Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wanted: high-ISO digicam

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 12:19:03 PM

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

The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.

I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).

Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax K-M)
produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.
Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
"compact" would be a misnomer however).

Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry pictures
from camera shake and subject movement.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 5:00:52 PM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:

> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces
even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
pictures
> from camera shake and subject movement.

I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 7:04:03 PM

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

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:42010b86@news.meer.net...
> The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
> aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.
>
> I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
> that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).
>
> Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax K-M)
> produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
> I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.
> Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
> "compact" would be a misnomer however).
>
> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600?

There isn't, as all of them use relatively small sensors = high noise at
high ISO.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:37:56 PM

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

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107381652.692340.82050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces
> even
>> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
> pictures
>> from camera shake and subject movement.
>
> I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
> a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
> the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
> G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
>

Canon's 1.6x crop factor DSRL sensors would require
a huge lens in order to cover te usual P&S ~28-150mm range.
This would automatically eliminate any advantage (ie. portability)
that such cameras may have over DSLR.
Without going into the details, a bigger sensor will require a (much) bigger
lens,
this is the reason why noone has and never will put a DSLR sized sensor
in a P&S. Otherwise, Sony who produces DSLR sensors would have
done it a long time ago since they don't have a DSLR line anyway.
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 8:44:26 PM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
> aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.
>
> I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
> that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).
>
> Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax K-M)
> produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
> I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.
> Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
> "compact" would be a misnomer however).
>
> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry pictures
> from camera shake and subject movement.
>

The responses so far are an indicator of the state of
the technology, but hoping better will be hoping for
a break in the laws of physics. The high noise on small
sensors is due to photon counting statistics. The small
sensors are dominated by low numbers of photons being collected,
factors of 10 in comparison to DSLRs at the same ISO.
The only way to change that is to get larger sensors
into the P&S cameras, which will probably happen, but slowly.

See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

and in particular:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

I'm putting together a page that compares DSLR versus P&S,
example on jpeg versus tif; I'll use data on this page
for a comparison of the 3 cameras:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1

Pixel size is everything when it comes to signal-to-noise.

Roger
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 9:06:38 PM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:
[]
> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
> pictures from camera shake and subject movement.

For the highest sensitivity, you need the largest area sensor, which means
a DSLR, and a fast lens helps, of course. You can set higher ISOs on
compact cameras, but likely you will need a noise reduction program to get
acceptable results. Of course, you could always take the (today
unfashionable) that noise adds character to the image....

Cheers,
David
February 2, 2005 10:47:33 PM

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

If you can use B&W photos get an image intensifier, as seen on night scopes.


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:420173EA.7080909@qwest.net...
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
> > The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
> > aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.
> >
> > I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
> > that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).
> >
> > Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax
K-M)
> > produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
> > I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO
200.
> > Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
> > "compact" would be a misnomer however).
> >
> > Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> > remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
pictures
> > from camera shake and subject movement.
> >
>
> The responses so far are an indicator of the state of
> the technology, but hoping better will be hoping for
> a break in the laws of physics. The high noise on small
> sensors is due to photon counting statistics. The small
> sensors are dominated by low numbers of photons being collected,
> factors of 10 in comparison to DSLRs at the same ISO.
> The only way to change that is to get larger sensors
> into the P&S cameras, which will probably happen, but slowly.
>
> See:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail
>
> and in particular:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...
>
> I'm putting together a page that compares DSLR versus P&S,
> example on jpeg versus tif; I'll use data on this page
> for a comparison of the 3 cameras:
> http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/raw.versus.jpeg1
>
> Pixel size is everything when it comes to signal-to-noise.
>
> Roger
>
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 10:47:42 PM

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

Steve wrote:

> If you can use B&W photos get an image intensifier, as seen on night scopes.
>
An image intensifier does not help improve the signal-to-noise
when the system is already photon noise limited. But using a true
monochrome sensor (black and white, no color filters over pixels)
would improve the number of photons counted because there would
not be all that absorption in the filters.

Roger
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:21:14 PM

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

"Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107381652.692340.82050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Bill Tuthill wrote:
>
>> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces
> even
>> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
> pictures
>> from camera shake and subject movement.
>
> I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
> a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
> the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
> G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
>

The cost would approach that of a DSLR body; the larger sensor would still
require better electronics and larger lenses to cover the sensor area. Not
gonna happen soon, if at all.

Mark
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:35:48 PM

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

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message news:42010b86@news.meer.net...
> The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
> aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.
>
> I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
> that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).
>
> Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax K-M)
> produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
> I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.
> Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
> "compact" would be a misnomer however).
>
> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry pictures
> from camera shake and subject movement.
>

I can't help, but it's what I'm waiting for. Something instinctive tells me
that electronic sensors that are very sensitive could be devised - without
the cooling needed for sensors used in astronomy. Now that digital cameras
are in the development stage that computers were a few years ago I have a
child like faith that technology will overtake current limitations and
supply me with a 3200 ISO camera that is as noise free as my G5 is on 50
ISO.

John
Anonymous
February 2, 2005 11:35:49 PM

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

"Eatmorepies" <stopthere@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:36crtbF4varctU1@individual.net...
>
> "Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote in message
> news:42010b86@news.meer.net...
>> The search tools at Dpreview.com or Steves-Digicams or Imaging-Resource
>> aren't helping me find an appropriate camera.
>>
>> I want something to replace a film P&S camera loaded with 800 speed film
>> that can be used in dark canyons to record sports action (kayaking).
>>
>> Although the Canon CMOS models and Sony-CCD-based DSLRs (Nikon Pentax
>> K-M)
>> produce excellent results at ISO 1600 and good results up to ISO 6400,
>> I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.
>> Even the $1800 Leica Digilux 2 is visibly soft at ISO 400 (calling it a
>> "compact" would be a misnomer however).
>>
>> Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces even
>> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
>> pictures
>> from camera shake and subject movement.
>>
>
> I can't help, but it's what I'm waiting for. Something instinctive tells
> me
> that electronic sensors that are very sensitive could be devised - without
> the cooling needed for sensors used in astronomy. Now that digital cameras
> are in the development stage that computers were a few years ago I have a
> child like faith that technology will overtake current limitations and
> supply me with a 3200 ISO camera that is as noise free as my G5 is on 50
> ISO.

Sensors (CCD/CMOS) used in cameras today are nothing new, in fact they are
more mature technology then PC computers.
Don't hold our breath for "noise free" P&S digicams because it just won't
happen
anytime soon.
February 3, 2005 12:04:48 AM

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

I beleave they work..
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/features/XQ/ASP/artabi...


"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:420190CE.60601@qwest.net...
> Steve wrote:
>
> > If you can use B&W photos get an image intensifier, as seen on night
scopes.
> >
> An image intensifier does not help improve the signal-to-noise
> when the system is already photon noise limited. But using a true
> monochrome sensor (black and white, no color filters over pixels)
> would improve the number of photons counted because there would
> not be all that absorption in the filters.
>
> Roger
>
February 3, 2005 2:01:59 AM

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

Dutch Flyer wrote:
> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1107381652.692340.82050@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Bill Tuthill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Am I missing something? Is there a compact digicam that produces
>>
>>even
>>
>>>remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
>>
>>pictures
>>
>>>from camera shake and subject movement.
>>
>>I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
>>a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
>>the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
>>G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
>>
>
>
> Canon's 1.6x crop factor DSRL sensors would require
> a huge lens in order to cover te usual P&S ~28-150mm range.
> This would automatically eliminate any advantage (ie. portability)
> that such cameras may have over DSLR.
> Without going into the details, a bigger sensor will require a (much) bigger
> lens,
> this is the reason why noone has and never will put a DSLR sized sensor
> in a P&S. Otherwise, Sony who produces DSLR sensors would have
> done it a long time ago since they don't have a DSLR line anyway.
>
>
The D100 goes up to 6400 (i.e, HI-2). Quality of the results is a
personal thing ...

Jan
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:10:14 AM

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

Dutch Flyer wrote:

> Canon's 1.6x crop factor DSRL sensors would require
> a huge lens in order to cover te usual P&S ~28-150mm range.

I didn't mean to imply that they should use the same 1.6 crop factor
CMOS sensors in smaller cameras, just that they should use CMOS sensors.

I suspect that their limited capacity of CMOS sensors is all going into
the higher margin D-SLRs, and once they have sufficient capacity that
maybe they can run wafers with smaller sensors for their higher end
compact cameras.

Too bad the Foveon CMOS sensors didn't work out.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:15:33 AM

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

Steve wrote:
> I beleave they work..
> http://www.photonics.com/spectra/features/XQ/ASP/artabi...

The fact that they work does not mean they are better.
No astronomer uses them for imaging that I know of.
Once the system is photon noise limited, it doesn't get
any btter. If you amplify the photon-noise-limited
signal, you just get a brighter but equally noisey image.

The advantage of image intensifiers to improve detection occurs when
the detector is not photon noise limited, or that the signal
is an analog process and one is trying to get a certain density.
recorded, e.g. with film.

Roger
>
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
> message news:420190CE.60601@qwest.net...
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you can use B&W photos get an image intensifier, as seen on night
>
> scopes.
>
>>An image intensifier does not help improve the signal-to-noise
>>when the system is already photon noise limited. But using a true
>>monochrome sensor (black and white, no color filters over pixels)
>>would improve the number of photons counted because there would
>>not be all that absorption in the filters.
>>
>>Roger
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 12:04:26 PM

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

Dutch Flyer <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote:
>
> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
>> a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
>> the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
>> G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
>
> Canon's 1.6x crop factor DSRL sensors would require
> a huge lens in order to cover te usual P&S ~28-150mm range.
> This would automatically eliminate any advantage (ie. portability)
> that such cameras may have over DSLR. Without going into the details,
> a bigger sensor will require a (much) bigger lens, this is the reason
> why noone has and never will put a DSLR sized sensor in a P&S.

It can't be that hard, can it?

Since the Sony APS-C CCD is APS sized, hence the name APS-C CCD,
manufacturers could just take one of their old APS camera designs
off the shelf, slap a CCD in it, and have a useful camera. Or if
these cameras are too small for all the electronics, they could
take an old 35mm P&S design like the Minolta Riva/FZE 28-75 or the
Yashica T4*zoom 28-70, put CCD inside, and not use the full frame.

Canon's CMOS is about the same size as the Sony APS-C CCD, I think.
But with Canon production is limited by brisk DSLR sales.

And somebody mentioned the cost problem, which is a red herring.
The 300D (dRebel) costs $750, not much more than a Canon G6.
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:15:52 PM

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

"Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote:

> I have not found a compact digicam model that is much good above ISO 200.

Correct.

> Am I missing something?

No.

> Is there a compact digicam that produces even
> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry pictures
> from camera shake and subject movement.

How compact does it have to be???

The 300D (or even the 20D) with a 50/1.4 or 100/2.0 isn't all that
enormous. Sure, it doesn't go in a pocket, but it goes in a briefcase or
backpack without problem.

The 300D with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing, and the 20D is
supposed to be even better. And these are about the same weight as the Sony
F828.

(Note that there are rumors of a new 300D, so you should wait on the 300D
till the end of the month.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 2:15:53 PM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
news:cts1h6$ql6$1@nnrp.gol.com:
> "Bill Tuthill" <can@spam.co> wrote:
>> Is there a compact digicam that produces even
>> remotely acceptable results at ISO 800-1600? I'm tired of blurry
>> pictures from camera shake and subject movement.
>
> How compact does it have to be???
>
> The 300D (or even the 20D) with a 50/1.4 or 100/2.0 isn't all that
> enormous. Sure, it doesn't go in a pocket, but it goes in a briefcase
> or backpack without problem.
>
> The 300D with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing, and the 20D
> is supposed to be even better. And these are about the same weight as
> the Sony F828.
>
> (Note that there are rumors of a new 300D, so you should wait on the
> 300D till the end of the month.)

Still more compact and just as low noise: Pentax *ist Ds with FA 50 f1.4
lens (or for really tiny, the DA-40 lens). Lighter by a long way than an
F828, smaller in most dimensions. (and then you can put an FA* 85 f1.4 on
it - the lens weighs more than the camera)

--Sophie
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 6:00:25 PM

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

On 3 Feb 2005 09:04:26 -0800, Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:

>Dutch Flyer <dutchwings@bbnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Scharf-DCA" <scharf@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I think that eventually Canon will put its low noise CMOS sensors into
>>> a non-SLR. They may be capacity constrained on the CMOS sensors due to
>>> the popularity of the 300D, 10D, and 20D. It'd be cool to have a
>>> G6-like camera with a low noise CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD.
>>
>> Canon's 1.6x crop factor DSRL sensors would require
>> a huge lens in order to cover te usual P&S ~28-150mm range.
>> This would automatically eliminate any advantage (ie. portability)
>> that such cameras may have over DSLR. Without going into the details,
>> a bigger sensor will require a (much) bigger lens, this is the reason
>> why noone has and never will put a DSLR sized sensor in a P&S.
>
>It can't be that hard, can it?
>
>Since the Sony APS-C CCD is APS sized, hence the name APS-C CCD,
>manufacturers could just take one of their old APS camera designs
>off the shelf, slap a CCD in it, and have a useful camera. Or if
>these cameras are too small for all the electronics, they could
>take an old 35mm P&S design like the Minolta Riva/FZE 28-75 or the
>Yashica T4*zoom 28-70, put CCD inside, and not use the full frame.
>
>Canon's CMOS is about the same size as the Sony APS-C CCD, I think.
>But with Canon production is limited by brisk DSLR sales.
>
>And somebody mentioned the cost problem, which is a red herring.
>The 300D (dRebel) costs $750, not much more than a Canon G6.

I think a problem here would be that the sensor is capable of far more
than the (cheap) lens that would need to be used to keep the price
down.
It seems to me that if you up the quality of the sensor, you also need
to up the quality of everything else; otherwise, you're wasting it.
Isn't that $750 price for body only?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 9:37:38 PM

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

In article <Xns95F26AB08350sophiewilson@130.133.1.4>, Sophie Wilson
says...

> Still more compact and just as low noise: Pentax *ist Ds with FA 50 f1.4
> lens (or for really tiny, the DA-40 lens). Lighter by a long way than an
> F828, smaller in most dimensions. (and then you can put an FA* 85 f1.4 on
> it - the lens weighs more than the camera)

Even lighter with a 7x F2-2.4 zoom lens ? That's the lens the F828 comes
with.
--

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
February 3, 2005 11:30:15 PM

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

In article <4202599a@news.meer.net>, Bill Tuthill <can@spam.co> wrote:

>Since the Sony APS-C CCD is APS sized, hence the name APS-C CCD,
>manufacturers could just take one of their old APS camera designs
>off the shelf, slap a CCD in it, and have a useful camera.

Won't work - they could get away with that because APS full-frame is still
bigger than APS-C, which is where they cut the sides off to make it 6*4, if
you recall.

I think they called it APS-H.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 12:10:45 AM

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

"Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
> >
> > The 300D (or even the 20D) with a 50/1.4 or 100/2.0 isn't all that
> > enormous. Sure, it doesn't go in a pocket, but it goes in a briefcase
> > or backpack without problem.
> >
> > The 300D with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing, and the 20D
> > is supposed to be even better. And these are about the same weight as
> > the Sony F828.
> >
> > (Note that there are rumors of a new 300D, so you should wait on the
> > 300D till the end of the month.)
>
> Still more compact and just as low noise: Pentax *ist Ds with FA 50 f1.4
> lens (or for really tiny, the DA-40 lens). Lighter by a long way than an
> F828, smaller in most dimensions. (and then you can put an FA* 85 f1.4 on
> it - the lens weighs more than the camera)

Good point. And then there's the Pentax 24/2.0. A really useful length (on
either a 1.5x camera or a full frame one). F/2.0 is fast enough to be
seriously useful in low light, yet not heroic enough to cost an arm and two
legs (like the Canon 24/1.4).

Toss in the 14/2.8 and you have a lot of bases covered (brightly!) without
having to resort to either problematic consumer or pricey "L" zooms.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 12:10:46 AM

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

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
news:ctt4hv$49k$1@nnrp.gol.com:

>
> "Sophie Wilson" <sophie.wilson@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in
>> >
>> > The 300D (or even the 20D) with a 50/1.4 or 100/2.0 isn't all that
>> > enormous. Sure, it doesn't go in a pocket, but it goes in a
>> > briefcase or backpack without problem.
>> >
>> > The 300D with the 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing, and the
>> > 20D is supposed to be even better. And these are about the same
>> > weight as the Sony F828.
>> >
>> > (Note that there are rumors of a new 300D, so you should wait on
>> > the 300D till the end of the month.)
>>
>> Still more compact and just as low noise: Pentax *ist Ds with FA 50
>> f1.4 lens (or for really tiny, the DA-40 lens). Lighter by a long way
>> than an F828, smaller in most dimensions. (and then you can put an
>> FA* 85 f1.4 on it - the lens weighs more than the camera)
>
> Good point. And then there's the Pentax 24/2.0. A really useful length
> (on either a 1.5x camera or a full frame one). F/2.0 is fast enough to
> be seriously useful in low light, yet not heroic enough to cost an arm
> and two legs (like the Canon 24/1.4).
>
> Toss in the 14/2.8 and you have a lot of bases covered (brightly!)
> without having to resort to either problematic consumer or pricey "L"
> zooms.

And while we're congratulating Pentax for making these lovely small light
items, there's also the FA 35 f2, seriously expensive FA* 31 f1.8 ltd.
(Yes, I got the FA 35 f2 rather than the limited.)

Mind you, I was SHOCKED, positively shocked that is, at the size of the
*ist Ds compared to my *ist D. When powered by CR-V3s (lighter than NiMh
cells) it is amazing how small and light it is. [And, of course, negatively
shocked by the Olympus E-1 and E-300 - why are they so much bigger?]

--Sophie
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:33:30 AM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:

> It can't be that hard, can it?
>
> Since the Sony APS-C CCD is APS sized, hence the name APS-C CCD,
> manufacturers could just take one of their old APS camera designs
> off the shelf, slap a CCD in it, and have a useful camera. Or if
> these cameras are too small for all the electronics, they could
> take an old 35mm P&S design like the Minolta Riva/FZE 28-75 or the
> Yashica T4*zoom 28-70, put CCD inside, and not use the full frame.

I gather CCDs aren't as tolerant as film is of light striking the
sensing surface at an angle. The cells near the edges of the CCD
sensor wouldn't get as much light as those near the centre in such
a compact design so it'd tend to vignette.

> Canon's CMOS is about the same size as the Sony APS-C CCD, I think.
> But with Canon production is limited by brisk DSLR sales.

Surely it would already have been done if it'd been practicable.


Rob.
--
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 11:57:53 AM

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

Time for me to compare anti-shake models such as the Panasonic Lumix
against the Pentax DS, I guess. Anti-shake may substitute for high ISO.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 8:09:50 PM

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> Time for me to compare anti-shake models such as the Panasonic Lumix
> against the Pentax DS, I guess. Anti-shake may substitute for high
> ISO.

I've been very impressed with anti-shake, but of course it may not help if
your subject is moving....

Cheers,
David
!