[Recovered Thread: 87470]

[E.T]

mtclimber wrote:

Rather than focusing solely on CCD size, would it be more effective to study a graph analyzing the noise characteristics of a particular camera...

Now has there been revolutionary advance in CCD technology? Definitely no so size really matters when more and more megapixels is crammed to even smaller CCD.





ELDDJOC wrote:

Even the Canon PowerShot S3 is coming out with a 1/2.5 sensor, which I thought was shocking since that meant it was the same as the S2, and that the quality would be compromised for a camera that is considered by Canon as one of its top tier cameras.

Sensor of S3 isn't same sensor, they crammed 1 MP more to same area.

Here's style demonstration of Sony's new ultrazoom using very propably same sensor: already heavily processed ISO400
http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/not..._H2_ISO400.jpg
And as icing on the cake here's Sony's "high ISO":
http://www.quesabesde.com/camdig/not...H2_ISO1000.jpg

[ELDDJOC]

Well ... it's not so good - as compared to the sensor on the G6.

Pity they discontinued the line .....

[adamls]

This is a very interesting discussion. I've been looking at sensor size also in trying to decide upon a new camera since I'm concerned about performance in low light situations. I found something peculiar in comparing to new and very similiar Canon cameras: the SD550 and the SD600. There are very few differences between these cameras. But, significantly

SD550 SD600
Megapixels 7.1 6
Sensor Size 1/1.8" 1/2.5"
Highest ISO 400 800

I actually called Canon and asked why the SD600, with its smaller sensor, had a higher maximum ISO rating than the SD550. I also asked which camera, at ISO400, would have less noise in the picture. I got routed through several different people since nobody seemed to be able to answer the question. One guy said that the SD500 sensor was bigger because it had more megapixels. But going from 6 to 7.1 megapixels would, by itself, only necessitate a sqrt(7.1/6) growth in the size of the sensor.

Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks...

[kassandro]

You have to look at noise and effective resolution simultaneously. With a lot of postprocessing you can certainly remove most of the high iso noise, but then you will loose a lot of detail and pictures will look blotchy or washed out. Though the SD550 has no iso 800 mode, its overall image quality will be clearly better than that of the SD600.

[E.T]

adamls wrote:

Can anyone shed some light on this? Thanks...

Wafers cost, so the smaller the sensor is the cheaper is making them because they can get more sensors from same sized wafer.
Now camera makers just want to maximize profits and PR BS departments want always more megapixels because real innovations and features cost.
And noise doesn't concern them, they just use more heavier processing to cover it.


In fact even Fuji's high ISO capability comes mostly from very heavy noise removing instead of touted "revolutionary" sensor, they have just managed to make noise removing such that it doesn't destroy image completely and noisyness isn't so obvious but signs of it are there:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_...s/DSCF0016.JPG

Or how about RAWs from S9000?

[kassandro]

@E.T:
It's not primarily the waver cost, which makes smaller sensor so attractive for camera makers. By reducing the size of the sensor, the size of the optical components shrinks even faster. That's why nearly all the ultrazooms have small 1/2.5" sensors. The only exceptions are the Lumix FZ30 with 1/1.8" sensor and the Coolpix 8800 with a 2/3" sensor. These are monstrous cameras, which weigh almost as much as a DSLR with a kit lense. It is impressive to see the difference between the Lumix FZ5 and the FZ30. The first one is small and light weight with a 1/2.5" sensor and the second one is big and heavy with a 1/1.8" sensor. Last but not least smaller sensors require less power. That allows manufacturers to replace a 4 battery NiMH design by a cheaper 2 battery design.

In the Fuji SuperCCDs the pixels are packed in a honey comb pattern. Thus such a sensor is more densely populated with pixels of the same size. Consequently a SuperCCD can take in 20-30% more light than an equally sized normal CCD. However, 20-30% is less than 1/2 F stop. Thus it isn't really that much of an advantage.

[adamls]

In the case of the Canon SD550 vs. SD600 the camera size isn't that much different even though the sensors are 1/1.8" vs. 1/2.5" respectively. Is it your impression that the SD600 just has better noise removal processing in order to achieve comparable picture results at, say, ISO 400?