If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues
due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
On Jun 13, 5:26 am, "Victek" wrote:
It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? I think that keeping the camera small is a bigger reason then cost of the sensor. A lot of people really like having a tiny camera and would not be happy with a larger one. If you make the sensor twice as big (4 x the area) then the camera has to be close to twice as big as well. If you don't mind the size and weight you can use a DSLR. Scott |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Victek wrote:
It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? It would result in bigger cameras (no more teeny-cams), and the requirment for bigger lenses. The small sensor cameras can pack a 10x zoom into very little space. BugBear |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Victek wrote:
It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? Large sensor, non-SLR cameras have been made. For example: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ But, disappointingly, they are large and heavy and about the only advantage they offer over a DSLR is dust-free operation, and swivel LCDs. It may not be long before DSLRs offer the swivel finder. You may also find some 5MP "2/3-inch" sensor cameras around (e.g. Nikon 5400/5700) which may have been slightly better at a higher ISO. Cheers, David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
bugbear wrote:
Victek wrote: It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? It would result in bigger cameras (no more teeny-cams), and the requirment for bigger lenses. The small sensor cameras can pack a 10x zoom into very little space. BugBear And small sensors are cheaper to make. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso
issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? Large sensor, non-SLR cameras have been made. For example: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ But, disappointingly, they are large and heavy and about the only advantage they offer over a DSLR is dust-free operation, and swivel LCDs. It may not be long before DSLRs offer the swivel finder. You may also find some 5MP "2/3-inch" sensor cameras around (e.g. Nikon 5400/5700) which may have been slightly better at a higher ISO. Cheers, David Thanks for information. I enjoyed reading the review of the Sony DSC-R1. It's interesting to note that it costs more than many DSLRs today. Perhaps moving to a DSLR is really the only way to overcome the limitations of the "super-zoom" models (such as the S3-IS, or the Panasonic FZ series)? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Victek wrote:
[] Thanks for information. I enjoyed reading the review of the Sony DSC-R1. It's interesting to note that it costs more than many DSLRs today. Perhaps moving to a DSLR is really the only way to overcome the limitations of the "super-zoom" models (such as the S3-IS, or the Panasonic FZ series)? Victek, It really depends what limitations are important to you. Low-light will certainly be better with a larger DSLR sensor and expensive, large aperture lens. Plus that will be a lot heavier to carry around if the lens is reasonably telephoto. In the FZ5 I have a 432mm f/3.3 image stabilised lens in a package weighing about 300g. f/2.8 at 432mm with the Panasonic FZ20. Nearest DSLR and similar lens? Nikon D40 + 55-200mm VR zoom weighing 520g + 335g, so nearly 3 times as much. This is an f/5.6 lens, and it doesn't include wide-angle coverage. So you would require a second lens. Providing a good wide-tele coverage is the 18-200mm VR, but that is still only f/5.6 and the total weight is now 520 + 560g, so over 1kg. Perhaps you're OK with that. I don't think that either of these lenses offer the same macro capability as the Canon or Panasonic super-zooms do, and no DSLR offers a swivel LCD or movie mode. There may be a half-way house with the so-called 4/3 sensor used in the Olympus DSLRs, but although the sensor is smaller than a conventional DSLR (nearer "half-frame" size), the cameras are not lighter and the lenses are not smaller. You don't want to ask the cost of their lenses either. So, yes, if you need a DSLR, go for it, and some good lenses, but keep that super-zoom for when you tire of carrying the DSLR outfit. Cheers, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 17:31:45 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
Victek wrote: [] Thanks for information. I enjoyed reading the review of the Sony DSC-R1. It's interesting to note that it costs more than many DSLRs today. Perhaps moving to a DSLR is really the only way to overcome the limitations of the "super-zoom" models (such as the S3-IS, or the Panasonic FZ series)? Victek, It really depends what limitations are important to you. Low-light will certainly be better with a larger DSLR sensor and expensive, large aperture lens. Plus that will be a lot heavier to carry around if the lens is reasonably telephoto. In the FZ5 I have a 432mm f/3.3 image stabilised lens in a package weighing about 300g. f/2.8 at 432mm with the Panasonic FZ20. Nearest DSLR and similar lens? Nikon D40 + 55-200mm VR zoom weighing 520g + 335g, so nearly 3 times as much. This is an f/5.6 lens, and it doesn't include wide-angle coverage. So you would require a second lens. Providing a good wide-tele coverage is the 18-200mm VR, but that is still only f/5.6 and the total weight is now 520 + 560g, so over 1kg. Perhaps you're OK with that. I don't think that either of these lenses offer the same macro capability as the Canon or Panasonic super-zooms do, and no DSLR offers a swivel LCD or movie mode. There may be a half-way house with the so-called 4/3 sensor used in the Olympus DSLRs, but although the sensor is smaller than a conventional DSLR (nearer "half-frame" size), the cameras are not lighter and the lenses are not smaller. You don't want to ask the cost of their lenses either. So, yes, if you need a DSLR, go for it, and some good lenses, but keep that super-zoom for when you tire of carrying the DSLR outfit. Cheers, David The only hope for a low-noise compact super-zoom is probably to cool the sensor with e.g. a Peltier device? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:43:27 +0000, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 13, 5:26 am, "Victek" wrote: It seems like the biggest weakness of mid-priced cameras is noise/iso issues due to small sensors. Well, why don't the manufacturers use a larger sensor? How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? Would the increased cost make the camera unmarketable? In other words, is there a real economic problem or is it just ignorance? I think that keeping the camera small is a bigger reason then cost of the sensor. A lot of people really like having a tiny camera and would not be happy with a larger one. If you make the sensor twice as big (4 x the area) then the camera has to be close to twice as big as well. If you don't mind the size and weight you can use a DSLR. Scott Perhaps you could elaborate - it seems to me that, for example, if a DSLR uses a 2/3 size sensor it could probably be made 2/3 size - is it that folks really expect a full size camera? Seems to me that all you need to accomodate is the sensor size and the optics distance - electronics are VERY compact. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
In article , Pete
writes The only hope for a low-noise compact super-zoom is probably to cool the sensor with e.g. a Peltier device? Probably not by much since the main noise contribution, at least for the shorter exposures under a few seconds, is the random distribution of the photon flux. -- Ian G8ILZ There are always two people in every pictu the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A sensor that CAN make use of a 16 bit converter?? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | March 13th 07 04:03 PM |
Larger sensor in compact camera | John Fryatt | Digital Photography | 34 | May 1st 06 08:50 AM |
Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution? | MeMe | Digital SLR Cameras | 41 | February 13th 05 12:41 AM |
Dust on sensor, Sensor Brush = hogwash solution? | MeMe | Digital Photography | 23 | February 12th 05 04:51 PM |
FZ20 and image stabilization versus the larger sensor of the Sony 717 | Martin | Digital Photography | 6 | September 2nd 04 11:31 PM |