On 2004-07-24, at 10:17, Cotty wrote:
I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking intoI think power consumption is no longer issue with modern CCDs. Actually Nikon D70 despite using CCD with 1400mAh Li-Ion battery can do as much as 2000 shots without flash. For comparison Canon 10D can take about 650 photos with its 1100 mAh battery. So it seems power consumption is lower in case of CCD, at least the one used in Nikon (manufactured by Sanyo). But I suspect it can be as easy matter of the rest of electronics in camera too.
digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better
at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more
battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs
and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of
CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS
continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the
camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go
for weeks without recharging.
But the other practical point is that CMOS sensors need less charge on its surface than CCDs and thus they attract less particles of dust and that's a real plus of CMOS for me.
I also reasoned that as CMOSs were apparently cheaper to produce, the netYes it could account for more features in hardware. But AFAIK manufacturing cost difference between CMOS and CCD is now neglible and relatively small comparing overall cost of this huge wafer of silicon.
result might be more affordable hardfware and/or better features in the
future. I have not changed that view.
-- Best regards Sylwek
