CCD vs. CMOS: which one is more reliable: dead/hot/stuck pixels (mediuum-long and many questions)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by fake name, Feb 28, 2004.

  1. fake name

    fake name Guest

    mediuum-long and many questions, and probably quite poor English, but
    here it goes (sorry!)

    Hi group!

    I am lurking around and mulling whether or not I should jump on the dSLR
    bandwagon... 10D seems a little bulky, and I would like to support the
    underdog. I am thinking of a *istD, which uses a CCD sensor. I really
    like the AA batteries, but the price of *istD is still a bit high. for
    the smae price I could get the Nikon D70 which has fantastic shutter
    speeds (1/8000 and flash 1/500) and the new Nikon lens 18-70, but, and
    this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary batteries.

    To sum it up, both D70 and *istD use the same Sony CCD sensor. Canon
    uses the CMOS sensor, and I am just wondering which one is more likely
    to develop bad pixels as it ages (bad pixels=hot/dead/stuck, etc).

    I know some of you regard dSLR as disposable, and in 3-4 years I will be
    able to get full frame for the same price (maybe, maybe not), but still,
    6 Mpixels is more than enough for me for a while, I do not intennd to
    play the upgrade game... after all I used a Powershot A10 (1.3 M) and
    took some great pictures.

    off/topic

    I own a film Pentax (ZX-5n, really great camera, any one interested???)
    and a pentax ZOOM 28-70 f/4 (constant F number!!!). while the optical
    quality of the lens is quite good, the build quality is not... it
    doesn't feel right, the focus ring feels loose (backlash?) and the front
    element rotates (polarizer anyone???). Pentax uses this focus system
    with the motor in the camera and a little shaft to focus the lens. I
    hate it. It's noisy and I have the feeling that it's gonna break
    anytime. I wish they used some USM like Canon that was silent and you
    could override by hand without jamming the motor...

    but enough off topic nonsense. back to original question: after 3-4
    years, which one will have less bad pixels, a CCD or a CMOS?
    what about if you take pictures of bright subjects, can you burn the
    sensor? if so, which one has a higher damage treshhold, CMOS or CCD?

    OK, the final question (sorry!)

    10D's resolution makes sense, 3072x2048: eactly 3:2 X 1024. Nice
    numbers, you could probably do some easy FFT of other Math stuff with
    these images (I am interested in these applications!). Why did SONY make
    the CCD sensor 2008x2000? how did they come up with this weird size???

    Sorry for the long post and quite off/topic stuff. Thanks!
    fake name, Feb 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fake name

    Mark Herring Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:28:20 GMT, fake name
    <-network> wrote:

    >mediuum-long and many questions, and probably quite poor English, but
    >here it goes (sorry!)
    >
    >Hi group!
    >
    >I am lurking around and mulling whether or not I should jump on the dSLR
    >bandwagon... 10D seems a little bulky, and I would like to support the
    >underdog. I am thinking of a *istD, which uses a CCD sensor. I really
    >like the AA batteries, but the price of *istD is still a bit high. for
    >the smae price I could get the Nikon D70 which has fantastic shutter
    >speeds (1/8000 and flash 1/500) and the new Nikon lens 18-70, but, and
    >this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary batteries.
    >
    >To sum it up, both D70 and *istD use the same Sony CCD sensor. Canon
    >uses the CMOS sensor, and I am just wondering which one is more likely
    >to develop bad pixels as it ages (bad pixels=hot/dead/stuck, etc).
    >

    CMOS and CCD are all made of Silicon. There should be no fundamental
    reason for the lifetime to be different. The major trade in any
    sensor for digicams is size and manufacturing yield. To get high
    throughput (etendue) and to approach "35mm equivalent", you need large
    sensors.

    I suspect that one motivation for CMOS is that---for a given size--the
    yield may be higher..
    **************************
    Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
    Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".
    Mark Herring, Feb 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fake name

    m II Guest

    Re: CCD vs. CMOS: which one is more reliable: dead/hot/stuck pixels(mediuum-long and many questions)

    fake name wrote:

    > but, and this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary batteries.


    That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals a
    while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries. First, they
    were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It was a four hundred
    camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred dollars. I've stuck
    with cameras that use AA batteries ever since. These are available
    almost everywhere in case you can't find an outlet to charge the NiMh
    variety.



    mike
    m II, Feb 28, 2004
    #3
  4. fake name

    Jim Townsend Guest

    fake name wrote:

    > mediuum-long and many questions, and probably quite poor English, but
    > here it goes (sorry!)
    >
    > Hi group!
    >
    > I am lurking around and mulling whether or not I should jump on the dSLR
    > bandwagon... 10D seems a little bulky, and I would like to support the
    > underdog. I am thinking of a *istD, which uses a CCD sensor. I really
    > like the AA batteries, but the price of *istD is still a bit high. for
    > the smae price I could get the Nikon D70 which has fantastic shutter
    > speeds (1/8000 and flash 1/500) and the new Nikon lens 18-70, but, and
    > this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary batteries.
    >
    > To sum it up, both D70 and *istD use the same Sony CCD sensor. Canon
    > uses the CMOS sensor, and I am just wondering which one is more likely
    > to develop bad pixels as it ages (bad pixels=hot/dead/stuck, etc).
    >


    Canon is going full steam with CMOS.. They've sunk quite a bit into
    developing an efficient and reliable sensor design. As a matter of
    fact, they've replaced the CCD in their professional quality 1D and
    included an 8Mp CMOS in the replacement 1D MkII.

    As far as the reliability of the CMOS sensor in the 10D... They've
    been out for nearly a year. I've never seen one complaint of bad
    pixels appearing in any of the forums I follow. Even if this did
    happen, bad pixels can be 'mapped out' by Canon.
    Jim Townsend, Feb 28, 2004
    #4
  5. "m II" <> wrote in message
    news:sd40c.101682$Hy3.19217@edtnps89...
    []
    > That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals a
    > while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries. First, they
    > were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It was a four hundred
    > camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred dollars.


    Rip-off or ill-informed! Even Nikon desn't charge that much for their
    top-of-the-line batteries (about £35) and top-quality third-party
    equivalents are about £25.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Feb 28, 2004
    #5
  6. fake name

    Guest

    fake name <-network> wrote:

    > 10D's resolution makes sense, 3072x2048: eactly 3:2 X 1024. Nice
    > numbers, you could probably do some easy FFT of other Math stuff with
    > these images (I am interested in these applications!). Why did SONY make
    > the CCD sensor 2008x2000? how did they come up with this weird size???


    For your FFT work you'll be applying lots of padding: feel free to
    pad it up to a size that runs quickly with your FFT library. I use
    the FFTW (http://www.fftw.org), and it happens to do a nice job no
    matter what the dimensions of the image.
    , Feb 28, 2004
    #6
  7. fake name

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    fake name wrote:

    > Nikon lens 18-70, but, and this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary
    > batteries.


    The EN-EL3 battery is awesome and it will last for over 1,000
    pictures before you need to recharge it. Not to mention that
    generics only cost about $10 each and they are as good as
    the originals.

    > To sum it up, both D70 and *istD use the same Sony CCD sensor.


    Not exactly. The D70 uses a 2nd generation sensor which shows
    much less noise, especially at high ISO. Unretouched D70 pictures
    at ISO800 and 1600 I've seen on the net are simply stunning.

    > 10D's resolution makes sense, 3072x2048: eactly 3:2 X 1024. Nice
    > numbers, you could probably do some easy FFT of other Math stuff with
    > these images (I am interested in these applications!). Why did SONY
    > make the CCD sensor 2008x2000? how did they come up with this weird
    > size???


    Because it's not 2008x2000? ;-)
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 28, 2004
    #7
  8. fake name

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    m II wrote:

    > That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals a
    > while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries. First,
    > they were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It was a four
    > hundred camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred dollars.
    > I've stuck with cameras that use AA batteries ever since. These are
    > available almost everywhere in case you can't find an outlet to
    > charge the NiMh variety.


    Generic EN-EL3-compatible batteries cost only $10 each and they
    last as long as the original Nikons (1,000 shots or so.) Let's not forget
    that the D70 comes with an adapter for the CR-135 type.
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 28, 2004
    #8
  9. fake name

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > "m II" <> wrote in message
    > news:sd40c.101682$Hy3.19217@edtnps89...
    > []
    >> That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals
    >> a while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries.
    >> First, they were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It
    >> was a four hundred camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred
    >> dollars.

    >
    > Rip-off or ill-informed! Even Nikon desn't charge that much for their
    > top-of-the-line batteries (about £35) and top-quality third-party
    > equivalents are about £25.


    $10 each on EBay (about £7.) Every bit as good as the
    originals. I've had four since I bought the D100 in 2002,
    they're still going, and going and going... ;-)
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 28, 2004
    #9
  10. fake name

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Jim Townsend wrote:

    > As far as the reliability of the CMOS sensor in the 10D... They've
    > been out for nearly a year. I've never seen one complaint of bad
    > pixels appearing in any of the forums I follow. Even if this did
    > happen, bad pixels can be 'mapped out' by Canon.


    Bad pixels aren't a problem (and BTW, I've had none so far
    on my 2002-vintage D100,) you will find yourself "mapping
    out" the "dust bunnies" a lot more frequently...
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 28, 2004
    #10
  11. In article
    <>,
    fake name <-network> wrote:

    > mediuum-long and many questions, and probably quite poor English, but
    > here it goes (sorry!)
    >
    > Hi group!
    >
    > I am lurking around and mulling whether or not I should jump on the dSLR
    > bandwagon... 10D seems a little bulky, and I would like to support the
    > underdog. I am thinking of a *istD, which uses a CCD sensor. I really
    > like the AA batteries, but the price of *istD is still a bit high. for
    > the smae price I could get the Nikon D70 which has fantastic shutter
    > speeds (1/8000 and flash 1/500) and the new Nikon lens 18-70, but, and
    > this is a BIG BUT, it uses proprietary batteries.
    >
    > To sum it up, both D70 and *istD use the same Sony CCD sensor. Canon
    > uses the CMOS sensor, and I am just wondering which one is more likely
    > to develop bad pixels as it ages (bad pixels=hot/dead/stuck, etc).
    >
    > I know some of you regard dSLR as disposable, and in 3-4 years I will be
    > able to get full frame for the same price (maybe, maybe not), but still,
    > 6 Mpixels is more than enough for me for a while, I do not intennd to
    > play the upgrade game... after all I used a Powershot A10 (1.3 M) and
    > took some great pictures.
    >
    > off/topic
    >
    > I own a film Pentax (ZX-5n, really great camera, any one interested???)
    > and a pentax ZOOM 28-70 f/4 (constant F number!!!). while the optical
    > quality of the lens is quite good, the build quality is not... it
    > doesn't feel right, the focus ring feels loose (backlash?) and the front
    > element rotates (polarizer anyone???). Pentax uses this focus system
    > with the motor in the camera and a little shaft to focus the lens. I
    > hate it. It's noisy and I have the feeling that it's gonna break
    > anytime. I wish they used some USM like Canon that was silent and you
    > could override by hand without jamming the motor...
    >
    > but enough off topic nonsense. back to original question: after 3-4
    > years, which one will have less bad pixels, a CCD or a CMOS?
    > what about if you take pictures of bright subjects, can you burn the
    > sensor? if so, which one has a higher damage treshhold, CMOS or CCD?
    >
    > OK, the final question (sorry!)
    >
    > 10D's resolution makes sense, 3072x2048: eactly 3:2 X 1024. Nice
    > numbers, you could probably do some easy FFT of other Math stuff with
    > these images (I am interested in these applications!). Why did SONY make
    > the CCD sensor 2008x2000? how did they come up with this weird size???
    >
    > Sorry for the long post and quite off/topic stuff. Thanks!


    With such high resolutions, you can count on bad pixels existing from
    the factory in both designs. All high-end cameras will detect them and
    substitute with interpolated values.

    Which one will last longer? That depends on the construction, not the
    type of sensor. Odds are that you'll replace the camera for some other
    reason. Maybe cameras three or four years from now are so much better
    that you can't resist buying one.

    DSLRs don't use electronic viewfinders so you can't accidentally burn
    the sensor by leaving the camera in the sun. The shutter is normally
    fully closed. You'd have to manually create a situation to burn the
    sensor.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Feb 28, 2004
    #11
  12. fake name

    fake name Guest

    In article <rD60c.4090$>,
    "Paolo Pizzi" <> wrote:

    > > 10D's resolution makes sense, 3072x2048: eactly 3:2 X 1024. Nice
    > > numbers, you could probably do some easy FFT of other Math stuff with
    > > these images (I am interested in these applications!). Why did SONY
    > > make the CCD sensor 2008x2000? how did they come up with this weird
    > > size???

    >
    > Because it's not 2008x2000? ;-)
    >


    Rrrriiiggghhhttt, 3008 x 2000.the question remains; why 3008 ???
    fake name, Feb 28, 2004
    #12
  13. fake name

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    fake name wrote:

    > Rrrriiiggghhhttt, 3008 x 2000.the question remains; why 3008 ???


    I don't know, maybe it has to do with the sensor design.
    Anyhow, the 3:2 ratio is the same and a few extra pixels
    on either side don't make any visible difference.
    Paolo Pizzi, Feb 28, 2004
    #13
  14. fake name <-network> writes:

    >Rrrriiiggghhhttt, 3008 x 2000.the question remains; why 3008 ???


    Because it's divisible by 16, probably. Jpeg processes images in 8x8
    pixel blocks. With the usual 2:1 chroma downsampling, 8x8 chroma blocks
    come from 16x16 source pixels. Making the width a multiple of 16 means
    that the image has an integral number of whole blocks across the width,
    with no partial blocks to deal with as a special case in the firmware.
    With the vertical size also a multiple of 16, there are no partial
    blocks anywhere in the image.

    This also means that the camera JPEG images can be losslessly rotated
    without losing any pixels. Odd-size images lose a few rows or columns
    when rotated to certain orientations.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Feb 29, 2004
    #14
  15. fake name

    Brent Geery Guest

    On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 20:17:55 GMT, "Paolo Pizzi"
    <> wrote:

    > David J Taylor wrote:
    > > "m II" <> wrote in message
    > > news:sd40c.101682$Hy3.19217@edtnps89...
    > > []
    > >> That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals
    > >> a while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries.
    > >> First, they were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It
    > >> was a four hundred camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred
    > >> dollars.

    > >
    > > Rip-off or ill-informed! Even Nikon desn't charge that much for their
    > > top-of-the-line batteries (about £35) and top-quality third-party
    > > equivalents are about £25.

    >
    > $10 each on EBay (about £7.) Every bit as good as the
    > originals. I've had four since I bought the D100 in 2002,
    > they're still going, and going and going... ;-)


    Watch out about the after-market batteries. Most I've seen don't have
    the same mAH capacity of the OEM versions. For example, the OEM LiIon
    pack for my Oly C-5000 is about 1200 mAH, but all the after-market
    equivalents are about 900mAH. Even so, the after-market batteries
    only cost me $5 each vs about $40 from the cheapest source, for the
    OEM battery.

    --
    BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)

    Fast Times At Ridgemont High Info http://www.FastTimesAtRidgemontHigh.org
    Voted #87 - American Film Institute's Top 100 Funniest American Films
    Brent Geery, Feb 29, 2004
    #15
  16. fake name

    Tom Monego Guest


    >> David J Taylor wrote:
    >> > "m II" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:sd40c.101682$Hy3.19217@edtnps89...
    >> > []
    >> >> That should be enough right there. I looked at some compact digitals
    >> >> a while back and asked the sales person about spare batteries.
    >> >> First, they were hard to replace, second, the cost was insane. It
    >> >> was a four hundred camera. The battery alone was almost two hundred
    >> >> dollars.
    >> >
    >> > Rip-off or ill-informed! Even Nikon desn't charge that much for their
    >> > top-of-the-line batteries (about £35) and top-quality third-party
    >> > equivalents are about £25.

    >>
    >> $10 each on EBay (about £7.) Every bit as good as the
    >> originals. I've had four since I bought the D100 in 2002,
    >> they're still going, and going and going... ;-)

    >
    >Watch out about the after-market batteries. Most I've seen don't have
    >the same mAH capacity of the OEM versions. For example, the OEM LiIon
    >pack for my Oly C-5000 is about 1200 mAH, but all the after-market
    >equivalents are about 900mAH. Even so, the after-market batteries
    >only cost me $5 each vs about $40 from the cheapest source, for the
    >OEM battery.
    >
    >--
    >BRENT - The Usenet typo king. :)


    For my CP995 the Nikon batteries are 1600mAH and cost $35 while B&H sell
    1800mAH and 2000mAH ones for $24. The one battery I have had trouble with is
    the Nikon

    Tom
    Tom Monego, Feb 29, 2004
    #16
  17. "Tom Monego" <> wrote in message
    news:vbp0c.5305$...
    []
    > Tom


    Please be more careful in your message quoting.
    I did not write most of what you attributed to me....

    Thanks,
    David
    David J Taylor, Feb 29, 2004
    #17
  18. fake name

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <fmq0c.5284$> on Sun, 29 Feb 2004
    18:40:11 GMT, "David J Taylor" <-this-bit>
    wrote:

    >"Tom Monego" <> wrote in message
    >news:vbp0c.5305$...
    >[]
    >> Tom

    >
    >Please be more careful in your message quoting.
    >I did not write most of what you attributed to me....


    His quoting was correct (as was mine). You apparently misunderstand how
    quoting works in bottom posted messages. See "Quoting Style in Newsgroup
    Postings" <http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
    news.newusers.questions Moderation Board).

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Feb 29, 2004
    #18
  19. "John Navas" <> wrote in message
    news:ylr0c.4607$...
    []
    > His quoting was correct (as was mine). You apparently misunderstand how
    > quoting works in bottom posted messages. See "Quoting Style in

    Newsgroup
    > Postings" <http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by

    the
    > news.newusers.questions Moderation Board).
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > John Navas


    To me, if my name is present, apparently associated with words that I did
    not say, then the quoting is misleading, even if it is technically
    correct.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Mar 1, 2004
    #19
  20. fake name

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <PlE0c.5748$> on Mon, 01 Mar 2004
    10:35:27 GMT, "David J Taylor" <-this-bit>
    wrote:

    >"John Navas" <> wrote in message
    >news:ylr0c.4607$...
    >[]
    >> His quoting was correct (as was mine). You apparently misunderstand how
    >> quoting works in bottom posted messages. See "Quoting Style in Newsgroup
    >> Postings" <http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nquote.html> (published by the
    >> news.newusers.questions Moderation Board).


    >To me, if my name is present,


    It was.

    >apparently associated with words that I did
    >not say, ...


    It wasn't, as that citation should make clear.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
    John Navas, Mar 1, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob Davison

    Re: Stuck Pixels and CCD longevity

    Rob Davison, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    608
    Rob Davison
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. William Boehnke

    Dimage Z3 Compensate for Dead, Hot, or Stuck Pixels?

    William Boehnke, Aug 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    936
    angryofmayfair
    Aug 12, 2004
  3. kl_tom

    Can hot pixels become dead pixels?

    kl_tom, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    506
    Bill Funk
    Oct 5, 2006
  4. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    792
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    716
Loading...

Share This Page