APS-C in compact

Paul Rubin wrote:
[]
I wonder how expensive APS-C sensors really are these days. In the
Nikon D1 era, they supposedly cost kilobucks. They certainly can't
now.

I rather suspect they cost as much as you can make the punters pay for
them!

David

"David J Taylor" writes:
Yes, this is whole issue. I used to think - "if only we could have
a 4/3 or APS sensor in a non-SLR format" - but the practicality is
that that the lenses need to be so big that a "compact" design just
isn't on. At least, not if you have come to like the idea of a 10X
or 12X zoom!

The 10x and 12x zooms for APS-C DSLR's are pretty slow also. And most
DSLR users don't bother with them. Why does everyone keep redefining
the problem? APS-C compacts usually had 2x or 3x zooms that were
somewhat slow, but worked fine. The better ones had medium speed
primes, like the 24/2.8 in the Canon Elph Jr, that were pretty good.

Paul Rubin wrote:
"David J Taylor"
writes:
Yes, this is whole issue. I used to think - "if only we could have
a 4/3 or APS sensor in a non-SLR format" - but the practicality is
that that the lenses need to be so big that a "compact" design just
isn't on. At least, not if you have come to like the idea of a 10X
or 12X zoom!

The 10x and 12x zooms for APS-C DSLR's are pretty slow also. And most
DSLR users don't bother with them. Why does everyone keep redefining
the problem? APS-C compacts usually had 2x or 3x zooms that were
somewhat slow, but worked fine. The better ones had medium speed
primes, like the 24/2.8 in the Canon Elph Jr, that were pretty good.

Expectations change - the 2X zoom which was once good enough becomes
limiting when you are used to a 12X zoom with f/2.8 aperture. There are
(a very few) rangefinder cameras which might suit the needs of some.

David

Paul Rubin wrote:
Stacey writes:
No it's not. FAST lenses are big. There were tons of 35mm film
compacts with small lenses that performed well. They don't put large
sensors in compact cameras because people are more worried about and
shop the price point and how many MP than the actual image quality.

I wonder how expensive APS-C sensors really are these days. In the
Nikon D1 era, they supposedly cost kilobucks. They certainly can't now.
For any large scale production of chips, the main cost is silicon.
Development is a fixed cost, and the process too, more or less.
So, a sensor of a certain size costs x dollar, regardless of
how many pixels you put on it.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

David J Taylor wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:

The 10x and 12x zooms for APS-C DSLR's are pretty slow also. And most
DSLR users don't bother with them. Why does everyone keep redefining
the problem? APS-C compacts usually had 2x or 3x zooms that were
somewhat slow, but worked fine. The better ones had medium speed
primes, like the 24/2.8 in the Canon Elph Jr, that were pretty good.

Expectations change - the 2X zoom which was once good enough becomes
limiting when you are used to a 12X zoom with f/2.8 aperture. There are
(a very few) rangefinder cameras which might suit the needs of some.

I agree with Paul here. Look at face detection, it was brought in the market
because a lot of people use their camera to take pictures of their family
mostly (like myself !). I doubt you ever need more than a 4x zoom for that
market, as a matter of fact most digital compact and sub-compact have a
3x zoom, and yet some of them sell in the 400 - 500 CAD.

Which rangefinders are you thinking of here ?

Paul Rubin wrote:
writes:
So this is the answer - a three time, tiny retractable zoom for a FF sensor
(or even APS) would just be slow (tiny maximum apperture) ?

Tiny is a relative term. The zooms on APS compact film cameras were
slow by the standards of professional SLR zooms, but the users
(including serious users) accepted the slowness. All equipment has
limitations and users simply face a problem of accomodating the
limitations into their shooting style.

Anybody has got an example of a film APS or 35mm compact with a 3x zoom
with good speed ? I've got one of the Epic zoom (I hate its ergonomic by
the way !), but can't find any information about the lens beyond the fact that
it is 38-115mm.

This would give us a good basis to start from.

Also, when a digital camera says 100 ISO, does that mean that it needs the
same amount of light as 100 ISO film ? I am wondering if this sensor size
thing is due to sensors needing more light ?

wrote:
[]
I agree with Paul here. Look at face detection, it was brought in the
market because a lot of people use their camera to take pictures of
their family mostly (like myself !). I doubt you ever need more than
a 4x zoom for that market, as a matter of fact most digital compact
and sub-compact have a 3x zoom, and yet some of them sell in the 400
- 500 CAD.

Which rangefinders are you thinking of here ?

I'm not thinking rangefinders specifically, but more compact
implementations of an APS sensor, as the Sony I mentioned earlier is (not
surprisingly) too big. I imagine the Epson and Leica rangefinders might
be smaller and lighter. I don't think the OP mentioned cost, but I
haven't checked back. Any other non-SLR APS cameras?

David

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:13:19 GMT, wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
writes:
So this is the answer - a three time, tiny retractable zoom for a FF sensor
(or even APS) would just be slow (tiny maximum apperture) ?

Tiny is a relative term. The zooms on APS compact film cameras were
slow by the standards of professional SLR zooms, but the users
(including serious users) accepted the slowness. All equipment has
limitations and users simply face a problem of accomodating the
limitations into their shooting style.

Anybody has got an example of a film APS or 35mm compact with a 3x zoom
with good speed ? I've got one of the Epic zoom (I hate its ergonomic by
the way !), but can't find any information about the lens beyond the fact that
it is 38-115mm.

Go to www.bhphotovideo.com, go Cameras-35mm Film Cameras-Point and
Shoot, and look at the specs for various models. Picking one at random,
the Canon SureShot 115u II has a lens listed as "38-115mm f/4.6-13"
which is really slow at the long end. A comparably-sized small-sensor
digital camera would probably be f/2.8-5.6 or thereabouts.

-dms

Daniel Silevitch writes:
Go to www.bhphotovideo.com, go Cameras-35mm Film Cameras-Point and
Shoot, and look at the specs for various models. Picking one at random,
the Canon SureShot 115u II has a lens listed as "38-115mm f/4.6-13"
which is really slow at the long end. A comparably-sized small-sensor
digital camera would probably be f/2.8-5.6 or thereabouts.

An APS-C compact digicam would certainly be a high-end unit intended
for enthusiasts, so I don't see why we're comparing it to those cheap
consumer cameras where zoom ratios were like today's megapixel wars.
We should certainly compare it with high end compacts which for the
most part did not have zooms at all (Contax T, etc). The Contax TVS
was the main exception I can think of, and it had a 2x zoom. The
nearest thing in a digicam is the Ricoh GR Digital, which also has no
zoom. It is a real shame that the GR Digital has such a small sensor
but not a shame at all that it has no zoom. It would be a much more
interesting camera with an APS-C sensor and no zoom.

On 6 Oct 2006 14:23:13 -0700, wrote:

hm...this is unfortunatley a must...big sensor, big lens. this is how things
work. That's one of main reasons that sensors in compacts are kept small.

No, not really. APS film cameras can be very small. How about this one:
http://tinyurl.com/q5vr6 (goes to Canon's site). This camera is small
and uses APS film. Why couldn't someone make a camera of that size, but
with an APS-size sensor instead of APS-size film?

That camera has a 2.3x, f/4.8-7.6 lens; zoomed to the limit, it
wouldn't even autofocus.
The fact remains; a larger sensor requires a larger lens (f/5.6 is
usually the limit of autofocus; any smaller aperture means not enough
light).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"