Sony CCD or CMOS?

I have a couple of questions. First, I read CCD produced better images then CMOS, so I went with the highest CCD out there for Sony which at the time was A330. Is CCD superior to CMOS or is it more dependent on the type of results you want? I also wanted some advice on where I should stop and be satified with the limits or results of doing this work. I recently shot some photos of HTC ladies during the TTT, and was impressed with results. It seems to me that the big beer can is much better at the macro range then the tele range? My tele photos come out very poor but the macro range seems awesome. Case in point, the images here in part 3 and 4.

http://www.procyclingwomen.com/Merco...010/TTT-3.html

Can these images be improved or is this about as good as it gets?

Thanks,
BBRoberts

http://www.procyclingwomen.com/Merco.../TTT-3/05.html

http://www.procyclingwomen.com/Merco.../TTT-4/16.html

Nice shots. I hate TTs - nothing but pain.

I guess you have to define 'bettter' as well as realize that you can get great images with any modern DSLR. The Sony APS CCD is certainly is known for its normal ISO image quality.

TF

I thought I read CCD produces a better image then CMOS, but I have never read a good review about how the two stack up. The lens would make the differences of course and the 700 or the 900 should produce more data and a better image then the A330, but I guess I am wondering more about post production. I worked with these photos for a while, and I was wondering if that is about as good as they can get post production wise. Other then that, you can add special effects, but I haven't fooled around with that much. I have tried different angles and also the trick where you turn the camera real fast following the movement of the rider, which results in a still rider, but the wheels and the background are blurred. It's a common trick.

BBRoberts

Cmos is actually the winner - the way the conductor is amplified and the way the circuit runs through it allows for significantly reduced electrical interference, producing better image grain among other qualities. It also uses less battery power, has longer life expectancy, etc etc. Its thanks to CMOS that ISO 6400 and 12800 is possible and isn't a pile of s**t.

At this point, there isn't a single current camera out there over $1k that isn't CMOS, including the big 3 - EOS 1Ds Mk III, A900, and D3x. So is the 7D, 5D, 1D, D700, D300, A850, A700. Every single EOS is a CMOS, and has been for years, even the rebels.

But CCD certainly isn't bad, by any stretch. At low ISO I dont think theres any qualitative difference for IQ, if there is, it would have to be an excessive nit pick.