It’s been bugging me that I’ve maybe been wrong about something all along. The CCD sensor, or Charge Coupled Device, has long lived in my mind as the poor relation to the CMOS sensor, aka the Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor. Sensors being the component of our cameras that, like a frame of film before them, convert light coming through our camera’s lens into an image. As any AP stalwart will know.
But have I been misinformed? Has there always been an alternate reality where CCD is, in fact, king and CMOS is second rate? In terms of bragging rights, CCD came first, beginning mass production in the early 1980s. By contrast the first prototypes of CMOS sensors did not appear until towards the end of that decade. In the tech world, newer is always better. Or is it?
Apart from being more recent, I’d also thought that the CMOS sensor’s popularity was down to it being more time and energy efficient. While the older, slower CCD is still in use, it’s typically at the lower, cheaper end of the digital camera market.
By contrast, high end contemporary mirrorless models universally house a CMOS chip; and command a premium price tag for it. With CCD viewed as having been superseded, or so I thought, it would be a great surprise to hear Canon, Nikon or Sony boasting about their latest CCD incorporating camera.
So, while CMOS is very much the preference for latest generation cameras, has the CCD been unfairly maligned? After all, there’s still love out there, in line with social media fuelled interest in vintage point-and-shoot cameras. Could this affection possibly be because it is somehow viewed as being attractively ‘retro’ – the first digital camera owned by most of my generation would have contained a CCD chip, after all – or is there more than nostalgia at play?
After all, history tells us that it’s not always the ‘best’ technology that eventually wins out. Just look at the dominance of VHS in the 1980s and 90s over the later Betamax video tape format with its superior picture quality [history].
And there are those who’d argue that, far from giving images an old school look, CCD can deliver more natural looking results than CMOS. Less visible image noise when shooting in lower light environments is often cited by fans. Ironically for something that delivers a digital image, results from a CCD also win praise over CMOS among photographers for delivering smoother tones and a more film-like aesthetic.
I take the latter suggestion with a pinch of salt. My experience of shooting with CCD incorporating digital cameras is that the results look very much, well, digital. Bright colours and low resolution might equate with film in some people’s minds now we’re used to the searingly sharp detail from the likes of Sony’s recent, CMOS-equipped Sony A1 II. So maybe that interpretation of the qualities of CCD is a misconception that’s become popular through repetition.
Seems to me it might be fairer to class CCD as neither inferior to, or better, than CMOS, but just different. We have both in the world, so why not enjoy both?
Related reading:
- Fujifilm X100V and X100VI Alternatives? Best retro cameras
- Best Second-hand Classic Compact Cameras
- Vintage digital cameras you should actually buy
The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Amateur Photographer magazine or Kelsey Media Limited. If you have an opinion you’d like to share on this topic, or any other photography related subject, email: ap.ed@kelsey.co.uk
