<http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9860021-39.html?part=dht&tag=nl.e703> "CCD today leads CMOS when it comes to performance and a wider bright-to-dark range, said Fas Mosleh, CMOS market segment manager for professional and applied imaging at Eastman Kodak, but because CMOS sensors can ride the coattails of the rest of the chipmaking business, CMOS outdoes CCD in one very important domain: price. " is that what it's all about? or maybe it's this: "Sony, like Canon, builds its own CMOS sensors. Using CMOS means that some processing can be done on the sensor chip, including the conversion of analog information produced by the light being photographed into digital signals. Sony's 12-megapixel A700 sensor has more than 4,000 analog-to-digital converters, said Mark Weir, Sony's technical prod manager for digital cameras. " though I don't see how hard wired AD converters are a good thing except to the manufacturers - for firmware AD converters can be upgraded if there's a fault, a need or some increible software advance.. "Because (AD) conversion happens earlier in the image-handling pipeline, before image data is transferred off the sensor, there's less opportunity other camera electronics to sully the image with noise." err.. I don't think so. once it's digitised it's 'pure' (so they say) ""One problem with CMOS is it's difficult to get the manufacturing process optimized both for the imaging part and the processing part," DeLuca said. In contrast, "CCD technology was built for imaging." yes. processing is nice, but it's all about the image, not the price, right Mr Author? karl
