Peter iNova56624
Leading Member
OOps! the "1/4-inch" chip's numbers are really for a 1/3-inch chip. Solly.
-iNova
...there I go, obfuscating the menticulture again....
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Significance of CCD size?
- Thread starter fritz
- Start date
-iNova
...there I go, obfuscating the menticulture again....
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Well, I think the chances that Canon would sell their CMOS sensor to Nikon are only slightly less remote than the chances that Nikon would ask for it -- in other words, never gonna' happen. But several companies are making some sophisticated, large imaging chips including, obviously, Sony (D1/D1X/D1H) and Canon (D30) but also Kodak, Phillips and National Semiconductor (the very high performance CMOS chips used in the Foveon camera.)
As for what the price difference would be if Canon started selling their CMOS chip to other companies, who knows. The CMOS production process is, in theory, a lot cheaper than CCD production, but, in practice, producing good CMOS imaging chips is expensive and narrows the gap a fair bit. Anyway, like Phil said, it would have to be a very substantial difference, if only because of economies of scale (i.e. Sony amortizes their development and tooling costs over, say, a million of their CCDs versus Canon amortizing theirs over, say, 100,000.)
P
Phil Askey
Guest
Actually, it's worse than that. A senior Kodak engineer once shared with me that because yield (the number of good sensors on a single wafer) goes down so dramatically the cost of producing a sensor goes up EXPONENTIALLY with its size.
Bob Morrison
Senior Member
Well, Peter, actually they couldn't have. The professional electronic imaging world would have been on their case in an instant for unilaterally changing a longstanding system of measurement. I agree that it's not logical; neither are inches, feet and yards, but we still use them.
On another topic, Sony also benefits from high vertical integration. It develops a high quality chip and uses its best examples in professional gear, its seconds in prosumer gear, and the remainder in straight consumer products. A high-end Sony TV camera body will use a prism to split incoming light onto an array of three chips--tripling the market for the high end imaging chips.
Jola
Senior Member
Looks as if I may have to wait a long time for my reasonably priced Nikon SLR.
Excuse my ignorance of the optics, but is there a way to design a reasonable SLR using standard Nikon Lenses with the small size CCD as used in the Coolpix 5000?
Excuse my ignorance of the optics, but is there a way to design a reasonable SLR using standard Nikon Lenses with the small size CCD as used in the Coolpix 5000?
P
Phil Askey
Guest
That would result in a 4x focal length multiplier:
A 28 mm Nikkor lens would have equiv. focal length of 112 mm
Spot the problem?
A 28 mm Nikkor lens would have equiv. focal length of 112 mm
Spot the problem?
Jola
Senior Member
Phil
Yes, thank you. And after all the detailed explanations regarding the cost of the CCD with increasing size, it looks as if the only solution is a smaller SLR with a new lens system.
After Pentax's experience with their 110 film SLR, maybe this won't be forthcoming.
Pity, us amateurs may have to forget about SLR's. I can't afford a D1.
Yes, thank you. And after all the detailed explanations regarding the cost of the CCD with increasing size, it looks as if the only solution is a smaller SLR with a new lens system.
After Pentax's experience with their 110 film SLR, maybe this won't be forthcoming.
Pity, us amateurs may have to forget about SLR's. I can't afford a D1.
Yoav Nir
New member
Not to worry. We already have an SLR with a small sensor - the Olympus E-10. Rumor has it that within a year they'll have an interchangeable lens SLR. I'm sure Nikon, Canon and Minolta will not be far behind. I predict that by the shopping season of Christmas 2003 you'll have a selection of medium priced ($1000-$2000) true SLRs from all the big manufacturers.
P
Phil Askey
Guest
Personally I think Olympus are probably the best placed of all the manufacturers to come out with a lens interchangeable digital SLR with a totally new lens format. They don't have the legacy of high quality AF lenses hanging around (sure they have the OM series, but lets ignore that)... They could get away with new lenses and a digital SLR but (a) the price would have to be right (lenses and body), (b) the quality would have to be at least as good as current day D-SLR's.
I am less concerned about the interchangable lens than I am about sensor size.
For the pro-market and high end enthusiast I think lens interchangabilty is of the utmost import, but for the low end consumer SLR market it is quite over-rated. Especially in digital where you also have the dust issue to deal with. I know several people with consumer SLRs and NONE of them has used a different lens in the last year. For them it was more about choosing which lens to go with their camera on an almost permanent basis. Most have 28-100 or 28-200 mounted. Give me that range and I would be happy.
I like the E10/20 philosophy of building high quality purpose built sealed lens systems. But I don't like the light wasting beam splitter. When you have clean iso1600 then you can use a beam splitter, but when we are struggling to get clean iso200, it is not the time to waste light.
What I think would be useful if the industry could rally around an intermediate Sensor size that could be used to build an infrastructure around. Something like 4/3" Kodak KAF-C5100E (17.8×13.4 mm) which is just about 25% the area of full frame 35mm. Perhaps the perfect middle ground between high end full frame 35mm and tiny consumer sensors.
I am really hoping some manufacturer breaks away fromt he pack and offers a sub $1000 camera with a sensor like this, maybe even going fixed lens to keep costs down. I really don't want to be limited to iso100.
Using 4/3 as a basis everyone could manufacture different sensors to fit and different cameras to match. We are in a strange period right now where sensor sizes are inconsistant and changing each year. This must be a nightmare scenario for the camera manufacturers.
It's all interesting to observe though.
Peter
For the pro-market and high end enthusiast I think lens interchangabilty is of the utmost import, but for the low end consumer SLR market it is quite over-rated. Especially in digital where you also have the dust issue to deal with. I know several people with consumer SLRs and NONE of them has used a different lens in the last year. For them it was more about choosing which lens to go with their camera on an almost permanent basis. Most have 28-100 or 28-200 mounted. Give me that range and I would be happy.
I like the E10/20 philosophy of building high quality purpose built sealed lens systems. But I don't like the light wasting beam splitter. When you have clean iso1600 then you can use a beam splitter, but when we are struggling to get clean iso200, it is not the time to waste light.
What I think would be useful if the industry could rally around an intermediate Sensor size that could be used to build an infrastructure around. Something like 4/3" Kodak KAF-C5100E (17.8×13.4 mm) which is just about 25% the area of full frame 35mm. Perhaps the perfect middle ground between high end full frame 35mm and tiny consumer sensors.
I am really hoping some manufacturer breaks away fromt he pack and offers a sub $1000 camera with a sensor like this, maybe even going fixed lens to keep costs down. I really don't want to be limited to iso100.
Using 4/3 as a basis everyone could manufacture different sensors to fit and different cameras to match. We are in a strange period right now where sensor sizes are inconsistant and changing each year. This must be a nightmare scenario for the camera manufacturers.
It's all interesting to observe though.
Peter
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Chip: Sony ICX224 (called a 1/2" chip)
Resolution: 1600 x 1200 pixels
Cell (or pixel) size: 3.9 um
Image area: 6.4 x 4.8 mm
Resolution: 1600 x 1200 pixels
Cell (or pixel) size: 3.9 um
Image area: 6.4 x 4.8 mm
percy57157
Well-known member
I agree with Peter that the dust issue must have a solution before designing a consumer level SLR.
On the other hand, I do not like the idea of special interchangeable lens build just for smaller CCD. Digital SLR should share lens with film cameras. The price of digital cameras have been continuously going down. We will have reasonable price for digital SLR (hopefully without dust problem in near future).
Perhaps Nikon should build CP 5000 with three different lens design. One covers wide angle (20 - 35), other one covers telephoto (75 - 300) and the other one covers normal range (28 - 85). Consumers can choose one they like. Consumer may choose two or all three in a discount price (they should pay only one copy of software).
Just my thought.
Percy
On the other hand, I do not like the idea of special interchangeable lens build just for smaller CCD. Digital SLR should share lens with film cameras. The price of digital cameras have been continuously going down. We will have reasonable price for digital SLR (hopefully without dust problem in near future).
Perhaps Nikon should build CP 5000 with three different lens design. One covers wide angle (20 - 35), other one covers telephoto (75 - 300) and the other one covers normal range (28 - 85). Consumers can choose one they like. Consumer may choose two or all three in a discount price (they should pay only one copy of software).
Just my thought.
Percy
For the pro-market and high end enthusiast I think lens
interchangabilty is of the utmost import, but for the low end
consumer SLR market it is quite over-rated. Especially in digital
where you also have the dust issue to deal with. I know several
people with consumer SLRs and NONE of them has used a different
lens in the last year. For them it was more about choosing which
lens to go with their camera on an almost permanent basis. Most
have 28-100 or 28-200 mounted. Give me that range and I would be
happy.
I like the E10/20 philosophy of building high quality purpose built
sealed lens systems. But I don't like the light wasting beam
splitter. When you have clean iso1600 then you can use a beam
splitter, but when we are struggling to get clean iso200, it is not
the time to waste light.
What I think would be useful if the industry could rally around an
intermediate Sensor size that could be used to build an
infrastructure around. Something like 4/3" Kodak KAF-C5100E
(17.8×13.4 mm) which is just about 25% the area of full frame 35mm.
Perhaps the perfect middle ground between high end full frame 35mm
and tiny consumer sensors.
I am really hoping some manufacturer breaks away fromt he pack and
offers a sub $1000 camera with a sensor like this, maybe even going
fixed lens to keep costs down. I really don't want to be limited to
iso100.
Using 4/3 as a basis everyone could manufacture different sensors
to fit and different cameras to match. We are in a strange period
right now where sensor sizes are inconsistant and changing each
year. This must be a nightmare scenario for the camera
manufacturers.
It's all interesting to observe though.
Peter
Peter iNova56624
Leading Member
Keyword: Reasonable. There ARE ways of taking a focused image, passing it down through optics to concentrate its size smaller and causing it to focus on a smaller, more detailed (per mm) place in space. In order to accept the large array of 35mm lenses and incorporate such an optic into the back of a standard 35mm camera, you might end up with six or eight extra pounds of glass worth a modest fortune.
There's no "all you have to do is..." solution, though, short of magic.
-iNova
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum