Are we expecting too much of Canon?

[kaumy3]

Comments so far:

G12 basically a G11
S95 basically a S90
SX130 basically a SX120

Has Canon lost their creativity and desire to innovate?

I will look forward to next year's G13, S100 and SX140 models

 

[trevmar]

I think that the sensors and lenses have hit physical limits, and improvements will be incremental from now on.
.

 

[Radu P]

I think that the sensors and lenses have hit physical limits, and improvements will be incremental from now on.

I said it many times here, and I am going to say it again. Sigma is a low player in the cameras market, yet they were able to come up with a compact camera smaller (in terms of volume or weight) than the G cameras, yet it has an APS-C sensor in it. I am sure that with a bit of work Canon can put an APS-C sensor and a 2x zoom lens (something like 24-55 mm) in a body the size of a G11.

 

[trevmar]

Right, but is the Sigma lens f2 or f4?
That is where the sensor size tradeoff is played out...
.

 

[Seaclam]

Well, if they keep putting in tiny, noisy sensors, then yes they have. They need to start putting in larger sensors for better IQ. They don't have to be a full frame sensor, maybe something a bit closer to a 1.6 crop sensor like 2/3rd's or 4/3rd's. Seriously, the sensor sizes on these point and shoots are incredibly small. I have a 5D2 and a G10 as an every day, but come on have you seen a chart with sensor size comparisons, it's truly hilarious how small they are compared to a full frame.

I think that the sensors and lenses have hit physical limits, and improvements will be incremental from now on.
.

--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.

 

[pablolie]

The S90 and G11 set benchmarks in their classes. I think the S90's benchmark more impressive, because I agree the G series will have to go bigger sensor to justify its existence, and I am sure Canon knows it.

But this business is run on incremental updates, which means both R&D and customer budgets are spared artificial innovation news. If a design is flawed it'll go astray quickly (many examples out there), and if not there's little point in fundamentally reinventing it every year.

If the S90 is a great compact (which it is) the S95 can not be a bad one.

 

[Radu P]

Right, but is the Sigma lens f2 or f4?
That is where the sensor size tradeoff is played out...

There are two Sigma cameras, the DP1 and DP2 (and their versions).

The DP1 has a 28mm EFL, at f/4, and the DP2 has an EFL of 40mm or so, at f/2.8 (so the DP2 is faster than the G11 at the same EFL).

Now obviously faster lens can be made, without increasing the camera size too much.

 

[trevmar]

They need to start putting in larger sensors for better IQ.

OK, but then they need bigger lenses to achieve brightness. Look at the size of DSLR 5x zoom lenses with an f2.2 brightness

This is the fundamental limit. Surprisingly, the sensor in the G11 is very close in performance to some MFT and DSLR. Look at the sensor scores here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/DxOMark-review-for-advanced-compacts
.

 

[Radu P]

This is the fundamental limit. Surprisingly, the sensor in the G11 is very close in performance to some MFT and DSLR. Look at the sensor scores here:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-Insights/DxOMark-review-for-advanced-compacts

Did you ever see noise in the sky at ISO 100 with a DSLR? Those tests don't mean anything.

 

[Bruce Dunkle]

I own an SX110 which I use to make DVDs for family and friends. I was hoping for three improvements with the 130: 1. GPS; 2. HD Video; and 3. A better wide angle. Canon left out the GPS, but, as they say, two out of three aint bad. Now when the 110 wears out, and hopefully some reviews are available, I'll probably go for the 130, or its replacement. For simple snapshooting, and movie taking, the SX100 series is a relatively inexpensive and reliable solution.
--
Bruce Dunkle

 

[trevmar]

Did you ever see noise in the sky at ISO 100 with a DSLR? Those tests don't mean anything.

Well, if that is what the argument is going to degenerate to, then yes, we are expecting too much of Canon.

They should just cease making cheap point-and-shoot cameras ASAP. There must be a minimum 40db Dynamic Range in a camera's sensor, or it is of no utility to the public.

.

BTW - I don't see noise at ISO100 in any image of the sky I have shot with any pocketable camera I have bought, even after applying 100% contrast masks in Photoshop
.

 

[TechOutsider]

Do you know how much the DP1/DP2 cost when they were first released? Over 1000.

They are at a third and half their prices now respectively because market demand is basically zero.

Those cameras take extremely expensive microlenses on the sensor to focus the light so it strikes the sensor perpendicularly.

I don't think Canon has a huge interest in those especially niche products.

Did you ever see noise in the sky at ISO 100 with a DSLR? Those tests don't mean anything.

Yes, there is going to be noise @ 100%, but why view your images at 100%? Are you guys trying to depress yourselves? Are you trying to die a couple years earlier? For most purposes, the 100% output doesn't really matter.

--

Overall I can't say enough positive things about this camera. Sure it would be nice if it had HD video or a higher resolution screen but those aren't required to take fantastic pictures.

 

[GeraldW]

Making a zoom small is much harder, and a fast zoom is harder still. Look at the zoom lenses on the M4/3 cameras and the Sony NEX.
--
Jerry

 

[Radu P]

Did you ever see noise in the sky at ISO 100 with a DSLR? Those tests don't mean anything.

Well, if that is what the argument is going to degenerate to, then yes, we are expecting too much of Canon.

Oh, so you mean it is unreasonable to expect noise free skies from a camera that cost 500 bucks?

They should just cease making cheap point-and-shoot cameras ASAP. There must be a minimum 40db Dynamic Range in a camera's sensor, or it is of no utility to the public.

Huh?

BTW - I don't see noise at ISO100 in any image of the sky I have shot with any pocketable camera I have bought, even after applying 100% contrast masks in Photoshop

Yes, I am sure there are ways to get rid of that noise, but the noise will also mask the real color transitions in the sky. And time is money, not to mention that Photoshop is not so cheap either.

 

[GeraldW]

Points well taken. I was going to stay out of this one; but thought your response was good.
--
Jerry

 

[trevmar]

Oh, so you mean it is unreasonable to expect noise free skies from a camera that cost 500 bucks?

No, I am saying that there are cameras which cost less than $500 which do show completely noise-free skys, and shadows too, for that matter, at least at ISO 100.

I buy those cameras, so I haven't personally seen any $500 cameras which do have noisy skies. Perhaps you could be a little more specific as to what camera you are talking about?
.

 

[Radu P]

Those cameras take extremely expensive microlenses on the sensor to focus the light so it strikes the sensor perpendicularly.

Do you have a source for that? AFAIK, they use the same sensor as their DSLRs. And I don't understand this myth that the light has to be perpendicular on the sensor or else. If a lens is 18mm af f/4 the light is going to fall at the same angle regardless of the camera size (assuming the sensor size is the same), yes?

Yes, there is going to be noise @ 100%, but why view your images at 100%? Are you guys trying to depress yourselves? Are you trying to die a couple years earlier? For most purposes, the 100% output doesn't really matter.

So get a cellphone, you don't need a camera.

 

[Radu P]

No, I am saying that there are cameras which cost less than $500 which do show completely noise-free skys, and shadows too, for that matter, at least at ISO 100.

Show me one picture from a P&S where a sky is shown, and I will show you the noise.

I buy those cameras, so I haven't personally seen any $500 cameras which do have noisy skies. Perhaps you could be a little more specific as to what camera you are talking about?

G11, LX3, LX5, and so on.

 

[TechOutsider]

Those cameras take extremely expensive microlenses on the sensor to focus the light so it strikes the sensor perpendicularly.

Do you have a source for that? AFAIK, they use the same sensor as their DSLRs. And I don't understand this myth that the light has to be perpendicular on the sensor or else. If a lens is 18mm af f/4 the light is going to fall at the same angle regardless of the camera size (assuming the sensor size is the same), yes?

Yes, there is going to be noise @ 100%, but why view your images at 100%? Are you guys trying to depress yourselves? Are you trying to die a couple years earlier? For most purposes, the 100% output doesn't really matter.

So get a cellphone, you don't need a camera.

Every sensor uses microlens and the Foveon is no exception, especially considering that it is basically three sensors put together - giving it more depth than your usual Bayer sensors.

Microlens help increase the efficiency of sensors collecting light which otherwise would have fallen somewhere where there isn't a photo well.

As for my second point, it's open to interpretation - what's sufficient for me doesn't seem to match what's sufficient for you.

--

Overall I can't say enough positive things about this camera. Sure it would be nice if it had HD video or a higher resolution screen but those aren't required to take fantastic pictures.

 

[trevmar]

Show me one picture from a P&S where a sky is shown, and I will show you the noise.

OK - that's a deal. Next time I am processing an image taken with one of those cameras at ISO 100 with significant sky in it, I will forward you a copy.

.

So now let's get on with the discussion about whether we are expecting too much of Canon
.