 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / March 2006largish sensor P&S
A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact model that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF control if possible. Also on the list is a decent amount of optical zoom with good optics. TIA for models to look at.  SignatureStacey > A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact model that > doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF control if > possible. Also on the list is a decent amount of optical zoom with good > optics. TIA for models to look at. If you can find a used Sony F-717, it's got only 5MP on a relatively huge sensor (2/3"). Very, very little noise and great resolution, although its color response is a bit flat. >> A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact model >> that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF control if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you can find a used Sony F-717, it's got only 5MP on a > relatively huge sensor (2/3"). Thanks, that's the sorta thing I was looking for. SignatureStacey >>> A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact model >>> that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF control if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks, that's the sorta thing I was looking for. Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more for a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? SignatureStacey > >>> A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact model > >>> that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF control if [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more for > a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? Not that I know of, Stacey. Only a few cameras used Sony's 2/3" sensor, and they're all roughly the same size (Minolta Dimage, Sony F717/828 etc). I know exactly what you're looking for, and if someone made such a camera I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes. The trend for the last several years has been toward stuffing ridiculous numbers of MP on undersized sensors. > Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more for > a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? 1/1.8" as found in the Canon A610 and SD550 is pretty close to 2/3. 1.165 on Panasonic lx1 >> Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more >> for >> a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? > > 1/1.8" as found in the Canon A610 and SD550 is pretty close to 2/3. >> Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more >> for a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? > > 1/1.8" as found in the Canon A610 and SD550 is pretty close to 2/3. What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that is a bit less retarded! SignatureStacey > >> Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more > >> for a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that is a bit > less retarded! http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp >>> Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more >>> for a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? >> 1/1.8" as found in the Canon A610 and SD550 is pretty close to 2/3. > What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that is > a bit less retarded! It is 8.9 x 7.2 mm and is the standard sensor size found in a lot of the better P&S cameras these days. Neither 1/1.8", nor 2/3", will really give you shallow enough DOF for it to matter much outside the macro region. After following your responses here, it also struck me that any P&S small enough to meet your friends request for "compact" will not have usable manual focusing, so the value of a shallow DOF will be limited anyway. I think that the combination you seek: Camera small enough to fit a purse or pocket, and SLR-like shallow DOF - does not exist at the moment. If shallow DOF is really what your friend wants, one of the smaller DSLRs (e.g. Pentax *ist D S2 - or the largish Sony DSC R1 P&S if she don't want to deal with the dust issues and interchangeable lenses of the DSLR route). If she want a camera compact enough to fit a pocket or a purse, then she needs to forget about the shallow DOF and get one with a form factor and features she'd be confortable with. There is a huge selection of these out there. As for the funny fractions (e.g. 1/1.8", 2/3") used to designated sensor sizes, these dates back to the 1950ies, when they indicated the /outer diameter/ of Viacom video tubes uses as imagers in the television cameras of that age. Just to make the issue more confusing, they bear little relation to the phyical diameter of today's semiconductors imagers. A 2/3" sensor's actual diameter is only 0.43", i.e. less than 1/2". My guess is that marketing people like this way of indicating sensor sizes because it makes the sensors sound bigger than they really are. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that is > > a bit less retarded! > > It is 8.9 x 7.2 mm Well no, more something like 7.1 x 5.4 mm. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/ > In article <q54q1rueo0.fsf@kaksi.ifi.uio.no>, gisle+news@ifi.uio.no >>> What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that >>> is a bit less retarded! >> It is 8.9 x 7.2 mm > Well no, more something like 7.1 x 5.4 mm. You're right. Sorry about posting the wrong numbers. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > I think that the combination you seek: Camera small enough to fit > a purse or pocket, and SLR-like shallow DOF - does not exist at > the moment. I guess I'm wondering how they made all those compact 35mm film P&S that used the same size sensor as an SLR and they can't do the same with a digicam.. SignatureStacey > > I think that the combination you seek: Camera small enough to fit > > a purse or pocket, and SLR-like shallow DOF - does not exist at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > used the same size sensor as an SLR and they can't do the same with a > digicam.. Eh? Film cameras don't have sensors. >> > I think that the combination you seek: Camera small enough to fit >> > a purse or pocket, and SLR-like shallow DOF - does not exist at [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Eh? Film cameras don't have sensors. I meant 'sensor' as in the film was the light sensor.. SignatureStacey >>> > I think that the combination you seek: Camera small enough to fit >>> > a purse or pocket, and SLR-like shallow DOF - does not exist at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I meant 'sensor' as in the film was the light sensor.. They can do this if they are willing to make them as large as those compact 35s and with lenses as short and slow as those compact 35s. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > I meant 'sensor' as in the film was the light sensor.. > > They can do this if they are willing to make them as large as those compact > 35s and with lenses as short and slow as those compact 35s. Lots of compact 35's were shirt pocket sized and had f/2.8 lenses, which is faster than a typical digicam lens. Think of the Olympus Stylus Epic (a/k/a Mju), Minox 35 series, etc. >> > I meant 'sensor' as in the film was the light sensor.. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which is faster than a typical digicam lens. Think of the Olympus > Stylus Epic (a/k/a Mju), Minox 35 series, etc. The Minox 35 had a 35mm lens with a closest focus of about 3 feet, weighed 200 grams, and had dimensions of 101 x 61 x 32mm. The Olympus Stylus Epic also had a 35mm lens with closest focus of 1.1 feet and dimensions 109 x 58 x 38 mm and a weight of 133g. Now look at a Coolpix S6 for example, that is about the same size as the Olympus but has the equivalent of a 35-105mm zoom with focusing down to 1.6 inches. Or an Olympus Stylus 720, which is 10mm narrower and half as thick as the Epic, but has the equivalent of a 38-114mm lens, macro to 2.8 inches, takes a 5 foot drop or 10 foot submersion. There are many, many others that are smaller than either of the 35s but much more capable. Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > > > I meant 'sensor' as in the film was the light sensor.. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > which is faster than a typical digicam lens. Think of the Olympus > Stylus Epic (a/k/a Mju), Minox 35 series, etc. I wouldn't mind having the digital equivalent of an Olympus XA, or a Canonet. Something simple, fairly compact, but with image quality more or less up to the SLRs of its day. Of course those used the same "sensors" as the film SLRs of their day. The problem in the digital age is that now the sensor can be a major part of the cost of the camera, so something with an APS-C sensor would be pretty expensive, probably not that much cheaper than a DSLR. This could make it a tough sell to people who wouldn't want to pay that much for what looks like a P&S - they'd have to market the superior image quality effectively to get people to buy. So there may be a business reason why this class of camera is rare, although it is a legitimate and unfilled niche. > I wouldn't mind having the digital equivalent of an Olympus XA, > or a Canonet. Something simple, fairly compact, but with image [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the camera, so something with an APS-C sensor would be pretty > expensive, probably not that much cheaper than a DSLR. I think a Canonet cost around $100 in the 1960's which is equivalent to at least $500 today, the price of an entry-level DSLR. Fancy film P&S's of the 1990's, like the Contax T, cost considerably more than today's low end DSLR's. So I don't think the price you're describing is prohibitive. The thing I want most is low light no-flash shooting capability. If there were a compact camera with with a 1/2" ccd that shoots a clean ISO 3200 image at 512x384 resolution, with an f/1.4 lens like a 1990's camcorder or 1970's 8mm movie camera, that would be absolutely great for web shots of indoor events, a type of shooting I do all the time. It wouldn't have to cost a bundle either. > I think a Canonet cost around $100 in the 1960's which is equivalent > to at least $500 today, the price of an entry-level DSLR. Fancy film > P&S's of the 1990's, like the Contax T, cost considerably more than > today's low end DSLR's. So I don't think the price you're describing > is prohibitive. It might not be prohibitive for you or me, but there may not be a ton of people out there who want it, or know they want it. The Canonets were introduced into a niche below the SLR when there were no or few decent 35mm P&Ses. These days such an item has to compete with the omnipresent small-sensor digicams, which will be smaller and cheaper, albeit higher noise. They might sell to the niche that bought the Contax T or Konica Hexar. You could think of it as a more expensive Canon G-whatever with a bigger sensor and lens and the same number of pixels. The selling handicap is explaining why you should pay more for the same number of pixels. My recollection is that around a 1980 a Canonet cost a little under $100 and an entry-level SLR (K1000 type) with 50/2 a little over $150. Canon's museum at http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/ (great resource BTW) says that the Canonet QL-17/G-III cost 29,000 yen on intro in 1972 and the FTb with 50/1.8 cost 49,800 yen on intro in 1971 (comparing two cameras intro'ed around the same time to reduce effect of inflation). > The thing I want most is low light no-flash shooting capability. If > there were a compact camera with with a 1/2" ccd that shoots a clean > ISO 3200 image at 512x384 resolution, with an f/1.4 lens like a 1990's > camcorder or 1970's 8mm movie camera, that would be absolutely great > for web shots of indoor events, a type of shooting I do all the time. > It wouldn't have to cost a bundle either. For a monochrome CCD, low resolution and low noise is achievable with binning. I'm not sure how that would work for a Bayer-filtered CCD, but some manufacturer could come up with an algorithm if they wanted to. I'd like a small camera with good sensitivity (it doesn't have to be noiseless, but bearable at say ISO 1600), the ability to prefocus without going through an awkward series of controls, and no shutter lag. >>> Well I went and looked, that's as big as most dSLR's! I was looking more >>> for a compact type model. Any of those have a 2/3 sensor? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What the hell is 1/1.8" and why don't they use a measurement that is a bit >less retarded! http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=17705326 > A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact > model that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF > control if possible. Also on the list is a decent amount of optical > zoom with good optics. TIA for models to look at. I don't know if it will meet your friends standards for "compact", but the Sony DSC-R1 is a P&S with a 21.5 x 14.4 mm sensor. By comparison, the sensor on the F717 somebody else suggested is 8.8 x 6.6 mm. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > A friend is looking at getting a P&S and is looking for a compact > > model that doesn't have a micro size sensor, they want a bit of DOF [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > By comparison, the sensor on the F717 somebody else suggested is > 8.8 x 6.6 mm. The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing apples to oranges. Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. >> The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing >> apples to oranges. Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on >> almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all photographers, eh? Signaturewww.photosbydouglas.com www.weprint2canvas.com If you really must write,use my name at an above domain. > >> The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > >> apples to oranges. Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on > >> almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. > > Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all photographers, eh? Obviously not, although there must be some reason why the OP asked for a P&S recommendation instead of an SLR. >> Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all photographers, eh? > > Obviously not, although there must be some reason why the > OP asked for a P&S recommendation instead of an SLR. The OP also said "and is looking for a compact model", and the DSC-R1 can hardly be described as being compact. It's heavy and huge, at least for a P&S. Size and weight may be the main reason why a DSLR wasn't considered. > The OP also said "and is looking for a compact model", and the > DSC-R1 can hardly be described as being compact. It's heavy and > huge, at least for a P&S. Size and weight may be the main reason > why a DSLR wasn't considered. Well, the OP mentioned also said "TIA for models to look at" - so it sees a bit over-cautious to rule out the /only/ P&S model that has a fairly large sensor. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> The OP also said "and is looking for a compact model", and the >> DSC-R1 can hardly be described as being compact. It's heavy and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sees a bit over-cautious to rule out the /only/ P&S model that has a > fairly large sensor. Well of course, the whole point of the request was to have models suggested by others. But if you want to include the one example that has an unusually large sensor, it might have been a good idea to also point out its extraordinarily large size and weight that conflicted with what was asked for. Interestingly, the R1's lens also giveth and taketh away. It has a very high quality lens, but it also doesn't have a particularly large zoom range. I think that Stacey is aware of the R1, but was trying to identify any relatively unknown smallish P&S cameras that have relatively large sensors and apertures. If the R1 would be an acceptable alternative, then why not suggest some of the smaller DSLRs too? Aren't low end DSLRs from Canon, Nikon and Olympus smaller, lighter and less expensive than the R1? > Well of course, the whole point of the request was to have models > suggested by others. But if you want to include the one example [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > from Canon, Nikon and Olympus smaller, lighter and less expensive > than the R1? Not if you include a lens of the same quality, zoom range and max. aperture as the one of the R1. SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/ >> Aren't low end DSLRs from Canon, Nikon and Olympus smaller, lighter >> and less expensive than the R1? > > Not if you include a lens of the same quality, zoom range and max. > aperture as the one of the R1. I'm aware of the quality of the R1's lens (even mentioned it). But reading the OP's request it should be possible to figure out what kind of camera is wanted and what isn't. It looked like even a small DSLR would be too large, and I mentioned them to point out that the larger R1 would be even less desirable based on it being even farther in the direction away from the kind of camera that was wanted. Bigger. Heavier. More expensive. That its lens is of higher quality than a cheap kit lens is nice, but irrelevant. Sure, you can put a big, expensive high quality lens on any of those DSLRs, but that would be way out of the question for the OP's friend, as would getting an R1, and that's who gets to make the decision. Not you. Not me. I don't know why you're defending an imaginary slight against the R1. It's a very good camera, but not even close to what the OP's friend wants. For someone else that isn't "looking for a compact model", and puts greater value on high quality in a camera that can also do double duty pounding tent pegs into the ground, the R1 might be the ideal camera. :) >>> The OP also said "and is looking for a compact model", and the >>> DSC-R1 can hardly be described as being compact. It's heavy and >>> huge, at least for a P&S. Size and weight may be the main reason >>> why a DSLR wasn't considered. >> Well, the OP mentioned also said "TIA for models to look at" - so >> it sees a bit over-cautious to rule out the /only/ P&S model that >> has a fairly large sensor. > Well of course, the whole point of the request was to have models > suggested by others. But if you want to include the one example > that has an unusually large sensor, it might have been a good idea > to also point out its extraordinarily large size and weight that > conflicted with what was asked for. Which I did. This is the full text of my reply top the OP: «I don't know if it will meet your friends standards for "compact", but the Sony DSC-R1 is a P&S with a 21.5 x 14.4 mm sensor.» Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> But if you want to include the one example >> that has an unusually large sensor, it might have been a good idea [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > «I don't know if it will meet your friends standards for "compact", > but the Sony DSC-R1 is a P&S with a 21.5 x 14.4 mm sensor.» It's not really that big a deal, but hinting that the R1 might not be "compact" doesn't come close to pointing out the "extraordinarily large size and weight", which was neither mentioned nor hinted at. There are large, lightweight cameras that can be easily carried around all day. As nice a camera as the R1 may be, it's not the ideal walkabout. It's a boat anchor. <g> > It's not really that big a deal, but hinting that the R1 might not > be "compact" doesn't come close to pointing out the "extraordinarily [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > around all day. As nice a camera as the R1 may be, it's not the > ideal walkabout. It's a boat anchor. <g> Ever seen a 5D with the 24-105 F4 IS lens? That's a huge, heavy stone. 3300 Euro and does not even have an inbuilt flash (you have to add an external flash for more bulk and weight). SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/ >> There are large, lightweight cameras that can be easily carried >> around all day. As nice a camera as the R1 may be, it's not the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3300 Euro and does not even have an inbuilt flash (you have to add an > external flash for more bulk and weight). Yes, I've seen bodies burdened with big bertha bazooms. But how many of those behemoths are bought by people trying to find compact P&S cameras? Or to put it another way, how many compact P&S cameras are as large as an R1? Or to put it yet another way, even the 5D with 24-105 F4 IS lens might seem lightweight compared to what Ansel Adams loaded on his trucks. But even if you, personally would love to use an R1 and wouldn't be put off by its size and weight, I think that you'd agree that it wouldn't really work for the friend that Stacey says "wants a smallish camera that can fit in a purse". I also think that if money was no object, I'd prefer the R1 to the 5D with that lens. I wouldn't mind the extra weight of a decent external flash though - they earn their keep. >>> Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all photographers, eh? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >huge, at least for a P&S. Size and weight may be the main reason >why a DSLR wasn't considered. Look for Sony to do some radical redesigning of that camera for the next incarnation, if there is one. I doubt it will be profitable for them if the price is forced down below $800.00, not with that lens. They may just drop it and release DSLRs. -Rich > The OP also said "and is looking for a compact model", and the > DSC-R1 can hardly be described as being compact. It's heavy and > huge, at least for a P&S. Size and weight may be the main reason > why a DSLR wasn't considered. It is, she wants a smallish camera that can fit in a purse etc. SignatureStacey [] > Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all > photographers, eh? A short movie (just a few seconds with sound) can convey just as good an impression of an event as can a still photo. Complementary. I'm glad to have the ability to do both, as I'm sure are many others. Try it sometime and see for yourself. David >>> The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing >>> apples to oranges. Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on >>> almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. > >Yeah, making movies is gonna be high on the list of all photographers, eh? I happened upon some flood destruction in progress last year. I shot it with still photos on my C-8080 and video (800x600 at 15fps). A Tv station bought the video, a newspaper bought one of the stills. The newspaper paid more! > Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on > almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. Movie Mode! Yuk! Basic is right, my phone takes better viseo than most of those! "Proper" stills cameras don't take video ;-) That's what a DV Camcorder is for :-) Rob. > > Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on > > almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "Proper" stills cameras don't take video ;-) That's what a DV Camcorder > is for :-) Try a Canon S1 or S2. Great quality video, at least for 9 minutes at a time. :-) > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > apples to oranges. Also, the R1 lacks basic features found on > almost all P&S cameras, such as a movie mode. So what if the sensor technology is different? It isn't particularly important. Even in the case of Canon's CMOS sensors vs the Sony CCDs used eg in Nikon cameras, the main difference is noise, and it's about one stop difference, which is hardly "apples to oranges", and is in any case fairly obviously a result of extremely effective noise (of all kinds) reduction. Or did you mean something else? Question (I'm still learning about this technology): "acl" says "Even in the case of Canon's CMOS sensors vs the Sony CCDs used eg in Nikon cameras, the main difference is noise." So which has more noise, CMOS or CCD? Which brands or models use each type? > Question (I'm still learning about this technology): "acl" says > "Even in the case of Canon's CMOS sensors vs the Sony CCDs used eg > in Nikon cameras, the main difference is noise." So which has more > noise, CMOS or CCD? Which brands or models use each type? acl is over-generalizing. For starters both Canon and Nikon uses CMOS in DSLRs. AFAIK, Canon uses CMOS in all current cameras, while Nikon only uses CMOS in the D2X body. But IMHO, noise correlates more to well size than to technology. Canon, in general, is using geometries with larger well sizes, and therefore provides better noise figures. But the Nikon D200, which packs 10.2 Mpx into an APS-C sized CCD sensor more or less equals the the 8 Mpx EOS 30D (CMOS) in the noise department. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gisle Hannemyr wrote:or models use each type? > acl is over-generalizing. > For starters both Canon and Nikon uses CMOS in DSLRs. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > packs 10.2 Mpx into an APS-C sized CCD sensor more or less equals the > the 8 Mpx EOS 30D (CMOS) in the noise department. a) where did I overgeneralise? b) "Well size" usually refers to number of electrons (full well capacity), I guess you mean pixel size (ie the physical dimensions of a single pixel), which does indeed correlate well with noise (ie larger pixel size implies less noise). And yes you're right, the most important factor in reducing noise is to have a larger pixel size (larger sensor and/or less pixels). I was merely saying that comparison of images from the actual DSLRs mentioned gives the results I stated. The pixel size of the 6mp sensors of the Nikons (D70 etc) is slightly larger than the pixel size of the Canon 20D, so that can't be the reason for the difference in noise levels. As for the D200 vs the 20D, I have spent a considerable amount of time comparing different images from different sources, and I don't agree with you that they are comparable for ISOs above around 600 (eg check the shadows). I don't know why (I have some idea, though). Nevertheless, as I said somewhere else, I have ordered a D200. > Question (I'm still learning about this technology): "acl" says "Even > in the case of Canon's CMOS sensors vs the Sony CCDs used eg in Nikon > cameras, the main difference is noise." So which has more noise, CMOS > or CCD? Which brands or models use each type? Canon DSLRs use CMOS, the Nikon D50, D70 and D200 use CCD while the D2X a CMOS. As for which has more noise, it depends on what you're really asking. As far as DSLRs are concerned, if you have some time go to dpreview (for example) and download a few sample photos from eg the D200 and EOS 20D and compare how the noise change as the ISO changes. How much noise you see depends on the software noise reduction applied by each camera (or the RAW converter), and this might obliterate detail while reducing visible noise. Also check how the shadow details are affected. To me it seem clear that the Canons are better at this, not just in high ISOs (1600, say) but also in lower ISOs (I nevertheless ordered a D200). Except for the superior noise behaviour at high ISOs, I personally don't find the advantage of Canon's sensors to outweigh the advantages (for me) of the D200, but this is obviously a personal issue. If you're interested, take a look at http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp and/or http://www.dalsa.com/shared/content/pdfs/CCD_vs_CMOS_Litwiller_2005.pdf but keep in mind that the best way to decide is to just compare results from different DSLRs. eg they say that CCD has lower noise than CMOS, but obviously this is for an ideal case, in a DSLR a) the image sensor isn't the only component affecting image quality, b) we are not dealing with the best in sensor quality (they'd be far too expensive). Also http://www.clarkvision.com/ is an excellent resource (and inspiration!). If you're talking about cutting-edge (and extremely expensive) sensors, things may change, but this is irrelevant to digital cameras. > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > apples to oranges. CMOS or CCD is 100% irrelevant SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/ > > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > > apples to oranges. > > CMOS or CCD is 100% irrelevant No it's not, Moron. > > > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > > > apples to oranges. > > > > CMOS or CCD is 100% irrelevant > > No it's not, moron. a.shole SignatureAlfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330 and E500 forum at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ Olympus E500 resource - http://myolympus.org/E500/ > > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing > > apples to oranges. > > CMOS or CCD is 100% irrelevant In a discussion of sensor size, it's 100% relevant. >> > The DSC-R1's sensor is CMOS not CCD. You're comparing >> > apples to oranges. >> >> CMOS or CCD is 100% irrelevant > >In a discussion of sensor size, it's 100% relevant. Could you explain that? How is CMOS vs CCD relevant to sensor *size*? SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" Who cares about senor size, I care about end results, are photos good or not. Read reviews P&S are not really inferior only limited in what they do. What is more important is what it will be used for, camera and print size needed , and amount you can pay. > Who cares about senor size La mujer might! >>Who cares about senor size > > La mujer might! Hah! Pero- es "el motion en el mar"..... And my Spanish has gone to the perros.... SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>Who cares about senor size >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And my Spanish has gone to the perros.... <g> Mine's now about as good as it ever was, which isn't saying much. I understand "mar", but is "en el mar" and idiom for something like "is everything" or "all over the world"? Not too much in my dictionary, but it did have a phrase that could apply to some other threads here - "la mar de tonto". :) > Who cares about senor size, I care about end results, are photos good or > not. Main problem with tiny sensors are the infinate DOF they have. That's the reason I asked about which ones have something bigger than say the 1/3" size one and work well. SignatureStacey |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.