Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's pretty much what I see in my comparisons. For my work and taste I "need" the fine detail more than high ISO. Hope for both at some point. But at the moment it still seems to be like comparing granny smith to honeycrisp; a matter of taste and personal preference. The CCD seems to deliver, sharp, detailed, large film like character. The CMOS seems to deliver (too) smooth an image. Have no idea why - if its the chip, software, or whatever Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Sep 10, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Tina Manley wrote: > If you compare them at 100%, you can see why Leica went with CCD instead of > CMOS. I would not give up the fine detail of the CCD for higher ISOs. > > Here is an article: > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/question362.htm > > "Based on these differences, you can see that CCDs tend to be used in > cameras that focus on high-quality images with lots of pixels and excellent > light sensitivity. CMOS sensors traditionally have lower quality, lower > resolution and lower sensitivity."