CMOS vs CCD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lH lzRw_Oek p

>>3064698
You should be asking /vid/ not /p/ since everyone uses mechanical shitters here.

>>3064698
This thread is at least 5 years too late, at this point CCD is a dead technology, much like CRT displays; it has some niceties that it still does good at, but on the whole it's not really worth it.
CMOS can be had in global shutter variants, and while that reduces dynamic range, CCD didn't have more than 12 stops or so anyway, so you're ultimately getting all the benefits of CMOS like significantly lower power draw and higher frame rates.

delusional ccd-fags are worse than filmidiots. film still has some use, ccd really has none.

Look guys, this old tech is better than this new tech in this very specific situation, so it must be better!!

>>3064725
Astrophotography.

>>3064698
CCDfags are worse than filmfags. You're nostalgic about a technology that is old just for the sake of being nostalgic but not TOO nostalgic because then you'd be filmfags instead.

How bout you go and take some pictures and learn to use lightroom.

File: Noise.jpg (870KB, 3840x2560px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 3840x2560px

fite me

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:03:30 19:39:47
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	2560

>>3066327
ccd looks like that at iso 400, nkwadays cmos looks like that at iso 50.000 or some shit

>>3066327
What hardware generation is that from, is the CCD peltier cooled, and what's the gain? Without any information pic related is utterly useless.

Yes, CCD used to have better photon management when CMOS didn't have on-sensor readout, but now there's little contest. CCD can still compete in this one segment but at less than half the sensitivity levels of CMOS, which renders it much less practical than before.

In any case, these points are largely irrelevant because CCD by its very nature can't read out a single pixel unless it reads out the whole sensor, which means:
- no on-sensor PDAF
- no on-sensor digital readout
- more heat and lower read rate
- poor live view capability
It managed to survive in the few fields where these things don't matter too much, but making it technologically viable would be more expensive than just going with CMOS, which quite frankly is already better in every metric.

>>3064698
Isn't this fixed by using a longer shutter speed?

>>3066078
cmos is taking over. it's really the last bastion of ccd's.

>>3066721
>>3066668

The point isnt better ccd iso performance retards, its the noise structure and profile. I don't mind a little monochromantic salt and pepper grain in the shadows, while cmos uncorrected looks like blue puke.