Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

Two features are standing out on the Canon PRO1:
8 MP sensor in the small format of 8.8 x 6.6 mm
28 - 200 mm (f: 2.4-3.5) "L"-line lens (incorporating 14 elements
in 10 groups, 1 fluorite, 1 UD glass, 2 aspherical elements)

Lets have a look at both features.

The 8 MP sensor of the PRO1 may be compared to the much larger sized 6.3
MP sensor of the Canon Rebel (Canon 300D) with an area of 22.7 x 15.1
mm. This spells out to more than 7 times area per picture element for
the DSLR.
The benefit of the large sensor is connected to reduced noise,
especially important in low light conditions.
For those lesser mortals whose experience is limited to the 4 MP sensor
of the Canon G2 or G3: the size of the picture element on the 4 MP
sensor is some 25 % larger than the ones of the PRO1.
The PRO1 could appear to be a bit weak in sensor size - but read on.

Now to the "L" type lens. These are considered to be the high quality
line of Canon offerings.
In the Canon Talk Forum of the <www.dpreview.com> site a link was
mentioned to an evaluation of "L" glass lenses that Canon is producing
<http://www.is2k.com/tekreview/L_glass.htm>.
This hands-on comparision by Chris Ludwig shows some convincing shots
comparing a "L" type zoom-lens to a 'normal' zoom-lens of the Canon
range. The difference in picture quality is compelling and one asks
oneself why one ever did a photo with lesser quality lenses than the "L"
glas. Well, first of all these lenses are expensive and they are real
heavy, as are all these 35 mm type zoom lenses.

Done it right in designing the PRO1?
The ingenious streak Canon may hve had is to develop a sized down "L"
zoom that weighs in at a few hundred grams because it doesn't need to
be large in diameter due to the small sensor size.

This compromise makes sense: a camera of the size and weight of a G2 or
G5 should render excellent pictures in many circumstances with the
possible exception of low light conditions.

It should be born in mind that a larger sensor area would have shifted
the whole design to a much larger and heavier camera and a much more
costly lens. In this light the f-stop of 2.4 - 3.5 should be considered
a well chosen compromise, too.

I would ask the more knowledgeable contributors to this newsgroup to
comment on this reasoning that is at present still speculative as we do
not know how well the PRO1 will perform in real life situations. But if
the "L" zoom lives up to expectations I should not be surprised if the
PRO1 would fill a much needed slot of a handy camera giving superior
quality pictures especially in non specialised everyday shooting.

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

Guenter Fieblinger <fieblinger@uni-kassel.de> wrote in
news:4027C24E.4BC8EA7F@uni-kassel.de:

> Two features are standing out on the Canon PRO1:
> 8 MP sensor in the small format of 8.8 x 6.6 mm
> 28 - 200 mm (f: 2.4-3.5) "L"-line lens (incorporating 14 elements
> in 10 groups, 1 fluorite, 1 UD glass, 2 aspherical elements)
>
> Lets have a look at both features.
>
> The 8 MP sensor of the PRO1 may be compared to the much larger sized 6.3
> MP sensor of the Canon Rebel (Canon 300D) with an area of 22.7 x 15.1
> mm. This spells out to more than 7 times area per picture element for
> the DSLR.
> The benefit of the large sensor is connected to reduced noise,
> especially important in low light conditions.
> For those lesser mortals whose experience is limited to the 4 MP sensor
> of the Canon G2 or G3: the size of the picture element on the 4 MP
> sensor is some 25 % larger than the ones of the PRO1.
> The PRO1 could appear to be a bit weak in sensor size - but read on.
>
> Now to the "L" type lens. These are considered to be the high quality
> line of Canon offerings.
> In the Canon Talk Forum of the <www.dpreview.com> site a link was
> mentioned to an evaluation of "L" glass lenses that Canon is producing
> <http://www.is2k.com/tekreview/L_glass.htm>.
> This hands-on comparision by Chris Ludwig shows some convincing shots
> comparing a "L" type zoom-lens to a 'normal' zoom-lens of the Canon
> range. The difference in picture quality is compelling and one asks
> oneself why one ever did a photo with lesser quality lenses than the "L"
> glas. Well, first of all these lenses are expensive and they are real
> heavy, as are all these 35 mm type zoom lenses.
>
> Done it right in designing the PRO1?
> The ingenious streak Canon may hve had is to develop a sized down "L"
> zoom that weighs in at a few hundred grams because it doesn't need to
> be large in diameter due to the small sensor size.
>
> This compromise makes sense: a camera of the size and weight of a G2 or
> G5 should render excellent pictures in many circumstances with the
> possible exception of low light conditions.
>
> It should be born in mind that a larger sensor area would have shifted
> the whole design to a much larger and heavier camera and a much more
> costly lens. In this light the f-stop of 2.4 - 3.5 should be considered
> a well chosen compromise, too.
>
> I would ask the more knowledgeable contributors to this newsgroup to
> comment on this reasoning that is at present still speculative as we do
> not know how well the PRO1 will perform in real life situations. But if
> the "L" zoom lives up to expectations I should not be surprised if the
> PRO1 would fill a much needed slot of a handy camera giving superior
> quality pictures especially in non specialised everyday shooting.

Excellent post. I look forward to hearing from the pros.

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

R2D2 <R2D2@NO--------SPAM.TV> wrote in news:Xns948A839396EFBR2D2starwarsjedi@
130.133.1.4:

> Excellent post. I look forward to hearing from the pros.

Yes - good post.

A good lens will not help against noise. So, if Canon
have not done anything really spectacular, this detector
will be really noisy. The press release says nothing
about a sensor technology break through, so ...

A small L lens? The other prosumer thingies also have
special high quality lenses called Zeiss T* etc. I would
say that a high quality lens is a must with such a small
area. One really good lens is the lens in Minolta D7.
If this lens is as good or better, it is of course very
nice. Don't hope too much though.



/Roland

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

"Guenter Fieblinger" <fieblinger@uni-kassel.de> wrote in message news:4027C24E.4BC8EA7F@uni-kassel.de...
[..]
> I would ask the more knowledgeable contributors to this newsgroup to
> comment on this reasoning that is at present still speculative as we do
> not know how well the PRO1 will perform in real life situations. But if
> the "L" zoom lives up to expectations I should not be surprised if the
> PRO1 would fill a much needed slot of a handy camera giving superior
> quality pictures especially in non specialised everyday shooting.

We can comment on the reasoning all we want, it's all speculation
until sample images are posted. In my view, if Canon can keep the
CA down to G3 or even G5 levels they'll have a real winner on
their hands. But there will always be a segment of the market who
look no further than the number of MP -- they don't know or care
e.g. that a 6MP 300D outresolves an 8MP Sony F828. And these
idiots will buy a Pro 1 pretty much regardless of image quality.

Rick

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

> e.g. that a 6MP 300D outresolves an 8MP Sony F828. And these
> idiots will buy a Pro 1 pretty much regardless of image quality.
>

That might be your concern but is not the concern of people who like to
have live lcd preview, histograms, video mode no botheration with
additional lenses. 300D might resolve better but the 8MP is close enough
for what most people want to do to the better 6MP. I for one wouldnt buy
an SLR because its cumbersome to carry around, but I'd like an 8MP or a
IS long zoom like the panasonic lumix fz-10. I'd never want a 300D with
multiple lenses. And this noise stuff IMHO is highly over-hyped. In many
supposedly noisy images I have a hard time finding the noise. Nobody
looks at any pictures with a magnifying glass in attempts to find noise.

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

"SD" <siddharthgdalal@COLDmail.com> wrote in message news:c08mre$8mi$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>
> > e.g. that a 6MP 300D outresolves an 8MP Sony F828. And these
> > idiots will buy a Pro 1 pretty much regardless of image quality.
> >
>
> That might be your concern but is not the concern of people who like to
> have live lcd preview, histograms, video mode no botheration with
> additional lenses. 300D might resolve better but the 8MP is close enough
> for what most people want to do to the better 6MP. I for one wouldnt buy
> an SLR because its cumbersome to carry around, but I'd like an 8MP or a
> IS long zoom like the panasonic lumix fz-10. I'd never want a 300D with
> multiple lenses. And this noise stuff IMHO is highly over-hyped. In many
> supposedly noisy images I have a hard time finding the noise. Nobody
> looks at any pictures with a magnifying glass in attempts to find noise.

Points noted, but one does not need a magnifying glass to see the
CA/PF problems on the F828 -- they're readily apparent even in
uncropped images.

Rick

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:33 -0500, SD <siddharthgdalal@COLDmail.com>
wrote:

> this noise stuff IMHO is highly over-hyped

I think this new camera sounds very handy. But noise is important. In
particular, low-light noise is very important.

Since moving to digital I have found that I take lots and lots of indoor
casual shots, often with very low light. The quick colour correction for
digital photos makes this so much easier than with conventional film.

So it is now very important, to me at least, that an expensive camera can
work well in low light.

My 10D does a great job. If the new Pro1 can get close to this, but with
the ease and portability it seems to offer, it will be very handy indeed.

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns948AC4AE46518rolandkarlssonchello@130.133. 1.17...
> R2D2 <R2D2@NO--------SPAM.TV> wrote in
news:Xns948A839396EFBR2D2starwarsjedi@
> 130.133.1.4:
>
> > Excellent post. I look forward to hearing from the pros.
>
> Yes - good post.
>
> A good lens will not help against noise. So, if Canon
> have not done anything really spectacular, this detector
> will be really noisy. The press release says nothing
> about a sensor technology break through, so ...
>
> A small L lens? The other prosumer thingies also have
> special high quality lenses called Zeiss T* etc. I would
> say that a high quality lens is a must with such a small
> area. One really good lens is the lens in Minolta D7.
> If this lens is as good or better, it is of course very
> nice. Don't hope too much though.

Zeiss T is just a sticker

The canon Lens actually includes a Flourite,UD,Aspherical Elements. It is
obvious which will win.

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

"SD" <siddharthgdalal@COLDmail.com> wrote in message
news:c08mre$8mi$1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU...
>
> > e.g. that a 6MP 300D outresolves an 8MP Sony F828. And these
> > idiots will buy a Pro 1 pretty much regardless of image quality.
> >
>
> That might be your concern but is not the concern of people who like to
> have live lcd preview, histograms, video mode

Too bad the better video was implemented on the S1 - 30fps until the card is
filled. The Pro1 is just a gimmick - 15fps for only 30 seconds.

> no botheration with
> additional lenses.

'botheration?' Whatever.

>300D might resolve better but the 8MP is close enough
> for what most people want to do to the better 6MP. I for one wouldnt buy
> an SLR because its cumbersome to carry around, but I'd like an 8MP or a
> IS long zoom like the panasonic lumix fz-10. I'd never want a 300D with
> multiple lenses. And this noise stuff IMHO is highly over-hyped. In many
> supposedly noisy images I have a hard time finding the noise. Nobody
> looks at any pictures with a magnifying glass in attempts to find noise.
>

I don't need a magnifying glass to see the noise at ISO 200 on compact
digicams - it's higher than ISO 800 on my 10D. It's not overhyped, it's
whatever you can live with.

Mark

Re: Canon PRO1/ sensor-lens compromise done right?
 

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 14:25:33 -0500, SD <siddharthgdalal@COLDmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> e.g. that a 6MP 300D outresolves an 8MP Sony F828. And these
>> idiots will buy a Pro 1 pretty much regardless of image quality.
>>
>
>That might be your concern but is not the concern of people who like to
>have live lcd preview, histograms, video mode no botheration with
>additional lenses. 300D might resolve better but the 8MP is close enough
>for what most people want to do to the better 6MP. I for one wouldnt buy
>an SLR because its cumbersome to carry around, but I'd like an 8MP or a
>IS long zoom like the panasonic lumix fz-10. I'd never want a 300D with
>multiple lenses. And this noise stuff IMHO is highly over-hyped. In many
>supposedly noisy images I have a hard time finding the noise. Nobody
>looks at any pictures with a magnifying glass in attempts to find noise.

As Rick has pointed out, you often don't need a loupe to see the
issues with the Sony, but just because the F828 has problems with
chromatic aberration, I don't think it's a given that the other 8MP
prosumer cameras we are getting at PMA are going to suffer from the
same problem. I do tend to agree that the viewpoint that it doesn't
look good though, although I can't recall seeing any images for either
the Canon or Nikon out on the web yet, so of course it's assumption at
this point.

What we do know is that Canon and Nikon both cut off at ISO 400, which
seems rather low these days, and could be taken of an indication of
noise at the high end. Also, both Sony and Canon appear to have gone
for high end glass (I've not seen anything on what the Nikon uses)
which could perhaps be an effort to make up for deficiencies in the
sensor. On the other hand, the Sony uses an RGBE sensor instead of
the more standard RGBG, and who knows how much that is contributing to
the noise in the F828's pictures? The cameras from Canon and Nikon
will hopefully answer that question when they eventually make it into
the hands of the reviewers.

Something a lot of the posts around here tend to gloss over is that
unless you are shooting on commission, photography is ultimately about
getting a composition that pleases the beholder, which would primarily
be you. The feature sets of the 8MP cameras are certainly appealing,
and if you find the image quality acceptable then the best advice
would be to ignore anyone who doesn't consider a non-SLR as a proper
camera, go for it, enjoy the camera, and take lots of pictures.

Andy