Can anyone explain the pros and cons of CMOS vs CCD.
With the new Nikon D200 being CCD and the D2X being CMOS, and all of Canon's being CMOS.
With all of the hype over the new Nikon D200, no one has brought up what would seem to be a big difference between the D2X and the D200.

Not to mention the Sony R1 being CMOS with the same pixel spacing as the D2X.

With Nikon and Sony now swinging both ways on sensor type (Interline CCD and CMOS), Fuji going a slightly different route with their SuperCCD, and Olympus for now taking the fourth option of Kodak Full Frame Transfer CCD, perhaps we can at last settle down to judging by the bottom line of image quality, rather than bothering ourselves too much about the technical details of the different means to that end. (Ditto with sensor format! The only format that matters in the final judgement of image quality is that of the print.)

Alright, one difference: CMOS allows the option of reading only a window within the frame at a higher frame rate (like D2X high speed crop mode), and also faster frame rate, lower resolution read-out over the whole frame, for example by reading only every fourth row and column (perhaps useful for EVF's as in the Sony R1).

I don't think that the sensor type is of any importance. What IS important is what you get as an output, and that is governed by a lot of factors. Sensor type is just one of those factors.

Why does the Nikon D2X have an ASA range of 100 to 800 and the D200 has a range of 100 to 1600? Could this be due to the fact that the larger number of pixels on the D2X must be smaller since the image chips are basically the same size and this results in more noise for the D2X sensor?

Does this mean that with the DX chip size that these cameras are at the maximum number of pixels for an acceiptable noise performance?

I would guess that it is because the D200 has less noise at high ISO and hence Nikon have allowed it to have a greater range. Any camera can go to any ISO but at some point the noise gets too much for the image to be of use. So why waste effort supporting it.

The D200 sensor is more recent hence can perhaps perform better at high ISO. It also has a lower pixel density which might be expected to lead to less noise. Lastly Nikon's in-camera image processing and noise amelioration algorithms might have gotten a bit better between the D2x and the D200.

All we have to do is sit back in our chairs, have a nice snooze, and when we wake up we find that digital technology has improved out of all recognition.

If only my (photographic) abilities did likewise! Damn.

Leif

I go with the other replies. One other point is that CCD supposedly allows the use of an electronic shutter, which is why the Nikon D70 can flash sync to 1/8000 second (or whatever the top shutter speed is). However, this seems not to be part of the D200 (or maybe it is, since this feature was not even an official feature of the D70, though the official top sync was 1/500").

Leif