Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM
From: jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:34:12 +0530
References: <C7B02E86.5E645%mark@rabinergroup.com> <09EF8B34-D7BA-4B41-AF89-9E255A06D146@mac.com> <3cad89991002281917g3dd52fccld14d33f55f98e25c@mail.gmail.com> <b530ac231002281947i3c4dbbgbce38d6a6966177e@mail.gmail.com>

That is what the industry would like you to believe - it is just not true.
CCD sensors, by and large, have better image quality and noise
characteristics:

http://www.dalsa.com/corp/markets/CCD_vs_CMOS.aspx

http://www.circuitstoday.com/charge-coupled-devices-ccd-vs-cmos-active-pixel-sensor-aps

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2005/12/01/37062/cmos-vs.-ccd-and-the-winner-is.htm

CMOS sensors have other advantages, though, so the decision to use one
technology or the other in a camera sensor is not very clear cut.

Cheers
Jayanand

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Daniel Tan <taniel.dan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure it's the other way around - CMOS noise characteristics are
> better than CCD?
>
> On 1 March 2010 13:17, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > George,
> > If I remember right, CCD sensors have better noise characteristics than
> > CMOS
> > ones. The major  advantages of CMOS sensors are considerably lower power
> > usage and lower manufacturing costs.
> > Cheers
> > Jayanand
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:34 AM, George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Does anyone have any data
> > > if this is true for CCD sensors?
> > >
> > > It appears to me that CCD's simply do not offer
> > > the kind of high ISO performance that Cmos does.
> > >
> > > As far as I can tell
> > > the current (so called) medium format CCD sensors
> > > run about the the same sized sensor sites
> > > as the M9.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > George Lottermoser
> > > george at imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com/blog
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> > >
> > >
> > > On Feb 28, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> > >
> > >  And I'd not mind it if by then the sensor sites had been enlarged so
> I'm
> > >> not
> > >> getting 18 MP's but 12 and have a much higher useable iso range. As is
> > par
> > >> for the course right now.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Tan
> Taniel.Dan at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM)
Message from jayanand at gmail.com (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM)
Message from taniel.dan at gmail.com (Daniel Tan) ([Leica] Zeiss Wide Angle 35mm f/2 Biogon T* ZM)