Is there diference between CCD's?

[neon_pipe]

The Panasonic FZ3 has CCD Sensor 1/3.2" and the Canon S1 IS has CCD Sensor 1/2.7''.
What is the difference?
Is it diferent in the amount of information caputered by the machine? or the information is the same and the only difference is in the compression, where they transform the information into a photo of 3MP?

Thank you. :cool:

[D70FAN]

The Panasonic FZ3 has CCD Sensor 1/3.2" and the Canon S1 IS has CCD Sensor 1/2.7''.
What is the difference?
Is it diferent in the amount of information caputered by the machine? or the information is the same and the only difference is in the compression, where they transform the information into a photo of 3MP?

Thank you. :cool:

These indicate the physical size of the sensor1/3.2 is actually 1 divided by 3.2 or .31 inces diagonally (sort of like 4:3 TV measurements). So the 1/2.7 would equal .37 inches diagonally. Assuming both are 3.2MP the actual photo sensors on the Canon would be larger, and require less amplification, resulting in lower noise, at higher sensitivities (ISO settings).

The other sizes you will see on consumer digicams are 1/2.5 and 1/1.8. digital SLR's typically have a sensor that is called APS-C size (about the same size as a frame of APS film). These are about 8 times larger than the 1/1.8 consumer sensor, allowing much less amplification of the image signal and much lower noise. Which explains why the usable ISO range is 1600+.

As a refresher, ISO on a digital camera is the equivalent to film speed. The higher the ISO the greater the sensitivity to light, and less light is needed for the picture. This allows the camera to operate at a faster shutter speed or smaller aperture to avoid motion blur, or give greater Depth Of Field (DOF).

The downside to higher ISO in film and in digital is more noise or "grain" respectively. The larger the sensor, the larger the photo sites, and less noise or "grain" at higher ISO.

More than you wanted to know right? Hope it helps.

[neon_pipe]

Let me just start by saying :eek: UAU!



More than you wanted to know right? Hope it helps.

No. What you said was just perfect, I wish I had teachers teaching like this at my college. My doubts are clear, they couldn't be clearer, due to that answer.

Thank you, I am really impressed on how clear you where on your answer.

Thank you again, and next time I have a question I will probably adress to you. ;)

[D70FAN]

Let me just start by saying :eek: UAU!



No. What you said was just perfect, I wish I had teachers teaching like this at my college. My doubts are clear, they couldn't be clearer, due to that answer.

Thank you, I am really impressed on how clear you where on your answer.

Thank you again, and next time I have a question I will probably adress to you. ;)

Thanks. But there are things I know about and things I don't. I try to avoid commenting on the later.

The mechanics of a camera are not that hard to understand. It's all abut controlling light. But, making the mechanics (and electronics) work together to paint a picture is an art. I am still learning just like everyone else.

Anyway I'm glad it helped.

[D70FAN]

As a follow up to the recent discussion about sensor size, it is interesting to note that while a small sensor area and photo-site will probably always be a lower performer than larger sensors and photo sites, that doesn't mean that smaller sensors will not perform adequately in high ISO situations.

Sony has developed a new CMOS sensor to be used in the new Nikon 12.1MP D2X that will lead to lower noise consumer sensors. According to the article in Nikkei USA news Sony plans to shift away from CCD technology to CMOS technology in the future.

http://neasia.nikkeibp.com.hk/neasia/000013

With the D2X due out on February 25 (at $4999 estimated street price) we should find out shortly if the new Sony sensor will give consumer and pro-sumer shooters hope for low cost, higher performance, all-in-ones.

CMOS Imagers are nothing new, and Canon has been using them for quite a while, but it looks like these new CMOS imagers dramatically improve the signal to noise ratio.

It is interesting to note that, in the side panel showing the new D2X, the ISO stops at 800. Hopefully that isn't the actual camera specification. For $5000 I might expect a little more... :rolleyes:

[cemtex]

I never go above 800, I can imagine what 1600 or 3200 does from the latest generation sensor.

give it about 5-10 years and you will see every camera with a full frame sensor, almost like the epson RD-1 which has the same CCD as the nikon, but also is a smaller camera.

[D70FAN]

I never go above 800, I can imagine what 1600 or 3200 does from the latest generation sensor.

give it about 5-10 years and you will see every camera with a full frame sensor, almost like the epson RD-1 which has the same CCD as the nikon, but also is a smaller camera.

Since you don't mention the camera we can only guess.

If that is true (full size sensors) then there are going to be some really hunky lenses on those pocket cameras. Don't bet on the full frame thing happening in 5 years, but maybe 10+. Also keep in mind that there are some real cost advantages to using APS-C size sensors.

Which Nikon? Certainly not the D2X. The RD-1 is a 6.1MP Sony CCD similar to the Nikon D100 and Pentax *ist. Man talk about retro art deco cameras. I would never buy an RD-1 but it would be a great conversation piece. ;)

[cemtex]

Since you don't mention the camera we can only guess.

If that is true (full size sensors) then there are going to be some really hunky lenses on those pocket cameras. Don't bet on the full frame thing happening in 5 years, but maybe 10+. Also keep in mind that there are some real cost advantages to using APS-C size sensors.

Which Nikon? Certainly not the D2X. The RD-1 is a 6.1MP Sony CCD similar to the Nikon D100 and Pentax *ist. Man talk about retro art deco cameras. I would never buy an RD-1 but it would be a great conversation piece. ;)


for its price I would not buy it, but i have seen pictures of it, it blows away some dSLR pictures in terms of quality and richness, if it were in the 800-1000 I actually would consider investing in it for an inbetween of my everyday beater (canon SD10) and my nice camera (canon 10D)

Its real simple and easy for a camera to have a full frame sensor, I mean look at old rollie cameras, they are 35mm yet the size of a digital elph S500, a current olympus stylus 35mm is about the size of an S70. Trust me, its not done because the demand is not there, as well as the fact the cost of production is way too high, simalar to the very high prices of flash memory until recently, because companies (like AMD) have made entire facilities for the creation of this memory.


And the proof is in the pudding, the RD-1 has an APS-C sensor, but is smaller then a sony-V3, and also takes beautiful pictures. The future is here, its just too damn expensive.

[arghman]

Here's a related question I've had for a while...
does anyone know which of the following is the dominant noise source from decent consumer-grade digital cameras?
(a) signal conditioning electronics (amplifiers + A/D)
(b) image sensor (CCD)
(c) physics-related limitations (you have X amount of photons entering the image sensor during its exposure time, and as X decreases, you start seeing the effects of discrete photons hitting those pixels rather than a nice continuous stream)

If it's (b) then I would expect a larger sensor would help, but if it's (c) then a larger sensor size doesn't help, it's more important to have a larger lens gathering more light. (I'm assuming the signal-conditioning is pretty noise-free, otherwise the camera companies aren't doing their job & we would see noise under all conditions)

[John_Reed]

Here's a related question I've had for a while...
does anyone know which of the following is the dominant noise source from decent consumer-grade digital cameras?
(a) signal conditioning electronics (amplifiers + A/D)
(b) image sensor (CCD)
(c) physics-related limitations (you have X amount of photons entering the image sensor during its exposure time, and as X decreases, you start seeing the effects of discrete photons hitting those pixels rather than a nice continuous stream)

If it's (b) then I would expect a larger sensor would help, but if it's (c) then a larger sensor size doesn't help, it's more important to have a larger lens gathering more light. (I'm assuming the signal-conditioning is pretty noise-free, otherwise the camera companies aren't doing their job & we would see noise under all conditions)I'm not a CCD engineer (only an old DRAM designer), but I think that the answer to your question will probably be (b). It seems that camera-borne CCDs have a "natural" ISO sensitivity, somewhere in the range of 50-100. So stored light samples (represented by the levels of electronic charge in individual CCD wells) are "passed through" to the Analog to Digital converter at the chip's edge without amplification. When you change the ISO setting because you want a higher light sensitivity, the increase is accomplished through increasing the gain on the output by either analog or digital means. "Noise" stems from bit-bit variations in charge storage capacity of individual sites, and at the "natural" ISO, isn't significant. But "noise" that would be un-noticeable at ISO 50, for example, would be amplified by 8X to produce ISO 400 output, along with the "normal" image information. And, depending on how much baseline "noise" there is, this may or may not be noticeable.

Sensor size alone, by the way, isn't the total determinant for noise. Different designs, different processing can enhance the capacity of particular sensors made by different manufacturers to gather light more optimally than others. For example, Panasonic uses a dual micro-lens setup over the CCD chip surface along with some proprietary patented sensor layouts to produce sensors that seem to be better than competitive against larger sensor sites used in many of the 8MP cameras about.