Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

sensor sizes in prosumer vs inexpensive dslr cameras

Tags:
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:36:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just don't get it.

I'm trying to understand the difference in sensor sizes between the
more expensive prosumer digicams out there i.e. the Sony V3, Canon
G6/Pro1, etc... compared to something like the Digital Rebel, as an
example.

It would seem to make sense to me that for your cheaper entry-level
digicams, the relatively small CCD's they use is adequate, but for
prosumer digicams which could potentially cost 3 times as much, I
don't think it's unreasonable to expect a proportional increase in
sensor size.

The cost of the Canon Pro1 itself is comparable to that of the DRebel
(and I'm even referring the ones which include the 18-55mm lens kit).
But the CMOS of the latter is close to 6 times larger in terms of
surface area. In fact, if they stuck a DRebel sensor into the body of
a Pro1 while maintaining the Pro1's pixel density, you would end up
with a 48mp camera!

Why not produce a prosumer digicam with a CCD sized somewhere between
they tiny sensors you get with your typical P&S digicam and that of a
DSLR? I'm not asking for miracles here. I would certainly like to
think they can produce a $700 fixed lens camera which is relatively
noise-free at ISO 400/800 (bulb mode would be nice too but that's
another story). And I don't mean 12-24 months from now; this should be
something that can be done right now.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Terence wrote:
> I just don't get it.

You're right. Smaller pixel size generally is not better. The
dynamic range of a given sensor (Both the absolute difference between
zero and full, and the distinguishable level differences from 0-full) is
generally greater with a larger sensor. That said, smaller sensors
allow "sharper" images. Smaller sensors are also much cheaper.

The Pro1 sensors do provide better pictures than the Drebel with the
same number of "pixels".

But it is not the end of the story. The firmware, the electronics, the
image processor, the IP logic, the speed of moving bits around the
interior, and a bunch of other things make the difference between pro,
prosumer, and consumer level equipment.
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 4:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sensor sizes are related to two driving forces: money and results. For most
consumer applications, the smaller sensor sizes are more than adequate, and
cheaper to manufacturer. I shoot with a Sony 828 that uses a small sensor,
and 90% of the time, it's enough. Larger sensors cost more, and higher pixel
densities cause more noise. It's a matter of suiting the sensor to the
application.

Don't compare the Pro 1 to the Digital Rebel. There's no comparison. The
DSLR is much faster, and produces pix with far less noise than the Pro 1.
But, in some cases, you may want to carry the Pro 1 instead of a larger DSLR
system.

There is an "in between" system, but not in a P&S camera. The Four-Thirds
system, a so-called open standard system, uses a sensor slightly smaller
than the current APS sized sensors. While it isn't available in a fixed-lens
digicam, Olympus (and others may follow) are selling cameras with this
sensor. The system is the first DSLR system designed as a digital system
from the ground up. It's a very nice system, too. Hopefully, it will catch
enough market share to entice other manufacturers to enter that market.

"Terence" <auriga_m38@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d552c6b.0412030936.160b6cc0@posting.google.com...
>I just don't get it.
>
> I'm trying to understand the difference in sensor sizes between the
> more expensive prosumer digicams out there i.e. the Sony V3, Canon
> G6/Pro1, etc... compared to something like the Digital Rebel, as an
> example.
>
> It would seem to make sense to me that for your cheaper entry-level
> digicams, the relatively small CCD's they use is adequate, but for
> prosumer digicams which could potentially cost 3 times as much, I
> don't think it's unreasonable to expect a proportional increase in
> sensor size.
>
> The cost of the Canon Pro1 itself is comparable to that of the DRebel
> (and I'm even referring the ones which include the 18-55mm lens kit).
> But the CMOS of the latter is close to 6 times larger in terms of
> surface area. In fact, if they stuck a DRebel sensor into the body of
> a Pro1 while maintaining the Pro1's pixel density, you would end up
> with a 48mp camera!
>
> Why not produce a prosumer digicam with a CCD sized somewhere between
> they tiny sensors you get with your typical P&S digicam and that of a
> DSLR? I'm not asking for miracles here. I would certainly like to
> think they can produce a $700 fixed lens camera which is relatively
> noise-free at ISO 400/800 (bulb mode would be nice too but that's
> another story). And I don't mean 12-24 months from now; this should be
> something that can be done right now.
!