If I did that it would be just my opinion and meaningless to others who made up their minds already…
Just turn it off or tape it over. Other deciding if like CCD or CMOS sensor better or worse, the Nikon will allow you use your current lens with limitations, and many very good lens at prices that wont rob the piggy bank.
Any opinions on the most realistic performing sensor…?
1. What difference is there when using a digital camera to scan film?
2. What type sensors like the Epson flatbed V600 and V850 use and does that make a difference?
If I did that it would be just my opinion and meaningless to others who made up their minds already…
All that matter is your opinion, why would what I think matters to your eye and preferences? And, as I understand it, even with an objective set of tests in this case D 200 and D 200, a color chart, well calibrated printer or monitor what does it matter if I like the CCD rendering better and like the CMOS? And unless we are looking at the same print or the same monitor who knows if what I see on my monitor matches your monitor.
If you really want to dive into which senor is more accurate lets toss in the Sigma Foveon sensor. I have all 3, in some lighting I prefer the Foveon over CCD and CMOS.
In astrophotography CMOS has replaced the CCD. I'm far from being proficient in the new technology but I've read that "...CMOS cameras have an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) for each and every physical pixel. This is very different from CCD's, which have a single ADC and run each pixel through it during read out."
And this affects the image how?In astrophotography CMOS has replaced the CCD. I'm far from being proficient in the new technology but I've read that "...CMOS cameras have an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) for each and every physical pixel. This is very different from CCD's, which have a single ADC and run each pixel through it during read out."
And this affects the image how?
That wouldn’t affect the image color or quality.Processing speed would seem to be quicker with CMOS. You could take more shots quicker.
For what it is worth the CCD has a higher quantum efficiency when compared to a CMOS sensor.
Excuse my ignorance. What does that mean in terms of potential image quality?For what it is worth the CCD has a higher quantum efficiency when compared to a CMOS sensor.
For what it is worth the CCD has a higher quantum efficiency when compared to a CMOS sensor.
Excuse my ignorance. What does that mean in terms of potential image quality?
Excuse my ignorance. What does that mean in terms of potential image quality?
Potentially higher sensor sensitivity, with is virtually synonymous with lower noise.
But the net effect isn't really very clear since innovation on both technologies has largely amended the drawbacks of either technology, bringing them virtually on pad with each other. The one are they never had much (any) fundamental difference in to begin with was...color rendition.
So if the sensor technology has the same potential to render color accurately, then the difference one can observe between cameras equipped with CCD or CMOS boils down to post processing in-camera of the RAW files…
The other factor would be the software and the camera profile used to view those RAW files.
Higher quantum efficiency is very important in Astrophotography at least in theory. Note: there is an increasing number of CMOS cameras for astrophotography now days as CMOS cameras continue to improve.
I would think the insane ISOs that CMOS can achieve would be a major factor in astrophotography. I don't know if a CCD sensor goes beyond ISO 800, and is starting to get pretty noisy at that.Higher quantum efficiency is very important in Astrophotography at least in theory. Note: there is an increasing number of CMOS cameras for astrophotography now days as CMOS cameras continue to improve.
My Leaf CCD goes to 800 but is noisy--probably as noisy as 800 ISO color film. My 10 year old CMOS Nikon D4 will do 12800, maybe more. I have another CMOS camera that is from 2020 that goes to ISO 50000, never tried it that high, but it gives better than reasonable results at 12500.My 15 year old Pentax K 2000 will go to 1600 but 800 is max for usable image. My Sony A700 first generation Sony CMOS sensor will shoot 1600 with decent, 3200 is a push, by the A77II, 3200 is very good, while 6400 is a stretch. My Sigma SD 9 and 10 same Favaron sensor 100 is good, 200 is pushing it, 400 not usable. By the SD 14 and 15, 400 is Ok, 800 not so much.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?