Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 21, 2005, 2:45 PM   #1
Senior Member
Darrell1's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 227

The Kodak P850 has an amazing zoom range (12x optical). Wondering how they've done this in such a small package, I've noticed in the specs that the CCD size is 1/2.5 which is quite small. Has technology been able to overcome the noise associated with such a small CCD yet? Any opinions?

I'm waiting for the day when we can cram all kinds of mega-pixels into a tiny chip without any side effects. Has that day arrived?

Darrell1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 21, 2005, 4:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
E.T's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921

What do you think when max ISO in those ultrazooms is 400 at most and 320 in really many?
(and when noise becomes apparent immediately after lowest ISO)

Darrell1 wrote:
I'm waiting for the day when we can cram all kinds of mega-pixels into a tiny chip without any side effects. Has that day arrived?
Only in minds of BS... I mean PR/advertising departments.
The fact is that no matter how much they tell their BS talks they can't negate laws of physics and they itself are the worst obstacle for advancing towards high ISO capabilities.

Sure there's small advances in manufacturing and design once in a while but those are more than seized by this obstacle department.

One of the best tries towards DSLR like ISOs is in Fuji F10, although lack of noise in its highest ISO shots is achieved by other means than some revolution in CCDs, "watercolor" look tells they use very heavy processing to get rid of noise.
But when making higher class camera with more features those marketing clowns weren't satisfied because resulting camera would have had "just" average megapixel count, so they decided to add 50% more megapixels and quite completely rape CCD's ISO advantage.
Page is actually about real image stabilization versus Fuji's "image stabilization by high ISO" but those images show really well result of this adding of megapixels: (9500 is 9000's model number in Europe)

All this applies also to compact cameras with lot of megapixels.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 21, 2005, 5:23 PM   #3
Senior Member
Darrell1's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 227

Thanks for the info - and the link. It really explained a lot.

Darrell1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 22, 2005, 12:55 AM   #4
Senior Member
slipe's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036

Nice link E.T. I've been hoping someone would make that comparison. Even with the high noise reported in reviews on the FZ30 it appears it does better in limited light than higher ISO on the Fuji.

I've been reading the boards for years. I remember when they went to 2Mp small sensors and the in-crowd was saying that they had maybe pushed too far. They said that certainly if they tried to go higher the noise would deteriorate the image so much they would be nearly useless. As proof they cited the laws of physics.

Technology has done pretty well so far. The 7Mp Sony 1/1.8 is at least as good for noise and maybe slightly better than their 5Mp 1/1.8 sensor.

Here are some resolution tests from small 2Mp cameras from dpreview:

And comparable 7Mp cameras:

Compare the 7Mp small resolutions to large sensor 8 & 6 Mp DSLRs with prime (non-zoom) lenses set to their best aperture for resolution:

If you were to take the resolution tests at ISO 400 the DSLRs would blow the small sensors out of the water. But for normal photos the small sensors are obviously not having their resolution destroyed by the closely packed sensors as the doomsayers had predicted.

I think another fair way to look at would be to display or print the 2Mp images and the 7Mp images at the same size. I think the noise would appear about the same or maybe even less without blowing the larger images up to 100%. But with noise reduction software and some work in an image editor you can get a much better large print with the 7Mp sensors.

I don't have any idea when the laws of physics will actually kick in. It probably has to do with the wave width of red light and overlap. I don't know how wide a red wave is compared to the distance between sensors, but I would guess there is still room for improvement.

slipe is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:52 AM.