when your friend was referring to skin and the chip, was it about color or overall appearance. Several elements come into play that very few people ever discuss, nor appreciate for that matter, that has tremendous affect on the application of ccd or cmos chip technology. A cmos chip produces a much softer image than an equal ccd, overall, which can be very complimenting to skin. A ccd on the other hand is much more acute and can sometimes create too sharp an image, bringing the detail of pores and wrinkles to the forefront whereas they are hidden in the natural softness of the cmos technology.
And, if that isn't enough, there is the size of the pixels themselves, smaller means less sharpness and quality. A six micron pixel is minimal whereas a 9 micron is much better - and the 12 micron is best - and I personally will not go below a 9 micron pixel chip and 14 bit depth simply because I live for the detail. I need an absolute standard of performance that supports both skin and product brilliance as if I were shooting 4x5 film.
So, there is a bit more information about the war of the chips and lenses. BTW, better glass, better quality of an image going to the chip, no matter which type.
Robert
The image on the right is the original capture from my 11mp Eyelike digital back [CCD] on a Mamiya 645, 14 bit capture, 2672x4000 pixels = 8.9 x 13.3 inch @ 300ppi. The inset from the original is at 100% (1 to 1 pixel ratio), note the detail; this image is right out of camera without sharpening or adjusting.
This is the set after I did some Photoshop work.
