Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 14, 2004, 4:31 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15

I am very impresed from this test :


FZ10 is resolution leader with better results even of Canon G3 ! (see resolution chart of G3 in G3 review)
1/2.5 4mp vs 1/1.8 " 4mp ..... ???
boni is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 14, 2004, 5:09 AM   #2
Senior Member
The Conqueror's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 164

What I know is: small sensor = more noise......

For 1/1.8" CCD 4MP is the max and after that they create more noise.

If you read the reviews, most of the 1/2.5"new CCD's has more noise.

Companies are serving the old meals in a new decorated plates.....

Good luck.....
The Conqueror is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2004, 4:21 PM   #3
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 118

Conquerer? What the hell are you smoking? Either you're trashed or I am, because that didn't make ANY sense.
Red Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 14, 2004, 4:32 PM   #4
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378

Simple Physics...

4MP 1/2.5" CCD is 5.27mm x 3.96mm

4MP 1/1.8" CCD is 7.176mm x 5.319mm

Photosites for each pixel are smaller on the 4MP 1/2.5" CCD.

Not as many photons hit the smaller photosites. As a result, they generate a weaker signal. This means you must amplify it more to get the same equivalent ISO sensitivity. In addition, the signal to noise ratio is worse with smaller photosites, since the signal level is already not much above the noise generated by the electronics, thermal noise, etc.

Amplification of the signal also amplifies noise (which is what you are doing when you increase ISO speed). With similar sensor designs, you get about the same noise levels for the same photosite size, depending on the amount of amplification the signal needs. When you go to smaller photosites, the Signal to Noise ratio is worse.

Dynamic Range is also usually worse with smaller photosites.

Now,some manufacturers are a little better in some areas of CCD design compared to others. The Panasonic 1/2.5" 4 Megapixel CCD seems to be a little better for it's photosite size. They apparently used a newer microlens design for this sensor, helping light transmission to each photosite.

However, it's no match for the larger Sony 4MP 1/1.8" as used in the Canon G3 for noise. So, if you need to shoot at higher ISO speeds, the larger CCD with larger photosites for each pixelis much better.

As far as the Panasonic DMC-FZ10 being good on a resolution chart, that's because of it's lens design, and has nothing to do with the size of the CCD.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2004, 12:34 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 259

I just thought I would add this in since its something that has bothered me about the small sensor vs. larger sensor arguement for a while. I think what JimCsaid in the post above definately applies when all things are equil between the two sensors....thus meaning when they use the same manufacturing process and technology. I don't think that anyone will argue that ccd manufactures and FAB processes are just standing still while they cram more and more pixels onto these same sensors. Heres an interesting comparison....

Is a CD better than say a DVD or BluRay disk because its storing less data on the same size disk when it comes to say read/write errors, disk life?... not really because the technology has advanced (new types of lasers) to allow these new technologies to complete and replace existing older ones with the same quality if not improved.

Now this doesn't totally apply to camera sensors exactly the same but im sure more so than 99% of us realize. If camera sensor designs move at even 50% of the rate of most other silicon wafer based technology like cpu and memory the sensors that are released today would hardly have anything in common with older ones from a couple years back other than their function. But compared to cpu's and memory we never hear about the manufacturing process being used, or R&D costs for the fabs that produce these sensors....but im willing to bet just like with other areas of the industry its in the $billions$.

Can smaller be better than larger sensors? I think in some cases it definately can given enough time and developement.... the nice thing about smaller is it cost the manufactures less to produce and try new ideas/technologies with.... which means it costs less for us.

Anyone who wants a full frame sensor in a $200 pocket sized camera is living in a dream world... it will never happen since the sensorof that sizewill always cost a small fortune and will most likely increase in costs over time and the process becomes more expensive (a given sized sensor is a static area of a wafer, the wafer will always become more expensive for a given area over time with new processes...this is why we shrink things to keep costs inline with new developement). If you stick to older fab processes to keep the costs down on the sensor to make it more marketable eventually it will be caught in image quality by smaller sensors using new technology. This is the problem facing camera manufactures today.....not an easy balancing act to keep going.
tkmckay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2004, 4:14 PM   #6
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 130

Having looked a diagrams of the Fujifilm's "Super CCD" I think size may not tell the whole story. Calculating a sensor size would have to include the 'gap' between the sensor sites, which is usually not shown. For example if the entire surface just had the sensors and the connections came off of the back then more light should fall into the sensors vs. a sensor with a large gap. Bottom line, I think there probably is some room for improvement if the sensors are redesigned to reduce the gap.

wmussatto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 21, 2004, 9:12 AM   #7
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 26

We don't need to go to CDs/ DVDs/ Blu-ray etc for an analogy. Just think about the development of film (remember that?!). Only a few decades ago, the resolution on even the best high sensitivity consumer film was such that the quality of the camera lens hardly mattered. These days, near the end of its life, the level of detail on ASA 400 or even 1600 film is as good as 100 ASA back then. So, yes, I accept the argument that CCD size is by no means the whole picture.
hdburnham 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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:31 AM.