DSLR Sensor in P&S

[David Hughes124436]

No thanks.

For a start a wide angle lens is worse than useless for people and I take a lot of pictures of people. And there's little point to the precision of a coupled range-finder with wide angle lenses, especially with the smaller sensors and even shorter focal lengths that are wide angle lenses in digital cameras.

Still, make it with a 85 to 90 mm equivalent and I'd be happy with it for portraiture, where focussing can be critical.

Regards, David

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Given that all film cameras are made to expose 35mm film then why
aren't there any equivalent digital P&S with a larger sensor - like
what is in a DSLR

First off, sensor cost: an APS-sensor compact would cost about as
much as a DSLR + lens with similar capabilities. This would pretty
severely limit the market.

Apparently, it will cost more. $1700 is the lowest figure I've heard.

For $1700, I might just consider it. I've also heard $3500. That's way more than I'm willing to drop on a "second camera," no matter how good.

Second, versatility: while you can cram a pretty decent
circa-28-105 circa-2.8-4.5 lens into a pocket-sized camera with a
small sensor, you'd have to make do with either a high-quality,
bright-ish prime (like the Olympus Mju II, Rollei AF-M etc.), or a
mediocre dark zoom (e.g. 35-105/5.6-10) like on most others.

Very true. The market seems entirely for the small, fast primes.

This would be a very significant limitation for the camera: the
former would be a wonderful camera for Cartier-Bresson wannabies
( me pleads guilty),

Get on the waiting list, it's going to be a limited edition.

Not just yet. If the price is well below $2000, I might, but if it's at or around that, well, it ain't the first camera I've drooled over and not had the pleasure of owning...

Petteri
--



Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

 

[Borstad]

Now we're on the right track! (OK different tracks but you brought it up) Let's drop the rangefinder, zone focus and make it a digital bessa-L. I'll take mine with a Heliar 15mm (wasn't greedy enough berfore - 24mm what was I thinking) hmm... no full frame sensor? better make that the 12mm. And I think the body should be a little bit smaller... And keep the mechanical shutter from the rd-1. You know what? This one might even be possible so long as cosina doesn't go bankrupt (again?) on the switch to digital.





-Matthias

 

[pianoplayer88key]

Given that all film cameras are made to expose 35mm film then why
aren't there any equivalent digital P&S with a larger sensor - like
what is in a DSLR
--
Fabian1

How high could I crank up the ISO in a camera with, say, a 17.6x13.2mm sensor at 1280x960 resolution, to get a comparable amount of image noise to what the Canon A80 has at ISO 50 at its full resolution? Oh, btw, I also would like to be able to have a wide open aperture, like minimum F/2.8 or F/2.0, but 1.4, 1.0, 0.7, 0.5, 0.35, 0.25, 0.18, 0.125, or somewhere in that range would be nice if possible (but what's the limit and still maintain a size comparable to a Canon A80 or maybe a G3? I won't be needing telephoto on this - 38 to 42 mm (35mm equiv) fixed lens or so would probably be enough. I'm looking for a camera to complement my S1 IS that I can use for near-no-light portraits of subjects who do not have the ability to hold still for even 1/2000 second (ok... maybe they CAN hold still for that short period of time...) - for example taking a shot that at compensation 0, aperture 2.8, 38mm (35mm equiv), ISO 50 results in a 4-second shutter speed for the exposure I want in a particular situation, and I'm looking for something more like 1/60 sec shutter speed in similar conditions.
What's the closest I can come to this?

in summary, a few points:
large sensor (at LEAST 1/1.8" or 2/3", 1" or 4/3" would be nice if possible)
low resolution (1280x960 is fine)
medium angle fixed lens (like 38 to 42 mm (35mm equiv) or so)

semi-compact (comparable to A80 / G3 (assuming the dimensions of this cam when turned on are comparable the 2 aforementioned Canons when they're turned off)

wide aperture (2.8 or 2.0 minimum, prefer down to 1.0 or even 0.5 or somewhere in there)

basically, something that what it lacks in posessing a flash, high resolution, zoom, movie mode, other bells & whistles, etc, it more than makes up for in ability to get good postcard-size or computer-screen-size shots at fast shutter speeds in the dark.

 

[David Hughes124436]

Now we're on the right track! (OK different tracks but you brought
it up) Let's drop the rangefinder, zone focus and make it a digital
bessa-L. I'll take mine with a Heliar 15mm (wasn't greedy enough
berfore - 24mm what was I thinking) hmm... no full frame sensor?
better make that the 12mm. And I think the body should be a little
bit smaller... And keep the mechanical shutter from the rd-1. You
know what? This one might even be possible so long as cosina
doesn't go bankrupt (again?) on the switch to digital.

Snip, snip, snip!

-Matthias

Or you could wait until September and get the digital back for the Leica or is it for the R series only?

Or look for a range-finder that fits into the accessory shoe and get a digital with a focusing scale on the lens mount...

The real problem is that digitals all have zoom lenses (with a few exceptions) and I can't see a CRF working with a zoom and a range of primes for digitals would cost a fortune. Pity really as a digital version of the Minolta/Leica CL(E) would be nice.

Regards, David

 

[per o christiansen]

CCD censors is made on silisium wafer.On this wafer they make (etching) x pices of CCD chips eks 50 CCD chips.Of this 30/40 is caput.First it is the cost of how many chips you get out of this wafer.Second if a non-DSLR go for this 22x16mm chips the focal on the lens changes that a 28-200mm lens will be very bulky.Therfore the DSLR seems very bulky against a P&S cameras.In the future it will come lenses with a mirror-tech thet let the lens bee very small,but to day it very exspensives.That day,you will found DSLR chips on P&S cameras possible.

what is in a DSLR
--
Fabian1

--
per

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Or you could wait until September and get the digital back for the
Leica or is it for the R series only?

Only for the R series, sepcifically the R8 and R9 (not the older R's). And the availiability is mid 2005.

Leica also has a "digital M" project going (they did a big bond issue to finance it) but no dates announced at all. That will be a complete digital camera (like the Epson/Cosina) not a back you can fit on an existing camera.

Or look for a range-finder that fits into the accessory shoe and
get a digital with a focusing scale on the lens mount...

That won't get you the image quality of a good Leica rangefinder, coupled parallax compensation, etc.

The real problem is that digitals all have zoom lenses (with a few
exceptions) and I can't see a CRF working with a zoom and a range
of primes for digitals would cost a fortune. Pity really as a
digital version of the Minolta/Leica CL(E) would be nice.

Have you looked at the Epson/Cosina/Voigtlander R-D1?

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

How high could I crank up the ISO in a camera with, say, a
17.6x13.2mm sensor at 1280x960 resolution, to get a comparable
amount of image noise to what the Canon A80 has at ISO 50 at its
full resolution?

About ISO 200. They make such a DSLR right now. Check out the reviews of the Oly E-1 DSLR, the sensor you've described is the size of the "4/3 system".

Oh, btw, I also would like to be able to have a
wide open aperture, like minimum F/2.8 or F/2.0, but 1.4, 1.0, 0.7,
0.5, 0.35, 0.25, 0.18, 0.125, or somewhere in that range would be
nice if possible

It's not. f0.70 is possible for a very exotic prime (Zeiss built a few for NASA at, literally, astronomical cost. Kubrick borrowed one and used it to shoot scenes in Barry Lyndon by candlelight). The acceptance angle limits of a digital sensor effectively limit you to around f1.2.

(but what's the limit and still maintain a size
comparable to a Canon A80 or maybe a G3?

About f4.0-5.6. You've doubled the sensor size, if you keep the lens size the same, the aperture size is cut in half, so you go from f2 or f2.8 to f4 or f5.6.

I won't be needing
telephoto on this - 38 to 42 mm (35mm equiv) fixed lens or so would
probably be enough.

Then a nice 20mm f2.8 would be smaller than the G3 lens. You could probalby get a reasonably sized f1.8 prime.

I'm looking for a camera to complement my S1
IS that I can use for near-no-light portraits of subjects who do
not have the ability to hold still for even 1/2000 second (ok...
maybe they CAN hold still for that short period of time...) - for
example taking a shot that at compensation 0, aperture 2.8, 38mm
(35mm equiv), ISO 50 results in a 4-second shutter speed for the
exposure I want in a particular situation, and I'm looking for
something more like 1/60 sec shutter speed in similar conditions.
What's the closest I can come to this?

Canon 10D or Fuji S2 with a 28mm f1.4. Not cheap.

That Epson/Cosina RD-1 with a 24mm f2.0.

You have to deal with "off the shelf" gear, what you've described is so essoteric that no one will build it. Sales numbers will be too low.

in summary, a few points:
large sensor (at LEAST 1/1.8" or 2/3", 1" or 4/3" would be nice if
possible)
low resolution (1280x960 is fine)
medium angle fixed lens (like 38 to 42 mm (35mm equiv) or so)
semi-compact (comparable to A80 / G3 (assuming the dimensions of
this cam when turned on are comparable the 2 aforementioned Canons
when they're turned off)
wide aperture (2.8 or 2.0 minimum, prefer down to 1.0 or even 0.5
or somewhere in there)

Not going to happen. Your size limits mean you can't use an off the shelf large sensor body like an E-1 (which should have some fast primes coming out next year).

basically, something that what it lacks in posessing a flash, high
resolution, zoom, movie mode, other bells & whistles, etc, it more
than makes up for in ability to get good postcard-size or
computer-screen-size shots at fast shutter speeds in the dark.

Again, a very specialized machine. What do you want it for?

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[pianoplayer88key]

(old parts trimmed because message was getting too long)

About ISO 200. They make such a DSLR right now. Check out the
reviews of the Oly E-1 DSLR, the sensor you've described is the
size of the "4/3 system".

The E-1 is gigantic from what I can tell in teh pics, and I don't need 5 megapixels from this camera, seeing as I will only be making small prints with it and viewing the pics on my computer screen. 1280x960 is plenty of resolution (1.3 megapixel). The E-1 is 2560x1920 (4.9 megapixel).

It's not. f0.70 is possible for a very exotic prime (Zeiss built a
few for NASA at, literally, astronomical cost. Kubrick borrowed one
and used it to shoot scenes in Barry Lyndon by candlelight). The
acceptance angle limits of a digital sensor effectively limit you
to around f1.2.

Just because I mentioned 0.125 doesn't mean it has to go THAT low. I'd be satisfied with something with which considering the high ISO combination and the aperture, I could get several stops faster shutter speed than my S1 IS with the same noise level before post-processing.

About f4.0-5.6. You've doubled the sensor size, if you keep the
lens size the same, the aperture size is cut in half, so you go
from f2 or f2.8 to f4 or f5.6.

Ok... so how about we make the sensor not quite as big, like say 12.8x9.6mm or even really tiny like 8.8x6.6mm? What do I need in order to have a compact camera that's good in low light, assuming a fixed resolution of 1280x960 and fixed focal length of about 40mm (35mm equiv) or whatever you would use to take a 3/4 candid action shot of a person from about 6-8 feet (maybe 10 feet though - I'm not the best judge of distances yet) away? A wide aperture or a large sensor?

Then a nice 20mm f2.8 would be smaller than the G3 lens. You could
probalby get a reasonably sized f1.8 prime.

With something like that could I get a 3/4 portrait of a person from 6-8 feet away or fill the frame with his/her face at 3 feet, or about arms length and a quarter or so?

Canon 10D or Fuji S2 with a 28mm f1.4. Not cheap.

I don't need 6 or 12 megapixels, or the ability to go with a 1/500 shutter speed where my S1 meters at 4". I just want several F/stops difference if possible. From what I understand, all other things being the same (although on cameras like Oly E-1 and Sony F-717 they're not), if you can have ISO 100 on a 2560x1920 8.8x6.6mm sensor, you should be able to have ISO 400 (if I calculated that correctly) on a 18x13.5mm sensor with the same resolution, because the sensor area is quadrupled. Also, if you reduce the resolution from 2560x1920 to 1280x960, shoudn't you be able to go up to ISO 1600 on the same size (18x13.5mm) sensor? or am I calculating that wrong? (probably ISO 800 for a 12.8x9.6mm 1280x960 sensor, right?)

That Epson/Cosina RD-1 with a 24mm f2.0.

You have to deal with "off the shelf" gear, what you've described
is so essoteric that no one will build it. Sales numbers will be
too low.

What's the closest thing I can get that is good for fast shutter speeds in low light with good noise management or as little noise as possible in the

Not going to happen. Your size limits mean you can't use an off the
shelf large sensor body like an E-1 (which should have some fast
primes coming out next year).

basically, something that what it lacks in posessing a flash, high
resolution, zoom, movie mode, other bells & whistles, etc, it more
than makes up for in ability to get good postcard-size or
computer-screen-size shots at fast shutter speeds in the dark.

Again, a very specialized machine. What do you want it for?

to replace my A80 with works fairly well, but I want to be able to take candle-light or at the least night with some artifical light around a home (not a baseball stadium) action shots of nearby people that are maybe 6 to 8 feet away from me (fairly close). I have an S1 IS which I can use for movies, decent light, telephoto, etc... this camera I'm looking for will ONLY be used (except under certain circumstances which I can't think of right now, and I don't expect it to perform very well in those unnamed areas) for taking low-light no-flash action candid shots of nearby subjects.

 

[fabian1]

what is in a DSLR
--
Fabian1

Thanks for all the responses. I must admit many of them way over my head. Can I re ask my orignal question another way.

I read on other posts (& don't shoot me if I get this wrong) that sensors in DSLR perform better not just because their bigger but because the pixel spacing is bigger. With the pixels being bigger they are more sensitive to & "measure" the available light more accurately. As such the presence of noise dose not present itself until you get into higher ISO than otherwise would have been the case for a P&S.

Hence my question ought to have been, are there 2, 3 or 4 mp P&S cameras with sensors of pixel spacing the same as DSLR? If not, why not given that camera designs (film anyway) are capable of exposing light onto a large area ie 35mm negative?

--
per

--
Fabian1

 

[Dark Mist]

G'day ppl,

Fabian1 asks which p&s has a photosites (pixels) of a similar dimension to those in a DSLR. I will provide some comparative photosite sizes at the end of this post. I will also explain some of the physics behind the different sensor types used in DSLR and p&s and the pros and cons of each. If you aren't interested in this stuff just have a quiet kip and we'll wake you when we get to the end.

Before we start I own both a DSLR and p&s digicam and use whichever is best suited to the task at hand. The trick is to determine what you want to do and pick the right tool for the job.

Firstly the most important thing is to not confuse megapixel count with quality. Otherwise everyone would be using 8 MP p&s digitals. The megapixel count refers to resolution which really only controls the amount of enlargement your image can take. Ignoring interpolation software the more MPs the bigger the print you can make. An 8 MP p&s can capture a maximum file of 3260 x 2440 pixels and make a print of 10.8 x 8 inches at 300 dpi. A 6 MP DSLR can capture a maximum image of 3008 x 2008 pixels and make a print of 10.2 x 6.8 inches at 300 dpi. However, a p&s has an image aspect ratio of 4:3 which results in wastage if you are printing at standard paper and photo frame sizes while a DSLR uses the same 3:2 aspect ratio as 35mm cameras and allow you to fit more of your image onto standard paper and frame sizes. Nevertheless some cropping is nearly always required. Check out the difference between the 5 MP p&s and 5 MP DSLR below.

As has been alluded to before, the larger sensor of a DSLR results in a better quality image with less noise, moire and other artifacts than p&s sensors of an equivalent MP size. A typical sensor for a p&s is 2/3 inch or approximately 11mm diagonally. This is 1/16 the size of a 35mm film negative or 1/5 the size of an APS sized negative (equivalent to the sensor used in most DSLRs). Therefore, if you have 6 megapixels on a 2/3 inch sensor the photosites are going to be far tinier than those used in an APS sized sensor. The extremely small size of these photosites limits their ability to collect light, especially in dim lighting, and the signal requires significant amplification to generate a usable image. More amplification = more noise etc. This is also why you don't have the same dynamic range (high ISO ratings) in p&s digitals. The surface area of each photosite used in DSLRs is inherently larger because of the larger sensor size and has increased light gathering efficiency. This means each photosite has greater sensitivity than it's p&s equivalent and far less artificial boosting of the signal is needed, keeping noise etc down to far more tolerable levels and increasing the usable dynamic range to up to 3200 ISO or more in some cases. The increase in image quality that a larger photosite gives is particularly obvious when long exposures are used, excessive noise is a particular problem of long exposures from high MP p&s digicams. Check the comparative table below to see which p&s digicams have the best compromise of resolution (image size) and sensor size (image quality).

If you are still with me check out part 2 .......

 

[Dark Mist]

As promised ( or should that be threatened) here is part 2 .......

It has also been noted before in this thread DSLR are physically unable to provide video preview. Some posters have suggested that this is merely because of the mirror blocking the field of view but this is far from the truth. P&s digitals use interline transfer sensors whereas DSLRs use fullframe transfer sensors. Interline transfer sensors have lines of photodiodes which alternate with shift registers at each photosite that relay the signals to the microprocessor a line at a time. These digicams use electronic "shutters" that determine when to start and stop measuring the signal for processing into an image and many p&s digitals don't require any mechanical shutter or even an aperture iris. It is this system that allows the use of LCD preview of the image. It is also the reason that digicams can capture "live video" (albeit in a limited fashion) and DSLRs can't. The fullframe transfer sensor, as it's name suggests, exposes the entire surface area of each photosite at once and transfers the entire image from the whole sensor to the microprocessor in one large bit of data. This is why some DSLRs have such a delay between taking an image and transferring it to the memory card. The size of the memory buffer is the determining factor here, yet another problem that doesn't plague p&s users.

I guess it could be possible to place an electronic viewfinder sensor where the ground glass is on the pentaprism of a DSLR and allow switching between the viewfinder and LCD to allow LCD preview but this would increase the cost and complexity and make it damn near impossible to focus manually. I know I wouldn't want it. If you really want LCD preview stick with a p&s.

One possible benefit of the smaller sensors used in p&s digicams is that the smaller the image capture frame, film or sensor, in relation to a given focal length and aperture combination the greater the depth of field in the captured image. This is why many digicams have minimum apertures of only F8 or thereabouts. Whether this actually helps you depends on the type of image you want to capture. It's great for close up and landscapes not so good for portraits if you are trying to throw the background out of focus and get good bokeh.

Got all that? Good. Now you guys snoring up the back can wake up now.
I said WAKE UP!!!!

OK here is the promised comparison of individual photosite sizes.

Camera Sensor (mm) pixels photosite (um)

Pentax Optio 33 5.27 x 3.96 2048 x 1536 2.57
Olympus C-5060 7.18 x 5.32 2592 x 1944 2.8
Nikon Coolpix 8700/
Sony DSC-F828 8.8 x 6.6 3264 x 2448 2.7
Nikon Coolpix 5700/
Minolta Dimage A1 8.8 x 6.6 2560 x 1920 3.4
Olympus E1 18.0 x 13.5 2560 x 1920 7.0
Canon EOS 10D 22.7 x 15.1 3088 x 2056 7.2
Fujifilm Finepix S2 Pro 23.0 x 15.5 3024 x 2016 7.6
Pentax *istD/
Nikon D100 23.7 x 15.5 3008 x 2000 7.9
Canon EOS-1Ds 35.8 x 23.8 4064 x 2704 8.8
Kodak DCS Pro 14n 36.0 x 24.0 4536 x 3024 7.9

Hope this has been of help to somebody.

Cheers
Col

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

As promised ( or should that be threatened) here is part 2 .......

It has also been noted before in this thread DSLR are physically
unable to provide video preview. Some posters have suggested that
this is merely because of the mirror blocking the field of view but
this is far from the truth. P&s digitals use interline transfer
sensors whereas DSLRs use fullframe transfer sensors.

Only one DLSR on the market, the Oly E-1, uses a full frame transfer sensor.

The rest use either interline CCDs or random access CMOS sensors.

The single most prevelant DSLR sensor in use today (over 1 million units/year) is the Canon CMOS sensor used in the 10D and 300D. This, like all CMOS sensors, is a random access device, and can produce full 6mp frames at a rate of 3 per second, or sample 1/10 the pixels and get 30 fps, or even put 90 fps onto a 200,000 pixel LCD typical of the review screen on DSLRs.

Kodak 14n, SLR/n, and SLR/c also use CMOS (random access) sensors.

The Foveon X3 CMOS sensor used in the Sigma SD9 and SD10 is exceptional. Like any CMOS sensor, it can sample fractions of the pixels and produce very high video rates. (in the thousands of frames/second in the HanVision laboratory camera). It is also capable of "binning" pixels, connecting the photodiodes together electronically on the chip, so as you reduce resolution you increase sensitivity and reduce noise. At video pixel counts, the effective pixels are enormous and very sensitive.

The second most common (neat 1 millionunits/year) sensor in use is the "fixed" version of the Sony 6mp CCD used in the Nikon D70. This is an electronically shuttered interline device. I say "fixed" because it uses the same cell structure as the original Sony ICX413AQ used in the D100 and Pentax *ist. The interline design (with double cap cells) has been there from the intro of this part three years ago. it's just a bit "broken" and Sony insisted people operate the chip in full frame trasnfer mode (probably to avoid smear).

The Fuji SuperCCD used in the S2 is, according to Fuji literature, capable of high frame "patterend" access, and even performing pixel binning to increase sensitivity when doing this. This is supposedly because of Fuji's octagonal departure from the Bayer pattern.

I've snipped your explanation of the differnce between interline and frame transfer CCDs. Although you correctly describe the technologies, it's not really germain to the conversation, as only one niche camera uses interline sensors.

Got all that? Good. Now you guys snoring up the back can wake up now.
I said WAKE UP!!!!

OK.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[wolfie]

Sony fits a 28-200mm (35mm equivalent) lens into that boyd
precisely because the sensor is so small. Double the size of th
esensor and you double the size and width of the lens (and probably
quadruple the weight).

That doesnt answer the question really. A 35mm format 28-200 lens isnt exactly huge - so we would be back to a comparable size to 35mm lenses! I'm quite happy with that - human hands didn't get smaller just because CCDs were invented.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Sony fits a 28-200mm (35mm equivalent) lens into that boyd
precisely because the sensor is so small. Double the size of th
esensor and you double the size and width of the lens (and probably
quadruple the weight).

That doesnt answer the question really. A 35mm format 28-200 lens
isnt exactly huge

It is, in terms of cameras like the 828.

A Sony 828 is 906g and 134mm long.

A Nikon D70 is 720g. A 28-200mm f3.5-5.6 is 520g. What can you leave off a D70? The focusing screen is a little bit of plastic. The mirror is very light. The shutter stays, unless you're going to put a leaf shutter (2.5x bigger than the one in the Sony) in every one of these interchangable lenses. The pentamirror goes aay, but that's just a hollow box. The viewfinder optics stay, they're just focusing on an LCD instead of teh screen. Weight doesn't change substantially, so you're at 1240g, 300g heavier than the Sony.

The Sony is pretty much 2 full stops faster across the entire board, so compare Sony ISO 100 to the D70 at ISO 400. Things get a little less clear, don't they?

• so we would be back to a comparable size to

35mm lenses! I'm quite happy with that - human hands didn't get
smaller just because CCDs were invented.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[pianoplayer88key]

maybe human hands didn't get smaller, but I don't think shirt pockets or pants pockets have gotten much bigger.

(That said, I already have an S1 and so far serves my needs quite well, except that I would like to find a 1.3 megapixel compact camera that does well in low light - for example similar high ISO performance to an Olympus E-1 or Canon EOS-300D and a fast lens with a fixed 38 to 50 mm (35mm equivalent) focal length (somewhere in there))

Sony fits a 28-200mm (35mm equivalent) lens into that boyd
precisely because the sensor is so small. Double the size of th
esensor and you double the size and width of the lens (and probably
quadruple the weight).

That doesnt answer the question really. A 35mm format 28-200 lens
isnt exactly huge - so we would be back to a comparable size to
35mm lenses! I'm quite happy with that - human hands didn't get
smaller just because CCDs were invented.

 

[Adrian E227460]

A) A large sensor is expensive. Not even $5000 models like the 1DmkII have a full frame sensor (1.3x I believe).

B) Small sensors are used to achieve the telephoto on P&S cams. High crop factor = longer zoom. They basically build a wideangle lense and put a small sensor behind it.
C) It serves no real purpose. Why would you want it anyway?

In addition to B): you can't have to compare digital to film when it comes to focal lengths in my opinion (although many disagree). IE. a 17 mm is indeed a 17mm on digital, but the crop is just different than on film. They're two entirely different worlds.

Given that all film cameras are made to expose 35mm film then why
aren't there any equivalent digital P&S with a larger sensor - like
what is in a DSLR
--
Fabian1

--
Warning: photographs steal your soul!

 

[pianoplayer88key]

C) It serves no real purpose. Why would you want it anyway?

I would like a way to be able to take pics at night in a rural area with ambient lighting (or indoors with candlelight or a night-light) with a pocketable camera and a shutter speed of > 1/100 sec, and image noise comparable to that of a typical prosumer at ISO 50-64 or dSLR at ISO 100-200. (Oh, minimum 0.8 megapixel but for what I'd be using it for I wouldn't need more than 1.3, and a fixed focal length, in 35mm terms, somewhere in the 38 to 50mm range would be plenty for what I'd like to use said camera for, Oh, and preferably priced under $200, with full manual controls.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

C) It serves no real purpose. Why would you want it anyway?

I would like a way to be able to take pics at night in a rural area
with ambient lighting (or indoors with candlelight or a
night-light) with a pocketable camera and a shutter speed of >
1/100 sec, and image noise comparable to that of a typical prosumer
at ISO 50-64 or dSLR at ISO 100-200.

We know that's what you'd like You've posted about it time and again, in many different forums.

But it's not going to happen.

A typical candlelight portrait exposure is ISO 1600, f1.8 at 1/15 second (I had to go pull the EXIF data on some I'd taken recently).

Now, a 50mm lens would be an ok "portrait lens" for an APS sized sensor camera, and you could get a relatively affordable 50mm f1.8. So the optic part of this is solved.

But you're going to have to wait a bit on the sensor, because you're asking for something 6 full stops better than the best we have right now (3 stops from ISO 200 to ISO 1600, 3 stops from 1/15 sec to 1/100 sec).

(Oh, minimum 0.8 megapixel
but for what I'd be using it for I wouldn't need more than 1.3, and
a fixed focal length, in 35mm terms, somewhere in the 38 to 50mm
range would be plenty for what I'd like to use said camera for, Oh,
and preferably priced under $200, with full manual controls.

As far as your pixel count, no one is going to make a large, low pixel count sensor, ever again, so you just have to get a higher pixel count camera and use it in a low resolution more. But even filtering a 6mp camera down to 1.3mp isn't going to give you much more than a full stop improvement in noise, not the 5 you're after.

I'd say you're unlikely to find what you want before the year 2010.

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

--
A cyberstalker told me not to post anymore...
So I'm posting even more!

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com