«

I've been out of touch with new developments for a while - haven't looked at
the new cameras for a year or so when 6 mp was the general high end. Now 8
mp seems to be the standard.

I would be glad of some links to info about what we can expect in the next
year or two on new digital cameras.

I am especially interested in the smaller sized sensors (but with higher
density of mp), that will enable smaller sized cameras with longer telephoto
lenses.

Any help appreciated.

cambium wrote:
> I've been out of touch with new developments for a while - haven't
looked at
> the new cameras for a year or so when 6 mp was the general high end.
Now 8
> mp seems to be the standard.
>
> I would be glad of some links to info about what we can expect in the
next
> year or two on new digital cameras.
>
> I am especially interested in the smaller sized sensors (but with
higher
> density of mp), that will enable smaller sized cameras with longer
telephoto
> lenses.

Since you mention smaller sized sensors, Samsung announced a 5MP phone
camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04...ng_schs250.asp
- Siddhartha

That is cool. I'm all for the 'all in one' approach - I want my computer,
phone, camera, fax, internet etc. etc. to come in one small package - I
might even consider an implant if I could turn it off if I want to...

But for now I'm intrested in buying a camera - looking at the Coolpix 8800.
But as usual with this kind of decision, I don't want to buy something that
is going to be 'outgraded' in a few months. If it is likely to be about as
good as it gets (in the price range) for a year or so, I'll go for it.






"Siddhartha Jain" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> cambium wrote:
> > I've been out of touch with new developments for a while - haven't
> looked at
> > the new cameras for a year or so when 6 mp was the general high end.
> Now 8
> > mp seems to be the standard.
> >
> > I would be glad of some links to info about what we can expect in the
> next
> > year or two on new digital cameras.
> >
> > I am especially interested in the smaller sized sensors (but with
> higher
> > density of mp), that will enable smaller sized cameras with longer
> telephoto
> > lenses.
>
> Since you mention smaller sized sensors, Samsung announced a 5MP phone
> camera.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04...ng_schs250.asp
> - Siddhartha
>

cambium wrote:

> But as usual with this kind of decision, I don't want to buy
> something that
> is going to be 'outgraded' in a few months.

Then don't buy a digital camera.


> If it is likely to be about
> as good as it gets (in the price range) for a year or so, I'll go for it.
>


That isn't likely to happen.

--

Stacey

There is a downside to the smaller sensor. A given lens f/number
collects only so many photons per square mm on the focal plane. Given
two sensors, each with the same number of pixels, the smaller sensor
then gathers fewer photons per pixel, increasing noise in image. The
result is you need either lower f/# lenses or longer exposure.

I know what you mean, but then it has been possible to find the plateau that
does stay current for longer that average - for example my OLY C-2100UZ. It
is out of date now, but it was ahead of its time for a few years in many
ways. Even now it is no slouch, but not enough resolution.

Still, a person will never find anthing if they don't look.




"Stacey" <> wrote in message
news:...
> cambium wrote:
>
> > But as usual with this kind of decision, I don't want to buy
> > something that
> > is going to be 'outgraded' in a few months.
>
> Then don't buy a digital camera.
>
>
> > If it is likely to be about
> > as good as it gets (in the price range) for a year or so, I'll go for
it.
> >
>
>
> That isn't likely to happen.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

I wonder about this. Relative to any pixel size, photons are orders of
magnitudes smaller, and even in low light they come in huge numbers. Do you
have any references on this so I could understand it better? My gut feeling
is that the supply of photons in any situation is the least of our worries.
Rather it is the sensitivity of our sensors that needs work.


<> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> There is a downside to the smaller sensor. A given lens f/number
> collects only so many photons per square mm on the focal plane. Given
> two sensors, each with the same number of pixels, the smaller sensor
> then gathers fewer photons per pixel, increasing noise in image. The
> result is you need either lower f/# lenses or longer exposure.
>

wrote:

> There is a downside to the smaller sensor. A given lens f/number
> collects only so many photons per square mm on the focal plane. Given
> two sensors, each with the same number of pixels, the smaller sensor
> then gathers fewer photons per pixel, increasing noise in image. The
> result is you need either lower f/# lenses or longer exposure.

Not entirely correct. The type of sensor and its light sensitivity is a
factor as well.

Surprisingly, the number of photons per unit time is NOT that great in
very low light. In modern night vision scopes at high gain you can see
the sparkle. Almost all good electro-optics texts discuss photon
noise. One that I have always liked was in the Infrared Handbook
published by IRIA.

That said, there is an old quote that is of interest. The great guru
at RCA, Otto Schade, of photomultiplier fame, once said, "I have never
seen a noisy photon." Now, I am sure that that was actually said
tongue-in-cheek. What he was really saying is that the actual noise in
the circuit is electron noise, but clearly the statistical variation in
the number of photons arriving is a major and unavoidable reason for
the statistics of the noise in the photo-electron stream.

>Not entirely correct. The type of sensor and its light sensitivity is
a
>factor as well.

No, the sensor can have NO effect on the arrival of photons at its
surface prior to them penetrating the sensor. I was speaking of the
arrival rate of photons, which is completely independent of the
sensitivity of the sensor, its material, or whatever. True, the noise
in the resulting electron count does rely on these. However, even if
you had a device with quantum efficiency of unity, a perfect sensor,
the number of electrons in any pixel would vary in each exposure as a
result of the variation in the photon arrival rate.