Are smaller sensors a LOT more affordable?

I'm trying to understand why Canon is moving to smaller sensors for it's cameras, when they clearly produce inferior results.

The Elph used to be 1/1.8, now it seems to be mostly 1/2.5.

Canons' pro P&S's used to be a mix of 2/3 and 1/1.8 - now they are only the 1.8.

I have heard that larger sensors are more expensive, but I'm wondering exactly how much more expensive they really are? Does Canon really see substantial cost savings by using the 1/2.5? Or is it that suppliers (Sony) are just not making the larger sensors anymore? Or is it that the general public is so blinded by megapixels, they pay no attention to the other factors that create good image quality (and Canon, knowing this, is simply giving he public what they want)?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thermal/

whether we like it or not.

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

bibi0012 said:

Smaller sensors allow Canon to build smaller cameras,
whether we like it or not.

Click to expand...

But the thing is,

A) The SD900 is about the same size as the SD700/800.

B) Surely there is a market (albeit small) that prefers larger sensors.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thermal/

thermal1 said:

A) The SD900 is about the same size as the SD700/800.

Click to expand...

SD900 has 3X zoom. Both SD700 and SD800 has 4X zoom and SD800 has 28mm wide angle. Smaller sensors allow Canon to use shorter lens but covers wider/longer FOV. (FOV: field of view)

The lens used in SD900 is 7.7-23.1mm. It provides a FOV of 37-111mm.

The lens used in SD700 is 5.8-23.2mm but it provide a FOV of 35-140mm.

The lens used in SD800 is 4.6-17.3mm and it provides a FOV of 28-105mm.

thermal1 said:

B) Surely there is a market (albeit small) that prefers larger sensors.

Click to expand...

Average consumers only pay attention to zoom ratio, Mega pixels.

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

So let's go and educate those general consumers out there so that they don't get conn' by those sales suckers!!!

Yus.
--
'Photography is everything captured (with a camera).
Good photography is another story ...'

bibi0012 said:

A) The SD900 is about the same size as the SD700/800.

Click to expand...

BTW, only smaller sensors aren't enough to build thiner, slimer compacts. Canon started to use a special lens called UA (ultra asperical). Unfortunately, UA lens is responsible for general unsatisfactory IQ of SD800.

The A-series don't use UA lens because the camera bodies need to be thick to take AA sized batteries.

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

bibi0012 said:

The A-series don't use UA lens because the camera bodies need to be thick to take AA sized batteries.

Click to expand...

A-series cameras are ideal candidates for larger sensors. Canon didn't do it. Instead, it opts to build 4X and 6X zoom -- without the use of UA lens elements. It certainly makes average users happy, including you and me.

Now you know why Canon is number one camera maker in digital camera market.

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

I don't really think so in this case because I don't think the price difference is high compared to the camera (since the sensor is still relatively small).

Comparing the price of just the sensors, yes. The silicon wafers have a fixed cost, so a larger sensor has to take more area of the wafer and cost more. Also, the chances of defects is a function of area, so larger sensors have a higher percentage of failures (and a failure causes parts of the wafer to be wasted).

thermal1 said:

bibi0012 said:

Smaller sensors allow Canon to build smaller cameras,
whether we like it or not.

Click to expand...

But the thing is,

A) The SD900 is about the same size as the SD700/800.

Click to expand...

And 3x zoom versus 4x. That's the real reason they want smaller sensors - so they can up the number before the "x" on the box.

thermal1 said:

B) Surely there is a market (albeit small) that prefers larger
sensors.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there's a bigger market for larger zoom ranges than for faster systems.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

For most comsumers, the quality is already more than high enough to suit them, so there isn't a need to be using more costly larger sensors, and restricting zoom and the physical size of the camera to suit.

Most people buy based on marketing and the numbers on the box, megapixels, zoom ratios (which to someone used to an slr mean virtually nothing...) and screen sizes. All will affect the camera's quality, but for most people, anythign above 5mp is unncessary and so on, but a bigger number looks good on the box and sell cameras, why wouldn't canon cater to this and try and gain as big a market share as possible. Even if it did give brilliant quality, a larger camera with larger sensor and better optics would still probably sit on the shelf while the average consumer bought the newest wee 8mp camera with fantastic internal zoom and whatever else.

There are of course the people who really like photography, but we seem to drift towards the slr market to get proper control over what we can do.

I have wandered how well some high quality bridge camera's would sell, as they seem like a great idea for those serious about photography, but not necessarily wanting to get into slr's and lenses and so on. obviously not well enough going on the current market...

Narcosynthesis said:

I have wandered how well some high quality bridge camera's would
sell, as they seem like a great idea for those serious about
photography, but not necessarily wanting to get into slr's and
lenses and so on. obviously not well enough going on the current
market...

Click to expand...

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers wouldn't like that at all.

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
C A N O N S 2
C O O L P I X S Q
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/

bdery said:

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And
since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers
wouldn't like that at all.

--
bdery

Click to expand...

I wish you were wrong, but it is hard not to draw that conclusion. I wouldn't say cripple the dslr market, but the manufacturers are trying to get more $$$ by up selling to a dslr, which on average will bring in more additional sales (lenses or other add-ons).

bdery said:

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And
since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers
wouldn't like that at all.

Click to expand...

DSLRs are still pretty severely ahead of compacts as far as optical performance envelope. For example, to match a Rebel XTi with the kit lens, you'd need a compact with a 2/3" 10MP sensor that's as good per unit of area as the Canon CMOS sensors, and it would need a 7.2-22mm f1.4-f2.2 lens.

That's pretty far ahead of anything that's ever been available, and that's just to match the kit lens. Even then you'd still lack the optical viewfinder, the interchangeable lenses, and phase-detection auto-focus.

I don't see why Canon would be scared of killing dSLR sales with any compact that could be produced at any reasonable size and cost.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

bdery said:

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers wouldn't like that at all.

Click to expand...

They appear to two user groups. Granted, people who buy DSLRs usually buys compacts, but the reverse is not necessary true. I know people who will never buy DSLRs because DSLRs are too big and too complex for them. They just want a simple P&S.

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

These should give you a sense of the noise issue.

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/94274-6231-21-2.html

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/parts/image_for_link/94272-6231-21-1.html

Full report is here

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2007/05/22/6231.html

--
Nikon: D50, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 180mm f2.8, 70-300VR, SB-800
Canon: Rebel XT, 50mm f1.4, 420EX, S1 IS
Fuji: F31fd

ljfinger said:

bdery said:

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And
since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers
wouldn't like that at all.

Click to expand...

DSLRs are still pretty severely ahead of compacts as far as optical
performance envelope. For example, to match a Rebel XTi with the
kit lens, you'd need a compact with a 2/3" 10MP sensor that's as
good per unit of area as the Canon CMOS sensors, and it would need
a 7.2-22mm f1.4-f2.2 lens.

That's pretty far ahead of anything that's ever been available, and
that's just to match the kit lens. Even then you'd still lack the
optical viewfinder, the interchangeable lenses, and phase-detection
auto-focus.

I don't see why Canon would be scared of killing dSLR sales with
any compact that could be produced at any reasonable size and cost.

Click to expand...

Because you don't need to match the kit lens perfectly. Just offer a good alternative and most people would be happy.

Take a Pro1, throw in the improved sensor technology of the S3 (while keeping the 2/3 size), ad DIGIC 2-3 for speed, and add IS, and you got a camera that would suit SO many postres on this forum it's be backordered for a year.

Nothing I descibed is really difficult to do. The sensor technology exists, the lens exists, the body exists, the procesor exists, IS is getting common. Many people would gladly pay what they paid for the Pro1 (1k) for that camera.

I'd consider it.

Lee Jay said:

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Click to expand...

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
C A N O N S 2
C O O L P I X S Q
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/

bibi0012 said:

bibi0012 said:

Wrong, they would sell TOO well and cripple the DSLR sales. And since profit in this segment comes from lenses, manufacturers wouldn't like that at all.

Click to expand...

They appear to two user groups. Granted, people who buy DSLRs
usually buys compacts, but the reverse is not necessary true. I
know people who will never buy DSLRs because DSLRs are too big and
too complex for them. They just want a simple P&S.

Click to expand...

True, but those people on't care about sensor size and pure image quality. To these people I would gladly recommend a Kodak compact (I did, often) and all will be well. But users who want advanced controls and features care about image quality. And currently, past a certain point, there's nothing to do but look at DSLRs.

--
bdery

Québec city, Canada
C A N O N S 2
C O O L P I X S Q
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/

bdery said:

Because you don't need to match the kit lens perfectly. Just offer
a good alternative and most people would be happy.

Take a Pro1, throw in the improved sensor technology of the S3
(while keeping the 2/3 size), ad DIGIC 2-3 for speed, and add IS,
and you got a camera that would suit SO many postres on this forum
it's be backordered for a year.

Nothing I descibed is really difficult to do. The sensor technology
exists, the lens exists, the body exists, the procesor exists, IS
is getting common. Many people would gladly pay what they paid for
the Pro1 (1k) for that camera.

I'd consider it.

Click to expand...

That's about what I expected to say.

Now the question.

For about $750 you can get the XTi + kit lens, and for around $900 you can get the XTi + Sigma 18-125 (28-200 equivalent). For $1000 you can get the XT + 17-85IS. If your proposed Pro2 above were effectively 2 stops slower and cost $1000 (the release price of the Pro1), which would you get and why? Remember, the Pro2 would be only a little smaller than the XTi + kit lens (say, 650g versus 850g).

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

On the positive side, it's encouraging to see that while Canon is moving towards ever samller CCDs, other manufacturers are moving towards larger CCDs. Good luck to you, Canon.

I understood Canon don't manufacture CCD's so I think they are buying what is available. The CCD manufacturers are surely the ones to blame as they are focussed on developing higher pixel density so they can charge more money and increase profits year after year.