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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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? Because it costs a lot more. How much larger would it have to be to eliminate the worst of the noise and provide a useful iso range? The average consumer doesn't care about noise and ISO range. Or, at least, not enough to pay a lot for it. -- Ray Fischer |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Rich wrote:
[] Not to split hairs but Olympus's E-410 is the smallest and I believe the lightest DSLR on the market. It's new kit lenses are also probably the smallest and lightest in their class and far better optically than the likes of Canon, for e.g. The costly Olympus lenses are the pro lenses that run $1000 or more, but you can buy prosumer lenses from them for around $399- $900.00. Thanks, Rich, that is encouraging. What would be the weight and cost of an Olympus outfit covering up to about 400mm telephoto with image stabilisation? Don't see any image stabilised lenses. 18-180mm f/3.5-f/6.3 making a total package around 900g? David |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Victek wrote:
[] How much of the noise in current compact super-zoom cameras is caused by pushing the number of megapixels? Instead of constantly increasing megapixel count the industry should actually be moving in the opposite direction. There must be an optimal noise to megapixel balance for a given sensor size that would also yield better low light performance and better picture quality over all, but it seems that no one can get off the megapixel pony g. Yes, something like 4 - 5MP for the 1/2.5-inch sensor. Still good for enlargements up to, say, A4 size (or 8 x 10 inches). David |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
John Sheehy wrote:
[] Your belief is an illusion, IMO. I have never seen any evidence to support better imaging from bigger pixels. Bigger *SENSORS*, yes. /Different/ imaging, if not /better/ imaging. The nature of the subject, the display used, and the preferences of the viewer, will help determine if a sharper but noisier image is "better" than a more blurred, less noisy image. David |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Pete wrote:
[] An APS-C P&S would certainly be an interesting product, but it surely couldn't provide the same lens specs as a small-sensor digicam without the size, weight and cost going up astronomically. Already been done, and failed in the market: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ My relatively ancient Pana FZ10 provides f/2.8 over its full 12X 35-432mm zoom range (35mm equiv), and will macro down to 2 inches. If there is an APS-C lens that will do that, I'd guess it costs well into 4 figures and needs a mule to carry it. Pete The size and weight of the telephoto extender for that Sony was gross! David |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , david- says... Even more disappointing that Olympus with their "half-size" 4/3 system didn't offer half-sized cameras and lenses. The E400 is very small (for a DSLR). The lenses are also smaller: a 200mm lens on the E400 corresponds to a 400mm lens on a full frame DSLR (same angle of view). It's a good sign, Alfred. However, I didn't see an image stabilised lens in their consumer range. Does the E4xx have in-body IS? David |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
On Jun 14, 3:42 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Alfred Molon wrote: In article , david- says... Even more disappointing that Olympus with their "half-size" 4/3 system didn't offer half-sized cameras and lenses. The E400 is very small (for a DSLR). The lenses are also smaller: a 200mm lens on the E400 corresponds to a 400mm lens on a full frame DSLR (same angle of view). It's a good sign, Alfred. However, I didn't see an image stabilised lens in their consumer range. Does the E4xx have in-body IS? David No, only the E-510. Which is still relatively compact camera. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:40:28 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
The size and weight of the telephoto extender for that Sony was gross! If the WA and telephoto adapters I saw in Sony Style were for the DSC-R1, the prices were even grosser. One of them, IIRC, was about the same price I paid for my D50 body. The other was significantly more expensive than my Fuji S5100. I hope I was mistaken, as it would have brought the cost of the R1 with both lens adapters, after tax, to nearly $2000. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why not make the sensor larger?
ASAAR wrote:
snip In one respect I'd agree with John. Pixel sizes aren't generally advertised or known by prospective camera buyers, but the sensor size is usually included in manual spec's and reviews. Given that, you probably wouldn't be too far off assuming that for a given number of megapixels, the cameras having larger sensors would produce better images and have better high ISO performance. That's one reson why I chose to buy the Fuji S9500. It had the largest sensor (1/1.6") of any of the ultrazooms avialable at the time. Fuji do seem to have been avoiding getting caught up in the megapixel race as much as other manufacturers, which might be why the S6000 / S6500 and the F30 series (6MP on 1/1.7" IIRC) have a reputation for having the best noise at high ISO performance of any compacts. Shame they don't do image stabilisation as well. |
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 |