"Paul Furman" <paul-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:LETpj.10699$hI1.2936@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SteveB wrote:
>> I'm hearing a lot about CMOS sizes. Any short explanation as it refers
>> to photography would be appreciated, especially why a camera with CMOS
is
>> better than one without. And is bigger better?
>>
>> I Googled it, and understand that it is a low power use applied to
>> cameras and electronic equipment, but it didn't go into photography
much.
>
> CMOS vs CCD sensor; the CMOS has more stuff between the pixels for
> processing, doing tricks on the sensor... something like that... maybe
> gives you a clue what to look for at least. CMOS is generally considered
> better for low noise because of the extra tricks. Apologies for being
> wishy washy but I think that's the gist.
Paul,
I was just about to write when I read your message (CMOS is generally
considered
better for low noise because of the extra tricks).
I read the explanation on
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question362.htm
and was dumbfounded
because it says quite the opposite to what you and I understood of the
process. Let me explain. The article says: "Based on these differences,
you
can see that CCDs tend to be used in cameras that focus on high-quality
images with lots of pixels and excellent light sensitivity. CMOS sensors
traditionally have lower quality, lower resolution and lower sensitivity."
However, I always thought the opposite. In effect, Canon cameras had much
less noise and greater sensitivity because it had a CMOS sensor. Nikons
had
CCD's and had more noise. The last Nikon top of the line to come out (I
don't recall the model) s****ts a new CMOS! Perhaps, this article IS wishy
washy ;-)))
Take care,
Marcel
|
