APS-C in compact

On 06 Oct 2006 20:58:49 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:

Bob Williams writes:
But look at the tiny Zoom range (2.3X)
Even the cheapest, plain vanilla digicams have a 3X zoom.
The problem is making a long Zoom, large aperture, long focal length
lens assemply, that is compact, light, and inexpensive.

Why do you keep saying "large aperture"? Compact film zoom cameras
had very slow zooms and users accepted it. That included expensive
cameras like the Contax TVS, which cost more than today's DSLR's.

Digital cameras autofocus; in order to do that they need a minumum of
light, usually f/5.6 or better. Those older, slower lenses won't
autofocus, and in order to get an aperture that will allow autofocus,
the lens must be larger.

Also, a lot of users didn't want zooms. The 28/2.8 fixed lens on the
Ricoh GR-1 was supposedly better than just about any 35mm SLR 28mm
lens and it was also sold in the Leica M mount. The Contax T/Tix
Minolta TC-1 were other high-end fixed lens cameras that were highly
sought after.

"Were" is the operative word here.
Zooms are much better now, and they offer flexibility primes can't
match.
Are some primes better than zoom lenses? Of course. Does that mean
they are the lenses of choice for the majority of buyers? Of course
not.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:54:15 +0200, Volker Hetzer
wrote:

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.

Not really.
Let's take a reasonable example...
Let's specify a chip size of 5mm x 5mm.
Now, let's design two different chips to fit on that 5mm x 5mm chip
size.
One has 5 transistors on it, the other has 5 million transistors on it
(certainly a reasonable design criteria).
Which one has the larger failure rate? Obviously, the one with 5
million transistors.
A larger failure rate raises cost, becauswe for each dud chip, the
others must bear the cost of those duds.
So, a chip design with more possibilities of duds will cost more, and
putting more sensels in a chip will, of necessity (all other things
being equal), raise the cost of those chips.


Lots of Greetings!
Volker
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:22:07 GMT, wrote:

David J Taylor wrote:
wrote:
Do you think there is any chance we'll see APX-C size sensor in
compact digicam ?

Like this one, you mean?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

No, this is huge, this is not a compact, note that dpreview calls it a
SLR-like. I'm thinking something like the Olympus Epic Stylus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Stylus_Epic
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0...1.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

This is a tiny camera, smaller than ideal for me actually, but it takes a
"full frame film" (24x36mm), and has 3 time zoom (38 - 115). Why can't they
make compact digital camera that size ?

Is it because a CCD needs a lot more light than a film ?

It's because digitals need more light to autofocus.
That camera you point to above has a lens of F4.6-10.9 aperture; not
nearly enough to autofocus much beyond it's shortest zoom.
What about the super duper new sensors like the 6th generation Fuji ?


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

It always blows me away when people say the lens would be so big. We have
them on dSLR's and they aren't all that big. I think people today unless
like a car they want a sub-compact would be more than willing to deal with
the size to have 12X optical zoom with an APS-C sized sensor. We aren't
talking all that much bigger than say a Panasonic FZ30 or 50 but we are
talking about a whole lot better picture quality. People not all of course
but most would be willing to make the trade. Those that want sub-compacts
need to accept that there is a price to pay for that, just like with cars.

R


"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
Bob Williams wrote:
[]
Now! If Panny could make an FZ model with APS sensor and make it a
pound lighter than the R1, they would OWN the digicam market. :-)
I think they have just about reached (exceeded?) the limit of the
1/1.8" sensor with 10 MP ad 12X Zoom.
Bob Williams

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!

Whether people would pay for the digital equivalent of the APS P&S cameras
which have been suggested, I don't know. They might expect more for the
money, I suspect.

David

Hebee Jeebes wrote:
It always blows me away when people say the lens would be so big. We
have them on dSLR's and they aren't all that big. I think people
today unless like a car they want a sub-compact would be more than
willing to deal with the size to have 12X optical zoom with an APS-C
sized sensor. We aren't talking all that much bigger than say a
Panasonic FZ30 or 50 but we are talking about a whole lot better
picture quality. People not all of course but most would be willing
to make the trade. Those that want sub-compacts need to accept that
there is a price to pay for that, just like with cars.
R

Well, I'm coming from a Panasonic FZ5 where a 300g weight camera provides
a 36 - 432mm (eq) f/3.7 image-stabilised zoom. The one non-SLR example of
an APS sensor (Sony DSC-R1) is much bulkier, weighs over three times as
much, and only covers up to 120mm zoom.

I would welcome the chance to have a better the quality image from an APS
sensor, but not with that size and weight penalty (and I can only imagine
it being worse if I want to keep my 400mm+ tele capability). I am quite
happy that your priorities may differ.

David

Hebee Jeebes wrote:
It always blows me away when people say the lens would be so big. We have
them on dSLR's and they aren't all that big. I think people today unless
like a car they want a sub-compact would be more than willing to deal with
the size to have 12X optical zoom with an APS-C sized sensor.

Or maybe we could compromise on a slightly smaller sensor, but still
large enough to have good noise characteristics...

Oh wait, that was what 4/3 was meant to be.... dang. (O;

I've said it before - why oh why don't *Fuji* jump over and see if
*they* can make a 4/3 sensor with low noise!!! I can dream....

How successful has the DSC-R1 been, anyway? Anyone know? It seems a
great idea, but personally, I hated the feel and look of the camera
when I played with one, and the af seemed very ordinary. Not a very
scientific review, but I knew it wasn't going to be a camera that felt
right, for me anyway.

Paul Rubin wrote:

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.

It would seem that Sigma is the only company that has even proposed an
APS-c sized sensor in a compact sized digicam, the DP1.
The DP1 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092604sigmadp1.asp has a
fixed 16.6mm (28mm in 135 equiv) f1:4 lens.
I feel a bit skeptical as to whether this camera will ever be seen
outside of a glass case at either Photokina or PMA trade shows.

wrote:

Or maybe we could compromise on a slightly smaller sensor, but still
large enough to have good noise characteristics...

Oh wait, that was what 4/3 was meant to be.... dang. (O;

I've said it before - why oh why don't *Fuji* jump over and see if
*they* can make a 4/3 sensor with low noise!!! I can dream....


Well, I've looked at that, check some of my other threads, and that's where
I'm coming from. The 4/3 cameras are still very bulky, because of that huge
lense in front. It's just not much smaller than a small SLR (Pentax). The
E400 is indeed 1.5 cm thinner, so that might help, but there is no 4/3
pancake lense...


How successful has the DSC-R1 been, anyway? Anyone know? It seems a
great idea, but personally, I hated the feel and look of the camera
when I played with one, and the af seemed very ordinary. Not a very
scientific review, but I knew it wasn't going to be a camera that felt
right, for me anyway.

Again... too big !
If you're going to go THAT big, you might as well get a small Pentax DLR.

I think your in the minority. A lot of people are jumping off the Panasonic
ship simply because they can't get the image quality up, the resolution up
and keep the zoom range. All things that are very easy to do with a dSLR and
if you look at one with in body shake reduction like the Pentax K10D then
you have it all. Panasonic and others need to start catering to the people
that don't give a rats ass about swapping lenses. They just want shake
reduction, larger sensor for better image quality, better image quality at
higher ISO, better low light shooting and high optical zoom. They don't have
to stop making and selling the small sensor cameras but they need to cater
to the others if they don't want to continue to loose customers. The FZ30 is
the last Panasonic I will likely ever own all because they put out a crappy
FZ50 whose images look like painting because of noise reduction and that is
because they wanted to cram more resolution on a tiny sensor.

R


"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
Hebee Jeebes wrote:
It always blows me away when people say the lens would be so big. We
have them on dSLR's and they aren't all that big. I think people
today unless like a car they want a sub-compact would be more than
willing to deal with the size to have 12X optical zoom with an APS-C
sized sensor. We aren't talking all that much bigger than say a
Panasonic FZ30 or 50 but we are talking about a whole lot better
picture quality. People not all of course but most would be willing
to make the trade. Those that want sub-compacts need to accept that
there is a price to pay for that, just like with cars.
R

Well, I'm coming from a Panasonic FZ5 where a 300g weight camera provides
a 36 - 432mm (eq) f/3.7 image-stabilised zoom. The one non-SLR example of
an APS sensor (Sony DSC-R1) is much bulkier, weighs over three times as
much, and only covers up to 120mm zoom.

I would welcome the chance to have a better the quality image from an APS
sensor, but not with that size and weight penalty (and I can only imagine
it being worse if I want to keep my 400mm+ tele capability). I am quite
happy that your priorities may differ.

David

Hebee Jeebes wrote:
I think your in the minority. A lot of people are jumping off the
Panasonic ship simply because they can't get the image quality up,
the resolution up and keep the zoom range. All things that are very
easy to do with a dSLR and if you look at one with in body shake
reduction like the Pentax K10D then you have it all. Panasonic and
others need to start catering to the people that don't give a rats
ass about swapping lenses. They just want shake reduction, larger
sensor for better image quality, better image quality at higher ISO,
better low light shooting and high optical zoom. They don't have to
stop making and selling the small sensor cameras but they need to
cater to the others if they don't want to continue to loose
customers. The FZ30 is the last Panasonic I will likely ever own all
because they put out a crappy FZ50 whose images look like painting
because of noise reduction and that is because they wanted to cram
more resolution on a tiny sensor.
R

Panasonic do offer a DSLR:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06...sonicdmcl1.asp

but there is a wide range of DSLR manufacturers, so you can likely get a
product which matches your need. Others will have different needs, and
make different choices.

I have seen no DSLR which can match the package size and weight of the
Panasonic FZ5, and certainly not if you ask for similar photographic
capabilities. I am happy to live with the lower ISO settings required to
get acceptable results. To me, the package size and weight are important,
having had nearly 30 years of experience with heavy and bulky film SLR
outfits. I have no regrets moving on from last century's technology.

With the wide range of camera Panasonic offer, their popularity, and the
growing interest in digital photography, I would be surprised if Panasonic
sold less cameras this year than last. What evidence do you have that
their customer base is shrinking? (I quite accept it may be changing, of
course).

David