Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 19, 2006, 11:02 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

man, I played with that sony thing at local fry electronics and IMHO, it looks horrible, particulary with that flip up LCD screen thing. I take my 10d/30d any time over it. With sony you stuck with 1 lens, good if that's all what you need. But whole point of changeable lenese is I can put the best lens on my dSLR for my particular application. The lens is only from 24 to 120 and it slow on long end. And no optical VF. For walk around, it maybe nice but for anything more, I will pass on it.


bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 11:12 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

Contriver wrote:
Quote:
It sounds like the only way to make a veristile (compactand produce good images ina multitude ofenvironments)prosumer PS is to develope a sensor that is small, yet doesn't produce alot of noise. Maybe future technologies will allow for this to happen.
I think most mfg are caught up in the mega pixel hype. Look, new p&s are getting to 10mp with the same sensor size. Only if the mfg would keep things at reasonable MP, like 5-6 and spend more time on making those sensors better. I think it can be done.

Living in the silicon valley, I still haven't heard about any company trying to come up with a new sensor. Only foveon did try something but I don't think they doing that well either. Maybe most camera mfg want to stick with in house sensor and don't want to pay loyalities to third party sensor companies.




bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 1:35 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
I think most mfg are caught up in the mega pixel hype. Look, new p&s are getting to 10mp with the same sensor size. Only if the mfg would keep things at reasonable MP, like 5-6 and spend more time on making those sensors better. I think it can be done.


I agree that adding more MP into a image sensor without increasing it's dimension is only degrading it's high ISO performance.

Take a look at the current 10 MP dSLRs for examples and see how they compare to the older 6 MP variants...

Generally the bigger the photo sites, the better theimage quality would be in general. Especially true when we bring high ISO performance into account. High ISO performance is not about how high a image sensor can go in ISO numbers, but rather how goods it's quality can be at the higher ISO levels. I know of image sensors that can only go to ISO 1600 at max and they have better high ISO performance than some that can go up to ISO 3200. It is the quality that counts...All those "More MP" and "More higher ISO numbers" doesn't mean a thing if the image sensor dimensions still remains the same...

For me, it is the larger image sensors with lower MP counts that matters.

At least the R1 is many times better having 10 MP in it's large CMOS than those "other fix lens" with 10 MP...in their tiny chip.

If I am not mistaken (From all I've learned/read before); larger photo sites = broader dynamic range (D.R.), better per pixel sharpness (crispness), more accurately recorded colors, lower noise levels, better signal to noise ratio(S/N ratio), more sensitive, and better out of focus areas (Bokeh) - for larger image sensors.

Generally I see this as the reason to upgrade from a conventional P & S to a dSLR or large sensor prosumer. Why? It is because of the larger image sensor that will give me all those advantage. (The primary reason)

But I believe that the dSLR/large image sensorstage will still have it's own set ofconflicts as well as I start looking for even bigger photosites (my money can afford)...besides already coming to a large image sensor stage.

EDIT: If my old computer had not broken down, I could have provided in here some saved links to articles concerning such matters.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 9:15 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

Speaking of the R1, as I was exploring older reviews here, I came across this: http://www.steves-digicams.com/d700.html

It looks to be the Grand Daddy of the R1 Its a fixed lens DSLR. Coinicidentally it too is 5x (28-140mm 35mm equivalent).
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 9:17 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 268
Default

I also took a moment to read the review about my first digital camera, the Kodak DC215 1 MP with its serial adapter (no USB) :?
Contriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2006, 11:26 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Victoria, B.C., Canada
Posts: 875
Default

This topic of sensor size has been bothering me too for a while, because I'm thinking of buying another camera to replace my good old (but a bit cumbersome) Olympus C2100UZ. (I can't get away from the feeling that the ideal size and weight for a camera are the same as those of a Leica IIIc.)

One thing I've noticed while searching through the specs of non-DSLR cameras (mainly Panasonic & Canon) is that they tend to have a sensor that's either 1/2.5 or 1/1.8.

The 1/1.8 sensor is distinctly larger than the 1/2.5 - and my general impression from looking at samples of pictures is that the resolution of the 1/1.8 sensor, in general, gives considerably better resolution.

Consequently I'm leaning towards buying a Canon A630 rather than the Panasonic FZ7 that I was attracted to at first - even though the Canon doesn't have either image stabilisation, or as much zoom, or a digital eye-level viewfinder - only an optical one.

However - I also notice that pretty well all the sample images that are posted seem to be taken at the lowest ISO setting. This makes me wonder just how well the Canon A630 performs at higher settings - in particular whether noise then becomes a problem.

I intend to go & look at the camera when the stores get it in stock, but I don't want to be hasty. It would be prudent, I'm sure, to wait until Steve's and other sites like dpreview.com have published their reviews of it.

Herb
Herb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2006, 12:02 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

I think the biggest thing is the size and weight of the camera. My camera weighs barely over a pound and has a 432mm equivalent zoom.

Now this is done on a lens that only goes to 72mm because of how small my sensor is. So if I used a standard DSLR sensor, the lens would need to be 288mm, and that would make it considerably larger than the lens on there now.

So it's mostly size, weight and cost.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2006, 2:51 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

If you are all interested in the R1 and would like to take some time off and enjoy a break, here are somemicro sitesto give you the R1 mood. :idea:

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-R1.

Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-R1.




BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 6:44 AM   #19
DSG
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Default

jacks wrote:
Quote:
If you want to keep the same f-stops and 35mm equivalent focal length then the lenses have to get bigger too. A lot of P&S have lenses in the (eq)35-400 range. A full-frame slr lens of that range, even a slow one, is pretty huge compared to a p&s cmaera. 10x zoom cameras are already almost the same size as an slr with, say, a 18-50f2.8. To keep your p&s that size while increasing it's sensor size you would have to limit it's zoom range, cutting it's versatility. With a price approaching a dslr, limited zoom range and no ability to change lenses, who would buy one?

You are forgetting that most of the interchangable lenses for DSLR's are made for FF (36x24mm) film so that they can be used with film SLR's...Which also means they are also perfectly suited for useon FF digital sensors...So I'm afraid yourargument simply does'nt hold water.

The main reason manufacturers prefer to use smaller, crop-sized sensors is purely down to cost.

Silicon wafers pure enough to make sensors from is very expensive to produce and depending on the size of the wafers you can only makea fixed number ofsensors out of eachwafer...The more sensors you can get out of eachwafer the smaller the overall cost becomes....FF sensors therefore will always cost exponentially more than crop sized sensors...Basically the smaller the sensor= the greater theyield from each wafer=The lowest cost.

Of course there are quantum limitations to overcome too...The smaller the individual photosites on a sensorthe more noise they will produce and the lower the dynamic range they will have...Given a fixed sensor size the more photosites you cram onto it the more image noise you will get and lower the dynamicrangethey will have, therefore somewhere along the linecompromises HAVE to be made between sensor size, image quality, noise and dynamic range to keep the overall cost down.

Regards

DSG




DSG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 6:53 AM   #20
DSG
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
Living in the silicon valley, I still haven't heard about any company trying to come up with a new sensor. Only foveon did try something but I don't think they doing that well either.

Er...Foveon seem to be doing just fine, they have just developed the new 14mp sensor for the Sigma SD14 which will be officially announced tommorow at Photokina in Germany.

Regards

DSG




DSG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.