-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why no compacts with SLR sensors?
- Thread starter Hans vdC
- Start date
Andre Martins
Active member
One day we were happy.....: http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_archived_product_details.asp?id=890
The 5 megapixel C-5050 Zoom is built with a fast f1.8 aspherical glass Super Bright lens for impressive illumination; equipped with a multi-position LCD to easily capture shots at any angle; and designed with a durable magnesium body that just won’t quit…ever.
The 5 megapixel C-5050 Zoom is built with a fast f1.8 aspherical glass Super Bright lens for impressive illumination; equipped with a multi-position LCD to easily capture shots at any angle; and designed with a durable magnesium body that just won’t quit…ever.
digraph
Forum Enthusiast
I hardly invoked Moore's law, even indirectly!!!
Look at it this way...
I remember getting a basic VCR in the mid 80s. I think it was roughly $400. Then I remember getting another VCR toward the end of the 90s for ~$150. (lets not even talk about how inflation changes the relative dollar values) The late model cheap VCRs had advanced hardware that rivaled the early-model videophile VCRs.
So explain why a mostly mechanical device, with a bit of supporting silicon (some basic logic and what have you - JUST LIKE A DIGITAL CAMERA) came down in price SO dramatically?
Look at it this way...
I remember getting a basic VCR in the mid 80s. I think it was roughly $400. Then I remember getting another VCR toward the end of the 90s for ~$150. (lets not even talk about how inflation changes the relative dollar values) The late model cheap VCRs had advanced hardware that rivaled the early-model videophile VCRs.
So explain why a mostly mechanical device, with a bit of supporting silicon (some basic logic and what have you - JUST LIKE A DIGITAL CAMERA) came down in price SO dramatically?
nickleback
Veteran Member
That's the primary way how the price of silicon devices comes down.
Congrats. Now what does this have to do with digital image sensors?
There is a base cost to anything. Otherwise, why can't I get a Mercedes S class for $100? Forget the S class even, how 'bout a Camry? You mean Toyota can't build a Camry for less than $100? Why not? You said "Any device at all can be made cheaper over time because of new
processes, reclaiming initial r&d costs, economies of scale. "
But since we are talking digital image sensors, which are silicon devices, let's use your modes of getting things cheaper.
New processes? With silicon those new processes are aimed at making devices smaller. That won't work for image sensors, so that's gone. This is Moore's law in action.
R&D? There have been 100's of millions of small image sensors and 10's of millions of APS-C sensors made, I think R&D is recouped.
Economies of scale? With millions of APS-C and 10's of millions of 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" sensors made each year, it's quite likely economies of scale are fully realized.
So where do you see the magic savings getting APS-C down to 1/1.8" prices?
For fun and games, go to:
http://tams-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/applets/yield/index.html
Plug in 25, 18, 40 and click "Apply selected values" a bunch of times. I see about 9 good ones per wafer. That's APS-C.
Now plug in 10, 8, 40 and click a bunch of times. I see about 160 good ones per wafer.
Guess how much a processed wafer costs? About $1000. Actual amount varies by the amount of processing needed, and image sensors need a lot. This processed hasn't changed much in years.
So for $1000 you get 9 APS-C (i.e. $110 each) or 160 1/1.8" (i.e. $6 each). Even if you drive the defects down to an average of 0 (only happens in fantasy, not real life), you get 24 APS-C ($40 each) vs. 192 1/1.8" ($5 each).
There is a lower limit. Manufactured things don't grow on trees, and don't go to $0.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Gwen22
Leading Member
If what you want is a APS-C sensor with a non retrofocus lens in order to keep the camera as small as possible , you need to know that it exist already it is the LEICA M8.
For me it is too big and too expensive.
For me it is too big and too expensive.
so, with that question answered, the next question is:
"why are all compacts with SLR sensors so plain looking?"
-m
"why are all compacts with SLR sensors so plain looking?"
-m
nickleback
Veteran Member
You'd rather they look like this?so, with that question answered, the next question is:
"why are all compacts with SLR sensors so plain looking?"
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
that can't be a compact with an SLR sensor, it is way too flambouyant! I like it though.
ahhh, GR, if only they had gone with a APS-c. That would be awesome.
-m
ahhh, GR, if only they had gone with a APS-c. That would be awesome.
-m
You'd rather they look like this?so, with that question answered, the next question is:
"why are all compacts with SLR sensors so plain looking?"
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
No, but to keep the camera compact, the lens has to be compact, which limits the maximum aperture diameter. To keep to the same lens bulk, more than doubling format size require more than doubling focal length to get the same FOV while keeping about the same maximum aperture diameter, which means more than doubling minimum aperture ratio, and so losing more than two stops of lens speed, about enough to cancel any sensor ISO speed gain.
Remember that compact 35mm film cameras had very slower lenses, often f/11 or slower at the telephoto end, so that film ISO 800 and faster became necessary a lot of the time, and ISO 200 film came to be advertised as for use in bright daylight!
And, these cameras used 35mm, which of course is bigger than APS-c. That reduction in sensor size should go some of the way toward addressing the more stringent angle of incidence requirements of digital.
-m
nickleback
Veteran Member
But not telephoto f/2.8 lenses. Here's one with a 38-170mm f/4.8-13 lens:
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product.asp?p=11&bc=4&product=668&fl=4
The Stylus Epic was a nice camera (I had one, and a Yashica T5), but not nearly as popular as the long zooms. Small sensor digital gave the camera companies a chance to make better long zoom cameras.
But you only have to look at the small-sensor GR-D and it's "pinnochio" lens to realize that fast wide primes are not as simple on digital as they were with film.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
digraph
Forum Enthusiast
I'm looking at this from a business perspective, you're looking at it from an engineering perspective. Obviously on a component level, and all things being equal, a larger sensor costs more than a smaller sensor, and neither sensor will ever cost 0. But the sensor is not the only part of the camera. Lenses and other mechanical bits are also relatively expensive on the basis of manufacturing and assembly, moreso than just soldering a sensor and other silicon to a circuit board.
After a while the camera marketing and business development departments are going to conclude that if they operate 1 or 2 sensor lines, and streamline R&D for that aspect of the product, they will increase their own margins and sell a more desirable product to the consumer creating more demand.
I certainly could be wrong, but I believe that digital cameras have entered the realm of commodity electronics, and as such answer to this market's economic realities.
After a while the camera marketing and business development departments are going to conclude that if they operate 1 or 2 sensor lines, and streamline R&D for that aspect of the product, they will increase their own margins and sell a more desirable product to the consumer creating more demand.
I certainly could be wrong, but I believe that digital cameras have entered the realm of commodity electronics, and as such answer to this market's economic realities.
Sorry, I should have said that I was thinking of what most people want in a fixed lens camera: a zoom lens and a bit of telephoto ability. It is true that there is a possible niche for a fairly compact digital camera with a "DSLR sized sensor" and a fixed focal length lens of normal to moderately wide field of view.
In fact, there is something like this now: the Sigma DP1, with a 13.8x20.7mm sensor and a lens of fixed focal length f=16.6mm, aperture f/4, giving the same moderate wide angle FOV of a 28mm lens in 35mm format.
Not the rather small maximum effective aperture diameter of 4.4mm.
nickleback
Veteran Member
Business? What about costs?
A smaller sensor will always cost much less. With low-margin $200 digicams, the difference between a $5 1/2.5" sensor and a $75 APS-C sensor is the difference between having a viable product or not.
Right. Bigger sensor means bigger lens and body, another cost. Strike two for the APS-C sensor.
Which they have been doing. Notice the demise of 2/3" digicams? The industry has settled on APS-C for DSLRs and 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" for compacts. The middle ground has disappeared.
Economic realities say that you've got to go with a small sensor to make a profitable digicam.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
nickleback
Veteran Member
Do you think that this is because a digital sensor needs lenses to be fairly telecentric, requiring more bulky retro-focus wide angle designs rather than the simple, compact symmetrical designs used for moderate wide angle lenses on film cameras without reflex mirrors?
The Pentax 21/3.2 DA wide angle pancake is compact itself (25mm deep), but is mounted about 45mm from the focal plane, so the total distance form focal plane to from to lens is still quite large compared to its focal length, about 70mm.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Veteran Member
Or, we get rid of the zoom, and give it a prime. Or a very, very limited zoom. And we use offset microlenses so that there's no requirement for a telecentric lens. Let the exit pupil come closer to the sensor than it does in existing SLRs.
I have one compact 35mm in my collection with a 35mm f1.4 fixed lens. It's rather small, the front element is about 30mm in diameter. And that's full frame. With a 1.5x crop, offset microlens sensor, I can picture a fixed 22mm f1.4 normal with an 18mm diameter.
--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.
Ciao! Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
I'm not sure that this is true, I wouldn't be suprised if this camera sold more then any single long zoom cam. If ture, that might just mean there were only a handful of great prime cams, very few really afordable ones, and no comparably great long zooms.
In the end I would think APSc compact would be for a small market of enthusiasts that would a great prime to a iffy small zoom. My choice would be for a fast 24mm or 28mm prime over any zoom.
-m
K1000Photographer
Veteran Member
This was an awesome little camera that could beat a lot of SLR's with its 35mm/2.8 lens. It was small, cheap, weatherproof and tough. It was also very unpopular because it did not have a zoom lens.
With Digital, you need to have a huge zoom range to be considered a serious camera. That means you will end up with an R1 + sized camera.
For now, the Epic/Miju niche is filled by the F20. F30. Either of them will produce low light photos more natural than a number of SLR's and have a reasonable zoom range.
With Digital, you need to have a huge zoom range to be considered a serious camera. That means you will end up with an R1 + sized camera.
For now, the Epic/Miju niche is filled by the F20. F30. Either of them will produce low light photos more natural than a number of SLR's and have a reasonable zoom range.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum