Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why no prosumer with APS-sized CCD ?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:26:03 PM

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

I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
can't be the cost alone.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/

More about : prosumer aps sized ccd

Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:26:04 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com:

> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.

Me to.

My guess is that the manufacturers, faulty or not,
believes that there exist no market.

The prosumer cameras have rather hefty zoom lenses with
rather good aperture value. Most are 3x zoom, many are
5x and some are even 10x.

If you use a larger sensor, you have to make compromises
there. Either less zoom or worse max aperture, if you
don't want large cameras that are very expensive. DSLR
normal zoom lenses are normally F/3.5 where prosumer
are F/2.0.

Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
special sensors for those cameras or you have to
abandon live preview.



/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:26:04 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com...
>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.
> --


I believe it is mostly cost. A larger imager will require a larger lens
than what is going in the current crop of small-sensor compacts. Not only
that, they require better electronics to handle the larger files.

Mark
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:26:04 PM

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

Every company has a line of products and as you go up in that line you
get more features and a better product. Why should Nikon or Canon,
etc. put all the goodies in a P&S when they can allure you with their
higher-end products. What may happen is that a company that doesn't
have a professional series may come out with a prosumer camera with the
larger sensor, etc. and this will force the hand of the other
companies. I own a Nikon 8800 and it has a tack sharp lens from 35-380
with ED galss and VR. It has certain limitations as does every camera
in this category, however, if it was as fast as the D70 the 8800 would
steal away market share from semi-pros. With the D70 the consumer will
probably buy several lenses and that means more dollars for the
companies who make these cameras.
January 9, 2005 4:26:04 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:

> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.


You would need an enormous lense to come close to the zoom range of P&S.
There doesn't even exist any such lense for 35mm with that wide of a
zoom range. Plus the DSLR's are not really sharper, just that they have
more dynamic range which is kind of subtle really for the P&S crowd it's
not something that jumps out at you like megapixels and super telephoto
ability.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 4:26:05 PM

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

"test@yahoo.com" <traderfjp@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105285310.928564.102100@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Every company has a line of products and as you go up in that line you
> get more features and a better product. Why should Nikon or Canon,
> etc. put all the goodies in a P&S when they can allure you with their
> higher-end products. What may happen is that a company that doesn't
> have a professional series may come out with a prosumer camera with the
> larger sensor, etc. and this will force the hand of the other
> companies. I own a Nikon 8800 and it has a tack sharp lens from 35-380
> with ED galss and VR. It has certain limitations as does every camera
> in this category, however, if it was as fast as the D70 the 8800 would
> steal away market share from semi-pros. With the D70 the consumer will
> probably buy several lenses and that means more dollars for the
> companies who make these cameras.
>

A 35-380mm lens certainly isn't tack sharp, and would shows it's
ugly head on a APS-sized sensot very fast.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 5:08:10 PM

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

Hi Al,

<< it can't be the cost alone >>

Don't bet on that. The beancounters add pennies.

I'd like to see actual size comparisons between CCD and CMOS sensors used in
digital cameras.

Best,

Conrad




Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:06:20 PM

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

Alfred Molon wrote:
> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise
> of DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need
> interchangeable lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no
> manufacturer yet launched such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now
> cost less than $1000, it can't be the cost alone.

Maybe not a direct answer to your question, but keep in mind that the
way CCD's are manufactured and the limits placed on them by the
manufacturing process makes for certain "sweet" sizes. Changing the shape
or size can greatly change the cost of each unit. I suspect they are made a
number at a time on a circular blank. Making them say just a 1/16" larger
may reduce the yield per blank by 20% or more, thereby increasing the price
by 25%.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:19:40 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com...

>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ?

Because it wouldn't be particularly compact.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:21:43 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low
>noise of DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package,

Me too!

>so why has no manufacturer yet launched such a compact camera ?
>Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it can't be the cost alone.

If there was such a high quality point&shoot digicam available then
there would be a high risk that consumers would finally realize the
*extremely* poor quality of the current digicams. This could results
some law suits etc.

AAlso why to use a 20 USD imager chip in the P&S cameras when a 2 USD
imager sells very well already.

Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:21:44 PM

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

Timo Autiokari <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in
news:p fb2u09gh6gndd3i36f64sn965f5hn8b7a@4ax.com:

> If there was such a high quality point&shoot digicam available then
> there would be a high risk that consumers would finally realize the
> *extremely* poor quality of the current digicams. This could results
> some law suits etc.

I think my reply was more balanced :) 

> AAlso why to use a 20 USD imager chip in the P&S cameras when a 2 USD
> imager sells very well already.

Hmmm ... that is a valid point .. although I would be surprised
if the chip in a DSLR only costs $20.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:32:11 PM

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

"Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote in news:gYbEd.89155$uM5.58855@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

> Because it wouldn't be particularly compact.

Compact 35 mm film cameras are compact.
Compact APS film cameras are even compacter.
Digital prosumer cameras can be even compacter,
but usually are not. On the contrary.

But you are right - if the APS camera shall have a 5x F/2.0
zoom, it will not be in particular compact. But, an APS
size sensor and a 30 mm F/1.4 lens would be super compact.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:34:02 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com:

> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.

I have a question for you Alfred.

Why do you ask this question again and again?
This is at least the fourth time you ask it.

And you get the same answer every time.

Do you hope to get better answers?



/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:46:01 PM

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

In article <Xns95D98CC121DCFklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
says...

> Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
> allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
> special sensors for those cameras or you have to
> abandon live preview.

Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
can't have it.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:46:02 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4b6215f64caf4d98a92d@news.supernews.com:

> Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
> tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
> can't have it.

Nope - but the point was that there are no such CCD.
You cannot just build such a camera.



/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 6:57:40 PM

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

In article <vv6dnQiMG6THoXzcRVn-1Q@comcast.com>, Mark B. says...

> I believe it is mostly cost. A larger imager will require a larger lens
> than what is going in the current crop of small-sensor compacts. Not only
> that, they require better electronics to handle the larger files.

The filesize should be the same - it only depends on the resolution, not
on the CCD size (unless of course the larger CCD camera generates RAW
files with more bit depth, but even then the increase would be moderate
- 16 bits vs 12 bits for instance).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 7:44:57 PM

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

Alfred Molon responds:

>In article <Xns95D98CC121DCFklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
>says...
>
>> Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
>> allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
>> special sensors for those cameras or you have to
>> abandon live preview.
>
>Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
>tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
>can't have it.

Sure. And putting wings on a battleship and flying it should be no problem. But
will it do anything useful?

Charlie Self
"One of the common denominators I have found is that expectations rise above
that which is expected." George W. Bush
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:17:56 PM

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

Roland Karlsson <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote:

>I think my reply was more balanced :) 

Well ... yes, considering that I forgot to mention that most of the
manufacturers do not want to provide such a high quality P&S digicam
simply because doing so would inevitably eat the market share of their
dSLRs.Those manufacturers want to sell the high price tag dSLR
glassware and other add-on too.

You did mention two very important issues, the lens (aperture and zoom
range) and the live preview feature.

I'm not sure what is the typical speed of the 3x lenses of the P&S
film cameras but I'd guess that f/2.8 can be quite easily made for APS
size, e.g. digicams do not require a lot of resolving power. I'd
gladly take a high quality digital P&S with "only" 3x zoom but I'd not
want a slow lens.

The live preview has effect on image quality versus imager size, a
sensor that does not provide the live preview is using all of its
active photon sensing area for capturing the image. Sensors with live
preview only use half of the active area for image capture and the
other half for the video stream. The larger the active area is the
higher is image quality so the live preview is very costly in terms of
image quality.

For the high quality P&S digicam I would gladly take the similar range
finder that the film P&S cameras have.

Timo Autiokari
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:17:57 PM

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

Timo Autiokari <timo.autiokari@aim-dtp.net> wrote in
news:gkf2u0tspeh8voo07t3se2g7ijib1lcpf9@4ax.com:

> For the high quality P&S digicam I would gladly take the similar range
> finder that the film P&S cameras have.

The main problem is that "the market" does not understand that.
It is only a matter of comparing features. All cameras give
fantastic and outstanding pictures in the ads, so its all
about features. So - "live preview" wins over "higher quality".
You cannot tick off "higher qualiy" in the fact sheet,
only "high quality" - and that is always ticked off.




/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:33:07 PM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b6215f64caf4d98a92d@news.supernews.com...
> In article <Xns95D98CC121DCFklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
> says...
>
>> Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
>> allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
>> special sensors for those cameras or you have to
>> abandon live preview.
>
> Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
> tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
> can't have it.
> --
>

The much larger CCD & CMOS sensors used in DSLRs aren't capable of doing
live preview.

Mark
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:49:16 PM

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

In article <gkf2u0tspeh8voo07t3se2g7ijib1lcpf9@4ax.com>, Timo Autiokari
says...

> The live preview has effect on image quality versus imager size, a
> sensor that does not provide the live preview is using all of its
> active photon sensing area for capturing the image. Sensors with live
> preview only use half of the active area for image capture and the
> other half for the video stream.

Not sure if I understand this, because you have to read out the image in
some way, even with a CCD with no live preview.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:51:38 PM

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

In article <Xns95D9A8886213Bklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
says...

> > I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> > DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> > lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> > such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> > can't be the cost alone.
>
> I have a question for you Alfred.
>
> Why do you ask this question again and again?
> This is at least the fourth time you ask it.

When was the last time I put this question (about the prosumer with the
APS-sized CCD) ?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:53:48 PM

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

Dutch Flyer wrote:
[]
> A 35-380mm lens certainly isn't tack sharp, and would shows it's
> ugly head on a APS-sized sensot very fast.

It depends how much you pay for it!
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 8:54:21 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.

Such a camera would be very much like a D70, but with a fixed zoom
lens. I can't imagine why anybody would want such a thing.

Andrew.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:30:46 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
>DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
>lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
>such a compact camera ?

You can buy an Epson RD-1, tape over the lens-release button and pretend the
lens is nonremovable, I guess. It satisfies your other requirements - no TTL
viewing, compact, APS-C sensor.

Bit expensive though. Give it a couple of years, see if Zeiss and Cosina do
similar cameras.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:30:47 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c4b6215f64caf4d98a92d@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview.

Your main reason given for wanting such a camera was low-noise. These
sensors are low noise due to their large capacity storage wells. Adding a
decent live readout capability reqauires a second cell of the same capacity
for each photosite. Doing this halves the capacity of the wells. This gives
you noise.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:30:47 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c4b7edcaa415d598a92f@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <gkf2u0tspeh8voo07t3se2g7ijib1lcpf9@4ax.com>, Timo Autiokari
>says...
>
>> The live preview has effect on image quality versus imager size, a
>> sensor that does not provide the live preview is using all of its
>> active photon sensing area for capturing the image. Sensors with live
>> preview only use half of the active area for image capture and the
>> other half for the video stream.
>
>Not sure if I understand this, because you have to read out the image in
>some way, even with a CCD with no live preview.

Such a sensor is predicated on the principle that you can read it out in the
dark, thus you don't need a duplicate charge store for each photosite which
isn't light-sensitive.

Once you introduce the need for continuous exposure, you can't take
advantage of that any more.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:30:48 PM

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

In article <MPG.1c4b7f8329f876cc98a930@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <Xns95D9A8886213Bklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
>says...
>
>> > I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
>> > DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
>> > lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
>> > such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
>> > can't be the cost alone.
>>
>> I have a question for you Alfred.
>>
>> Why do you ask this question again and again?
>> This is at least the fourth time you ask it.
>
>When was the last time I put this question (about the prosumer with the
>APS-sized CCD) ?

June, according to Google.

OK, back then, you said you didn't care if it was an SLR or not, as long as
it's compact, but this seems to be a rehash of that thread.
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:38:50 PM

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

In article <gkf2u0tspeh8voo07t3se2g7ijib1lcpf9@4ax.com>, Timo Autiokari
says...

> The live preview has effect on image quality versus imager size, a
> sensor that does not provide the live preview is using all of its
> active photon sensing area for capturing the image. Sensors with live
> preview only use half of the active area for image capture and the
> other half for the video stream. The larger the active area is the
> higher is image quality so the live preview is very costly in terms of
> image quality.

By the way, even if what you say is true, video streaming is just
320x240, so it's just 240 lines out of 2000+ (in a typical 6 or 8MP CCD)
which would have their area halved. One line out of eight, which would
translate into a 12% lower average ISO.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:44:49 PM

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

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in
news:10u2rud93jtvi6e@news.supernews.com:

> Such a camera would be very much like a D70, but with a fixed zoom
> lens. I can't imagine why anybody would want such a thing.

No, it would not. It could be much compacter.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:49:05 PM

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

test@yahoo.com wrote:
> Every company has a line of products and as you go up in that line you
> get more features and a better product. Why should Nikon or Canon,
> etc. put all the goodies in a P&S when they can allure you with their
> higher-end products. What may happen is that a company that doesn't
> have a professional series may come out with a prosumer camera with
> the larger sensor, etc. and this will force the hand of the other
> companies.

Then why don't Sony produce this camera then? They have no SLR-series to
worry about, and they produce their own (and most others) sensors also.

Use your money to vote. This product is not technically impossible, but
there is no market for it unless people stop to buy prosumer cameras and buy
SLR instead. Then some companies may try "impossible" things to get their
customers back.

--
Frode P. Bergsager
Norway
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:53:24 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> writes:

>Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
>tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
>can't have it.

Sure they *could* have it. But the feature eats some silicon area, so
the active light-sensing area of each photosite would be reduced
compared to a same-size sensor without live preview. And thus you lose
some of the noise advantage of the large sensor - which is why you
wanted a larger sensor in the first place.

Dave
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:54:01 PM

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

"Frode P. Bergsager" <fpbs@c2i.net> wrote in
news:B0fEd.8929$HA5.1029467@juliett.dax.net:

> Use your money to vote. This product is not technically impossible,
> but there is no market for it unless people stop to buy prosumer
> cameras and buy SLR instead. Then some companies may try "impossible"
> things to get their customers back.

If you look back att film cameras, then you can see that
pro and semipro SLR sold very well. Compact cameras with
no particular image quality at all also sold very well.
But - better compact cameras sold only to very special
people. Those cameras were also rather expensive.

Now - the camera makers does the same with digital cameras.



/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 9:56:16 PM

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

davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote in news:crruj4$bc5$2
@mughi.cs.ubc.ca:

> Sure they *could* have it. But the feature eats some silicon area, so
> the active light-sensing area of each photosite would be reduced
> compared to a same-size sensor without live preview. And thus you lose
> some of the noise advantage of the large sensor - which is why you
> wanted a larger sensor in the first place.

Yepp - and this is probably the most important reason
why they don't make any compact cameras with large sensors.
They have to give up live preview to get all the noise
advantage. And taking away features is a "no no".


/Roland
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:08:15 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> writes:

>Not sure if I understand this, because you have to read out the image in
>some way, even with a CCD with no live preview.

The difference is whether the image needs to be read out with the
shutter open or closed. (This applies to CCD; I don't know if CMOS
sensors have similar tradeoffs).

In a DSLR-type sensor, you have nothing but the light-sensing photosites
themselves to hold and shift the charges around on the CCD. The
exposure sequence is something like:

0. (Note that the shutter is normally closed on a DSLR)
1. Read the CCD rapidly to flush all charge from it
2. Open the shutter for the exposure time, accumulating charge
proportional to light intensity
3. Close the shutter
4. Start reading out the CCD, sweeping charges to the corner(s) where
a charge to voltage conversion is done

The fundamental limitation of this sort of CCD is that it is *always
sensitive to light*. If you try to read out the image while the chip is
exposed to light, you'll get a smeared mess, as the charge packets pick
up additional electrons while passing through cells that are both
light-sensitive and being used as shift registers. Thus the readout
step (#4 above) is always done when the CCD is in darkness.

To avoid this smearing, chips capable of video output (which means that
they must be read out while still exposed to light) have separate
sensing and readout registers. Once per frame, the entire image is
transferred rapidly from the sensing cells to the readout cells (which
are not affected by light). Then the next exposure takes place in the
sensing cells in parallel with the previous exposure being read from the
readout cells.

In video CCDs, a common way to do this is simply to make the chip twice
as tall as it would otherwise be and cover the lower half with black
paint. During vertical retrace, the entire image from the upper
(light-sensing) portion of the chip is rapidly clocked into the lower
(black painted) portion. Then the lower half is read out during the
image time. But this makes the CCD twice the size of its sensing area,
which is not practical for large still camera CCDs.

Another method is to put the storage/transfer registers interleaved with
the rows of sensing cells. This takes silicon area away from the
sensors. It also means you're clocking the transfer registers while
hoping the signals don't affect the sensing cells a few microns away.

It's just easier to make everything work well if the exposure and
readout phases are separated in time, and the readout takes place in the
dark.

Dave
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 10:12:10 PM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> writes:

>By the way, even if what you say is true, video streaming is just
>320x240, so it's just 240 lines out of 2000+ (in a typical 6 or 8MP CCD)
>which would have their area halved. One line out of eight, which would
>translate into a 12% lower average ISO.

I can't see that ever working. If 1/8 of the sensor rows are
manufactured differently than the other 7/8 of the rows, it's nearly
impossible to make their response the same as the others. It's not a
matter of 12% lower ISO, it's a matter of having every eighth scanline
not match its neighbours, and thus getting streaks in the image.

If a CCD is set up for video output, *every* row and column will provide
video output. It's entirely possible that the electronics uses
"binning" (adding the charge from NxN cells together in the analog
electronics) for faster A/D conversion, but you've still got to pay the
price of the extra transfer registers for every pixel.

Dave
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:47:33 PM

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

In article <gj78b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...

> Your main reason given for wanting such a camera was low-noise. These
> sensors are low noise due to their large capacity storage wells. Adding a
> decent live readout capability reqauires a second cell of the same capacity
> for each photosite.

Not for each photosite. Video streaming is only 320x240, i.e. only 240
lines out of a total of 2000+ would need to be modified.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 9, 2005 11:49:14 PM

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

In article <c888b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...

> June, according to Google.
>
> OK, back then, you said you didn't care if it was an SLR or not, as long as
> it's compact, but this seems to be a rehash of that thread.

What thread was that ? Anyway, I can't remember all posts I make.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 12:12:11 AM

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

In article <crrvma$bvv$2@mughi.cs.ubc.ca>, Dave Martindale says...
> Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >By the way, even if what you say is true, video streaming is just
> >320x240, so it's just 240 lines out of 2000+ (in a typical 6 or 8MP CCD)
> >which would have their area halved. One line out of eight, which would
> >translate into a 12% lower average ISO.
>
> I can't see that ever working. If 1/8 of the sensor rows are
> manufactured differently than the other 7/8 of the rows, it's nearly
> impossible to make their response the same as the others. It's not a
> matter of 12% lower ISO, it's a matter of having every eighth scanline
> not match its neighbours, and thus getting streaks in the image.

You would multiply the different row with a constant factor (or use a
different gain for the row amplifier). Noise will be a bit higher, but
only for that specific row (and not for the other 7 rows).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:06:28 AM

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

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1c4ba9203fe3b36e98a935@news.supernews.com:

> What thread was that ? Anyway, I can't remember all posts I make.

I do :) 

No - I don't. But - I remembered this one.


/Roland
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:31:03 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c4ba8bc881b6a4898a934@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <gj78b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...
>
>> Your main reason given for wanting such a camera was low-noise. These
>> sensors are low noise due to their large capacity storage wells. Adding a
>> decent live readout capability reqauires a second cell of the same capacity
>> for each photosite.
>
>Not for each photosite. Video streaming is only 320x240, i.e. only 240
>lines out of a total of 2000+ would need to be modified.

But at that resolution, your image will be so piss-poor that you won't have
a clue about critical focusing. This is important because a larger sensor
and the focal lengths that accompany it give you a much smaller depth of
field, and stuff that would be in focus on a zoom compact, when focused
using a low-res preview, will be horribly blurred when taken on a larger
sensor.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:31:04 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c4bae6664dc01f498a936@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>You would multiply the different row with a constant factor (or use a
>different gain for the row amplifier). Noise will be a bit higher, but
>only for that specific row (and not for the other 7 rows).

I'm sure you'll forgive the marketing departments of the various camera
manufacturers for not yet coming up with the appropriate marketing spin to
allow them to viably produce a sensor that overlays your image with bars of
noise every 8 lines.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:31:04 AM

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

In article <MPG.1c4ba9203fe3b36e98a935@news.supernews.com>,
Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <c888b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...
>
>> June, according to Google.
>>
>> OK, back then, you said you didn't care if it was an SLR or not, as long as
>> it's compact, but this seems to be a rehash of that thread.
>
>What thread was that ? Anyway, I can't remember all posts I make.

"Why go dSLR?" was the thread title.

Whilst looking this up, I note that you also started a thread in September,
"Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ?", where the subject of DSLR sensors and
how they differ from the sensors in compacts was also done to death.

Asking almost the same question every 3 months isn't going to change the
answers, you know. If you want a big sensor, just buy a camera with one in.
There's even one that's not an SLR these days.

....or shoot film and scan it. You can use really huge image capture areas
then.
January 10, 2005 1:31:04 AM

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

Chris Brown wrote:

> In article <MPG.1c4ba8bc881b6a4898a934@news.supernews.com>,
> Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <gj78b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...
>>
>> Video streaming is only 320x240, i.e. only 240
>> lines out of a total of 2000+ would need to be modified.
>
>
> But at that resolution, your image will be so...


I know this is sort of a different issue but the D70 sensor is about
420x280 and can zoom in to about 65% actual pixel size, just for reference.
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 1:40:57 AM

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

Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in
news:4ll8b2-ps2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org:

> "Why go dSLR?" was the thread title.
>
> Whilst looking this up, I note that you also started a thread in
> September, "Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ?", where the subject of
> DSLR sensors and how they differ from the sensors in compacts was also
> done to death.
>
> Asking almost the same question every 3 months isn't going to change
> the answers, you know. If you want a big sensor, just buy a camera
> with one in. There's even one that's not an SLR these days.

Hmmm - I thought it was 4 times. But that does not matter,
three times is at least one time too many.

But - I have also asked this question way back then.
And I am quite sure that Alfred was in that thread also.
That might be the fourth.



/Roland
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 2:05:55 AM

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

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com...
>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.
You're right, it isn't cost alone. Physics has a lot to do with it to, and
also the reason why people buy prosumer compacts in the first place. They
buy prosumer compacts instead of SLR's because they are more compact,
smaller, and offer a good range of zoom to cover most needs so there is no
need to change lenses.
Take for example the Pana FZ10. This camera has a lens that is the
equivalent to 420mm at F2.8. Because of it's small sensor, this lens can be
made fairly small and light. If the sensor was APS sized, the lens would
need to be 280mm to give the same equivalence. If you have ever held a 300mm
F2.8 lens, you would know that they are anything other than small and light.
Would you buy a camera with a lens like that? Ok, so if we want to make the
camera reasonably small and light then we have to reduce the lens size. To
give something about the same size as the current crop of prosumers, the
lens would fall to be something close to the equivalence of 28-80 F3.5-F5.6.
By coincidence this is the size lens that ships with DSLR's, because it is
small and compact. The prosumer camera of course would be pretty much the
same size as a DSLR if it had the same lens, so then we ask - if two cameras
are the same size, similar price, and have pretty much the same lens, would
you buy the one with the replaceable lens or the one with the fixed lens?
The answer is pretty obvious, because while 28-80 will cover 80% of needs
pretty well, most people will at some stage want the ability to go to a
longer lens.
But they made compact 35mm cameras and they have a 35mm sized sensor I hear
you say. Yes they did, but lenses longer than 150mm were pretty rare, the
very odd camera would go to 200mm. The Nikon Zoom 150ED for example has a
lens that zooms to 150mm, but at 150mm it is F12!!! even at it's widest
angle it is a pretty pedestrian F5.6.
So that is why there is no APS sized prosumer camera - it wouldn't be able
to offer any advantages. It would have to have either a very short lens,
thus losing one of it's big features (versatility), or it's lens would have
to become very slow.
If you really want a prosumer with an APS sized sensor, buy a
D70/EOS300/istDS/7D and superglue the standard lens to it. Except for live
preview, this would pretty much match what you would be getting if they made
an APS prosumer
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
> Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 2:21:34 AM

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

"Conrad Weiler" <weil91@aol.com> wrote:
> << it can't be the cost alone >>
>
> Don't bet on that. The beancounters add pennies.
>
> I'd like to see actual size comparisons between CCD and CMOS sensors used
in
> digital cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/...

The 2/3" sensors are 96.8 sq mm, whereas the 20D is 345 sq mm. So you'd
expect the 20D to be about three to four times as sensitive for the same
noise, and, surprise, ISO 1600 on the 20D looks about the same as ISO 400 on
the 8MP P&S cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 2:42:16 AM

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

In article <4ll8b2-ps2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Chris Brown says...

> >> June, according to Google.
> >>
> >> OK, back then, you said you didn't care if it was an SLR or not, as long as
> >> it's compact, but this seems to be a rehash of that thread.
> >
> >What thread was that ? Anyway, I can't remember all posts I make.
>
> "Why go dSLR?" was the thread title.
>
> Whilst looking this up, I note that you also started a thread in September,
> "Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ?", where the subject of DSLR sensors and
> how they differ from the sensors in compacts was also done to death.
>
> Asking almost the same question every 3 months isn't going to change the
> answers, you know.

1. I didn't start the "Why go dSLR?" thread, only made a couple of
posts.

2. "Why separate AF sensors in DSLRs ?" is a very different question
from "Why no prosumer with APS-sized CCD ?"
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 2:59:41 AM

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

Hi Alfred,

<< By the way, even if what you say is true, video streaming is just
>320x240, so it's just 240 lines out of 2000+ (in a typical 6 or 8MP CCD) >>

I have a 6MP Fuji S7000 that has 640x480 video.

Best,

Conrad

Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
January 10, 2005 3:37:09 AM

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

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:ud78b2-cc2.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <MPG.1c4b414a3faaeef198a92b@news.supernews.com>,
> Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> >DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> >lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> >such a compact camera ?
>
> You can buy an Epson RD-1, tape over the lens-release button and pretend
the
> lens is nonremovable, I guess. It satisfies your other requirements - no
TTL
> viewing, compact, APS-C sensor.
>
> Bit expensive though. Give it a couple of years, see if Zeiss and Cosina
do
> similar cameras.

The Epson is a Cosina...
!