Why do sensors in compact cameras have to be so small?
Jun 10, 2017 09:02:12 #
ephraim Imperio wrote:
The Nikon Coolpix A pocket camera has a 16.2 megapixel size sensor- the same sensor as the Nikon D7000 camera.
Effie
Effie
Same pixel count. Not the same size. When you pack much smaller pixels together you increase noise, and decrease dynamic range. Size matters!
Jun 10, 2017 09:12:52 #
ELNikkor wrote:
I agree! My Olympus XA (35mm rangefinder) or XA4 (28mm one head, 3 heads, mountains) were my "always there" pocket cameras. I got so many "grab shots" just because one was always in a pocket, ready to bring out and shoot. Since I mostly shot BW and processed it myself, I could print any part of the image, so not having a zoom was not a problem, and the lenses were very sharp. Bring that size camera back in digital with the full frame!
Why do you need the full frame? What's wrong with smaller sensor?
Jun 10, 2017 09:51:30 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
therwol wrote:
Before we had compact digital cameras, we had comp... (show quote)
Small sensors allow the camera to be very compact and reasonably affordable.
While the size of the entire camera is effected, probably the main reason for tiny sensors (1/2.5" = 5.76 x 4.29mm) is that they allow the manufacturer to get a lot of range out of a relatively small, lightweight lens.
For example, the Canon SX60 HS has an extreme, 65X zoom with a "full frame equivalent" focal length range of 21 to 1365mm.... but it's actual focal length zoom range is 3.8 to 247mm. The SX60 HS is 5.02 x 3.65 x 4.50 in. (127.6 x 92.6 x 114.3 mm) and weighs less than 1.5 lb. (650 g). The list price for the SX60 HS is $429.
Compare that to the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM lens... not a zoom of course, but an actual focal length of 1200mm. It's 9" diameter, 33" long, and weighs 36 lb. (lens alone). The 1200mm is no longer in production, was only ever sold by special order and is now extremely rare. When one comes up on the used market, it now typically sells for $100,000+.
Jun 10, 2017 10:10:51 #
therwol wrote:
No doubt. I just bought the Canon G7X Mark II, wh... (show quote)
There are size limitations and expectation limitations.
For size the image sensor has to be thicker than the film. One would expect that a digital camera has an LCD panel and there more thickness. You would expect the digital camera to have AF. You would expect it to have buttons for various settings that not exist on the film camera. And last but not least your expectation on price. You would expect a low price while making a camera that appeal to the few would cost the manufacturers more to make.
Jun 10, 2017 11:17:09 #
Point-N-Shoot cameras are mirrorless after all. Since that's the future why are they dying out?
Jun 10, 2017 11:29:15 #
Fotoartist wrote:
Point-N-Shoot cameras are mirrorless after all. Since that's the future why are they dying out?
Because they're a poor substitute for a good mirrorless system. And because cell phones.
Jun 10, 2017 12:27:03 #
therwol wrote:
If they made them bigger, the cameras wouldn't be compacts anymore!Before we had compact digital cameras, we had comp... (show quote)
Jun 10, 2017 12:28:29 #
tbpmusic wrote:
What I'd like to see is affordable digital backs for film cameras, both 35 mm and 4x5 !!!!
Was available 15-20 years ago, but it didn't take off!
Jun 10, 2017 12:31:19 #
therwol wrote:
Before we had compact digital cameras, we had comp... (show quote)
Sensor price.
Larger sensors are much more expensive.
Jun 10, 2017 12:33:11 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Image quality of current sensors are so good that for a compact camera I would rather have small sensor. Having small sensor I can have more DOF.
Or, if you are a half empty cup person, less bokeh.
Jun 10, 2017 12:33:59 #
CatMarley wrote:
I think you need to find a broken digital camera - preferably dx or fx, and take it apart and see what is inside, and then try to figure out how to fit all of that into the size camera you would like and then equip it with a battery and internal zoom lens that would cover the full width of the sensor. Earthbound physics still governs the limitations of engineering.
Indeed. I've been taking apart a lot of vintage rangefinder cameras for the lenses. I marvel at the intricacy of the mechanical mechanisms for shutter, rangefinder and transport. But all that pales in comparison with what is packed into a digital camera. And a larger sensor means the electronics and power to support and power it.
And most of all, a larger sensor requires a larger lens. In the video world we have professional video cams with 2/3" sensors, which is considerably smaller than the popular 1" sensors in many digital cameras, not to mention APS-C. We have normal zooms, from 7.8 to 312mm that are equivalent to a 35mm full frame lens of 31-1250mm f1.8-f4 at the long end. Those lenses are not small, but stop and think how large a 31-1250mm lens with a maximum aperture of f1.8 would be for full frame.
Jun 10, 2017 12:41:48 #
I suspect that as a sensor is made out of one piece of silicon (or whatever), the 'yield' of large sensors is much smaller than that of small sensors, hence more expensive - the yield being the % of good ones against the % of bad ones. A pentium cpu is actually very small, a 35mm sensor is well, ermm, 35mm - which is big in the semiconductor world.
Jun 10, 2017 12:43:57 #
MtnMan wrote:
Or, if you are a half empty cup person, less bokeh.
I'm at a complete loss as to why people want more depth of field. For me, shallow DOF to separate a subject from its background is one of the most important parameters for making an effective image. I do understand that for landscape photographers, sharpness across the image is important, but in so many other fields, a lot of DOF is absolutely not desirable for a top notch image.
Jun 10, 2017 12:54:52 #
kymarto wrote:
I'm at a complete loss as to why people want more depth of field.
Landscape/macro. Where have you ever read someone wanting more DOF while shooting people?
Jun 10, 2017 13:06:36 #
tbpmusic wrote:
What I'd like to see is affordable digital backs for film cameras, both 35 mm and 4x5 !!!!
Now you are speaking my language.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.