Are smaller sensors a LOT more affordable?

bdery · May 23, 2007

ljfinger said:
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).

The New Pro, as I described it, would offer IS, a smaller body, no lens changing hassle, a swivel LCD with live preview, movies, etc. After all, there ARE advantages to P&S.

But if Sony or Pentax (if they last) offer live view on their stabilized DSLRs (something like a K100D with live view and the controls of the K10D) then I'd probably jump ship. As it is, I'm in no hurry to invest a small fortune in lenses.

As for Canon and Nikon, I believe they'll be the last ones to offer those features in their DSLR line-up (except for the Mark 3, a surprise). Their cameras are too expensive, same for their lenses.

To me at least.

Lee Jay said:
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
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/

thecameraguy · May 23, 2007

smaller sensors of course are much cheaper to make.. the unit cost is much much less than proportionally lower due to the increased manufacturing yield of smaller devices...

however when you look at the manf. cost of the CAMERA, the smaller sensor allows for yet again much smaller optics.....since they have to be optically decent across a smaller image circle...

so both optics and sensor are much cheaper to manufacture...
--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

thecameraguy · May 23, 2007

i am sorry, but your point is totally ludicrous...

IF bridge cameras could be a high quality and affordable "almost" DSLR substitute then there are plenty of camera manufacturers would who make them..

Your point that this is a conspiracy to push advanced consumers into DSLR yet you fail to consider that If a new consumer is to buy a DSLR then the chances are 80% that he will buy a Canon or Nikon.... so the odds do not favour Fuji, Sony, Pentax or Sigma.... much less the panasonic, kodak and ricoh companies who do not even make DSLR..

The consumers have clearly indicated by their purchasing habits that they prefer small colorful cameras with high MP count, mega zooms, IS, silly in-camera features and will put up with noise, poor lens and loss of wideangle...and so that is what you get.

unfortunately..........
--
~ Being over-exposed can get you arrested ~

gkl · May 23, 2007

ljfinger said:
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.

Well-said! People seem to forget that compact P&S with exactly the same 35mm format coexisted with flim SLRs for decades. A few years ago (around 2001) prices of the better compacts were even higher than entry level SLRs. People will pay a premium for compact size even if it comes with inferior performance.

Having said that, I agree with bdery - I'd shell out for a Pro2 with 2/3" sensor, Digic II speed, a decent IS lens and RAW even if the sensor was only 8mp. Compact is worth a premium to me. And of course Lee Jay is right - an XTi with decent glass provides much better performance.

There, you're both right. cheers, gkl

Jeremy · May 23, 2007

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

Unfortunate indeed. I was perfectly happy with the 2x zoom range on my s110. In fact, I thought the s110 was actually better than my "highly acclaimed" s410. The s110 had a vastly superior AF system, especially with the bright white AF assist beam.

--
Jeremy

gkl · May 23, 2007

garyydpreview said:
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.

Canon tends to annouce 1/2.5" cameras in February and 1/1.8" cameras in August, and they all use Sony sensors. It's very likely Canon wil release cameras with Sony's 12mp 1/1.7" in the next few months. Here are some early sample from the Sony W200:
http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/DSC/DSC-W200/sample.html
View them and weep. cheers, gkl

Jeremy · May 23, 2007

I think the problem with the Pro2 is that it's too big to be pocketable, but it doesn't have the benefits of a 1.6x dSLR. The XTi's grip is too uncomfortable for me. I'd rather have the 30D replacement + 17-55 2.8 IS + 70-200 F4L IS + 580EX (oh, and the 10-22). I think if I had $1000, I'd wait until I had $2000+ to go the xxD route.

However, the Pro2 would be a nice upgrade to my fiance's s2 (yes, I got engaged last week!). I know the s2 is a super-zoom, but she takes a lot of low-light pics and a faster lens and larger sensor would better suit her. The ProX form-factor is still small enough to carry in a large purse whereas the XTi is more of a wear-around-the-neck (or shoulder) type camera.

ljfinger said:
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)

--
Jeremy

Maxwell Smart · May 23, 2007

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp

"CMOS cameras may require fewer components and less power, but they still generally require companion chips to optimize image quality, increasing cost and reducing the advantage they gain from lower power consumption. CCD devices are less complex than CMOS, so they cost less to design. CCD fabrication processes also tend to be more mature and optimized; in general, it will cost less (in both design and fabrication) to yield a CCD than a CMOS imager for a specific high-performance application. However, wafer size can be a dominating influence on device cost; the larger the wafer, the more devices it can yield, and the lower the cost per device. 200mm is fairly common for third-party CMOS foundries while third-party CCD foundries tend to offer 150mm. Captive foundries use 150mm, 200mm, and 300mm production for both CCD and CMOS."

--

If the site search feature is down, you can always do an advanced search on Google for results from domain http://forums.dpreview.com

Maxwell Smart · May 23, 2007

gkl said:
Here are some early sample from the Sony W200:
http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/DSC/DSC-W200/sample.html
View them and weep. cheers, gkl

Wow. While I thought the Sony 8MP 1/2.5-inch CCD looked like a disaster, this new 12MP 1/1.7-inch chip looks very impressive.

--

Group Captain Mandrake: 'I was tortured by the Japanese, Jack, if you must know; not a pretty story....Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras.' (Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

mohdya · May 23, 2007

Excellent article to those who don't knnow the differences between CMOS and CCD.

To put in summary, the CCD produce better resuts but the CMOS has the advantage of speed and therefore used in the SLR where speed is very important.

CCD will continue to stay with compacts due to it's continuing miniaturization capability factor and cheaper to produce (economies of scale) while CMOS will remain in the higher-end equipment with a devotion to speed.

I cannot imagine the image processing time when we reach the 20MP limit.

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

Lee Jay · May 23, 2007

mohdya said:
To put in summary, the CCD produce better resuts but the CMOS has
the advantage of speed and therefore used in the SLR where speed is
very important.

Interesting then, that by far the best (lowest noise) sensors for dSLRs are CMOS (Canon), not CCD (Sony, Nikon, etc.).

Canon worked very hard to get CMOS to surpass CCD.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

bdery · May 23, 2007

ljfinger said:
mohdya said:

To put in summary, the CCD produce better resuts but the CMOS has
the advantage of speed and therefore used in the SLR where speed is
very important.

Click to expand...

Interesting then, that by far the best (lowest noise) sensors for
dSLRs are CMOS (Canon), not CCD (Sony, Nikon, etc.).

Canon worked very hard to get CMOS to surpass CCD.

That's a matte of good design, but mainly processing.

All things being equal, a CCD will always be better because more of its surface is covered by the photosites (same reasoning than when we say a larger sensor is better). The Canon CMOS is excellent, that means they created a CMOs very well suited for their application, fine-tuned it, and controlled the processing very very well.

Incidentally, many people are saying the results from the K100D are as good as Canon's outputs. And some people complain that Canon processing leaves the images flat. I'm not saying I agree, but claiming the Canon CMOS is "best" just based on the noise output is simplistic. After all, the Sony A100 uses the same sensor than the Nikon D200, and there is one stop of difference between both cameras, noise-wise.

Lee Jay said:
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--
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/

Jeremy · May 24, 2007

I've heard the same thing - that generally speaking, CCD is "better technology" than CMOS. However, Canon CMOS sensors actually outperform their CCD counterparts. It'll be interesting to see how things turn out over the next 5-10 years.

bdery said:
ljfinger said:

mohdya said:

To put in summary, the CCD produce better resuts but the CMOS has
the advantage of speed and therefore used in the SLR where speed is
very important.

Click to expand...

Interesting then, that by far the best (lowest noise) sensors for
dSLRs are CMOS (Canon), not CCD (Sony, Nikon, etc.).

Canon worked very hard to get CMOS to surpass CCD.

Click to expand...

That's a matte of good design, but mainly processing.

All things being equal, a CCD will always be better because more of
its surface is covered by the photosites (same reasoning than when
we say a larger sensor is better). The Canon CMOS is excellent,
that means they created a CMOs very well suited for their
application, fine-tuned it, and controlled the processing very very
well.

Incidentally, many people are saying the results from the K100D are
as good as Canon's outputs. And some people complain that Canon
processing leaves the images flat. I'm not saying I agree, but
claiming the Canon CMOS is "best" just based on the noise output is
simplistic. After all, the Sony A100 uses the same sensor than the
Nikon D200, and there is one stop of difference between both
cameras, noise-wise.

bdery 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/

--
Jeremy

Lee Jay · May 24, 2007

bdery said:
ljfinger said:

Canon worked very hard to get CMOS to surpass CCD.

Click to expand...

That's a matte of good design, but mainly processing.

It's mainly because of good microlens design and because of correlated double sampling.

bdery said:
All things being equal, a CCD will always be better because more of
its surface is covered by the photosites (same reasoning than when
we say a larger sensor is better).

This would only give it more DR, not lower noise. The size of the photosite isn't relevant to noise, the size of the microlens aperture is.

bdery said:
The Canon CMOS is excellent,
that means they created a CMOs very well suited for their
application, fine-tuned it, and controlled the processing very very
well.

Incidentally, many people are saying the results from the K100D are
as good as Canon's outputs. And some people complain that Canon
processing leaves the images flat. I'm not saying I agree, but
claiming the Canon CMOS is "best" just based on the noise output is
simplistic. After all, the Sony A100 uses the same sensor than the
Nikon D200, and there is one stop of difference between both
cameras, noise-wise.

Only in JPEG output. At the RAW level, these cameras all perform about the same, and the Canons are about 1 stop ahead. Testing the in-camera JPEG engines is useful for those that shoot JPEG, and not that useful for those that don't.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

Hellashot · May 24, 2007

Kodak has thrown in the towel. 2 of Canon's new P&S cameras that came out just 6 weeks ago, the a570 IS and a560, sell for $205 and $170 respectively. That is very cheap. Unfortunately you're not getting a durable, well built device for such a cheap price.

I looked at someone's digital camera at work that wasn't taking pictures anymore. It was a Canon a310 3.2 MP camera with no optical zoom and maybe 3 different program modes. He thought it was a very good camera and was not that old, my guess is 3 years.

I'm using a 20 year old Pentax K1000 film SLR, full manual. It has a watch battery for the light meter only. Will everyone's P&S digital camera still work in 20 years? Maybe 2% of them and very few will be kept that long.

plantdoc · May 24, 2007

Agree!

thermal1 · May 24, 2007

digitalmaniacposter said:
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.

I must respectfully disagree. I believe consumers are ultimately the ones to blame: manufacturers will produce whatever consumers demand. Our culture is 'more is better', whether that's in our megapixels, horsepower, or serving sizes.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thermal/

mohdya · May 24, 2007

You'll be surprised at how much the cost prices are for these Canons nowadays. Everything is assembled and mostly made in China. Estimating a standard pricing of around 2.5x to 3x of the basic cost pricing to get the recommended selling price, just imagine how cheap the products are coming straight from the factory.

--
Yus.

'Photography is the Art or Process of Producing Images,
The Art of Photography is Another Story.'

Search

Are smaller sensors a LOT more affordable?

bdery

Veteran Member

thecameraguy

Senior Member

thecameraguy

Senior Member

gkl

Senior Member

Jeremy

Senior Member

gkl

Senior Member

Jeremy

Senior Member

Maxwell Smart

Veteran Member

Maxwell Smart

Veteran Member

mohdya

Senior Member

Lee Jay

Forum Pro

bdery

Veteran Member

Jeremy

Senior Member

Lee Jay

Forum Pro

Hellashot

Veteran Member

plantdoc

Veteran Member

thermal1

Leading Member

mohdya

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts