What if Fuji doubled the sensor size?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Apr 16, 2007.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/
     
    Rich, Apr 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rich

    ASAAR Guest

    On 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.


    From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh? :)

    What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
    Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
    sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
    particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
    it managed to drive out of the digicam business. :)
     
    ASAAR, Apr 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich wrote:
    > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.


    24-135mm equivalent FL, please :). Since we're not restraining our
    requests to anything vaguely sane. And f/2 of course (I'm being nice,
    for the big sensor; I'm not asking for f/1.4, like some of the super-8
    movie camera zooms were).

    Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
    higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
    print to 30x40 or whatever.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 16, 2007
    #3
  4. Rich

    John Sheehy Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
    $:

    > Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
    > higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
    > print to 30x40 or whatever.


    But does that trade-off really exist?

    I don't think it does. Smaller pixels, in the same sensor area, give
    better image quality, at any magnification.

    The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions of the
    early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created by the facts:

    1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better, but
    don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!

    2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise (and/or
    the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100% pixel
    view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller pixels in
    the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution at the same
    display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary resampling).

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Apr 16, 2007
    #4
  5. John Sheehy wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
    > $:
    >
    >> Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
    >> higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
    >> print to 30x40 or whatever.

    >
    > But does that trade-off really exist?


    Well, all the tests show it does, and all the people who really look
    into the area (perhaps excepting you) seem to agree it does.

    > I don't think it does. Smaller pixels, in the same sensor area, give
    > better image quality, at any magnification.
    >
    > The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions of the
    > early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created by the facts:
    >
    > 1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better, but
    > don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!
    >
    > 2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise (and/or
    > the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100% pixel
    > view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller pixels in
    > the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution at the same
    > display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary resampling).


    Okay; for my purposes, that all translates back to "bigger pixels are
    better". So the tradeoff exists, yes.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 16, 2007
    #5
  6. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > the the size of an APS-C sensor.


    You got the sizes wrong:

    1/1.7": 5.7 x 7.6mm
    4/3: 13.5 x 18 mm
    APS-C: 15 x 22mm

    http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_
    01.htm

    So 4/3 is 2.4 times larger as a 1/1.7" and 80-90% of an APS-C sensor.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 16, 2007
    #6
  7. Rich

    John Sheehy Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in
    news:4623b9e0$0$270$:

    > John Sheehy wrote:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
    >> $:
    >>
    >>> Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality
    >>> and higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that
    >>> can print to 30x40 or whatever.

    >>
    >> But does that trade-off really exist?

    >
    > Well, all the tests show it does, and all the people who really look
    > into the area (perhaps excepting you) seem to agree it does.


    What tests? I have seen no tests from anyone but me that test what is
    relevant; image quality per unit of sensor area. Everyone else whose
    tests I have been pointed to are testing something else, entirely.

    Once, it was a nearly universal belief that small pixels are inherently
    inferior. Now, usenet groups are one of the last holdouts of big-pixel
    believers.

    >> The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions
    >> of the early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created
    >> by the facts:


    >> 1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better,
    >> but
    >> don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!


    >> 2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise
    >> (and/or
    >> the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100%
    >> pixel view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller
    >> pixels in the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution
    >> at the same display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary
    >> resampling).


    > Okay; for my purposes, that all translates back to "bigger pixels are
    > better". So the tradeoff exists, yes.


    No, it doesn't translate that way, unless you believe that all sensors
    have the same number of pixels, or that printed area should always be
    proportional to the number of pixels.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Apr 16, 2007
    #7
  8. Rich

    Guest

    On Apr 16, 10:05 am, ASAAR <> wrote:
    > On 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:
    >
    > > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.

    >
    > From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh? :)
    >
    > What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
    > Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
    > sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
    > particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
    > it managed to drive out of the digicam business. :)


    For me it's "If only Panasonic would use Fuji sensors in their
    superzoom cameras....."
     
    , Apr 16, 2007
    #8
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, wrote:
    > On Apr 16, 10:05 am, ASAAR <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:

    >
    > > > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > > > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > > > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > > > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > > > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > > > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > > > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.

    >
    > > From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh? :)

    >
    > > What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
    > > Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
    > > sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
    > > particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
    > > it managed to drive out of the digicam business. :)

    >
    > For me it's "If only Panasonic would use Fuji sensors in their
    > superzoom cameras....."


    Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
    think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
    "Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
    income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
    on DSLRs.
     
    Rich, Apr 16, 2007
    #9
  10. Rich

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:

    > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/


    I dunno - what if the moon were made of green cheese? A false assumption
    logically implies any conclusion you want.
     
    ray, Apr 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Rich

    John Sheehy Guest

    wrote in news:1176754205.647887.185820
    @n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

    > For me it's "If only Panasonic would use Fuji sensors in their
    > superzoom cameras....."


    The difference is noise reduction, not sensors. Fuji has the best-looking
    noise reduction, to many people. It doesn't do much for me. ACR
    conversions from Panasonic RAWs look better to me than NR'ed Fuji JPEGs.

    Panasonic sensors have a high quantum efficiency, and the read noise is
    reasonable for a camera in that price range.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Apr 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 16, 7:16 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:
    > > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
    > > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
    > > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
    > > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
    > > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
    > > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
    > > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/

    >
    > I dunno - what if the moon were made of green cheese? A false assumption
    > logically implies any conclusion you want.


    It's perfectly testable. You shoot four images with the current 6 meg
    camera and stitch them together. 24 meg, or slightly less. That
    would give you exactly the same effect as if the sensor were made
    larger, with more pixels. Unlike where you (for e.g.) take a sensor
    and simply increase the pixel count and leave size the same. The
    point being that Fuji, if they wanted (since the already make
    physically larger sensors) could produce a near 40 megapixel APS-C
    sized sensor. And the only reason I'd suggest such an experiment is
    that the Fuji sensor is the very first small sensor to offer the noise
    performance of a larger one, if not the DR.
     
    Rich, Apr 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
    > think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
    > "Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
    > income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
    > on DSLRs.


    The Olympus 8080 is a good camera, with a lens on the level of a good
    DSLR lens. Haven't used the E10 or E20, but heard positive feedback. Why
    do you say these cameras are bottom of the barrel?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 17, 2007
    #13
  14. Rich

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 07:07:31 +0200, Alfred Molon <> wrote:


    >In article <>,
    > says...


    >> Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
    >> think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
    >> "Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
    >> income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
    >> on DSLRs.

    >
    >The Olympus 8080 is a good camera, with a lens on the level of a good
    >DSLR lens. Haven't used the E10 or E20, but heard positive feedback. Why
    >do you say these cameras are bottom of the barrel?


    tiny sensors with lots of noise. They're nice and cheap but take lousy
    pictures.
     
    AZ Nomad, Apr 17, 2007
    #14
  15. Rich wrote:
    []
    > Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
    > think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
    > "Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
    > income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
    > on DSLRs.


    I think most of the profit comes from the DSLRs and their expensive lenses
    and other accessories. Keeps the cost of the other cameras affordable for
    the rest of us....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Apr 17, 2007
    #15
  16. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 17, 1:07 am, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > says...
    >
    > > Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
    > > think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
    > > "Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
    > > income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
    > > on DSLRs.

    >
    > The Olympus 8080 is a good camera, with a lens on the level of a good
    > DSLR lens. Haven't used the E10 or E20, but heard positive feedback. Why
    > do you say these cameras are bottom of the barrel?
    > --
    >


    I didn't, I was contrasting those good camera with the stuff they are
    now producing.
     
    Rich, Apr 17, 2007
    #16
  17. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>,
    says...

    > >The Olympus 8080 is a good camera, with a lens on the level of a good
    > >DSLR lens. Haven't used the E10 or E20, but heard positive feedback. Why
    > >do you say these cameras are bottom of the barrel?

    >
    > tiny sensors with lots of noise. They're nice and cheap but take lousy
    > pictures.


    Have you ever used one?
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Apr 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Rich

    John Sheehy Guest

    "Rich" <> wrote in news:1176770730.436779.72380
    @d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

    > And the only reason I'd suggest such an experiment is
    > that the Fuji sensor is the very first small sensor to offer the noise
    > performance of a larger one, if not the DR.


    I don't think that is true at all. The Fuji sensors don't seem less noisy;
    the cameras just seem to have more aesthetic NR than some of the other
    brands.


    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Apr 18, 2007
    #18
  19. Rich

    AZ Nomad Guest

    On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:31:32 +0200, Alfred Molon <> wrote:


    >In article <>,
    > says...


    >> >The Olympus 8080 is a good camera, with a lens on the level of a good
    >> >DSLR lens. Haven't used the E10 or E20, but heard positive feedback. Why
    >> >do you say these cameras are bottom of the barrel?

    >>
    >> tiny sensors with lots of noise. They're nice and cheap but take lousy
    >> pictures.


    >Have you ever used one?

    one what?

    I own an olympus P&S and the fact that you snipped all mention of olympus
    P&S cameras out of the what I quoted in order to take my reply out of context
    hasn't been lost on me.

    My kodak 1.5mp took better pictures than my olympus 7mp stylus 710. The
    latter is fine for outdoor pictures, but forget about taking indoor pictures
    unless you like really noisy pictures.
     
    AZ Nomad, Apr 18, 2007
    #19
  20. What if Fuji and Olympus dropped xD and went with SD?
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Apr 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Devo

    Outlook Express Doubled messages

    Devo, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,397
    Jim Byrd
    Jul 1, 2004
  2. Terry Pinnell

    Doubled up taskbar

    Terry Pinnell, Sep 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,723
    Terry Pinnell
    Sep 15, 2004
  3. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,526
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  4. ftran999
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    561
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota
    Feb 22, 2007
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    618
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page