Why no compacts with SLR sensors?

[Roger Krueger]

There is no compelling design
problem of keeping the size fairly compact as even film cameras
like Olympus mu series were fairly so.

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.

Offset microlenses are a perfectly good solution--especially since on a fixed lens camera they only have a small range of angles-of-incidence to deal with.

 

[mdg]

um yeah, it'd no longer be a compact.

You can get 35mm film compacts (or at least you could) so there's no reason why it'd have to be that large. The reason they don't make them is that it would cost more, and most people wouldn't know the difference.

 

[drwho9437]

to stop come 3rd party maker from doing it sensors in general are for sale to who ever wants them. It will happen someday, but the market for it isn't huge. Is it just me or are you asking for a non interchangeable M8 (but smaller) I think of the G series as the successors to the canonets of the past. I can't a huge technical benefit for the majority in rangefinders once you have an LCD. That said I would want one...

Also the Sigma whatever it was called, had a somewhat slow fixed lens and large sensor. PS was very happy to see it announced, though I don't know if it has yet come to market.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Big sensor mean big optical wich mean exepensive and bulky camera ,
by the way it is not anymore a compact.

Rubbish!

Plenty of small compact 35mm cameras about...look at the MJU series..

And dont forget APS-C or 4/3 is smaller than film.

It isnt done cos the makers want to make a killing on cheapo sensors, and tiny lenses...that is the only reason.

How many f2 digicams do you see? why not..cos they are tight that is why!

Wake up people..

--

 

[Cezar]

Well, that would be true. We probably should use the term 'high
end P&S'. But it would still be smaller than an SLR using the same
sensor. Getting rid of just the mirror box will make things
smaller and lighter. I think there is a market for a non SLR
camera capable of generating SLR quality images

Personally, I think a 4/3s based P&S equipped with a modest fixed
zoom lens would be a big hit. Add a range finder to the body and
you might see rioting in the streets.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

...But the price won't be compact anymore..

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

You're referring to the Sigma DP-1 which will have the same sensor as the Sigma SD14 DSLR. It is not yet available.
--
My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com

 

[Thomas K.]

... though it will be a bit bigger than the small ixus cams.

IMO its not only for noise, but image quality and colors are just far away from the big sensors.
the sigma looks fine however 28mm is too wide for my pocket-every-day-use.
regards
thomas

--
visit my new homepage http://www.thomas.im

 

[Gwen22]

The Mju series you are speaking about Have 1/2,3" sensor wich cannot be said to be a big sensor.

It's physics (optical) if you increase the size of the sensor you have to increase the size of the lens , you have not to be agree or not this is optical law

 

[Andrew dB]

I presume he is referring to the remarkably small Mju series of film cameras. Something like the Mju 2 had an excellent 35mm f2.8 lens in a package that wasn't much thicker than the Mju series of digital cameras. A similar thing could be built with an APS-C sensor and a 24mm lens if the right type of sensor was used but the question is whether the price would be right for the target market.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I presume he is referring to the remarkably small Mju series of
film cameras. Something like the Mju 2 had an excellent 35mm f2.8
lens in a package that wasn't much thicker than the Mju series of
digital cameras. A similar thing could be built with an APS-C
sensor and a 24mm lens if the right type of sensor was used but the
question is whether the price would be right for the target market.

You got it I was talking about the MJU film cameras..they were not big...very compact..and well built...very popular too...

No reason this couldnt be done for digital.

Price may be an issue..but if they can spank out a cheapo SLR at a good price...no reason not a compact...remember they save cash on no mirror/pentamirror etc...far less parts..

--

 

[Gwen22]

OK sorry I cuonfuse between film and digital MJU, but it change nothing to the problem.

Look at the size of the Sigma DP1 wich is a compact with a big sensor without zoom and not so fast lens.
If you put a zoom on it will be very slow and the camera will be bulkier.

If you put an APS-C sunsor in the MJU II you will have a lot problem because a sensor is a lot more exigent with the lens than a film. Beleave me , my English is too poor to explain you why, but if you REALLY want I can try.

 

[Andrew dB]

If you put an APS-C sunsor in the MJU II you will have a lot
problem because a sensor is a lot more exigent with the lens than a
film. Beleave me , my English is too poor to explain you why, but
if you REALLY want I can try.

Yeah, that's the issue. There are several ways to overcome this problem without using big retrofocal lenses but none of them would be cheap - offset microlenses probably being the easiest and cheapest.

 

[Daniel Card]

Big sensor mean big optical wich mean exepensive and bulky camera ,
by the way it is not anymore a compact.

Except if you use a prime lens like the DP1.

 

[sharpsh00ter]

35mm cameras like the Contax G1/G2 prove that you can have very high quality in a compact package. It's a pity there will never be a Contax G Digital, to make use of those great Zeiss lenses (think of 12MP FF with Zeiss non-retrofocus primes, nice!

--
Cheers,
Dave.

 

[digraph]

I agree 100%

It's going to be cheaper to just produce (or buy in maximum quantity) only 1 or two sensors. So it will be pretty cool when the Canon A-type series shares sensors with their rebel-type series. At that point you're going to be paying a premium for internal camera software and ergonomic features.

...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]

It's going to be cheaper to just produce (or buy in maximum
quantity) only 1 or two sensors. So it will be pretty cool when the
Canon A-type series shares sensors with their rebel-type series.

Moore's law doesn't work for sensors. Silicon devices become cheap because, over time with new processes developed, the same device can be made smaller. Make an APS-C sensor smaller and it is no longer APS-C.

APS-C sensor is about 450mm^2 (25x18, allowing for approximately 3mm borders), huge for a silicon device. Bigger than server CPUs.

1/1.8" and 1/2.5" sensors are 80mm^2 (10x8, same borders) and 63mm^2 (9x7, same borders) respectively. That's less than the size of most desktop CPUs.

There are millions of APS-C sensors being made every year, and 10's of millions of 1/1.8" and 1/2.5". Both are enough that economies of scale have already been realized. 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" will always be significantly cheaper than APS-C because of the size of the device.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[digraph]

Who said anything about Moore's law?

Any device at all can be made cheaper over time because of new processes, reclaiming initial r&d costs, economies of scale. This has nothing to do with semiconductors in specific.

It's going to be cheaper to just produce (or buy in maximum
quantity) only 1 or two sensors. So it will be pretty cool when the
Canon A-type series shares sensors with their rebel-type series.

Moore's law doesn't work for sensors. Silicon devices become cheap
because, over time with new processes developed, the same device
can be made smaller. Make an APS-C sensor smaller and it is no
longer APS-C.

APS-C sensor is about 450mm^2 (25x18, allowing for approximately
3mm borders), huge for a silicon device. Bigger than server CPUs.

1/1.8" and 1/2.5" sensors are 80mm^2 (10x8, same borders) and
63mm^2 (9x7, same borders) respectively. That's less than the size
of most desktop CPUs.

There are millions of APS-C sensors being made every year, and 10's
of millions of 1/1.8" and 1/2.5". Both are enough that economies
of scale have already been realized. 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" will always
be significantly cheaper than APS-C because of the size of the
device.

 

[nickleback]

Who said anything about Moore's law?

You did, indirectly.

Any device at all can be made cheaper over time because of new
processes, reclaiming initial r&d costs, economies of scale. This
has nothing to do with semiconductors in specific.

Wake me up when you deliver my new $100 Mercedes S-class.

There is a lower limit. That limit is significantly lower for smaller sensors.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Cephalotus]

Rubbish!

Plenty of small compact 35mm cameras about...look at the MJU series..

And dont forget APS-C or 4/3 is smaller than film.

sure.

It isnt done cos the makers want to make a killing on cheapo
sensors, and tiny lenses...that is the only reason.

but they do NOT make a killing on tiny sensor, tiny lens cameras anymore...

That can't be the reason.

I think they main reason is the lens. The Sigma DP1 has a HUGE lens when fully expanded. I assume that it is a "near telecentric" design (I know, many people do believe that this is just marketing blunder, but why else should that newly designed F4 prime lens be so large?)

How many f2 digicams do you see? why not..cos they are tight that
is why!

They are to expensive. People are not willing to pay money for a digicam if you can have a DSLR for less money (I do not agree here and would be willing to pay good money for a good prosumer, even with a small 2/3" sensor, but I'm afraid that I'm in a very (to) small minority)

 

[Cephalotus]

35mm cameras like the Contax G1/G2 prove that you can have very
high quality in a compact package. It's a pity there will never be
a Contax G Digital, to make use of those great Zeiss lenses (think
of 12MP FF with Zeiss non-retrofocus primes, nice!

Maybe we will see a digital Zeiss Ikon someday ?