Posted by Rick Merrill on 01/10/06 17:56

mv@movingvision.co.uk wrote:

> Whilst as a rule of thumb it's true that the bigger the chip the better
> the image, the argument breaks down when comparing early 2/3rd CCD's
> with the latest HAD 1/3rd types.
>

That is EXACTLY what i wanted to know! Thank you.

> 'None' suggests that his old tube cameras and even a DX3000 make better
> pictures than contemporary CCD's, I guess he must be comparing with
> Samsungs 1/4 inch consumer DV's then? Even the original VX1000 with it's
> three 1/3rd inch CCD's reveal the DX3000's antediluvian abilities. The
> HAD CCD's used in cameras like the PD170 for example exceed the
> capabilities of any 20 year old type. Currently the latest generation of
> 16x9 1/3rd inch Super HAD's as used in the Sony Z1 have closed the gap
> with most of the older generation 2/3rd types (even surpassed in some
> respects) to a point where only the most nit picking would care.
>
> Size continues to matter, but technological advancement matters more.
> Looks like the CCD as we know it is about to pass into the technology
> bin anyway, just as nones silly old tubes have. CMOS is the next
> generation. Amongst other types, we have one of the new Sony A1's with a
> single CMOS chip. If this is what a first generation CMOS type has to
> offer from such a tiny cheap bit of equipment then the writing is
> clearly on the wall.
>

[Back to original message]