Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t620016-releveance-of-sensor-size-in-a-ps-camera.html)

Sam 06-13-2008 10:37 AM

Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
I see some of the more expensive newer digital cameras are using sensor
sizes like 1/2.3 or 1/2.5 while my older Canon A80 used a 1/1.8 and even
a friends SD700IS 1/2.3. I found the image quality in general to better
on the smaller image sensor size than the larger 1.8. What gives?



ASAAR 06-13-2008 02:01 PM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:37:05 GMT, Sam wrote:

> I see some of the more expensive newer digital cameras are using sensor
> sizes like 1/2.3 or 1/2.5 while my older Canon A80 used a 1/1.8 and even
> a friends SD700IS 1/2.3. I found the image quality in general to better
> on the smaller image sensor size than the larger 1.8. What gives?


With respect to the first part of your statement, you're not
seeing the big picture. When you bought your A80, many P&S cameras
used 1/2.5", 1/2.7" and even smaller sensors, so for its time, the
A80's sensor was unusually large and not at all typical. On the
other hand, many of today's P&S cameras use larger sensors, such as
the 1/1.7", 1/1.6" and 1/1.5"(2/3") sensors used in several Canon
and Fuji cameras.

As for the second part, there's much more to image quality than
sensor size alone, and in general, cameras using larger sensors will
have better image quality than those using smaller sensors. Which
large and smaller sensor cameras have you used that caused you to
think otherwise? If you're correct, I think that the reason that
the camera with the smaller sensor produces better image quality has
more to do with superior image processing and/or a better lens.


Sam 06-13-2008 09:18 PM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:pmp454hpck02vrrtbbjsheu47n15ts1qk6@4ax.com...
>
> With respect to the first part of your statement, you're not
> seeing the big picture. When you bought your A80, many P&S cameras
> used 1/2.5", 1/2.7" and even smaller sensors, so for its time, the
> A80's sensor was unusually large and not at all typical. On the
> other hand, many of today's P&S cameras use larger sensors, such as
> the 1/1.7", 1/1.6" and 1/1.5"(2/3") sensors used in several Canon
> and Fuji cameras.


I looked on dpreview at their newest P&S cameras and most of their cameras
have a sensor size of 1/2.5. Which current Canon brands have below 1/1.8?

> Which large and smaller sensor cameras have you used that caused you to
> think otherwise? If you're correct, I think that the reason that
> the camera with the smaller sensor produces better image quality has
> more to do with superior image processing and/or a better lens.


Comparing my A80 to Canon SD700 IS, the SD700 pics are super, the same with
an older Fuji and the current SD750, SD1000 from Canon which arent very good
according to many local repots. I also read a recent review of the SD950 or
SD900, I can't remember which but the pics it took weren't very good,
compartively speaking.



ASAAR 06-14-2008 12:53 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:18:39 GMT, Sam wrote:

>> other hand, many of today's P&S cameras use larger sensors, such as
>> the 1/1.7", 1/1.6" and 1/1.5"(2/3") sensors used in several Canon
>> and Fuji cameras.

>
> I looked on dpreview at their newest P&S cameras and most of their cameras
> have a sensor size of 1/2.5. Which current Canon brands have below 1/1.8?


Canon's SD950 IS has a 1/1.7" sensor. Fuji's F50fd and F100fd
have 1/1.6" sensors. The much larger S100FS has a 2/3" sensor. All
of these camera's sensor sizes are listed on DPReview, even though
not all of them were honored with full reviews. :)


>> Which large and smaller sensor cameras have you used that caused you to
>> think otherwise? If you're correct, I think that the reason that
>> the camera with the smaller sensor produces better image quality has
>> more to do with superior image processing and/or a better lens.

>
> Comparing my A80 to Canon SD700 IS, the SD700 pics are super, the same with
> an older Fuji and the current SD750, SD1000 from Canon which arent very good
> according to many local repots.


Note that the discontinued, entry level A80 is a *much* older
camera (from 2003), so not only does it lack Canon's newer improved
processing engines, it also used a fairly low resolution 4mp sensor.
The SD700 IS (from 2006, probably also discontinued) has a higher
resolution 6mp sensor. If current prices are a guide, the SD700 IS
is a much better camera, with current prices (used) according to
DPReview of about $444 for the SD700 IS and just $85 for the A80.


> I also read a recent review of the SD950 or SD900, I can't remember
> which but the pics it took weren't very good, compartively speaking.


I'll have to disagree, based on reviews that *I've* seen. I tried
to find a less-than-enthusiastic review of these cameras and was
unsuccessful. Can you recall or identify the review website? Or
was the review that you recall simply some user's not-very-impartial
opinion? In any case, I'll bet that the SD900 and SD950 produce
much better pictures than Canon's now-ancient A80. Here's what
DPReview had to say about the SD900 :

> # Excellent resolution, good color
> # Clean, detailed results at lower ISO settings . . .
> # Reliable exposure system
> # Fast and accurate focus
> . . .
>
> After testing the SD 800 IS recently I didn't have particularly high hopes
> for the SD900, so I was pleased to see that - as compact high resolution
> models go - it produces superb, reliable output no matter what you throw
> at it. This, above all, is the mark of a successful 'point and shoot' camera
> - that you can rely on it time after time to produce good results no matter
> how challenging the photographic situation.
> . . .
>
> The SD900's biggest selling-point for us is simple; it offers some of the best
> (perhaps the best) image quality in this category . . .


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canonsd900/page10.asp


The SD950 wasn't reviewed by DPReview, but it was by some others,
including Imaging-Resource, Steve's Digicams, DigitalCameraReview,
PopPhoto and CNET. Here are some snippets from their reviews :

> Image Quality. I really don't have any serious complaints about the image
> quality of the Canon SD950 IS. Would that all digicams were as good, really.
> I was especially pleased with the color capture of some dramatic scenes that
> ranged from neon signs to gathering storms. "That's it!" I'd say after looking
> at the shot in the LCD. And later, looking at it on the monitor, I'd nod
> appreciatively -- something that doesn't always happen.
> . . .
>
> Printed output is astonishingly good, producing impressive 16x20-inch prints,
> and even ISO 400 shots are good at 11x14. If you're looking for a good,
> take-anywhere camera with great versatility and good color and tonality, the
> Canon SD950 deserves a close look. No question, the Canon PowerShot SD950
> is a Dave's Pick.


http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...S/SD950ISA.HTM


> When shooting outdoors, the SD950 captures beautiful images with good
> exposure and rich colors, in both Large Fine and Large SuperFine modes.
> Images are also sharp, however, I did notice a bit of noise when shooting
> with an ISO of 200, but not enough to affect a printed photograph.
> . . .
>
> Bottom Line - The SD950 continues in the tradition of the S100 that was
> started back in 2000, leading the way in the digicam market. A stylish
> and durable camera, with an outstanding 12.1 megapixel imaging sensor,
> 3.7x optical zoom and image stabilization, make this an incredibly versatile
> camera. Great performance and excellent image quality just add to this
> already outstanding package.


http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_...sd950_pg5.html


> IMAGE QUALITY
>
> The SD950 IS is the seventh Canon P&S I've reviewed here at DCR.com,
> and the previous six all offered good image quality and color. Nothing's
> changed – the SD950 IS does a good job producing quality images.
>
> General Image Quality
>
> Overall image quality is quite good, with pleasing sharpness and resolution.
> . . .
>
> Outside of the big sensor, there may not be any particular category that the
> SD950 IS leads the pack in. Image stabilization and a 2.5-inch monitor, for
> example, are as common as fleas on a dog's back. It's when you add up the
> sum of its parts that the true worth of the 950 begins to shine through. This
> camera doesn't do anything poorly, and does a host of things quite well.
> That should be enough for most folks.
>
> Pros:
>
> * Good image and color quality
> * High resolution with typical class noise performance
> * Viewfinder
> * Solid construction and build quality


http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/d...sp?newsID=3367


> Image quality was fantastic as ISO 80, 100, and even 200, but began
> to suffer at ISO 400 when viewing the image at 100% on a computer.
> Noise became overwhelming at ISO 800 and above, so avoid these
> higher ISO modes if possible.



http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4727...-is-page2.html

> Image quality from the SD950 IS is very impressive and clean at lower ISOs.
> Colors are accurate and well saturated, and exposures tend to be accurate,
> even in some tough situations. For example, the camera did a good job of
> balancing the built-in flash with the ambient light from the lamp in our test . . .



http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-came...-32591168.html


Sam 06-14-2008 04:29 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:970654d3j7ke8c94i0p9r7hi3avd364nt5@4ax.com...
> I'll have to disagree, based on reviews that *I've* seen. I tried
> to find a less-than-enthusiastic review of these cameras and was
> unsuccessful. Can you recall or identify the review website? Or
> was the review that you recall simply some user's not-very-impartial
> opinion?


As far as the SD900/950 goes, I read that the camera was decent but there
was noticable noise at ISO 200 which turns me off right away
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_...sd950_pg5.html and here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read...&opinion=40366

A few were subjective opinions on the SD750 and one was from Steve's
digicams about the SD750. The last page about low light and noise, as well
as some distortion. The other subjective opinions basically backed up the
faults: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_...SD750_pg5.html

For me, I hate noise and my A80 has noticable noise at anything above ISO
100 which really limits shots. When upgrading to a newer P&S, I dont' want
to lose any quality. Having used the SD 700 IS, which was a fine camera
except it lacked full manual and not high enough MP it's hard to find
another P&S that's comparable or better . Further adding to the
frustration, I hate it when a manufacturer makes some improvements only to
mess something else up...one step forward two steps back.




ASAAR 06-14-2008 05:40 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:29:10 GMT, Sam wrote:

> As far as the SD900/950 goes, I read that the camera was decent but there
> was noticable noise at ISO 200 which turns me off right away
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_...sd950_pg5.html and here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read...&opinion=40366


How noticeable was noticeable? If noise is noticeable at high
magnification on a computer monitor but not in an sharp 8"x10"
print, it wouldn't turn me off at all. It's interesting that the
words that turned you off appear to be the words that I quoted :

> When shooting outdoors, the SD950 captures beautiful images with good
> exposure and rich colors, in both Large Fine and Large SuperFine modes.
> Images are also sharp, however, I did notice a bit of noise when shooting
> with an ISO of 200, but not enough to affect a printed photograph.


If you're turned off by "a bit of noise" that isn't enough to
"affect a printed photograph", then I'm afraid that your dream
camera will remain just that - a dream. This discussion has also
veered from your original assumption that in general, smaller
sensors produce better image quality than the older, larger sensor
in your A80. Have you owned or used an SD950? Even if it has "a
bit of noise" at ISO 200, I'm quite sure that your A80 produces
pictures that have much lower image quality and probably more noise
than the SD950 at any ISO. Are you still using the A80?


> For me, I hate noise and my A80 has noticable noise at anything above ISO
> 100 which really limits shots. When upgrading to a newer P&S, I dont' want
> to lose any quality. Having used the SD 700 IS, which was a fine camera
> except it lacked full manual and not high enough MP it's hard to find
> another P&S that's comparable or better . Further adding to the
> frustration, I hate it when a manufacturer makes some improvements only to
> mess something else up...one step forward two steps back.


I've been there and a little over a year ago bit the bullet,
getting a shooter that provides much lower noise, even at high ISOs.
Very small and lightweight . . . at least for a DSLR. :)

I'm still waiting for the ideal small, pocketable P&S with very
high ISO/very low noise, manual controls, viewfinder and high image
quality. I don't expect to see one anytime soon. But if I'm
willing to be reasonable and not especially finicky, the wait will
be short. If not the SD950, maybe its successor will do. Or maybe
a modestly improved replacement for Fuji's F50fd/F100fd.


Sam 06-14-2008 07:27 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
ASAAR wrote:
: How noticeable was noticeable? If noise is noticeable at high
: magnification on a computer monitor but not in an sharp 8"x10"
: print, it wouldn't turn me off at all. It's interesting that the
: words that turned you off appear to be the words that I quoted :

Actually it wasn't you, it was the previous reviews I read up about.
What really swayed me was that comment on dpreview on how the poster was
upset with the 950 compared to his 850. The truth is that I haven't
gotten that far to look at the pics since I had already eliminated the
950.

: If you're turned off by "a bit of noise" that isn't enough to
: "affect a printed photograph", then I'm afraid that your dream
: camera will remain just that - a dream. This discussion has also
: veered from your original assumption that in general, smaller
: sensors produce better image quality than the older, larger sensor
: in your A80. Have you owned or used an SD950? Even if it has "a
: bit of noise" at ISO 200, I'm quite sure that your A80 produces
: pictures that have much lower image quality and probably more noise
: than the SD950 at any ISO. Are you still using the A80?

The main reason I asked about the sensor size was that in one of my
local forums, people were critizing various cameras because of their
sensor size. And yes, I am still using the A80 but the wife needs
another camera because she gave her to her mother. So I am looking to
buy one for "her". I haven't owned or used the SD950. I know she would
be satisfied with almost any P&S as long as it had IS or some other type
of image stablization.
:
: I've been there and a little over a year ago bit the bullet,
: getting a shooter that provides much lower noise, even at high ISOs.
: Very small and lightweight . . . at least for a DSLR. :)

I thought about a DSLR too but not only is the cost an issue but the
portability.
:
: I'm still waiting for the ideal small, pocketable P&S with very
: high ISO/very low noise, manual controls, viewfinder and high image
: quality. I don't expect to see one anytime soon. But if I'm
: willing to be reasonable and not especially finicky, the wait will
: be short. If not the SD950, maybe its successor will do. Or maybe
: a modestly improved replacement for Fuji's F50fd/F100fd.

Me too, I wasn't planning to get another camera unless it's on sale and
there have been some good deals lately, but everytime I research it,
either the overall review is negative or noise, purple fringing, or
picture softness seems to be an issue.



Blinky the Shark 06-14-2008 07:49 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
ASAAR wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:18:39 GMT, Sam wrote:
>
>>> other hand, many of today's P&S cameras use larger sensors, such as
>>> the 1/1.7", 1/1.6" and 1/1.5"(2/3") sensors used in several Canon
>>> and Fuji cameras.

>>
>> I looked on dpreview at their newest P&S cameras and most of their cameras
>> have a sensor size of 1/2.5. Which current Canon brands have below 1/1.8?

>
> Canon's SD950 IS has a 1/1.7" sensor. Fuji's F50fd and F100fd
> have 1/1.6" sensors. The much larger S100FS has a 2/3" sensor. All


I thought the 2/3" sensor was only about 8.8mm x 6mm.

If not, what are its actual dimensions?


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html


David J Taylor 06-14-2008 08:38 AM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
Blinky the Shark wrote:
[]
> I thought the 2/3" sensor was only about 8.8mm x 6mm.
>
> If not, what are its actual dimensions?


You are correct.

David



ASAAR 06-14-2008 12:07 PM

Re: Releveance of sensor size in a PS camera?
 
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 00:49:13 -0700, Blinky the Shark wrote:

>> Canon's SD950 IS has a 1/1.7" sensor. Fuji's F50fd and F100fd
>> have 1/1.6" sensors. The much larger S100FS has a 2/3" sensor. All

>
> I thought the 2/3" sensor was only about 8.8mm x 6mm.
>
> If not, what are its actual dimensions?


Those are the actual dimensions (approx.), but the sizes given by
manufacturers (2/3" in this case) can be misleading, since they
don't refer to any specific sensor measurement, but to the diameter
of a hypothetical glass camera tube neck that the sensor might very
loosely fit within. For the gory details see :


http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_sizes_01.htm



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.