Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]When I last looked CCD inherently gave the most accurate raw output but CMOS could have on chip processing to correct this, like pre-pre- processing?? CMOS was much cheaper to produce so lots of work was being done on this processing to produce an actual output which was acceptable at a much lower price. By all accounts a 24x36 CCD would be too expensive for a competitively priced "full size" DSLR to be made. The mega expensive MF backs are CCD I think. FD On 2 Jul, 2009, at 15:33, David Rodgers wrote: > Doug, > >>> Having seen what a Kodak CCD does behind Leica glass, a CMOS sensor > would not get me too excited.<< > > I did some research on this CCD vs CMOS thing some time ago. After > reading and reading and reading I concluded that the type of sensor -- > although they are different in many ways -- doesn't really matter to > potential image quality. CCD technology was ahead in the early days, > but > CMOS technology was catching up, and by now may very well have caught > up. Things like microlenses, AA filters, and even camera firmware > have a > much greater impact on image quality than what type of sensor is used, > although I could be wrong. If one sensor type really does have an > advantage over the other (in terms of potential image quality, and not > manufacturing cost, power consumption, etc., etc.) I'd sure like to > hear > about it. > > Dave R > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information