 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / July 2007Limit of sensor size in P&S cameras
Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is getting bigger and becoming closer to DSLR (G7, S5IS, FZ50, etc). Is the sensor mounted a certain distance from the lens? Therefore larger sensor means larger lens and larger distance between the two. Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? It isn't the body that's the problem. It is the lens. The bigger the sensor the bigger the lens for the same zoom range. Most small P&S cameras wouldn't be very comfortable or pocketable if the body was 3x4 inches and the lens was the size of a soda can. However I see no reason they can't do an a dSLR sized camera with a non-removable 28 to 135 lens. Yes, it would be the size of a dSLR with that size lens, but I don't see a problem with that. As far as I am concerned changable lenses are highly over rated. Somebody! > However I see no reason they can't do an a dSLR sized camera with a > non-removable 28 to 135 lens. Yes, it would be the size of a dSLR with > that size lens, but I don't see a problem with that. As far as I am > concerned changable lenses are highly over rated. > > Somebody! I agree, when I buy an 800mm f/2 I think it should come with a camera attached... ^ > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? Olympus offers a middle ground. Their lenses are not cheaper though and the image quality is not that much better than P&S. One thing is the larger sensor itself costs a lot more money because the benefit of minaturization is you can use tiny inexpensive pieces of silicon chips & the size/cost effect on silicon is exponential. You can use tiny lenses too. Above a certain size it just makes sense to allow interchangeable lenses. Larger formats have shallower depth of field and need longer exposure times with a tripod like the old Ansel Adams large format gear and the long telephoto lenses become exponentially more expensive at those formats. It's almost unheard-of to do long telephoto action photography with larger formats but around 35mm works out pretty well as long as you aren't doing huge prints. If you need huge prints, stitch panoramas or pay 10's of thousands for digitals at that size or simply use film. Very wide angle lenses are difficult to design, particularly for smaller sensors so again 35mm is a a good compromise. I think there is one high-end large sensor digital with a large sensor and fixed lens but it's expensive and very limited zoom, maybe just fixed focal length. And I think it's a rangefinder meaning no through-the lens framing.  SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of the sensor. > > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fixed focal length. And I think it's a rangefinder meaning no > through-the lens framing. >I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of > the sensor. Not the size of but the lack of size. a large sensor of 23 x 15 mm with 10 MP will not produce as much noise as a 6 x 4 mm 10 mp sensor used on the P&S. http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor%20sizes Mark Dunn <markrhdunn@nospamatgmail.com> observed >I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of >the sensor. er,.... inverse proportion..... ? Mike [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting] SignatureMichael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <>< >I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of >the sensor. It's the other way around, which is really what the OP is (and others) are complaining and wondering about. Specifically: why are the "larger" (15x23 mm) sensors only found in SLR bodies? I believe there's a market for a decent P&S with a "large" sensor. I understand it would cost a bit more. But it has to be reasonably light and compact, for my purposes, anyway. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >>I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of >>the sensor. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But it has to be reasonably light and compact, for > my purposes, anyway. Leica M8 1.3x crop 10MP digital rangefinder $5,000. No lens included so so add another $4,000 for a 35mm f/1.4. Technically it's a P&S in the sense of film P&S except for the interchangeable lens part. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091412leicam8previewed.asp SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > Leica M8 1.3x crop 10MP digital rangefinder $5,000. No lens included so > so add another $4,000 for a 35mm f/1.4. Technically it's a P&S in the > sense of film P&S except for the interchangeable lens part. > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091412leicam8previewed.asp You forgot to budget the IR and UV cut filters that Leica left off. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> But it has to be reasonably light and compact, for >> my purposes, anyway. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sense of film P&S except for the interchangeable lens part. >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06091412leicam8previewed.asp 1.3 lbs with batteries, and without lens. It's neither light nor compact. No thanks. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > I believe noise is a problem which increases in proportion to the size of > the sensor. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> fixed focal length. And I think it's a rangefinder meaning no >> through-the lens framing. Inversely. Given a fixed pixel number, the smaller the sensor, the higher the noise level. However, there is nothing to say this will not allow improvements to sensor technology, and fabrication, that will change that somewhat. Also, there is no real limit to the size of the sensor used in a P&S camera other than cost. > Inversely. > Given a fixed pixel number, the smaller the sensor, the higher the noise > level. However, there is nothing to say this will not allow > improvements to sensor technology, and fabrication, that will change > that somewhat. No, improvements to sensor technology and fabrication will not change this. Perhaps the improvements will make the noise levels of the smaller sensors acceptable, but apply the same improvements to the larger sensors, and the larger sensor will always have lower noise for the same number of pixels. > Also, there is no real limit to the size of the sensor > used in a P&S camera other than cost. Sure there is, the other real limit is the size of the P&S camera. You could build an SLR with a non-interchangeable lens and a large sensor, and overcome at least the noise issues of P&S cameras, but the cost savings would be minimal over a "regular" SLR, and it would be so large that no one would buy it. >> Inversely. >> Given a fixed pixel number, the smaller the sensor, the higher the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > savings would be minimal over a "regular" SLR, and it would be so large > that no one would buy it. In the subcompact cameras, that is probably true, but in the compact size, such as the average P&S camera today, there is more than enough room for a larger sensor. > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? Have you seen the size of the Sony R1 sensor That was an APS-C The Minolta 7 to 200 used 2/3 >>Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S >>camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The Minolta 7 to 200 used 2/3 It didn't, it used 1/1.8 which is larger than 2/3, and about 6 x 8mm in size. That is still a very small sensor. The Sony R-1 and the Sigma whateveritiscalled compact use 1.7X factor sensors, small DSLR size. David >>>Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S >>>camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > David I only went by my Inst book, But You should know if anyone does. :¬) >>>>Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S >>>>camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >I only went by my Inst book, But You should know if anyone does. :¬) *Should* know, but... We all have bad days ;-) SignatureJohn Bean >> Have you seen the size of the Sony R1 sensor That was an APS-C >> >> The Minolta 7 to 200 used 2/3 > > It didn't, it used 1/1.8 Uh, no. It used 2/3. (He's talking about the Dimage 7.) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Konica_Minolta/minolta_dimage7.asp >which is larger than 2/3, and about 6 x 8mm in size. Uh, no. 1/1.8 is 7.176 x 5.319, 2/3 is 8.800 x 6.600. > That is still a very small sensor. Finally something that's right. > The Sony R-1 and the Sigma whateveritiscalled compact use 1.7X factor > sensors, small DSLR size. I don't have the energy to see how much of that you've got right or wrong. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S >>>camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It didn't, it used 1/1.8 which is larger than 2/3, and about 6 x 8mm in >size. That is still a very small sensor. Don't know about the earlier 7, I never owned one, but my A2 used a 2/3" sensor which is about 6.6x8.8mm. A 1/1.8" sensor is smaller, about 5.3x7.2mm. SignatureJohn Bean >>> Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S >>> camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It didn't, it used 1/1.8 which is larger than 2/3, and about 6 x 8mm in > size. That is still a very small sensor. Sorry - my error. Still remembering the original fuss which Minolta made about the 1/1.8 inch sensor and how it was larger than the standard used by digicams - which of course was 1/2 not 2/3 at the time. This was like a mantra from Minolta marketing. But it was, of course, for the Dimage 5 not the 7 series - over which no similar PR activity took place (they didn't sit you down in a room and show a Powerpoint presentation all about the benefits of the 1/1.8 inch sensor - or for that matter 2/3). 5 and 7 - same lens module, sensor size changed the field of view from an effective 35-250mm with the 5 to 28-200mm with the 7. The 5 didn't seem to last long at all on the market. I did write after the A2 was launched about the 2/3 sensor (have not been unaware of it - just forgotten) and the true coverage of the GT zoom lens, which Minolta called 28-200mm. That only applies if you crop the 4:3 aspect ratio of the 2/3 sensor down to a 3:2 frame (35mm equivalent). If you make a US letter paper sized print crop, you would need a 24/25mm lens on a 35mm camera to match the angle. They could, just as reasonably, have called the lens a 25-180mm. While the sensor is 6.6 x 8.8mm, does anyone know the active pixel area? I used the active area of 35mm film (22.5 x 34.5mm, standard GePe slide mount and standard masking neg carrier) but the full area of the sensor when considering this. David >While the sensor is 6.6 x 8.8mm, does anyone know the active pixel area? Only by deduction. The normal camera crop is 3264x2448 pixels, the maximum available is 3272 x 2456. The numbers come from A2 raw files as reported by the conversion software (Silkypix). SignatureJohn Bean >>While the sensor is 6.6 x 8.8mm, does anyone know the active pixel area? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The numbers come from A2 raw files as reported by the > conversion software (Silkypix). Silkypix is pretty good at leaving only minimal unused pixels. The crop is trivial anyway. Some converters nick more pixels than others, presumably because they use a larger convolution to interpolate each image pixel from. David >>>While the sensor is 6.6 x 8.8mm, does anyone know the active pixel area? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >presumably because they use a larger convolution to interpolate each >image pixel from. Silkypix by default honours whatever crop the maker puts in the metadata, so it depends on the camera. All can be overridden of course. Of the cameras I've used most the "lost" pixel count is trivial with the A2 and Pentax DS, moderately large with the Panasonic LX1, and pretty damned big with the Olympus E-1. Only the LX1 seems to get odd edge effects if I choose to use the whole sensor so I never bother. The E-1 on the other hand gains a significant collection of "free" pixels - and it needs all the extra pixels I can find ;-) SignatureJohn Bean On Jul 25, 10:16 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? 1/1.8". Consider it an economic limit. The Sigma one with the fixed 28mm lens has a larger sensor, but it will cost about $1000 as well. > On Jul 25, 10:16 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote: >> Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 1/1.8". Consider it an economic limit. The Sigma one with the fixed > 28mm lens has a larger sensor, but it will cost about $1000 as well. As cost of sensors drops (when the number of pixels stabilizes), this should become less of a problem. Add that to the new Kodak panchromatic sensor, and the new CMOS sensor in it's newest low cost camera, and you can see where things are going. > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ 2005 "However it's not the body design which makes this camera unique (many have copied the DSC-D700), it is the camera's sensor and lens. This is the first all-in-one digital camera to utilize a large (APS size) sensor, to be precise a 10.3 megapixel CMOS unit measuring 21.5 x 14.4 mm which is essentially a slightly smaller version of the sensor used in the Nikon D2X. It's also the first APS size sensor to provide full time live preview to the camera's LCD monitor or EVF (electronic viewfinder). This means that there's no mirror box or prism making the camera more compact and allowing the lens to be positioned much closer to the sensor. Equally as important and interesting is the lens which provides a 24 - 120 mm (equivalent) five times zoom with a maximum aperture of F2.8 - F4.8." SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > anira...@gmail.com wrote: > > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > a 24 - 120 mm (equivalent) five times zoom with a maximum aperture of > F2.8 - F4.8." and now that Sony has decided to drop that model, I'd settle for a P&S with a 4:3 sensor in it... >>anira...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > and now that Sony has decided to drop that model, Aw crap. Why? > I'd settle for a P&S with a 4:3 sensor in it... Which? SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com On Jul 25, 7:16 pm, anira...@gmail.com wrote: > Is it physically not possible to mount larger size sensor in a P&S > camera? I notice that the larger the sensor size, the camera is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Will they ever built a P&S camera with sensor used in DSLR ( 23x15mm, > 28x18mm or even full size 35mm film size 36x24mm)? Check out the Sigma DP-1. http://www.sigma-dp1.com Anoop |
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.