Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why no prosumer with APS-sized CCD ?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why no prosumer with APS-sized CCD ?

 
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
can't be the cost alone.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) :

> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.


Me to.

My guess is that the manufacturers, faulty or not,
believes that there exist no market.

The prosumer cameras have rather hefty zoom lenses with
rather good aperture value. Most are 3x zoom, many are
5x and some are even 10x.

If you use a larger sensor, you have to make compromises
there. Either less zoom or worse max aperture, if you
don't want large cameras that are very expensive. DSLR
normal zoom lenses are normally F/3.5 where prosumer
are F/2.0.

Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
special sensors for those cameras or you have to
abandon live preview.



/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Timo Autiokari
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low
>noise of DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package,


Me too!

>so why has no manufacturer yet launched such a compact camera ?
>Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it can't be the cost alone.


If there was such a high quality point&shoot digicam available then
there would be a high risk that consumers would finally realize the
*extremely* poor quality of the current digicams. This could results
some law suits etc.

AAlso why to use a 20 USD imager chip in the P&S cameras when a 2 USD
imager sells very well already.

Timo Autiokari
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
Timo Autiokari <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news(E-Mail Removed):

> If there was such a high quality point&shoot digicam available then
> there would be a high risk that consumers would finally realize the
> *extremely* poor quality of the current digicams. This could results
> some law suits etc.


I think my reply was more balanced

> AAlso why to use a 20 USD imager chip in the P&S cameras when a 2 USD
> imager sells very well already.


Hmmm ... that is a valid point .. although I would be surprised
if the chip in a DSLR only costs $20.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
Conrad Weiler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
Hi Al,

<< it can't be the cost alone >>

Don't bet on that. The beancounters add pennies.

I'd like to see actual size comparisons between CCD and CMOS sensors used in
digital cameras.

Best,

Conrad




Conrad Weiler
Camp Sherman, Oregon
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
"Alfred Molon" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
> DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
> lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
> such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it
> can't be the cost alone.
> --



I believe it is mostly cost. A larger imager will require a larger lens
than what is going in the current crop of small-sensor compacts. Not only
that, they require better electronics to handle the larger files.

Mark


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005

"Conrad Weiler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> << it can't be the cost alone >>
>
> Don't bet on that. The beancounters add pennies.
>
> I'd like to see actual size comparisons between CCD and CMOS sensors used

in
> digital cameras.


http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm

The 2/3" sensors are 96.8 sq mm, whereas the 20D is 345 sq mm. So you'd
expect the 20D to be about three to four times as sensitive for the same
noise, and, surprise, ISO 1600 on the 20D looks about the same as ISO 400 on
the 8MP P&S cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
In article <Xns95D98CC121DCFklotjohan@130.133.1.4>, Roland Karlsson
says...

> Moreover, the APS sized sensors used in SLR do not
> allow for live preview. So, either you have to make
> special sensors for those cameras or you have to
> abandon live preview.


Should be no problem making an APS-sized CCD with live preview. If the
tiny ones have this feature, there is no reason why the bigger CCDs
can't have it.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alfred Molon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mark B. says...

> I believe it is mostly cost. A larger imager will require a larger lens
> than what is going in the current crop of small-sensor compacts. Not only
> that, they require better electronics to handle the larger files.


The filesize should be the same - it only depends on the resolution, not
on the CCD size (unless of course the larger CCD camera generates RAW
files with more bit depth, but even then the increase would be moderate
- 16 bits vs 12 bits for instance).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Joseph Meehan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2005
Alfred Molon wrote:
> I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise
> of DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need
> interchangeable lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no
> manufacturer yet launched such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now
> cost less than $1000, it can't be the cost alone.


Maybe not a direct answer to your question, but keep in mind that the
way CCD's are manufactured and the limits placed on them by the
manufacturing process makes for certain "sweet" sizes. Changing the shape
or size can greatly change the cost of each unit. I suspect they are made a
number at a time on a circular blank. Making them say just a 1/16" larger
may reduce the yield per blank by 20% or more, thereby increasing the price
by 25%.


--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Tech Ques: About 1-ccd, 3-ccd, sensor filters, etc Miguel Gonzalez Digital Photography 5 06-06-2004 05:20 AM
Why no thread for UV filter in prosumer digital [not DSLR] cameras? zxcvar Digital Photography 7 09-02-2003 02:57 AM
Are current prosumer digital cameras squant-enabled? Unclaimed Mysteries Digital Photography 16 07-22-2003 05:37 AM



Advertisments