Why do sensors in compact cameras have to be so small?
Jun 10, 2017 13:11:33 #
therwol wrote:
Before we had compact digital cameras, we had comp... (show quote)
People who buy P&S have come to expect extreme zooms. The laws of physics dictate that such extremes require smaller sensors. I've forgotten the exact technical explanation, but I've seen it on several reliable websites including dpreview. That's why even the best ultrazooms have small sensors. Canon could put any sensor they want in an SX-60 or Nikon in a P900, etc. But then they couldn't get the zoom range.
Jun 10, 2017 13:18:06 #
I too would like to see " affordable" digital backs for film cameras.
Maybe the chinese can accomplish this.
Maybe the chinese can accomplish this.
Jun 10, 2017 13:23:47 #
kymarto wrote:
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.
I'm at a complete loss as to why people want less depth of field. For me, deep DOF is essential, because usually I want to show my subject in its context.
{I'm not an artist. My photography is usually motivated by an interest in preserving my world today, before tomorrow comes and everything changes}
Jun 10, 2017 13:24:37 #
It's not a fair comparison to put small film compacts alongside small digital ones. Film is special in that it is a storage medium that requires it to be in a dark space that gets just a quick bit of light, but then, it takes equipment to process it just to make it permanent storage and that's stuff that won't fit in the camera. The digital camera takes a photo with the senor an then very complex electronic things happen to get that on a memory card and it's relatively permanently stored. Maybe what you need to compare is the size of the digital to the size of the compact film cameras WITH the stuff to process the film.
Jun 10, 2017 14:31:47 #
rhadams824
Loc: Arkansas
Rich Maher wrote:
I too would like to see " affordable" digital backs for film cameras.
Maybe the chinese can accomplish this.
Maybe the chinese can accomplish this.
Don't forget those pesky Russians!!
Jun 10, 2017 14:54:42 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Just guessing, but I think the mirror in DSLR's are the culprit. Pretty sure that is why newer MILC's can be produced much smaller without those pesky mirrors.
Jun 10, 2017 16:20:06 #
kymarto wrote:
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.
I want a lot of DOF because in most of my photographs I wanted to show both foreground and background and they go together. You may want paper thin DOF but I don't. As someone was talking about shooting people. I don't shoot people. I do photograph people sometimes but still I want a lot of DOF.
Jun 10, 2017 16:33:44 #
I for one, find shirt pocked sized cameras too difficult to handle. This is why I replaced my Canon a2500 with a Panasonic Lumix DMC-zs60 for my purse camera. The new one has more heft and a view finder. I had purchased a sort of handle to attach the previous one to that made it longer. However the lack of view finder finally made the frustration level too high.
Jun 10, 2017 17:11:11 #
therwol
Loc: USA
BebuLamar wrote:
Why do you need the full frame? What's wrong with smaller sensor?
Can you not see the difference? I certainly can. I have cameras with both. It may not be technically feasible to put such a large sensor in a very small camera. If sensor quality continues to improve, we may not need large sensors at all in the future. I asked the original question because this is today, not tomorrow, and I wondered what people would say. This has been very interesting.
Jun 10, 2017 17:13:27 #
CatMarley wrote:
Same pixel count. Not the same size. When you pack much smaller pixels together you increase noise, and decrease dynamic range. Size matters!
According to DPReview, the Nikon Coolpix A and and the D7000 use the same sensor.
More HERE.
The Nikon Coolpix A is built around a 16MP CMOS sensor - the same one that performed so spectacularly well in cameras such as the D7000. .
If it only had a built in eye-level viewfinder.
Jun 10, 2017 18:09:52 #
londonfire
Loc: NY to NC
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
I didn't think the Coolpix A had an APS-C sensor.
Jun 10, 2017 18:16:01 #
londonfire
Loc: NY to NC
londonfire wrote:
I didn't think the Coolpix A had an APS-C sensor.
I stand corrected. It is an APS-C sensor. May have to look out for that unit.
Jun 10, 2017 18:32:32 #
londonfire wrote:
I stand corrected. It is an APS-C sensor. May have to look out for that unit.
Looks interesting, doesn't it?
Jun 10, 2017 21:15:51 #
Wow!!! Only $6895 for a Leica M10. Send me a couple of dozen. How do pro photographers pay their mortgage when buying equipment that is as expensive as today's top products?
Jun 10, 2017 22:00:21 #
londonfire
Loc: NY to NC
Richard Ross wrote:
Wow!!! Only $6895 for a Leica M10. Send me a couple of dozen. How do pro photographers pay their mortgage when buying equipment that is as expensive as today's top products?
I think in some cases the stuff is given to them because they have a 'name'.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.