«

On Mar 6, 6:07*pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A few compact cameras with backlit sensors have been launched. Are there
> any reviews or comparisons detailing how the performance is compared to
> standard cameras?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

I think the Nikon P100 is the only back-illuminated sensor camera out
so far. The few reviews I've seen are not in depth, but they didn't
seem overly impressed with the image quality/high ISO performance.
(Having said that, Nikon's (non-dslr) design team doesn't exactly
shine when it comes to wringing performance out of their pretty
mediocre bridge and p&s cameras...)

Fuji's upcoming HS10 has pretty wild specifications on paper. Fuji
has been known to get a couple of their little cameras to perform well
in the high ISO area, so that one might be more interesting. However,
pushing a superzoom that far (24-720?...!!!) has gotta be asking for
trouble, even if the sensor is good. There's some optical science
standing in the way of such feats...

As always, I think the hype will exceed the reality significantly -
but any improvement in photon-efficiency is a step in the right
direction.

Chrlz wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> A few compact cameras with backlit sensors have been launched. Are there
>> any reviews or comparisons detailing how the performance is compared to
>> standard cameras?
>
> I think the Nikon P100 is the only back-illuminated sensor camera out
> so far. The few reviews I've seen are not in depth, but they didn't
> seem overly impressed with the image quality/high ISO performance.

I suspect part of the reason for putting the wiring on the back is to be
able to get full 1080 HD video out at 30fps. Sony has done this for some
video cameras, claiming double the sensitivity but remember doubling is
just one stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
"However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

> (Having said that, Nikon's (non-dslr) design team doesn't exactly
> shine when it comes to wringing performance out of their pretty
> mediocre bridge and p&s cameras...)
>
> Fuji's upcoming HS10 has pretty wild specifications on paper. Fuji
> has been known to get a couple of their little cameras to perform well
> in the high ISO area, so that one might be more interesting. However,
> pushing a superzoom that far (24-720?...!!!) has gotta be asking for
> trouble, even if the sensor is good. There's some optical science
> standing in the way of such feats...
>
> As always, I think the hype will exceed the reality significantly -
> but any improvement in photon-efficiency is a step in the right
> direction.

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <hmucu8$eke$>, paul-@-
> edgehill.net says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
>> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise,
>> dark
>> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
>> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."
>
> Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
> not more.

Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting are
less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors become
a better choice. I think we saw something similar as CCD has been
gradually replaced by CMOS.

Cheers,
David

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <hn013e$1f7$>, david-
> lid says...
>
>> Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
>> there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting
>> are
>> less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors
>> become
>> a better choice.
>
> What other problems are you referring to?
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

The ones you originally referred to in:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp

David

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<hn013e$1f7$>, david-
> lid says...
>
>> Yes. more light, but other problems caused by back-illumination, so
>> there's a trade-off point where the problems caused by back-lighting are
>> less than than the gains, and when that's reached, backlit sensors become
>> a better choice.
>
> What other problems are you referring to?

It was in the link and quote.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
"...back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise,
dark current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

CCD used to be considered better than CMOS but technology advances, CMOS
has more room for circuitry so advanced things can be done to improve
performance, probably similar to the back illumination issue. I believe
the very high end scientific sensors are still CCD though. Meh, I should
shut up, I only have the vaguest idea <g> but have seen these issues
discussed...

"Pete D" <> wrote in message
news:. au...
[]
> Surprisingling though some the best low noise cameras at the moment are
> still CCD.
>
> I think we saw something similar as CCD has been
>> gradually replaced by CMOS.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David

Well, not that surprising as the point where CMOS become better will
depend on so many factors that the point in time will be different for
various processes, and from what factors the designers consider important.

Cheers,
David

"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> In article <hn12c5$t1f$>, david-
> lid says...
>>
>> The ones you originally referred to in:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>
> I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what
> you are talking about.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon


You posted:

_________________________________________________
In article <hmucu8$eke$>, paul-@-
edgehill.net says...
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."

Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
not more.
_________________________________________________


Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems
to which DP Review referred.

Why the personal insult?

David

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 07:55:03 -0000, "David J Taylor"
<david-> wrote:

>"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
>news: m...
>> In article <hn12c5$t1f$>, david-
>> lid says...
>>>
>>> The ones you originally referred to in:
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>>
>> I didn't refer to any problems, but it looks that you don't know what
>> you are talking about.
>> --
>>
>> Alfred Molon
>
>
>You posted:
>
>_______________________________________________ __
>In article <hmucu8$eke$>, paul-@-
>edgehill.net says...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp
>> "However, compared to conventional front-illuminated structures,
>> back-illuminated structures commonly causes problems such as noise, dark
>> current, defective pixels and color mixture that lead to image
>> degradation and also cause a decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio."
>
>Strange. The ability to capture more light should lead to less noise,
>not more.
>_______________________________________________ __
>
>
>Your "strange" suggested to me that you had not appreciated the problems
>to which DP Review referred.
>
>Why the personal insult?


You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?

This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
they are disagreeing with.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
[]
> You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
> take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?
>
> This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
> the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
> they are disagreeing with.

Bruce,

I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are
talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's
not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood
what I wrote".

For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but that's
because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that "you
don't know what you are talking about" just because you have different
ideas.

I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so
here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one
thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else.

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> []
>> You seem very over-sensitive to having your ideas criticised. Do you
>> take every little disagreement personally? If so, why?
>>
>> This is Usenet. Get used to it. And stop throwing your toys out of
>> the pram every time someone disagrees with you. It is your ideas that
>> they are disagreeing with.
>
> Bruce,
>
> I felt that Alfred's comment: "it looks that you don't know what you are
> talking about." was uncalled for, and he offered no justification. It's
> not the same as saying: "I don't agree with you" or "you misunderstood
> what I wrote".
>
> For example, I know that we don't agree on choice of equipment, but
> that's because we have different aims and objectives. I don't say that
> "you don't know what you are talking about" just because you have
> different ideas.
>
> I don't take insults in my personal life, so I see no reason to do so
> here, and I use my kill-file accordingly. Banter between friends in one
> thing, a public accusation of incompetence is something else.


Well said.

--
john mcwilliams

Remember: Opinions are like buttocks; only those which are well-formed
should be shown in public.