Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
Well. . . At least I'm consistent.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'
-
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
yeah, you're right, for some reason compact = not-slr was stuck in my head.
--
KM Dimage Z2
http://www.pbase.com/diamond2a
--
KM Dimage Z2
http://www.pbase.com/diamond2a
donaldsc
Senior Member
Price and customer demand might be 2 reasons why they are not avaiable.
--
Don
--
Don
Gwen22
Leading Member
Big sensor mean big optical wich mean exepensive and bulky camera , by the way it is not anymore a compact.
Jay Turberville
Forum Pro
Besides, an LCD panel that delivers a live view of what the camera is imaging is a viewfinder.
It's a shame that people hold in their minds such a narrow notion of what a viewfinder is. The history of photography is full of all sorts of viewfinder variations that didn't require you to hold the camera to your eye.
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Jay Turberville
Forum Pro
And while not technically a DSLR sensor since it wasn't used in one, nonetheless the 10Mp 1.7x crop factor sensor that Sony used in their R1 is capable of live view.
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
ssab
Senior Member
Not really, Canons sureshots, olys trips etc were 35mm compacts which whilst not as small as some current digital compacts were still small enough to fit easilly into a pocket. They had fixed focal length lenses, typically around 35mm f2.8 which kept the lens size down.
The market has changed. People are more concerned with things like zoom range, megapixels, movie mode etc than sensor size. Most problably don't even realise how small the sensor actually is or the effects of having a small sensor. So a camera with a big zoom range, smallish size and price is going to be more attractive to most and that means having a small sensor.
It was, till a couple of years back due to cost consideration (bigger chips used to be very costly as few could be produced from same mother chip. Also biger chip meant more rejection due to defects being more per chip. That is why smaller chips were use in compacts.). However as the processes improve & optimize, the prices get down. And it is inevitable that Compact cameras will have larger sensors in couple of years. There is no compelling design problem of keeping the size fairly compact as even film cameras like Olympus mu series were fairly so.
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
nickleback
Forum Pro
Angle of incidence won't work with sensors with microlenses. There are solutions, the simplest of which is to not use a symmetric design, which means a larger lens.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Eclipse Optics
Senior Member
That battery is for a dSLR & it is about the size of 2 AA's. The camera also does live-preview on the LCD like non-dSLRs.
I don't think that battery size is the problem at all. It's an interesting viewpoint though.
I don't think that battery size is the problem at all. It's an interesting viewpoint though.
Eclipse Optics
Senior Member
Interesting. It blocked the site.
At any rate, I did a search for the words olympus e400 battery on google & it was the first link. Pretty small battery there.
At any rate, I did a search for the words olympus e400 battery on google & it was the first link. Pretty small battery there.
Coolsiggy
Senior Member
No, not a compact but surely an attempt to place a large sensor into a small package, which provides the answer, large sensor = large lens = large non-compact camera. Catch 22, Its a tech limit.
--
Fred, KM A2 and F30
'Your best Photo should be viewed with a biased eye'
http://coolsiggy.smugmug.com/
Eclipse Optics
Senior Member
Perhaps like the prism that allows a dSLR camera-user to look through the lens (TTL) via the Viewfinder Mirror could be used.
Instead of having the CCD at the back of the camera, you could have it at the top of the camera or bottom, doesn't matter, and use a mirror to pass it to the lens. this would give you extra room to use in-camera lens elements that would widen then straighten the image before the light hits the CCD photosites, and this in turn would lower the individual lens costs across the board because the problem of dealing with the size of the CCD vs. the size of the lens is taken care of in-camera.
The downside is that you've now passed that on to the camera itself. However, with the mirror design, you can hide alot of the optics in a vertical manner. But whatever you do, you can't get past that at some point, either the lens or the camera has to have an area of space that is equivilent to the size of the CCD cubed and then some. There has to be a clear path of empty space to the CCD in some fashion & then it has to have circuit boards & wiring attached to it & then it has to have casing around it & usually more space for a large fashionable LCD screen & that means more casing protection & if you've ever opened up a camera before it isn't like there's a whole lot of room for that minimum 1" cubed empty space minimum & all the extra space that results from having to protect that space securely, etc. It's possible, just not right now & even when it is possible, it won't be cheap & it won't be pretty. They might try something like 4 or more CCDs set in different places within the camera that combine to work as one so that the space requirements are not 1" cubed & then some. Who knows, but an ultra compact with a fullframe CCD ain't coming to Best Buy soon. I know that much.
Instead of having the CCD at the back of the camera, you could have it at the top of the camera or bottom, doesn't matter, and use a mirror to pass it to the lens. this would give you extra room to use in-camera lens elements that would widen then straighten the image before the light hits the CCD photosites, and this in turn would lower the individual lens costs across the board because the problem of dealing with the size of the CCD vs. the size of the lens is taken care of in-camera.
The downside is that you've now passed that on to the camera itself. However, with the mirror design, you can hide alot of the optics in a vertical manner. But whatever you do, you can't get past that at some point, either the lens or the camera has to have an area of space that is equivilent to the size of the CCD cubed and then some. There has to be a clear path of empty space to the CCD in some fashion & then it has to have circuit boards & wiring attached to it & then it has to have casing around it & usually more space for a large fashionable LCD screen & that means more casing protection & if you've ever opened up a camera before it isn't like there's a whole lot of room for that minimum 1" cubed empty space minimum & all the extra space that results from having to protect that space securely, etc. It's possible, just not right now & even when it is possible, it won't be cheap & it won't be pretty. They might try something like 4 or more CCDs set in different places within the camera that combine to work as one so that the space requirements are not 1" cubed & then some. Who knows, but an ultra compact with a fullframe CCD ain't coming to Best Buy soon. I know that much.
One of the ways, however extra lens element can correct the wave path to make it near parallel (Olympus DSLR Lens have this). It will make the zoom to come out a bit more though. But no big problem as in compacts, these are motorised and can rest snuggly when switched off.
Leica M8 is an example. fairly small (exorbitantly costly though). Lens dia is not that big.
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
nickleback
Forum Pro
It's the size of a DSLR!
It could be smaller either without the zoom or using a smaller max aperture and extending lens, as was done with 35mm compacts and is done with small sensor compacts. But it still won't be as small as 35mm compacts due to angle of incidence limitations.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
nickleback
Forum Pro
Um yeah, make it highly retrofocus. That makes the lens big. Exactly what I said.
Leica used a completely different solution: offset microlenses on the sensor.
--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed
Exactly. I mentioned it for that only, i.e. on emore way. So we have various solutions available. Just that manufacturers will delay it to the extent possible so as to milk their existing manufacturing lines till they bleed. Also most consumners are oblivious of advantages in larger sensors as of now. With time this will be corrected.
--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612
Simon Zeev
Senior Member
True, the LCD panel is a viewfinder. The EVF is also a small LCD that we can see through an optical system. In most cases I prefer the eye level shooting and I will like a camera with a better EVF than the existing ones. Of cause that camera will have interchangeable lenses!
--
Regards.
Zeev
http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon
--
Regards.
Zeev
http://public.fotki.com/zeev-simon/
http://picasaweb.google.com/zeev.simon
kwaller
Leading Member
There will be by mid year the Sigma DP1, using the same 14mp Foveon senor as the upcoming SD14 DSLR
Roger Krueger
Senior Member
The film world has proven you can make FF fairly compact with a prime, but zooms of even modest speed and reach get huge very quickly on larger formats.
Hey Sony, dig the Hexar AF design out of your KM vaults, slap in a good APS sensor--something better than the disappointment you put in the R1, maybe live preview wasn't such a hot idea after all--and I will buy one the very day you release it. Don't try to improve it, don't put a zoom on it, just give it a sensor, a card slot and an LCD.
The problem with low-volume niche cameras like this is shown by the Epson RD-1 rangefinder--they took a D70 sensor, put it in a $500 Bessa body--and needed to charge $2000 for it?
But if you want a pocketable big-sensor cam, and can deal with manual focus and manual shutter cocking, the RD-1 with a collapsible 50 is a great, if expensive solution. The new Leica M8 is an even bigger sensor (1.3x) but also even more money, and apparently the M8 has some issues with a too-weak IR filter.
Hey Sony, dig the Hexar AF design out of your KM vaults, slap in a good APS sensor--something better than the disappointment you put in the R1, maybe live preview wasn't such a hot idea after all--and I will buy one the very day you release it. Don't try to improve it, don't put a zoom on it, just give it a sensor, a card slot and an LCD.
The problem with low-volume niche cameras like this is shown by the Epson RD-1 rangefinder--they took a D70 sensor, put it in a $500 Bessa body--and needed to charge $2000 for it?
But if you want a pocketable big-sensor cam, and can deal with manual focus and manual shutter cocking, the RD-1 with a collapsible 50 is a great, if expensive solution. The new Leica M8 is an even bigger sensor (1.3x) but also even more money, and apparently the M8 has some issues with a too-weak IR filter.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum