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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 17, 2004, 5:30 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
[That's not true....all have had their sensors larger than 2/3". The smaller of the bunch uses the 4/3" sensor, and that's still twice the size of a 2/3". .
:?: :?: I'm going on the technical details supplied by the manufacturer. The Canons are 22.7mm, Nikon and Fuji 23mm and the Olympus E1 is 18mm. Since 2/3" is 17mm, I stand by my statement. If you think 18mm is significantly bigger than 17mm we'll have to agree to differ. What's this stuff about 4/3"? At the risk of appearing facetious, are you getting confused with the 4/3 aspect ratio?

As for the Canons, they need all of the sensor surface area they can get because the CMOS technology is significantly more prone to noise than CCDs. It does have the advantage of being cheap to make and having low power consumption, but they can't put a CMOS sensor into a fixed lens compact because it would need to be too big. Maybe I'm prejudiced because I know a bit about the technology but I'm not impressed by the photos taken by Canons, and I suspect that their popularity with professionals is partly due to the fact that they already have Canon 35mm kit.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 9:59 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 227
Default

yes, I can turn off the preview and speed things up by rotating the LCD screen so that it faces inward. I'm pretty sure that disables the preview on the G2, on my old Nikon 950 there was a button.

as far as CMOS vs. CCD vs. Foveon chips - I'm not an electronics engineer and won't comment on the technical merits of each. I will say that the theoretical benefits of one technology vs. another often don't hold want when the technology is implemented in a production setting. It's the same in my industry as it is in every other engineering setting.

I'm surprised that you give CMOS a bad rap, for long exposures the CMOS chips tend to give better images from what I'm seen and read.

Canon (and Nikon) has an advantage in dSLRs with pro because for most pro's, their investment in lenses is much more than in bodies.
ursa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 11:44 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 74
Default

I'm also surprised about your opinion on the CCD vs CMOS sensor. From what I've seen, the CMOS sensors tend to have lower noise. I'm no expert on this, but this is just my observation.
SpeedyManiac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2004, 1:17 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Technophile

There is a new camera system coming out called 4/3rds. I don't know if the name comes from the size of the sensor, but it has a smaller than 35mm film size sensor with lenses specifically designed to fit the sensor size. This leads to having reasonable priced wide-angle lenses (don't have to use a super-wide to get wide) and lighter lenses (physically smaller.)

I don't know if more than 1 body has been produces, I haven't watched it. I do believe that there are very few lenses for it.

I have to disagree on the comment about why people use Canons. I can't help you if you dislike the image quality.... that is a personal statement. But I've read too many posts of people who are switching to Canon that it isn't due to past equipment. It has to do with cheaper lenses (than Nikon), higher resolution (than Nikon) and cheaper bodies (than Nikon.) I find the image quality to be equivalent (except for the 1Ds, which is in a class by its self.)

Personally, I am very happy with the quality of the picture I get out of my 10D. For example:
http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...ic.php?t=24851
or this gallery
http://www.marx7.org/~esmith/galleri...at_horned_owl/

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2004, 12:14 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Technophile, I don't know if you have noticed how sensors are sized up in their techincal specifications. A 2/3" measure has nothing to do with the sensor's physical dimentions. This will clarify things for you:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm

A usual 23.7x15.6mm sensor (Nikon/Fuji sensors) has over 6 times the surface area of a 8.8x6.6mm sensor (2/3"). I've seen the size of a 2/3" and a nearly APS sized sensor and believe me, there is a huge difference. 4/3" sensors have a little over 4 times the area of a 2/3" sensor. Larger real estate in regards to sensor area pays dividends in more light gathering ability.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 2:46 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

Now that is interesting, Marokero. I didn't know that and it's an important fact. So in the case of a dSLR the 23mm CCD is actually 23mm but in the case of a 2/3" CCD it's actually 8.8mm - not 17mm. It's a con calling a CCD 2/3" in that case.

So that's the answer to the original question. dSLRs are better because they have much bigger sensors. The amazing thing is that there's so little difference in quality between a good 2/3" and a dSLR.

BTW, to another reply, I know that 4/3 is the aspect ratio of the new digital format (as used by E1). All other dSLRs are 3:2 like 35mm.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 3:10 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 25
Default

Went to have a look at the Canon 1D (out of curiosity only at >USD8,000 !!) and noticed that it is HUGE...

Given the size of these bodies and the need to have a whole range of lenses, it would mainly be pro's who buy these cameras and the pricing can allow for bigger sensors, better chips etc etc.

All-in-all, unless one is a pro or a very rich prosumer who doesn't mind taking a case around everywhere - I reckon dSLR's do not really make sense.
Buckrogers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 5:08 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Which 2/3" sized sensor can currently capture ISO 1600 and above images that are still usable? 6 times the sensor area IS a big deal because it captures more light and because individual pixel sites are not so closely packed together (yet :roll: ). I've posted these samples in the past:





I make a living with weddings, which is not such a harsh profession, but still the equipment takes a beating and I need all the ruggedness, speed, flexibility and image quality only a DSLR has to offer. At some ceremonies flash is not allowed and available light is not enough for an f/1.8 lens. Where a 2/3" sensor chokes at ISO 400 and say 1/10s at such aperture, a DSLR can leap to ISO 800 (1/20s), ISO 1600 (1/40s), ISO 3200 (1/80s) and ISO 6400 (1/160s), and still produce better images.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 6:50 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 120
Default

Impressive, especially the 1600. So I'm saving up for the new Minolta dSLR now.
Technophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2004, 7:00 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 62
Default

[quote=".... All-in-all, unless one is a pro or a very rich prosumer who doesn't mind taking a case around everywhere - I reckon dSLR's do not really make sense.[/quote]

As long as camera makers stick to the one-size-fits-all aproach dSLR's will remain the "only" choice for some.

There are currently no high resolution 10-12X zoom fixed lens digital cameras in the market. The 10-12X ones that are out there compromise their zoom range by starting in the wide angle arena. What would be interesting is if they made the same camera with two different lens.
LewTwo 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 8:10 PM.