The Digital Sensor: A Guide to Understanding Digital Cameras
by Wesley Fink on April 21, 2008 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
A few years ago, all digital cameras were "point and shoot" and they were very expensive compared to film cameras. Digital prices dropped rather quickly as digital sensor resolution continued to increase. Soon enough digital "point-and-shoot" cameras were available at every price point from a basic snapshot to the more serious models geared at the prosumer market.
At the dawn of the consumer digital SLR in 1999, a 2.7MP (megapixel) DSLR with an APS C sensor was considered an incredible buy at $5000. Tremendous growth in market share and the falling prices of DSLR cameras in the years since have created new buying options for those shopping for an upgrade to an existing camera or even a first camera. This has been particularly true in the last couple of years. All of the old reasons to own a point and shoot instead - with lower cost leading the way - have fallen by the wayside as the DSLR has continued to evolve and become both very price competitive with P&S and much easier to use.
However, many new DSLR buyers are walking into a brave new world with blinders on. The first question everyone should ask is why should you buy a DSLR instead of a point and shoot? Are there real technical advantages to DSLRs? After all the ads for point-and-shoots are hyping the same range of sensor resolutions that you will find in digital SLR cameras, so why buy a DSLR? The answer to that question is what really prompted this article.
Yes, you can buy 10MP and 12MP point-and-shoot cameras - the same megapixel range as current mainstream DLSR cameras - but they cannot possibly produce the same image quality over the same wide range of shooting conditions as a digital SLR. The reason why is simple physics, as the point-and-shoot sensors are much smaller than sensors in a DSLR. In fact, that is also the very reason why point-and-shoot digital cameras were the only choices in the market for a few years.
The early sensors were much lower megapixel resolutions, far too low to begin to compete with film photography. Photo hobbyists saw few advantages in moving to a low resolution system since the reason they used an SLR was high image quality. It wasn't until resolutions reached the 2-4MP range that there was any interest in a digital SLR.
The early sensors were also very small, developed primarily for video usage. The 1/2.7" compact sensor is 5.3x4.0mm and the larger 1/1.8" is 7.2x5.3mm - compared to 35mm at 24x36mm. These typical compact sensors are just a tiny fraction the size of 35mm sensors, and these sensors were among the largest available in P&S digital cameras. Some tried to develop proprietary systems based on a smaller sensor size with more compact lenses, but nothing caught on in the industry. The cost of early sensors was also astronomical, making the early digital SLR cameras only useful for production, high volume photography where the cost could be justified.
Finally, early digital development saw sensor resolution and size in constant evolution. With sensor size changing with each new generation, it was much easier to design a point-and-shoot camera around each new sensor generation using a dedicated and non-interchangeable lens. Until sensor size stabilized, a digital SLR that used either existing 35mm lens systems or a new "standard size" was not practical.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
72 Comments
View All Comments
melgross - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
The smaller process technology will have no positive effect on the sensors themselves, though it will for the associated electronics integrated on the die.The same problems he mentioned about smaller sensing sites will remain. The smaller the sensor, the poorer the performance viz a viz larger sensors.
He did mention that the photo division was the purchase, not the entire company (unless he changed the article after your post).
Wesley Fink - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
I changed the wording on the Sony purchase a bit to better reflect that Sony bought the Minolta camera assets of KM and not the company. Thanks for pointing this out.finbarqs - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
Canon's 1DS MK2 was a 16.7MP CMOS sensor also, and of course, the MK3 is a 21MP CMOS sensor...Where i'm lost is if CCD's are so much better (in IQ) why dont' they stick with CCD's? why the move to CMOS besides the lower cost and the battery life that it saves?
Why are professional level DSLR's (From canon and Nikon) are both CMOS when we know that CCD is the way to go for better IQ?
melgross - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
It USED to be true that CCD's were better. Not so any longer. The best CMOS sensors are better than the CCD's they replace.The desire to go CMOS is obvious to the manufacturers of the sensors.
CCD sensor technology is a completely different manufacturing process from that of CMOS, which the entire industry uses for everything else (almost).
Moving to that allows CMOS sensors to not only be able to integrate other electronics on the sensor chip, resulting in simplicity, price advantages, and the ability to more favorably utilize their process lines, but that higher quality you're concerned about.
Putting functions on the same chip improves the quality of the signals.
And, by the way, an error in the article: Canon was not the first to make, or use, a CMOS sensor. They were the first to come out with a high quality sensor. I believe that it was Vivitar that used the first one, though I forgot the name of the manufacturer.
Anther omission is that there are trilinear sensors used in camera backs such as the Betterlight scanning backs. So there are three different major technologies in use.
And not all of the negatives of the Foveon chip was mentioned.
s12033722 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
No, CCD is definitely still the IQ king. CCD still has a far better SNR than any CMOS technology.As a digital camera design engineer, I deal with image sensors every day. The major reasons why CMOS sensors are attractive are all cost related. Not only are CMOS sensors themselves cheaper, but they lend themselves to integration with other electronics better and they are MUCH nicer to design with. A typical CMOS sensor will require ground, 3.3V, and maybe some other standard voltages (1.8V, 2.5V, etc.), whereas a typical CCD will require ground and anything from 8 to 12 other DC voltage rails. For instance, I am working on a camera that requires -15V, -9V, -6V, -4V, -1.5V, ground, 2V, 3.5V, 11 V, 15V, 24.5V, and has a clock signal that must run up to 40V. While making the voltages and driving clocks at them is fairly straightforward, it requires a lot more components than a CMOS sensor design would. More components directly equals higher cost. Also, as the article mentions, more functions can be integrated onto CMOS sensors than CCDs.
The other advantage of CMOS vs. CCD is in random-access readout. If you want to read a small region of interest on a CCD, you either have to read out the whole frame and digitally ignore the parts you don't care about (no increase in read speed) or the chip has to support charge dumping, where portions of the image can be dropped without reading them out. CMOS makes it much easier to read small portions of the image, and thus things like live view are simply done.
Lastly, I'd like to mention an issue with the Foveon sensor that the article didn't mention. While the foveon technology presents itself as having three discrete pixels stacked on top of each other, the reality is much more ambiguous. Foveon relies on the ability of different wavelengths of light (colors) to penetrate to different levels in silicon, however, far from being discrete, easily separated regions, the depth of capture of different wavelengths in silicon tends to be very blurry and ill defined. This results in significant color mixing in the foveon design. They manage to pull out the images they do through the use of extensive processing. That makes the technology pretty unappealing to design with, thus the dominance of Bayer sensors. Honestly, if I needed to do a camera with true RGB per pixel, I would use a 3-CCD design where a full sensor is dedicated to each color rather than using anything like a foveon. It would be more expensive, but far better quality.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Thank you for clarifying several points from the Design Engineer perspective. I appreciate your insights into the CCD vs. CMOS issues.Sometimes it is difficult for people to wrap their heads around the idea that a technology (CMOS) is not the low noise champion, but that it is winning nonetheless because of other attributes such as lower cost, manufacturing efficiency, lower cost, integration advantages, lower cost, lower power consumption, and lower cost. Your comments put that reality into perspective.
melgross - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
That's all very interesting, but unless you are designing a very high IQ, special purpose (read, very expensive) device, that's simply not an assumption that can be made..CCD's have numerous problems. High power requirements, which lead to higher temperatures, which leads to higher noise levels, requires cooling for the best results, and so on.
There is no inherent IQ advantage to CCD's. The longer development time led to an early start, and all the advantages accrued from that. But that lead shrunk.
Also, when talking about cost/performance, we must realize that it is very important to not lose sight of the fact that performance must be compared at reasonable cost levels. NASA can afford to spend a million for a sensor, which they do, but it's irrelevant to everyone else.
As for the Foveon chip, yes, that is one of the problems I was talking about, and the biggest one.
Some enthusiastic reviews and articles have taken Foveon's word that they undergo little processing compared to Bayer chips. That's only true in the de-matrixing area, and so they don't need a the aliasing filter. But the color mixing problems are just as serious, and I've found, in using the camera, that color quality is more variable than with my 5D. Often noticeably poorer as well.
7thSerapHim - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
As stated on the Canon CMOS Technology page, it says that although CCD sensors achieve high IQ, they are have slow data-reading speed, which means that it wouldn't be capable to capture at a fast FPS mode.CMOS is capable of high data-reading speed, but due to crosstalk (between pixels) the IQ suffers as a result. However, due to developments in CMOS technology, we can assume that IQ has improved closer to CCD.
My opinion is that the cost, speed, battery life and potential for improvements is what compelled many to adopt CMOS instead of CCD.
Zak - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
I've recently bought Canon 40D that uses CMOS (right?) and I'm a bit disappointed in the image quality over my Rebel XTi (dead). There is definitely much less noise and it's incredibly fast, but I just can't get images to be as sharp as with the XTi. In particular with 100mm Canon macro lens. I don't know if I got a defective body or the CMOS sensor is indeed softer than CCD in the XTi. I'm considering returning the 40D and fixing my XTi instead.Z.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Canon typically tunes the JPEGS from the entry-level bodies to be more "punchy" (more saturation, more sharpening, more contrast) than on higher-level bodies, to provide results closer to the average P&S output.If RAW, might just be processing variations between RAW profiles for different bodies. Have you tried some sharpening in photoshop or similar to compare images?
Also possible the body is missing focus, but before jumping to that conclusion I'd try the image adjustments first.