Most, if not all, of the recently introduced 5MP cameras are using 1/1.8" CCDs, which are smaller than the 2/3" CCDs. It's clear that they are cheaper, and I think the camera industry has decided that bringing prices down, rather than increasing pixel resolution is the strategy that will sell the most cameras now. Whether they're right or wrong about that is another question.
The price point of the Canon 10D has forced Sony et al. to lower their prosumer digicam prices. Their next generation must address the encroaching competition from the 10D (and the *ist and others to follow). I can't see Sony launching a dSLR, rather the V1 seems to have inherited the responsibility of carrying on this line, thus freeing the F7x7 to something better??? To reduce noise, they'll have to move to a larger image sensor. The first camera manufacturer that comes out with a prosumer digicam with image quality similar to 10D, negligible noise at high ISOs, negligiible shutter lag, and fast AF even in low-light would satisfy many of us who've left our 35mm SLR behind and have absolutely no desire to ever move to a dSLR.
I agree. That's why the Foveon X3 in in the Sigma SD9 is so great.
The price point of the Canon 10D has forced Sony et al. to lower
their prosumer digicam prices. Their next generation must address
the encroaching competition from the 10D (and the *ist and others
to follow). I can't see Sony launching a dSLR, rather the V1 seems
to have inherited the responsibility of carrying on this line, thus
freeing the F7x7 to something better??? To reduce noise, they'll
have to move to a larger image sensor. The first camera
manufacturer that comes out with a prosumer digicam with image
quality similar to 10D, negligible noise at high ISOs, negligiible
shutter lag, and fast AF even in low-light would satisfy many of us
who've left our 35mm SLR behind and have absolutely no desire to
ever move to a dSLR.
My
---------------------------------------
Digital Camera Fact Sheets
http://www.photoxels.com
'A Smile Is Forever'
Bayer demosaicing ain't as simple (or as inefficient) as that. Take a sample from the SD-9 and one from, say, the 10D, up-rez the SD-9 one to 6.3MP or down-rez the 10D one to 3.34 MP, apply USM, and look at the fine detail. They will be as good as identical. (OK, you can design engineer a test scene that'll give the Foveon a slight edge beyond that.)
I'll join the chorus for better, rather than more, pixels. I hope Fuji's extended dynamic-range sensors sell really well: I hope the market understands the distinction. I'm not too optimistic, though. "But this one has 6MP!" could be the new rallying call...
I would like them to add 30flops mpeg video support with zoom and RAW support, which i guess would be more crucial as there are more data per site.The price point of the Canon 10D has forced Sony et al. to lower
their prosumer digicam prices. Their next generation must address
the encroaching competition from the 10D (and the *ist and others
to follow). I can't see Sony launching a dSLR, rather the V1 seems
to have inherited the responsibility of carrying on this line, thus
freeing the F7x7 to something better??? To reduce noise, they'll
have to move to a larger image sensor. The first camera
manufacturer that comes out with a prosumer digicam with image
quality similar to 10D, negligible noise at high ISOs, negligiible
shutter lag, and fast AF even in low-light would satisfy many of us
who've left our 35mm SLR behind and have absolutely no desire to
ever move to a dSLR.
My
---------------------------------------
Digital Camera Fact Sheets
http://www.photoxels.com
'A Smile Is Forever'
A slight edge beyond the 10D is what I'm talking about when I say the luminance resolution is like 6.9 MP Bayer. I've done that comparison enough times to know that the difference is readily apparent, even though going from 6.3 to 6.9 is "slight". Not just "as good as identical" as you say.
That's another point in favor of the Foveon X3. Three times more pixel sensors per unit area, for a given pixel size.
That seems backwards. Now you cut up the area more finely, packing more pixel sensors per area by making them smaller? It might help with highlight latitude, but it can't help with resolution or ISO.
This view is bizarre. How can you think the trend will disappoint you, when you can't see what it is yet? The rate of progress has been incredible, and there's no reason to think it won't stay that way. All sectors, low-end to high-end, will be well served as the technology and markets mature and companies compete every way they can for your business.
You really don't "need" a six megapixel consumer or prosumer fixed lens digicam - if it's like the dSLR's, it wouldn't give you any more usable resolution. Why? It's very simple. The aspect ratio on nearly all five megapixel cameras gives you a nearly perfect 8x10 print. With all six megapixel dSLR's the aspect ratio is designed like the 35mm film frame which works out to 8x12. The additional pixels used to make six megapixels are nearly all at each end of the frame with only a minor number contributing to the vertical aspect. Here is an overlay sample I made about a year ago using some of Steve Saunder's photos from a variety of cameras from 2 megapixel up to 6. Notice that nearly all the difference between the 5 and 6 megapixel frames are vested in the areas on each side of the frame. There would be no practical advantage for doing this since nearly everyone crops an 8x12 to 8x10 anyway.
True, but the light energy capture efficiency (in the current implementation anyway) is much worse than on a Bayer sensor (IIRC, about 25% against about 40% for a Bayer sensor). It also appears to get worse for the lower layers of photosites (which is pretty much what you'd expect). This renders the advantage more or less moot.
That's correct, but IMO highlight latitude is currently the biggest weakness of digital over film. I think Fuji's got their head on straight abou this one.
Better engineered for what?
