Sensor CCD vs CMOS

When I was into Video work a few years back before venturing into photography I was always told that CMOS was better and than CCD was only created as a cheaper alternative for electronics.

Although you may say that the CMOS camera is cheaper than the CCD camera then the CCD camera may be better because it's not just the sensor type you need to factor there are other things as well.

For example a CCD would be better if it was APS-C sized compared to a 1/8" CMOS. Not much of a sensor expert but thought I'd contribute my two pence.
 
thanks

be interesting to see and understand what makes the s95 CCD superior to the cheaper sx220 CMOS
 
I wouldn't pay too much attention to which technology it is.

Either type of sensor can be good or bad.
 
SamHH said:
I wouldn't pay too much attention to which technology it is.

Either type of sensor can be good or bad.
Click to expand...

Well obviously both have their good and bad points but the general consensus is CMOS is better.

Of course though a bigger sized CCD will equal out the CMOS advantages.

I always look at flickr and ignore technology, it's good to see what people can achieve with the camera rather than showing it off to geeks :lol:
 
very true. good shout on flickr, but many pics on flickr have post processing or shot from raw, whilst i would like to see jpegs from the camera untouched
 
I wouldn't pay much attention to snapshot.com either.

Any site that can list "has 10% better image quality" as an advantage is a bit dubious.


Regarding CCD vs. CMOS, I agree with SamHH. It's my understanding that in the same format with similar technology behind the sensor, CMOS is better. But the size of the sensor and the electronics behind it also play a big part, so it doesn't surprise me at all that a larger CCD in a more expensive camera can outperform the smaller CMOS in a cheaper one.
 
Last edited:
Most compacts have CCDs, because they can be switched on and off very fast and this is what they use instead of mechanical shutters.

A few DSLRs used to have CCD (Nikon D70/D40 etc, Canon 1D) but they've been replaced by CMOS, presumably for quality reasons but could be just cost/manufacture related, things like power consumption and heat. TBH I'm not sure there is much in it. Medium format DSLRs use CCDs (Kodak) and I wouldn't be surprised to see CCD make a mainstream comeback.
 
Last edited:
I think CCDs tend to be more sensitive in low light. Certainly in astrophotography, the better cameras are all peltier cooled CCDs...
 
arad85 said:
I think CCDs tend to be more sensitive in low light. Certainly in astrophotography, the better cameras are all peltier cooled CCDs...
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this. I used to design laser scanning devices about 12 years ago and CCDs were far more sensitive at lower light levels. At the time, they were less noisy too, but they seem to have been superseded by CMOS sensors. CMOS sensors require less power rails/biasing, and has Hoppy said, can run cooler. They can also be switched quicker (fps) due to the nature of how they work, however most have a rolling shutter, whereas CCDs tend to expose the full frame which is probably why a lot of camcorders/compacts still use them.
 
Last edited:
certainly CMOS equipped DSLRs are less noisy at higher (1600+) ISOs but that's possibly because they are better developed & that may be because they were cheaper to use in manufacture & more power efficient.
On the other hand low ISO images from CCD equipped DSLRs imo look better (& afaik all MF backs/cameras use CCD, presumably for a reason) so I would choose what you use according to your likely usage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top