Are you looking for a large sensor or IQ to rival 35mm ?
Because if you want big, well don't ask for compact. If you want a good compact that can deliver, thats fine too.
That was my whole point, that they make (or made) full-frame 35mm that is jeans-pocket compact, so why shouldn't I ask for large sensor digital in the same size camera?
I guess you might consider this trolling, I think it's an interesting question -- but I'm an engineer... ;-)
That was my whole point, that they make (or made) full-frame 35mm that is jeans-pocket compact, so why shouldn't I ask for large sensor digital in the same size camera?
I guess you might consider this trolling, I think it's an interesting question -- but I'm an engineer... ;-)
So, you're an engineer and you can't figure out that digital cameras require batteries, cooling apparati, and supporting electronics? Room for an LCD? Button controls? Higher quality, multi-element lenses since the capture medium is so much more demanding?
Hell, cooling requirements alone for a 35mm full-frame silicon sensor, especially for live framing systems, will make the camera necessarily thicker than your golden standard.
35mm film requires none of these things, ergo, the bodies could be thinner. But the photo quality will be better on digital, there's far fewer mechanical parts, and you can take more shots in a go without carrying film canisters. You just kind of glossed over all of these issues.
Are you just ridiculously obtuse or a terrible engineer?
I guess the new Canon S90 is physically similar but here we're talking about a "1/1.7" (7.6 mm width) sensor: 1/20th the area of full-frame 35mm.
When Sony/Phillips came out with the CD to replace the LP, what if you needed a playback device twice as large as a LP turntable and the sound was AM-radio-quality? That's today's digital photography technology as it applies to point and shoots!
That’s a mischaracterization. The sensor size limits shallow DOF performance and has reduced resolution, but the image quality is still very good. There have been several S90 night shots posted at DPReview and there’s no question that the image quality can match film.
And please remember that commercial digital cameras have only been around for 20-25 years, and affordable digital compacts have only been around for 10 years. Film had a head start of well over 100 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgonzale
Either the physical space required to house and process an APS-sized digital sensor is so large as to double the size of this camera (!?) or the manufacturers simply haven't bothered with this market. Probably a little of both...
The problem is that sensors are three dimensional devices, whereas film is essentially a 2 dimensional structure. Light can strike film at a high angle, but a sensor needs light to be as perpendicular to the image plane as possible to be recorded properly. Leica addressed this issue in its M8 with an offset microlens structure, and micro 4/3rds camera makers address problem with software. Both approaches have their problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jekostas
If you meant Depth of Field, perhaps, but there's always ways to get around that, like stepping back a few feet and zooming in more to get a narrower apparent DOF.
That doesn’t work. If you step back and zoom in to get the same framing, then you get the same DOF. But don’t take my word for it...check it yourself with a DOF calculator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgonzale
But we still don't have a manufacturer gutsy enough or innovative enough to make a half or full-frame camera which fits in a jeans pocket. Not because it's impossible either.
And you know it’s not impossible...how? Are you a digital camera engineer?
As for the effect on image quality…sensor size has a large effect on image quality. Because of its sensor size, the best that a compact camera (such as the Canon S90) can achieve is the worst of what would be considered “acceptable IQ” from a DSLR. That is simply the mathematical relationship. ISO 100 on a compact is about the same as ISO800 on an FF DSLR. f/4 on a compact is about the same as f/22 on a DSLR. A DSLR image taken at ISO800 and f/22 will have minimal, but still noticeable levels of noise, and loss of detail due to diffraction. That is exactly what you get from a compact with a 1/1.7” sensor, at its lowest ISO and optimal f stop.
So a full frame, or even 4/3rds, sensor in a compact would improve the detail that the camera can capture. But that's not going to happen until someone figures out how to flatten a photosite (with its IR filter, low-pass filters microlens, and die structure) into two dimensions.
Originally Posted by rgonzale
I guess the new Canon S90 is physically similar but here we're talking about a "1/1.7" (7.6 mm width) sensor: 1/20th the area of full-frame 35mm.
When Sony/Phillips came out with the CD to replace the LP, what if you needed a playback device twice as large as a LP turntable and the sound was AM-radio-quality? That's today's digital photography technology as it applies to point and shoots!
That’s a mischaracterization. The sensor size limits shallow DOF performance and has reduced resolution, but the image quality is still very good. There have been several S90 night shots posted at DPReview and there’s no question that the image quality can match film.
Graystar, you're right the "AM radio" characterization was probably an overstatement and maybe that's what got some people's hackles up. (I was referring to the mushed-over details of pre-processed small-sensor point and shoot images, not digital in general.) And thanks for the reasoned discussion on the challenges of sensor design.
You could say that film had a head start of 100 years. But digital cameras built off of the developments of film cameras and have an additional 35 years (relative to the Minox camera I mentioned) of advances in electronics and manufacturing to leverage off of. During that time we've seen a cellphone/computer with a 3.5" diagonal display and overall dimensions not much larger or thicker than the display itself.
No I'm not a digital camera engineer. (Is anyone on this forum one?) But the manufacturers have already demonstrated that it is possible to put a APS or 4/3 sensor in a very small body. It's just a matter of refinement, reducing manufacturing costs, and developing clever lens mechanisms -- and deciding that the market segment occupied by the Leica X1 and Sigma DP2 is viable.
You could say that film had a head start of 100 years. But digital cameras built off of the developments of film cameras and have an additional 35 years.
But they’re not built off the developments of film. Other than a set of standards to describe behavior, the technology of film didn’t contribute anything to the development of sensors. Like the Wiki on CCD history says, the CCD was first created as a memory device. Its application to capturing light came shortly after. The device we know as a sensor was pretty much created in a vacuum, and is advanced not by the application of film or camera technology, but by advances in silicon processing.
With film we don’t have to worry about IR filters, Bayer arrays, microlens, or any of the other technological issues that make sensor development so challenging. It just isn’t as simple as replacing a piece of celluloid with a piece of silicon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgonzale
But the manufacturers have already demonstrated that it is possible to put a APS or 4/3 sensor in a very small body. It's just a matter of refinement, reducing manufacturing costs, and developing clever lens mechanisms -- and deciding that the market segment occupied by the Leica X1 and Sigma DP2 is viable.
They’ve done it, but with tremendous limitations. The DP1/2 starts at f/4. Any lower and you’ll get visible vignetting. The offset microlens of the M8/M9 means that you can’t have an AA filter (which means you get moiré and color issues in your images) and you’re limited to a certain range of focal lengths. The m4/3rds cameras have bad vignetting and distortion issues that the camera has to correct.
These are more than just issues of refinement. These are engineering hurdles. Solving them requires new technology. And until that technology comes, you’re not going to see FF in a compact, do-everything-well camera.
You could always go with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 which has approximately the same dimensions of the Minox 35 EL camera. 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens for an EFL of 40mm puts it at about the same focal length of the Minox 35 EL, too.
Linear Mode
