Hi Joe,
Yes the CCD/CMOS chips are being cooled. They typically have a built
cooling system that chills the camera to -20 -40 below ambient temps.
They are self contained and are very safe.
I should have been more clear in my description about the differences I
notice with CMOS. To my eyes and having looked at thousands of
CCD/CMOS astro pics is the contrast coupled with edge sharpness. The
CMOS pics, Canon 10D included, have a smoothness about them, as if you
viewing them through a very slight blur filter. The CCD also seems to
have a more contrasty image and appears to need less USM or any out of
camera sharpening. I am not saying the Canon can't take great pics, in
fact it does, but I seem to have to play with the images more, WB,
sharpness, and highlights blown out.
I know I can set up parameters on the Canon but that leaves shooting in
Adobe RGB out. Maybe it comes down to this, with the Canon, depending
on the lens, I have to adjust saturation, sharpness and WB. One reason
why I like Leicas, they are all very very similarly color
corrected.(but that's another topic). With the Oly lenses, I see the
colors being the same lens to lens and the sharpness being the same. I
was looking for a system where I could shoot the same settings lens to
lens, rely on AWB, caryy less and get good out of camera pics. I have
not had my E1 long, a week only, and feel I am at the point where i
could just shoot jpgs. After a year and 3 months with a Canon system,
I always shoot raw+jpg.
sorry if this TMI,
Brian
On Jun 4, 2004, at 9:12 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> At 3:26 AM +0200 6/5/04, Listar wrote:
>>
>> From: Brian Sledz <brianhome@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 discussion
>> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:14:23 -0500
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think one can draw any such conclusion. Astronomers all use
>>> CCDs, not CMOS sensors, and astronomy works right up against the
>>> theoretical limits.
>>>
>> Actually CMOS chips are being used more for astronomy and they cost
>> less too. I did lots of astrophotography and used CCD chips. You
>> always took dark frames to subtract out the noise, the CMOS chip users
>> rarely took darks.
>
> I wasn't clear about this, but when I say "astronomers", I mean the
> pros, the ones with the telescopes costing hundreds of millions of
> dollars. In that world, for the image sensor, cost is simply not an
> issue, so they push the technology to its limit, allowing us folk
> with lesser budgets to see where those limits are.
>
>
>> Their photos, though, lacked the snap of a ccd
>> image, but they were smooth looking and still very nice. I noticed the
>> same when I went from D100 to 10D and now to E1. I like the snap of
>> CCD not the smoothness of CMOS. Where I still like my Canon is for
>> the
>> long FL IS lenses and faster <f2.8 lenses for indoor sports. I like
>> the way the E1 in-camera processes. I got tired of always having to
>> play with WB and sharpness with the 10D for what anyone would consider
>> snapshots or family. I like just setting the camera up and then
>> getting "usable" shots when I am just tinkering.
>> but that is just me lazy by nature I guess
>
> Snap versus smooth? What exactly is it about these two sensor
> technologies that would do such a thing? And what exactly do we mean
> by "snap"? Contrast? Resolution? Edge sharpness? This may be
> another key question.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|