PB PM said:
Umm the D70(s) has a 1/500s flash sync... not 1/8000, unless it is via auto FP, which the D90, D300(s), D700 and D3 series all have. The later D80 and D200 had 1/250s sync speeds, which tells us that CCD vs CMOS has nothing to do with flash sync speed. The faster sync speed was achieved by using an electronic shutter.

I think there's a way to trick it to go faster. I don't remember where I read it from though.

CCDs also seem to have much better low ISO performance, IMO.

NikoDoby said:
So what if Nikon goes "back" to a CCD sensor on their next camera? A CCD sensor wouldn't have the rolling shutter/jello effect problem in video. What if Nikon figured out how to get the same kind of ISO performance from the D90 out of a new CCD?

I'll be more than happy with that. IMHO skin tones on CCD looks better than on CMOS

You are correct sir

jonnyapple said:
I'm not morally opposed. CCDs have their own set of problems, as well (detailed comparison).

Studio, Nikon cameras as recent as the D200 were still using CCD sensors, so bayer-filtered CCDs can compete with CMOS.
...

Isn't the D3000 also CCD ?

No the D70 doesn't have FPS but the problem with the D70's electronic shutter is that you sometimes get "major" blooming of bright areas (ex sunlight) at those higher speeds.

PB PM said:
Umm the D70(s) has a 1/500s flash sync... not 1/8000, unless it is via auto FP, which the D90, D300(s), D700 and D3 series all have. The later D80 and D200 had 1/250s sync speeds, which tells us that CCD vs CMOS has nothing to do with flash sync speed. The faster sync speed was achieved by using an electronic shutter.

??

The D70(s) 1/500 flash sync speed is achieved by the electronic shutter. In fact I believe shutter speeds above 1/250 in the D70 is achieved by the electronic shutter.(Maybe that's why they don't publicise it, the highest physical shutter on the D70 is 1/250 )
The 1/500 flash sync limit is only imposed on the nikon camera and Nikon SB flashes. So when I want to use flash sync speed up to 1/8000 of a second on my D70, I simply stick an old sunpak flash on my D70 and presto! Flash sync speeds up to 1/8000 second ! alternatively if i forgot to bring my old flash I just stick a piece of paper/tape over the 2 electronic contact on the SB flash.

PS: Not sure , but I dont think the D70 has FPS for flash.

jonnyapple said:
Studio, Nikon cameras as recent as the D200 were still using CCD sensors, so bayer-filtered CCDs can compete with CMOS.

Yes, you're right. My head was stuck in videoland (all current broadcast cameras still employ 3CCD or 3CMOS arrays, embedded in large optical blocks).

NikoDoby said:
The Leica M9 has a 18mp CCD made by Kodak and I don't see how that camera is bulky in anyway?

I meant non-Bayered, discrete 3CCD arrays--those that require a bulky prism.

heartyfisher said:
Would sure be nice to bring back that 1/8000 flash sync that my D70 has !! There should also be much less banding issues with CCD!.

Oh almost forgot... video would also be superb!

Umm the D70(s) has a 1/500s flash sync... not 1/8000, unless it is via auto FP, which the D90, D300(s), D700 and D3 series all have. The later D80 and D200 had 1/250s sync speeds, which tells us that CCD vs CMOS has nothing to do with flash sync speed. The faster sync speed was achieved by using an electronic shutter.

studio460 said:
I just assumed that CCD imagers still needed a discrete RGB array, and a bulky prism block to make high-quality images. Maybe that's no longer the case?

??? The Leica M9 has a 18mp CCD made by Kodak and I don't see how that camera is bulky in anyway?

DaveyJ said:
The designers and engineers have been working very hard on sensors to be employed on Nikon DSLR cameras. It would be interesting to know their current thoughts on CCD versus CMOS but you can bet that discussion between them will never appear here.

Of course they have/can. They just have to say "a friend of mine said this..." or "I know a friend who's friend works for Nikon" etc.

heartyfisher said:
Sounds like a fun possibility ... but CCD sensors need much more power.. so battery life will drop again.

My D70 has a CCD and it can last weeks on a battery.

I'm not morally opposed. CCDs have their own set of problems, as well (detailed comparison).

Studio, Nikon cameras as recent as the D200 were still using CCD sensors, so bayer-filtered CCDs can compete with CMOS. Besides, the inventors of the CCD just got the Nobel prize in physics for it, so I do think it would be good to release some Nobel-commemorative editions or something.

BTW, I don't remember where I was reading it, but I read somewhere that rolling shutter can be fixed on CMOS, but it comes at the cost of light collection because you have to add an additional transistor to each photosite. That may not be a killer if they can improve microlens design to concentrate light better on the (smaller) active area.

Sounds like a fun possibility ... but CCD sensors need much more power.. so battery life will drop again. CCDs have better DR and noise generally. I think the DX format will provide a better improvement than the FX format since the wasted space used for on-chip circuitry is relatively higher on DX due to the greater pixel density. Yup would be nice to have a D90/D300 level camera with CCD with improved DR and HighISO noise. Would sure be nice to bring back that 1/8000 flash sync that my D70 has !! There should also be much less banding issues with CCD!.

Oh almost forgot... video would also be superb!

I should also comment that movie makers make more use of film than do still camera photographers. There is quite a split between movie makers using film and digital. Several movie makers are switching back and forth from digital to film. One I know is doing that with IMAX, digital, traditional film cameras.....all in the same year. The designers and engineers have been working very hard on sensors to be employed on Nikon DSLR cameras. It would be interesting to know their current thoughts on CCD versus CMOS but you can bet that discussion between them will never appear here.

Having experience with CCD sensors, CMOS, X3 Foveon Chip, etc., I am certain video camera companies are looking presently at both CCD and CMOS. So is Nikon. I believe both are in relatively late design and in some cases test phase. I have seen a abandonment of video tapes and preference for capture cards on all but the biggest movie gear. We are going in that direction. I was surprised when Nikon switched from CCD to CMOS but that was not the end of the competition between those two sensor types. The rolling shutter effect of Nikon video is a real problem for users, both amateur and pro. There is gear to help fix the effect, but if changing back to CCD sensors helps it might force Nikon back to CCD.

I would suppose not, but I guess it could happen.

Sounds good to me. If modern, single-CCD arrays can compete with Bayered, single-CMOS arrays, without employing a 3CCD prism block, then by all means, go for it, Nikon! Since rolling shutter is such a prevalent problem, even with RED ONE, why isn't every manufacturer developing CCD-based, D-cinema cameras, instead of CMOS-based ones? Cost? Also, I just assumed that CCD imagers still needed a discrete RGB array, and a bulky prism block to make high-quality images. Maybe that's no longer the case?

So what if Nikon goes "back" to a CCD sensor on their next camera? A CCD sensor wouldn't have the rolling shutter/jello effect problem in video. What if Nikon figured out how to get the same kind of ISO performance from the D90 out of a new CCD?

Sony and Panasonic have supposedly been working on their CCD sensors to improve ISO and video.