikon cameras, why do their non-Digital (I don't know the appelation) work on both their APS sensor cameras and on their (old) full frame DSLRs and in both cases (Canon and Nikon) these leneses also work on the (obviously) full frame film cameras? Sensor size is roughly the same as film size for DSLR cameras. If you fit a 35mm film camera with a 24mm film roll what would happen? There would roughly be a 1.6x crop factor like there is with APS sensor DSLR. Nikon or Canon could come out with a 3x crop factor DSLR but why? Since lenses are changed on DSLRs having a sensor standard is more important. It makes lenses operate the same on a 10D, 300D, 20D, 30D, 350D 400D etc. This isn't a concern on P&S cameras since the lens stays with the camera and can't be changed. I'm not sure what your point is here. P&S cameras have dedicated unchangeable lenses which allow CCD sensors to be smaller without any of these concerns. The sensor size in a Sony DSC-W100 (8.1mp) is 7.18x5.32 mm or 38.2 square mm. The sensor area of a 1.6 crop DSLR is roughly 338 square mm no matter what the megapixel rating. Out of this same area you can get 8-9 CCD type sensors. Well, of course you can. But those sensors won't fit in a camera that uses an APS-size sensor, like a Nikon D70s. Sure they will. You'll just have a higher crop factor. This isn't really practical for the reasons I gave above. Using he same size (or approximately, as with nikonCanon, the sensors will be the same size, whether CCD or CMOS. Once again the sensor size on a DSLR is the roughly the same for consistency between models and lenses. It is a similar effect that AMD and Intel sees from going to a 65nm process from a 90nm one. They get more product from the same wafer size which means higher yields/profits and/or lower prices per unit. But that's not the reason they do this - it's to get faster speed while keeping heat down. The higher yield is a happy byproduct. I doubt the higher yield, and lower resulting cost per sensor, is just a byproduct but one of the main considerations in using CCD sensors in P&S cameras. This also allows the cameras to be smaller while retaining high resolution which seals the deal for the overwhelming majority of current P&S cameras to use CCD sensors, IMHO, of course. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:10:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote: Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: CMOS may be cheaper to manufacture on an area basis but where CCD catches up is they are smaller more fit on a wafer (or the photo chip equivalent) so there is better economy of scale. Maybe I am wrong. Also, I thought the reason CMOS sensors aren't ideal for video is they can't do the rapid frame rate for extended time periods needed for smooth video without overheating. Really? Which is bigger, the CMOS 6.3MP sensor that the Canon Digital Rebel uses or the CCD 6.1MP sensor the Nikon D50/D70 and D70s use (among the Nikon branded cameras ... many others use that sensor). There are plenty of CMOS based video cameras out there. This one comes to mind with a simple Google search. http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/s...-Camera/Detail CCD, when properly cooled, can achieve higher image quality than the CMOS counter part, and is why CCD is still used for astronomy; however, I am not sure that there are many DSLRs around with portable liquid cooling systems in them ... CCD verses CMOS sensor size in a DSLR has more to do with lens design than in a P&S. There is full frame or, more commonly, the 1.6x crop size. Whether CCD or CMOS the physical size of the sensor has to be more consistent to conform to the lens properties across differing camera models while maintaining future compatibility. P&S cameras have dedicated unchangeable lenses which allow CCD sensors to be smaller without any of these concerns. The sensor size in a Sony DSC-W100 (8.1mp) is 7.18x5.32 mm or 38.2 square mm. The sensor area of a 1.6 crop DSLR is roughly 338 square mm no matter what the megapixel rating. Out of this same area you can get 8-9 CCD type sensors. It is a similar effect that AMD and Intel sees from going to a 65nm process from a 90nm one. They get more product from the same wafer size which means higher yields/profits and/or lower prices per unit. As for the original poster's question, P&S camera's typically use CCD sensors. I have seen very low quality (and low mp count) P&S cameras use CMOS sensors. The camera you referenced is one of these since I could buy five of them for $550. I would also suspect the quality of the video to be low resolution. If CMOS were the better choice for the manufacturers of P&S cameras then I would expect them to be the norm and not the rare exception. CMOS does appear to be making inroads in the camcorder market. Personally, I think the camcorder will merge with the P&S camera in the coming years and if this happens the CCD sensor may be the ultimate winner. As for the end user's considerations, CCD based cameras tend to have higher noise levels. This is changing somewhat with the newer crop of higher ISO, lower noise P&S cameras. P&S cameras using a CMOS sensor are typically low end with low megapixel counts. Maybe this is because a CCD can pack more pixel sites in the same area compared to a CMOS chip. This promotes the design of smaller cameras while retaining high resolution which seems to be what the P&S manufacturers have been striving for the past several years. There are high end DSLR's using CCD sensors. However, I don't know of any high end P&S cameras that use CMOS sensors. Take what you will from this observation. Finally, I am basing the heat issue of CMOS compared to CCD sensors on what I have read here in this newsgroup. Maybe what I read was incorrect. IMO, this is a minor point of the discussion at hand. Each pixel in high end CMOS chips such as the ones Canor uses in it DSLR have two sections, the light colecting sensor and the transistor circuitry that keeps the noise low. This circuitry takes up silicon real estate, as much as 70 % in some of the earlier chips. So if you tried to make a small low noise CMOS chip for a point and shoot camera, you'd reach the point where the pixel was all transistor ciruitry with no room for a light sensor. jpc |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Sensors
jpc wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 17:10:04 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE" wrote: Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: Michael Johnson, PE wrote: CMOS may be cheaper to manufacture on an area basis but where CCD catches up is they are smaller more fit on a wafer (or the photo chip equivalent) so there is better economy of scale. Maybe I am wrong. Also, I thought the reason CMOS sensors aren't ideal for video is they can't do the rapid frame rate for extended time periods needed for smooth video without overheating. Really? Which is bigger, the CMOS 6.3MP sensor that the Canon Digital Rebel uses or the CCD 6.1MP sensor the Nikon D50/D70 and D70s use (among the Nikon branded cameras ... many others use that sensor). There are plenty of CMOS based video cameras out there. This one comes to mind with a simple Google search. http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/s...-Camera/Detail CCD, when properly cooled, can achieve higher image quality than the CMOS counter part, and is why CCD is still used for astronomy; however, I am not sure that there are many DSLRs around with portable liquid cooling systems in them ... CCD verses CMOS sensor size in a DSLR has more to do with lens design than in a P&S. There is full frame or, more commonly, the 1.6x crop size. Whether CCD or CMOS the physical size of the sensor has to be more consistent to conform to the lens properties across differing camera models while maintaining future compatibility. P&S cameras have dedicated unchangeable lenses which allow CCD sensors to be smaller without any of these concerns. The sensor size in a Sony DSC-W100 (8.1mp) is 7.18x5.32 mm or 38.2 square mm. The sensor area of a 1.6 crop DSLR is roughly 338 square mm no matter what the megapixel rating. Out of this same area you can get 8-9 CCD type sensors. It is a similar effect that AMD and Intel sees from going to a 65nm process from a 90nm one. They get more product from the same wafer size which means higher yields/profits and/or lower prices per unit. As for the original poster's question, P&S camera's typically use CCD sensors. I have seen very low quality (and low mp count) P&S cameras use CMOS sensors. The camera you referenced is one of these since I could buy five of them for $550. I would also suspect the quality of the video to be low resolution. If CMOS were the better choice for the manufacturers of P&S cameras then I would expect them to be the norm and not the rare exception. CMOS does appear to be making inroads in the camcorder market. Personally, I think the camcorder will merge with the P&S camera in the coming years and if this happens the CCD sensor may be the ultimate winner. As for the end user's considerations, CCD based cameras tend to have higher noise levels. This is changing somewhat with the newer crop of higher ISO, lower noise P&S cameras. P&S cameras using a CMOS sensor are typically low end with low megapixel counts. Maybe this is because a CCD can pack more pixel sites in the same area compared to a CMOS chip. This promotes the design of smaller cameras while retaining high resolution which seems to be what the P&S manufacturers have been striving for the past several years. There are high end DSLR's using CCD sensors. However, I don't know of any high end P&S cameras that use CMOS sensors. Take what you will from this observation. Finally, I am basing the heat issue of CMOS compared to CCD sensors on what I have read here in this newsgroup. Maybe what I read was incorrect. IMO, this is a minor point of the discussion at hand. Each pixel in high end CMOS chips such as the ones Canor uses in it DSLR have two sections, the light colecting sensor and the transistor circuitry that keeps the noise low. This circuitry takes up silicon real estate, as much as 70 % in some of the earlier chips. So if you tried to make a small low noise CMOS chip for a point and shoot camera, you'd reach the point where the pixel was all transistor ciruitry with no room for a light sensor. I wonder if the CCD will find their way into most DSLRs if the noise issues are resolved. The P&S cameras look to have made advances in noise reduction in the last year but they are still not up with the current CMOS technology. Using CCD sensors would allow for the megapixel wars to continue (not that they need to) in the DSLR market since more pixels can be packed into the same area relative to CMOS sensors. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
More about cleaning sensors and Canon Canada (long) | Celcius | Digital Photography | 16 | December 2nd 05 02:48 PM |
Digital Camera Pricing | measekite | Digital Photography | 75 | February 7th 05 10:23 AM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | 35mm Photo Equipment | 62 | November 28th 04 02:36 PM |
Will EF-S Lenses Become Obsolete In A Couple Of Years? | Matt | Digital Photography | 52 | November 22nd 04 02:25 AM |
Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 133 | September 8th 04 07:51 AM |