Firstly, you're comparing JPEG shots, produced at the cameras' default settings. I notice that dpreview article has a conspicuously missing high-iso RAW comparison, which would paint a more accurate picture of the sensor's abilities and limitations. If you go to dxomark to compare the two cameras, you can see that while the 30D does offer better performance at high iso's, the D200 is better when using the sensor's base iso. So you can argue either way which one is technically better, depending in what context and conditions the camera is used. Then, just for fun, you can throw in a Nikon D40 with its old Sony CCD for comparison, and again you'll see that while it has less DR at high iso, it beats the 30D at its base iso-200. Moreover, it beats the D200 and ties the 30D in other aspects like SNR, color sensitivity and tonal range at iso 200 through 1600.
Firstly, you're comparing JPEG shots, produced at the cameras' default settings. I notice that dpreview article has a conspicuously missing high-iso RAW comparison, which would paint a more accurate picture of the sensor's abilities and limitations. If you go to dxomark to compare the two cameras, you can see that while the 30D does offer better performance at high iso's, the D200 is better when using the sensor's base iso. So you can argue either way which one is technically better, depending in what context and conditions the camera is used. Then, just for fun, you can throw in a Nikon D40 with its old Sony CCD for comparison, and again you'll see that while it has less DR at high iso, it beats the 30D at its base iso-200. Moreover, it beats the D200 and ties the 30D in other aspects like SNR, color sensitivity and tonal range at iso 200 through 1600.
How many times do I need to tell you? I've never said CMOS is better than CCD. I don't think CMOS is better than CCD or vice versa at this stage. At best, all I can say is that CMOS might be better as series of CMOS based dslrs have been showing better results. What I'm saying is that your saying CCD 'is' better than CMOS is wrong.
About MF cameras. How many times do I and others need to tell you that such example isn't valid? Are you just being ignorant? Again and again, MF sensors are designed to be used in certain way and that they are so good at it as they don't have to worry about its performance in other situations, and there's a physical size factor that plays great role. Had I followed your ignorance, I could've made an example out of 5D vs. all the cropped sensor CCD cameras then say CMOS is just better than CCD. I didn't as I know it's not a good example because of the size factor alone. For god's sake, if a company makes a 12" CMOS sensor that's desinged to work the best in studio settings, would you say that's a clear example of CMOS being just much better than CCD?
Also, MF sensor manufactures have been using CCD when CMOS hasn't caught up. They have so much more knowlege on CCD and even at this stage, they have no reason to start fresh with CMOS. Think about it. The design process of CMOS over CCD is a lot more difficult. Starting new line to manufacture CMOS costs more than CCD. Considering how they have to start fresh, it's just way too much. As for Sony, since they are to produce massive amounts of CMOS sensors, it's just plain sunk costs and they'll be better off in the long run. That just isn't the case for those that produce MF sensors because the market they're going after is very small. If you think MF sensors using CCD even at this stage is all because of IQ, it's you who's following their marketing gimmick.
Maybe you didn't say it, but 996GT did, and he's probably not the only one who thinks so. And now that you mention him in your posts, I might as well reply to both of you simultaneously.
If you're insisiting that the comparison to MF camera's isn't valid, then why are you talking about DSLR's in a SX1 thread? DSLR's are also not designed to be used the same way by the same people who buy compacts, and if Canon was successful with CMOS sensors in DSLR's, that obviously hasn't carried over to compact cameras, where the CCD counterpart outperforms the CMOS version.
I feel like I'm doing nothing but repeating myself because the person on the other end wouldn't try to understand what I mean.
1. I don't think CMOS is better than CCD or vice versa at this stage. However, if I must choose between what you and 996GT say, I'd stand by 996GT's argument because he's being logical with good evidences.
2. The reason why comparison to MF camera isn't valid is because....gosh....how many times have I been saying this...Anyway, it's because CCD sensors for MF cameras are designed to work best in certain situations. A great treade off have been made for that matter. Of course, IQ is amazingly great in those controlled situations but out of it, it becomes amazingly terrible. That's not characteristics of CCD but characteristics of the design. Same deal can be made for CMOS.
Unlike in MF cameras, 35mm cropped sensors have been made on both of CCD and CMOS side. This enables us to make comparisons that make sense. You see, you were comparing dslr(35mm) sensors to medium format sensors. The fallcy of such comparison has been pointed out by others and I. Had you known what you're talking about, you would've not even started making such silly comparisons in the beginning. Beside everything, the size difference plays such a great role, the comparison just doesn't work. As I've pointed out, what would you say if I make a comparison between cropped 35mm CCD sensors to 35mm FF CMOS to say CMOS is just better? I mean, 5D alone smokes all those series of cropped 35mm CCD that's been made over years and they're designed to be used in the same way unlike in MF sensor design.
I hope you got it this time. If you wanna argue CCD is better than CMOS. You should make comparisons by going after players in the same league. 35mm DSLR for the comparison works the best in this case simply because there has been series of CCD and CMOS sensors made over years. You don't get that in compact or MF markets.
On "DSLR's are also not designed to be used the same way by the same people who buy compacts." What are you talking about? Unlike MF, 35mm DSLRs and compact cameras' sensors are desinged following the same apporach. How people use the camera isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sensor design and how they are optimized. A good example would be this Kodak dslr that I can't remember the name. Its sensor is optimized to work best in full-of-light settings and it IQ is just insanly fantastic. It's so damn great you don't even need to go through all those graphs and charts. You see it and you know it. Though it's several years old, its IQ is still the best, IMHO. The problem? because it's optimized in such a way, when conditions are not met, you get horrible images; all sorts of problems just pop up.
If you bothered to read my response to 996GT's post, it wouldn't be so hard to see the logical evidence I provided WRT to the 30D and CCD DSLR's. However, since he did state his belief that CMOS was superior, you siding with him puts you in the same category. Unless you arbitrarily define logic based on convenience.
So what if they're designed to work best in some situations? The Nikon D3 is also designed to work best in some situations, and those situations wouldn't be best for the Nikon D3x or Canon 5DII for example. Stating such a comparison is invalid is just your opinion... not a universal fact.
"Going after players in the same league" is asking to adopt your tunnel-vision, and ignoring other cases which provide contrary evidence. You haven't given much thought as to why none of the MF cameras use CMOS, just as you ignored a perfectly valid comparison between the SX1 and SX10 which goes against your opinion.
How people use the camera has everything to do with the camera's abilities, because the camera is designed with the consumer in mind. People don't go shooting sports with MF, so they are designed that way. People don't shoot DSLR's when they want a light weight, take-everywhere camera or know nothing about photography, so compacts are also designed that way. Saying "well, MF is irrelevant because it cant do blah blah blah..." is just pure ignorance.
There are several things wrong with what you are claiming. First of all, the EOS 30D has MORE dynamic range than the D200 at base ISO-8.4 stops vs 8.2. While this is only a 0.2 stop difference, the gap increases greatly in the 30D's favor by the time we hit ISO 800, with the 30D showing over a stop advantage in dynamic range.
Here's the source
The 40D with its 14 bit processing engine just completely destroys the D200, with 9.1 stops of available dynamic range and 8.9 stops even at ISO 1600. Essentially, the EOS 40D is showing more usable dynamic range at ISo 1600 than the D200 is at base ISO. However, even the 30D easily beats the D200 at any ISO, and that's without a 14 bit processing engine.
I've personally owned numerous Nikon and Canon cameras. On the Nikon side, I've owned a D70, D200, and frequently used a D80 which was a friend's. On the Canon side, I've owned a Rebel XTi, 40D, and used the 20D and 30D frequently.
What I've concluded from my tests of these models is that the CCD based Nikon cameras simply cannot compare to the Canons in overall image quality, especially in the area of noise. The D200 did not improve on the D70's noise performance at all in my opinion; at ISO 1600, I would not consider the D200's results usable for anything more than small prints. However, I've printed 11x13" shot with my 40D at ISO 1600 and they turned out very nicely. I'm not inherently biased one way or another on the CCD vs. CMOS debate. Rather, I've personally used cameras from both makes and drawn my conclusions based on my own tests and shooting experiences.
If you want to do a comparison, post a JPEG converted RAW shot at ISO 1600 with your D40, and I will do the same with my 40D, resized to 6 MP to make everything fair. I've done this test before with my D70, and there was simply no comparison. If you're up to it, let me know and I'll have a shot posted by tomorrow.
just to stir things (as if that was needed
) but that isn't a test of the sensor on it's own but a test of the sensor & associated electronics/processing ...& the D200 is 2 years older than the 40D so historically we would expect significant progress over that timespan.
I really don't understand why you failed to read what I've written.
The difference between D3 and other cameras is very and very slim unlike the difference between sensors made for 35mm dslr cameras to MF cameras. As told by Nikon engineers, D3 is designed to provide the least noise in high ISO settings. For that, ISO 100 had to go. Other than that, it's designed just like other 35mm dslr sensors. The trade off just isn't great as in MF cameras. Sensors for MF cameras took extreme apporach just like that Kodak camera I've mentioned. That's why they produce such a quality image but becomes terrible out of their boundaries. If Nikon decided to take that approach, D3 would've had its base ISO as 1600 showing amazingly noiseless images in such high ISO.
I've told you why MF CCD makers won't even bother to try CMOS in this stage. Do you actually read what I wrote? Why do you ask me to repeat myself over and over?
How people use their camera is entirly up to them. When I was talking about sensor design, you, out of nowhere, started talking about how people use their cameras. You said "DSLR's are also not designed to be used the same way by the same people who buy compacts." What does that have to do with out topic? I was talking about sensor design not how people use their cameras. On that issue, unlike what you think, people buy anything to use it their own way. DSLR cameras, especially, has become SUVs of cameras nowadays.
"well, MF is irrelevant because it cant do blah blah blah"
My god, you really don't get it, do you? I'm not saying MF is irrelevant because of what it can't do. I'm saying comparsion to MF sensors are irrelevant in this case because of a. how they are designed is different than other sensors (Think about certain specialized processors: a CPU on your computer is 'designed' to be used in various settings. On the other hand, there're certain processors that are designed to work the best doing very specific tasks. The specialized processor will perform much better doing that specific task because it's designed that way. Get it?) b. size factor alone makes huge difference and that you can't compare smaller 35mm sensors to huge MF sensors.
My god, just answer this question.
On CCD vs. CMOS in terms of IQ issue. What would you say if I claimed "CMOS is just better. My evidence is 5D which uses CMOS sensor. It smokes all the other 35mm cropped sensor cameras that use CCDs. That's a good example of how CMOS is better. Also, new 35mm sensors from Canon, Sony, and Nikon are all CMOS sensors. That means CMOS is superior than CCD.
I am not here to answer loaded questions. You seem to believe it's acceptable to compare DSLR sensors to compacts, while ignoring MF cameras, and I disagree. It's acceptable for you to gloss over the trade-offs between DLSR's while pointing out those of MF designs, and I disagree as well. It's ok for you to debate technical garbage while ignoring the role of the product in its target market, and I definitely disagree with that too.
How do you claim the 30D has more DR at base ISO when dxomark shows on the contrary? I don't take dpreview claims as gospel, so you have a source which supports your claims, while I have another source which supports mine. Then I can bring in a third source which puts the 40D above the D200 but below the D40 in terms of DR.
14-bit processing isn't going to matter much when the sensor itself can't even capture 9 bits of gray levels, as shown in the dxomark tonal range test. You can choose to disagree with their claims, but I've seen no concrete evidence to suggest 14-bit processing offers any noticeable IQ advantage whatsoever.
However, I'll take you up on your offer to compare shots. What kind of scenes or test objects are we shooting?
Why can't you answer the question? Is it because my question is making same fallacy as your claim? Please explain because your explanation will prove your own fallacy. Don't avoid it. Just answer the question.
When did I compare DSLR sensors to compacts? What I've saying all this time is that you can't compare MF sensors to 35mm dslr sensors because they're in different league. Same logic applies to 35mm dslr to compact sensors. What I've said is that if you want to make comparisons, you compare dslr sensors because there have been series of sensors made based on CMOS and CCD tech and they are pretty much the same in terms of their initial design and size. Hell, at least, sensors made for 35mm dslr and compacts are designed very similar way, not like those in MF sensors. Agian and again, MF sensors are specialized sensors designed to work the best in certain situations, unlike sensors made for compact and dslr sensors. The bolded question I asked you directly shows how I find it silly to compare sensors with different sizes. If I were willing to compare DSLR sensors to compact sensors, would I even bother to ask you such a question? I mean, I don't even think it's right to compare FF 35mm sensors to cropped 35mm sensors and you think I'm comparing tiny compact camera sensors to dslr sensors? How can you possibly think so?
My god, Am I talking to a sane person here? You keep saying I said this and that when I never said or implied any of the stuffs. When I answered your question, you say I didn't answer your question. When I point out your fallacy, you say I'm making the fallacy that I just corrected on you. When I ask you a question that's based on your logic, you avoid it.
I just can't understand why you keep accusing me of making invalid and ignorant points when it's you who's been making such arguments. Please read what I've been saying all this time. Read it over and over until you really get it.
Also, don't try to re-direct the discussion by coming up with some other issues. The
"role of product in its target market" isn't the issue here and you know it.
Anway, just answer the question! I really wanna see what you have to say.
If the 5D was the holy grail of IQ, then maybe I'd consider answering your question. But the MF format cameras smoke the 5D in terms of IQ, and cost a lot more to boot. They are designed for a market which demands the highest IQ, doesn't support dummy gimmicks like video recording, and there is less motive for manufacturers to cut corners in IQ for the sake of adding gimmick features. The only reason MF cameras are irrelevant to you in this thread is because you chose to ignore the target market they're designed for, as well as how the products are positioned in those markets.
The fact that DSLR's and compacts are designed for different markets is also another reason you can't extrapolate the technologies between these two segments. DSLR's are designed within a different set of goals and limitations than compacts, so you can't say "well, CMOS has these advantages over CCD in DSLR's, so the same must be true for compacts." In fact, when it comes to CCD vs CMOS, neither MF nor DSLR comparisons can be directly related to how they play out in compact cameras. We have one example in compacts where the CCD beats the CMOS, and that's that. What's true for other camera formats isn't necessarily true for compacts.
I ask you about the weather, you answer it by talking about your shoes.
5D, when it first came out stood amongst others; just like how MF cameras stand amongst other 35mm dslrs. Everyone knows it was so because of its size being larger than 35mm cropped sensors like the others.
Its being CMOS has nothing to do with it. That's why one can't claim it's a great example how CMOS is better than CCD.
In your case, you came out with an argument saying CCD is better than CMOS as seen in MF cameras. I pointed out how you can't make such comparisons because of their physical size being very different, not to mention how their initial design is very different. Of course, "MF format cameras smoke the 5D in terms of IQ." just like FF 35mm cameras smoke cropped 35mm cameras. Don't you get it?
Again, why do you think that is? Do you still think it's because CCD is better? How many times do I need to tell you this? If you wanna make a valid point, you gotta have certain amount of samples and make sure critical charisteristics remain as close as possible. We don't have that in MF market. We don't have that in compact market(One example in SX1 vs. SX10 just doesn't cut it unless you're very simple minded.) We have that in 35mm dslr market so it's logical to look into 35mm dslr cameras on this CCD vs. CMOS issue.
BTW, stop talking about all the other stuffs that adds nothing on this topic. What does 5D's "dummy gimmicks like video recording" have to do with this issue? In fact, 5D doesn't have video recording function. It's 5D mk2 that has it.
Man, please focus! Stop ranting about some other issues. Again, when I used the word "sensor design," I was talking about the initial design of the sensor, not about how cameras are desinged to fit into certain market.
The issue here is CCD vs CMOS. Nothing else.
As you said, MF cameras are desinged to provide best IQ. It's not like I'm against it. After all, that's what I've been saying all this time! I've been saying sensors for MF cameras are desgined to provide the best IQ in certain settings and that its being CCD has nothing to do with it. They'd do the same exact thing with CMOS and would come out with such IQ. Why are you against that when I say it but when you say it, you say it like I don't know? Now, you're not arguing with me but with yourself and you don't know it. How silly is that?
And, my god, since when did I claim CMOS has this or that advantage over CCD in DSLRs? I've told you this so many times but I gotta tell you this again: Stop accusing me of something that I've never said. If you think I said so, that indicates you took my question very seriously. Didn't you get that question was a parody of your silly logic? That question was just like you claim; based on same fallacy. I've even stated that right after asking but you took it seriously like I really mean it??
....
BTW, RED is coming out with 617 format CMOS sensor. Because of its size, I think it'll probably smoke all the other CCD MF sensors. If so, can I claim CMOS is better than CCD as seen in MF market? Hell no but I guess you're going to argue that because you can claim anything you want based on one single case while not looking into other very crucial factors.
5D, when it first came out stood amongst others; just like how MF cameras stand amongst other 35mm dslrs. Everyone knows it was so because of its size being larger than 35mm cropped sensors like the others.
Its being CMOS has nothing to do with it. That's why one can't claim it's a great example how CMOS is better than CCD.
In your case, you came out with an argument saying CCD is better than CMOS as seen in MF cameras. I pointed out how you can't make such comparisons because of their physical size being very different, not to mention how their initial design is very different. Of course, "MF format cameras smoke the 5D in terms of IQ." just like FF 35mm cameras smoke cropped 35mm cameras. Don't you get it?
Again, why do you think that is? Do you still think it's because CCD is better? How many times do I need to tell you this? If you wanna make a valid point, you gotta have certain amount of samples and make sure critical charisteristics remain as close as possible. We don't have that in MF market. We don't have that in compact market(One example in SX1 vs. SX10 just doesn't cut it unless you're very simple minded.) We have that in 35mm dslr market so it's logical to look into 35mm dslr cameras on this CCD vs. CMOS issue.
BTW, stop talking about all the other stuffs that adds nothing on this topic. What does 5D's "dummy gimmicks like video recording" have to do with this issue? In fact, 5D doesn't have video recording function. It's 5D mk2 that has it.
Man, please focus! Stop ranting about some other issues. Again, when I used the word "sensor design," I was talking about the initial design of the sensor, not about how cameras are desinged to fit into certain market.
The issue here is CCD vs CMOS. Nothing else.
As you said, MF cameras are desinged to provide best IQ. It's not like I'm against it. After all, that's what I've been saying all this time! I've been saying sensors for MF cameras are desgined to provide the best IQ in certain settings and that its being CCD has nothing to do with it. They'd do the same exact thing with CMOS and would come out with such IQ. Why are you against that when I say it but when you say it, you say it like I don't know? Now, you're not arguing with me but with yourself and you don't know it. How silly is that?
And, my god, since when did I claim CMOS has this or that advantage over CCD in DSLRs? I've told you this so many times but I gotta tell you this again: Stop accusing me of something that I've never said. If you think I said so, that indicates you took my question very seriously. Didn't you get that question was a parody of your silly logic? That question was just like you claim; based on same fallacy. I've even stated that right after asking but you took it seriously like I really mean it??
....
BTW, RED is coming out with 617 format CMOS sensor. Because of its size, I think it'll probably smoke all the other CCD MF sensors. If so, can I claim CMOS is better than CCD as seen in MF market? Hell no but I guess you're going to argue that because you can claim anything you want based on one single case while not looking into other very crucial factors.
No it isn't logical to look at DSLR's, because I already explained why you can't directly extrapolate whatever is true for DSLR's and assume the same issues apply everywhere else. Moreover, nowhere did I claim the 5D has video recording, but rather observe the general trend in newer DSLR's adopting that feature, along with switching to CMOS sensors. The bottom line is you seem determined to debate sensors in isolation to everything else, while I see sensors as merely a means to an end.
I find it amusing how what you just said contradicts what you have said.
You, now, say that you "see sensors as merely a means to an end." and my problem is how I "seem determined to debate sensors in isolation to everything else?" Do you have a doulbe personality or something? After all this, how can you possibly say that?
This whole debate started because of your claimming 'CCD is just better than CMOS in terms of IQ and MF is a good example as they all use CCD.'
As stated many times due to your false accuse, I've never said CMOS is better than CCD. One might be better than the other at one point but the same goes for the other way around. Unlike before, At this point, it's nonsense to say one is better than the others in terms of IQ due to technological advances. It's even more silly to claim CCD is better as seen in MF sensors due to size differences and design differences being very different. Based on this, it's I who see sensors as "merely a means to an end," not you who think CCD is better than CMOS. I don't care if this camera has CMOS or CCD as long as it's good. Because I don't think CMOS is better than CCD or vice versa, what kind of sensor it uses doesn't affect my decision. As you think CCD is better than CMOS, I don't think same would apply on your end.
EDIT: This is just getting ridiculous. I really feel like I'm talking to a person with multiple personality disorder as what you say is different every time. At one point, you've made claim A going against claim B. After a day or so, you, all of the sudden, say you've been claiming B and it's me who's been claiming A. In addition, you accuse me of things I've never said. Not only that you contradict yourself in your own paragraph.
Why don't you take a break, say a week or so, read whole thing over?
And I never said MF is the reason CCD is better than CMOS, so don't put words in my mouth. It's your dismissal of MF as irrelevant because they're only good in some situations that I have a problem with, and it doesn't fit with your "means to an end" story. Moreover, I distinctly remember saying the resulting IQ depends on a lot of other factors besides which design the sensor uses.
Just because the technological advances in DSLR's have allowed those CMOS designs to rival comparable CCD's in IQ, doesn't mean the same is true everywhere, and we have a perfectly valid example of how the CCD in a modern compact is superior between two cameras of the same family and generation. So don't tell me I'm 5 years behind the times when I say CCD's are inherently better in IQ. You throw enough money at a DSLR CMOS design, and you can rival CCD's. But don't assume it will happen for every design.
One more thing: if you think I have the patience to re-read this thread and nothing better to do with my time, then you must be dreaming.
Just because the technological advances in DSLR's have allowed those CMOS designs to rival comparable CCD's in IQ, doesn't mean the same is true everywhere, and we have a perfectly valid example of how the CCD in a modern compact is superior between two cameras of the same family and generation. So don't tell me I'm 5 years behind the times when I say CCD's are inherently better in IQ. You throw enough money at a DSLR CMOS design, and you can rival CCD's. But don't assume it will happen for every design.
One more thing: if you think I have the patience to re-read this thread and nothing better to do with my time, then you must be dreaming.
You claimed CCD is better than CMOS as MF sensors all use CCD. Before denying it, just read your posts. On top of that, when the others including me compared CMOS to CCD sensors in the dslr market as we have more than hands full of valid examples, all you could say was that 'MF sensors use CCD sensors and that means CCD is better than CMOS.' I and others claimed such case is irrelevant due to all those reasons that's been repeated over and over.
The reason why you should re-read the whole thing is because your story changes all the time. Not only you don't even remember what I've been talking about, you also don't even know what you've been talking about. You accuse me of saying stuffs that someone else said, you accuse me of saying stuffs that I've never said, you accuse me of not ansering your question when I answered it, and you even accuse me of saying stuffs that you said. How funny and weird is it when what you say on day-2 is directly against of what you've said in day-1 and you blame me for that?
I don't know how precious your time is and how you spend it but it'd be well spent if you could just re-read your posts. I don't know how much patience it takes, or if it takes any, but you should always be patient to think about your thoughts. I really think you have a problem with that and that'll guide you to all sort of problems in real life as well. Fix it when you can.
How about you read my post you just quoted before replying about posts from last week? That states my story pretty clearly. Maybe I should repeat it in bold writing in case you missed it?
Just because the technological advances in DSLR's have allowed those CMOS designs to rival comparable CCD's in IQ, doesn't mean the same is true everywhere, and we have a perfectly valid example of how the CCD in a modern compact is superior between two cameras of the same family and generation. So don't tell me I'm 5 years behind the times when I say CCD's are inherently better in IQ. You throw enough money at a DSLR CMOS design, and you can rival CCD's. But don't assume it will happen for every design.
That about sums it up. If you try to dodge the subject the same way you've dodged it last week and repeat the same thing over and over, then talking to you is pointless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter