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?

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

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

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

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.

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)?

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

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?

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.

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