Modified Canon 300D - Anyone got one?

Just pointing out that the Canon EOS300D uses a CMOS sensor (just like webcams) and not a CCD. It's the serious (expensive) magnesium alloy body, 8M Pixel, professional cameras that use the CCDs. Still, it's not half bad.

All of Canon's DSLR's use CMOS and only cheaper digicams use CCD's.

At the moment a given CCD device is more sensitive then a CMOS device,
compare an average webcam to the Toucam pro, but then again after using the 300D, you can do great imaging with some CMOS devices.

Also, a given CCD chip is more expensive to make then a CMOS chip of the same size.

Just pointing out that the Canon EOS300D uses a CMOS sensor (just like webcams) and not a CCD. It's the serious (expensive) magnesium alloy body, 8M Pixel, professional cameras that use the CCDs. Still, it's not half bad.

All of Canon's DSLR's use CMOS and only cheaper digicams use CCD's.

Not sure that we are talking about the same thing. CMOS is cheaper and less sensitive than CCD, which is why the 300D is affordable. A digicam is not a stills camera and a digicam's CCD has far fewer pixels than astro CCDs. High end Nikons use CCDs and I would have one if they didn't cost the earth.

Anyway, we are all producing good images with what we have. Would have cost us a lot more a decade or so ago.

[
Anyway, we are all producing good images with what we have. Would have cost us a lot more a decade or so ago.

I reckon the current planetary images would have been impossible a few years ago !!

Not sure that we are talking about the same thing. CMOS is cheaper and less sensitive than CCD, which is why the 300D is affordable. A digicam is not a stills camera and a digicam's CCD has far fewer pixels than astro CCDs. High end Nikons use CCDs and I would have one if they didn't cost the earth.

Anyway, we are all producing good images with what we have. Would have cost us a lot more a decade or so ago.

Yeah, just pointing out that the more expensive Canon's use CMOS - the price difference is CMOS size and body construction. CCD's are a tad more sensitive to low light but this comes at a cost of extra noise, one of the major complaints of Nikon's DSLR range (which use Sony CCD's btw).

These days the manufacturing cost of CCD's and CMOS sensors are similar, costs skyrocket when sensor size is increased. Another reason why CCD's tend to be used on cheaper cams is that you can cram more pixels on the tiny sensor. While this looks good to the average Joe, the noise is a real bane to the serious photographer. Trying to use ISO's beyond 100 or 200 on cheap cams is a noisy joke but the Canon CMOS DSLR's are quite workable even at ISO 3200. Readout speed is generally faster for CMOS too, while not a concern for astro work, having 5 or 8 frames a second is very important for a photographer (sports etc).

Just to add to any confusion
The ToUCam pro webcam uses a ccd. Its the exception to the rule though almost all other wecams are CMOS.

So does the logitech QuickCam Pro 4000.