# CCD vs. Super HAD CCD...



## DanLaw001

Hello, I recently purchased the Sony DSC H200 bridge camera packed with a 20.0 mega pixel imaging sensor and with a 26X optical zoom lens. I took some pictures on vacation and I showed to my friends and family. Unfortunately, they all agreed that the photos taken are less "stunning" than those taken with my other Olympus SW 1030 water-proof point-and-shoot camera purchased five years (near half of a decade) ago. I was surprised since how can a point-and-shoot camera take better picture than a bridge camera??? Therefore, I did some research on the Internet and I found that the picture quality is highly depend on the sensor of the camera. Therefore, I did some further research and I discovered that the sensor packed in the Sony camera is the Super HAD CCD imaging sensor while the old Olympus camera is packed with a typical CCD. The main difference is that the Super HAD CCD allows more light to enter the photo sensor than the typical CCD where some of the light (photons) are not "hitting" on the photo sensor, but on the region beside it. Based on that statement, I took some similar pictures with both cameras using auto mode to see how they perform to verify the statement. And I found that under outdoor natural sunlight, the image taken with the Sony camera is less bright but with more shadow while those taken with the Olympus camera are more bright leaving less shadow. However, they perform inversely in indoor So, what so you guys think, do you think that the Sony DSC H200 perform less well compared with the Olympus SW 1030 even that it's a bridge camera or do you think that it well does it job? And for those of you who also owned the Sony DSC H200, do you guys have similar experience? Thanks.  

For the attachment of Sony camera:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0SHVA105QN5b1NFdFFRNEVLYnM/edit?usp=sharing

For the attachment of Olympus camera:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0SHVA105QN5Wkw4YUo2SG5hWDQ/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## Gavjenks

A Super HAD CCD doesn't make your images "more stunning."  It just utilizes more light.  This would allow you to take a decent photo in slightly darker situations, for example, without too much shaking or noise. But wouldn't really change any of the "quality" of the shot in any other way, and the difference even in light should be fairly minor.


Much more likely than the sensor is that one of the cameras probably has different default software that does stuff to your jpeg images in a way that your friends tend to find pleasing.  Such as automatically increasing the contrast or saturation a bit or doing more or less sharpening, or whatever.  I doubt that it's actually any sort of OPTICAL difference.

If you were to buy and learn how to use programs like photoshop, you could do all of that sort of stuff and more on images from any halfway decent camera.  Or if you don't want to, then spend more time shopping around for a camera that does the sort of things you want by default, I guess.


----------



## Derrel

Gavjenks said:


> A Super HAD CCD doesn't make your images "more stunning."  It just utilizes more light.  This would allow you to take a decent photo in slightly darker situations, for example, without too much shaking or noise. But wouldn't really change any of the "quality" of the shot in any other way, and the difference even in light should be fairly minor.
> 
> 
> _Much more likely than the sensor is that one of the cameras probably has different default software that does stuff to your jpeg images in a way that your friends tend to find pleasing._  Such as automatically increasing the contrast or saturation a bit or doing more or less sharpening, or whatever.  I doubt that it's actually any sort of OPTICAL difference.
> 
> If you were to buy and learn how to use programs like photoshop, you could do all of that sort of stuff and more on images from any halfway decent camera.  Or if you don't want to, then spend more time shopping around for a camera that does the sort of things you want by default, I guess.



I put Gavjenks' comment above in italics; Olympus has for a fairly long time now in the digital realm, been known for cameras that create very pleasing, ready-for-use types of JPEG images, right out of the camera. A few years back, before the d-slr explosion brought prices down below $1,000, a good number of British glamour and cheesecake shooters were very much enamored of Olympus cameras, simply because they produce the type of so-called "*eye candy*" images that many people like looking at.

A number of the best point and shoot cameras have been known for their rich color and vivid images, straight out of camera, AKA the *SOOC image* some people refer to.


----------



## pharmakon

Not sure if it is an option on your Sony, but many cameras have options to change the way jpgs are processed by the camera. I would check the user manual for options to increase contrast and saturation if you are looking for that pop but don't want to (or don't have time to) get into Photoshop.


----------



## DanLaw001

So... Up till this point, the image quality likely depends on the software of the camera, right?


----------



## DanLaw001

Gavjenks said:


> A Super HAD CCD doesn't make your images "more stunning."  It just utilizes more light.  This would allow you to take a decent photo in slightly darker situations, for example, without too much shaking or noise. But wouldn't really change any of the "quality" of the shot in any other way, and the difference even in light should be fairly minor.
> 
> Much more likely than the sensor is that one of the cameras probably has different default software that does stuff to your jpeg images in a way that your friends tend to find pleasing.  Such as automatically increasing the contrast or saturation a bit or doing more or less sharpening, or whatever.  I doubt that it's actually any sort of OPTICAL difference.
> 
> If you were to buy and learn how to use programs like photoshop, you could do all of that sort of stuff and more on images from any halfway decent camera.  Or if you don't want to, then spend more time shopping around for a camera that does the sort of things you want by default, I guess.



Thanks for explanation, I would just stick with an open source image editor... By the way, what then makes bridge cameras and SLR special despite the fact that they have less out-of-the-box default photo editing software? Is it their outstanding optics system such as lens?


----------



## Derrel

DanLaw001 said:


> So... Up till this point, the image quality likely depends on the software of the camera, right?



Yes, and to an extent, how accurate, or appropriate the in-camera white balance has been set; and to an extent, how much or how little of the image processing the camera has been programmed to do. For example, when shooting in-camera JPEG images, the white balance setting plays a pretty big part in just how the image looks; some cameras used to have in-camera white balance bracketing, which allowed the user to bias the WB, or take three shot, or two, each with different WB settings.

Here's a practical example: shoot a beautiful, orange sunset with the WB set to AUTO, and the AUTO WB might very well CANCEL OUT the beautiful colored light!!! On the other hand, set the WB toi "SUNNY", and the light will look very warm, and orangey, as it did to the eye.

In artificial lighting conditions MANY cameras have poor AUTO white balance performance.

The degree of contrast an image has (usually called Tone Curve, but not always), the saturation level; the in-camera sharpening amount--these things, plus white balance, can tremendously affect SOOC JPEGs. No matter if the sensor is CCD or CMOS or LiveMOS. So--if what are being looked at are SOOC JPEG files, then yes, the software the camera has, and has been told to apply to the images, can make a huge impact on how the pictures look. On some cameras there are "Picture Styles" or "Presets" or "Custom Modes", which tend to try and emphasize in-camera processing a bit more than the bare-bones, defaults, all-zero'd out modes.


----------

