Thanks, and thanks too to Rob B for his treatise. It'll be interesting to
see what the future holds. My view is that the winner will be whichever
system can squeeze more pixels into an APS sized chip, whilst maintaining
quality.
John
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:17:04 +0100, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered:
Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS?
I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into
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.
I also reasoned that as CMOSs were apparently cheaper to produce, the net
result might be more affordable hardfware and/or better features in the
future. I have not changed that view.
HTH
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_____________________________
--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
