«

Seems to me that the current gen. sensor size and pixel count (2/3" and
8Mpix respectively) have pretty well maxed out, for the non-dslr cameras.
Anyone have any idea-read something about the next generation?? Bigger size,
more pixels, new tricks??
TIA

g n p wrote:
> Seems to me that the current gen. sensor size and pixel count (2/3" and
> 8Mpix respectively) have pretty well maxed out, for the non-dslr cameras.
> Anyone have any idea-read something about the next generation?? Bigger size,
> more pixels, new tricks??
> TIA
I guess one "new" trick is what fuji does by having differently sized
pixels for increased contrast ability.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

In article <d0l29f$46f$>,
Volker Hetzer <> wrote:

> g n p wrote:
> > Seems to me that the current gen. sensor size and pixel count (2/3" and
> > 8Mpix respectively) have pretty well maxed out, for the non-dslr cameras.
> > Anyone have any idea-read something about the next generation?? Bigger
> > size,
> > more pixels, new tricks??
> > TIA
> I guess one "new" trick is what fuji does by having differently sized
> pixels for increased contrast ability.
>
> Lots of Greetings!
> Volker

It that like their diamond shaped sensors that produced double the
physical resolution? Or maybe it's like their current technology that
uses octagon shaped sensors to increase the chroma resolution. I
wouldn't take Fuji's "technological breakthroughs" too seriously.

The multiple sensor size trick sounds old to me. I'm sure I heard about
it three years ago when sensor noise and dynamic range were crippling
problems.

The new technologies that I forsee are:
Camera body size reduction.
Improved battery life.
Large, high quality sensors becoming affordable.
Higher ISO ratings by improving light gathering.
Better image quality in tough conditions.
Faster autofocus.
Consumer feature integration- wireless, video, music, phone, P2P, etc.

> Large, high quality sensors becoming affordable.

This is a tricky one. Electronics generally reduce price by shrinking the
dimensions of a chip, allowing for higher throughput in manufacturing with
lower defect rates. So it is unlikely you'll get bigger physical dimensions
on the sensor chip AND have it be cheaper. If this were possible I think
you'd see more full-frame (35mm) sensors in prosumer DSLRs.

You may see however, that they will keep cranking up the number of pixels on
the same size sensor. Not sure this helps with better ISO's light gathering
etc.

"Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
news:mcmurtri-...
> In article <d0l29f$46f$>,
> Volker Hetzer <> wrote:
>
> > g n p wrote:
> > > Seems to me that the current gen. sensor size and pixel count (2/3"
and
> > > 8Mpix respectively) have pretty well maxed out, for the non-dslr
cameras.
> > > Anyone have any idea-read something about the next generation?? Bigger
> > > size,
> > > more pixels, new tricks??
> > > TIA
> > I guess one "new" trick is what fuji does by having differently sized
> > pixels for increased contrast ability.
> >
> > Lots of Greetings!
> > Volker
>
> It that like their diamond shaped sensors that produced double the
> physical resolution? Or maybe it's like their current technology that
> uses octagon shaped sensors to increase the chroma resolution. I
> wouldn't take Fuji's "technological breakthroughs" too seriously.
>
> The multiple sensor size trick sounds old to me. I'm sure I heard about
> it three years ago when sensor noise and dynamic range were crippling
> problems.
>
> The new technologies that I forsee are:
> Camera body size reduction.
> Improved battery life.
> Large, high quality sensors becoming affordable.
> Higher ISO ratings by improving light gathering.
> Better image quality in tough conditions.
> Faster autofocus.
> Consumer feature integration- wireless, video, music, phone, P2P, etc.

g n p wrote:

> Seems to me that the current gen. sensor size and pixel count (2/3" and
> 8Mpix respectively) have pretty well maxed out, for the non-dslr cameras.
> Anyone have any idea-read something about the next generation?? Bigger size,
> more pixels, new tricks??
> TIA
>
>
My guess is that you will see larger sensors with same pixel size,
increasing number of pixels on chip. But the economics will mean the
growth will be relatively slow. I think you will see prices continue to
drop on cameras, and other features improve, and that will drive market
more than any fundamental changes in the chips.

"hotchkisstrio" <> wrote in message
news:d0nfpg$42n$...
>> Large, high quality sensors becoming affordable.
>
> This is a tricky one. Electronics generally reduce price by shrinking the
> dimensions of a chip, allowing for higher throughput in manufacturing with
> lower defect rates. So it is unlikely you'll get bigger physical
> dimensions
> on the sensor chip AND have it be cheaper. If this were possible I think
> you'd see more full-frame (35mm) sensors in prosumer DSLRs.
>
> You may see however, that they will keep cranking up the number of pixels
> on
> the same size sensor. Not sure this helps with better ISO's light
> gathering
> etc.

Quite - and as the dimensions of each transistor get smaller, the cost per
square mm goes UP (due to equipment costs, maintenance, running cost, cost
of purer finer materials, etc, etc...). Defect density is king and clean
rooms aren't expected to get much cleaner in the foreseeable future.
Cost per transistor goes DOWN - but for high quality sensors, that's not
neccesarily what we want.
>

"hotchkisstrio" <> wrote:
> > Large, high quality sensors becoming affordable.
>
> This is a tricky one. Electronics generally reduce price by shrinking the
> dimensions of a chip, allowing for higher throughput in manufacturing with
> lower defect rates. So it is unlikely you'll get bigger physical
dimensions
> on the sensor chip AND have it be cheaper. If this were possible I think
> you'd see more full-frame (35mm) sensors in prosumer DSLRs.

It depends what you mean by "affordable". If one has the glass, US$3000 or
US$3500 is affordable for some folks. Given that a 36 x 48mm medium format
back is US$10,000, it seems to me that a 36 x 24 mm sensor camera ought to
be around US$3000.

> You may see however, that they will keep cranking up the number of pixels
on
> the same size sensor. Not sure this helps with better ISO's light
gathering
> etc.

Don't forget dynamic range. Small-pixel cameras (e.g. FZ10, D2x) can produce
high-contrast/short tonal range images that look great but if you need to
capture a longer tonal range, you'll be unhappy.

But there's no reason the D2x sensor should be any more expensive than any
other 1.5x sensor, so we can say goodbye to quality low-ISO imaging in the
low-end dSLRs once Sony gets their fab line ramped up and Canon responds
with a 12MP sensor of their own.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:20:09 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<> wrote:

>It depends what you mean by "affordable". If one has the glass, US$3000 or
>US$3500 is affordable for some folks. Given that a 36 x 48mm medium format
>back is US$10,000, it seems to me that a 36 x 24 mm sensor camera ought to
>be around US$3000.

Maybe.
I'm of the opinion that those who buy cutting edge technology (like,
for example, full-frasme DSLRs) subsidize the R&D more than those who
by the more prosaic P&S cameras. That means the cost of the parts that
go into the full-frame DSLRs is a lessor part of the selling price
than in the P&S cameras.
This happens in most undustries. The buyers of SUVs pay a price
premium; the buyers of Plasma screen TVs pay a premium over the price
of a CRT 25: TV; and on and on.
Saying that a full-frame DSLR sould cost $3,000 doesn't take this
premium into account, IMO.
Of course, this is for NOW. In 5 years, this could change, as another
feature defines the high end product.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"