Is CCD gone forever?

Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
241
Location
atlanta ga
I like the look of the D200 and D80 and other CCD images I have seen at lower ISOs. They look different to me than CMOS.

Is ccd gone forever?
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
808
Dont expect to see another CCD in a Nikon camera, thankfully those days are behind us.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,051
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
Images from the D200 and D80 are from the first generation of colors, if colors is what you are referring to. Manufacturers have adapted to CMOS sensors not because their color reproduction is better but because they are more efficient when it comes to using power. In my humble opinion, images from a sensor are not better than the other. Colors are a different story.
In one occasion I read an interesting article describing how better was a CCD to control noise than a CMOS sensor. Keep in mind that old sensors were not that good when it came to reproducing noise. We will never know how good CCD are to control noise since as you know production has switched to CMOS sensors.
On regard to your question, the answer seems to be yes.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
Back in 2008 everyone was jumping ship to Canon because they were using "superior" CMOS sensors. Even though CCD is pretty much the standard for professional video cameras.

Is CCD "gone forever"? You never know, it might become the flavor of the day again. If CCD's can help a brand to distinguish itself in a positive way from the composition they'll be back before you know it.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
40
Location
Zürich, Switzerland
Tecnically speaking the CCDs should be capable of producing a better quality, less noisy, image than CMOS sensors, all things being equal.

The thing is that about 6 or 7 years ago the image quality from CMOS became acceptable. This was very interesting for the manufacturers as CMOS sensors can be produced on pretty much any chip production line making the process of manufacturing CMOS sensors considerably more cost effective than that of of CCDs, which require a completely different manufacturing process. Hence a lot of R&D has been pumped into improving CMOS - well improving the ISO performance of CMOS as this is probably the most important marketing metric these days. The second advantage is that the power draw from a CMOS can be up to 100 times less than that of an equivalent CCD, thus more shots per battery charge - another useful marketing metric.

As has already been pointed out pro cameras (and by pro I'm not talking Nikon or Canon, I'm talking Hasselblad, Leaf and the likes thereof) still use CCDs as the reproduction from from them is still considered to be better than that of CMOS sensors at lower ISO levels (400 and below). The vast majority of these cameras will be used in studio lit conditions and as such will probably never venture above ISO 100. To this day I still hear photographers say that no DSLR betters the quality of the D2x at ISO 100. I've no experience of the D2x, but I can say there's something about the general image feel of my D40x at ISO 100 that neither my D90 nor my D7000 can match.

Basically the CCD isn't dead, it's just moved to the part of the industry where it performs at it's best.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
14,973
Location
Los Angeles, USA
To this day I still hear photographers say that no DSLR betters the quality of the D2x at ISO 100. I've no experience of the D2x, but I can say there's something about the general image feel of my D40x at ISO 100 that neither my D90 nor my D7000 can match.

Basically the CCD isn't dead, it's just moved to the part of the industry where it performs at it's best.
That's funny you say that because the D2X was CMOS based! :wink:

The last CCD based Nikon camera was the D3000. Honestly between that and the D3100, the D3000 looked way better at base ISO than the the CMOS based D3100. The D3000 is also the only CCD based Nikon sensor that got EXPEED processing, which in my opinion gave the D3000 very sharp out of camera photos. Similar to the D300, but with a CCD chip. I'm almost tempted to pick another one up. Just wish it got the 1/500th flash sync of the D70S/D40/D50 6mp CCD sensor!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
40
Location
Zürich, Switzerland
That's funny you say that because the D2X was CMOS based! :wink:
You know I had to look it up, but yes I'll admit I was wrong about that. I could have sworn the D2x was CCD based. I have no idea where I got that idea. Ok, just ignore my comment about the D2x, other than a lot of photographers consider it the bees knees at ISO 100 :redface:

Nevertheless the fact that so many high end medium format digital backs use CCD must be a testament to their quality at lower ISOs.

One thing I'm curious about is if the same amount of R&D went into improving the ISO performance of CCD as has gone into CMOS, would we have a sensor that betters the current CMOS generation? Unfortunately I doubt we'll find out as you can't get away from the fact that CMOS is considerably cheaper to produce, and the high end studio work, which is now the mainstay of CCD, has little or no need for high ISO.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
808
Slaphead said:
Nevertheless the fact that so many high end medium format digital backs use CCD must be a testament to their quality at lower ISOs.
Or a testament to the fact that they cant get a CMOS sensor.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
Or a testament to the fact that they cant get a CMOS sensor.
+1

Digital MF is almost dead. The worldwide sales numbers of digital MF backs and cameras is about 6000 units annually and the manufacturers have almost no choice of sensors. All that's available is several years behind in the development cycle.

CCD sensor development has stopped and very likely will never continue.

Someone posted about "color differences" between CCD and CMOS. That's curious, since both sensor types are monochrome. Color information is achieved by the Bayer color filter array and some mathematics.

It is true though, that older CFAs produced different colors, because of the early dyes provided much more color separation than current dyes. The strong color separation and strong color purity meant garish colors (D1X anyone?) and a lot of erroneus metamerism (some people even call this "filmlike"). Current dyes mimic human vision much better, with more overlap and less separation between colors, providing much more lifelike images. CMOS or CCD has nothing to do with this.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,051
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
"Someone posted about "color differences" between CCD and CMOS. That's curious, since both sensor types are monochrome. Color information is achieved by the Bayer color filter array and some mathematics."

You are 100% right on your statement but I was actually referring to first and second generation colors from Nikon. First generation colors came from CCD sensors. Those colors can be pretty well emulated with Picture Control in the new cameras.
I have used both sensors and in my opinion there is excellent quality from both of them.
CMOS are cheaper to produce and they use less juice than CCD so they are favored by manufacturers.
The D2X has a CMOS sensor. Its quality at ISO 100 is well known, in my humble opinion pretty close to that of the D200 with its CCD sensor but the D200 does better when it comes to noise. The CCD made by Sony for the D200 has a 4 channel digital to analog converter to allow the D200 to achieve its 5 FPS.
I stand corrected.

William.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,553
... but I was actually referring to first and second generation colors from Nikon. First generation colors came from CCD sensors. Those colors can be pretty well emulated with Picture Control in the new cameras.
We agree here completely.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom