Re: Point and shoot with the largest CCD ?

ben brugman wrote:
There was the question of "Decent alternative to dslr?"

A point and shoot even with a 36mm X 24mm CCD could be a lot smaller than a
DSLR. So what is the PS with the largest CCD for consumers at the moment ?
For a true compact style, I think the Canon Gx & A6xx series have the biggest at the moment with 1/1.7" (about 15mm on the diagonal). There are things like the Sony R but it's SLR sized.

Seems to me that there are 'only' two disadvantages on Point and shoot's which are :
1. Quality, which could be a lot better with a large size CCD. (Less Noise).
2. Depth of View or Depth of Field which would be 'improved' with a large CCD.
Yes, but only if the maximum aperture of the lens is increased too. Most small compacts have a lens that is the approx equivalent of 35-105/2.8-4. Put a 35-105/2.8-4 lens on a compact with a 36x24 sensor, and any compactness that it did have is instantly gone.

So there is marketroom for a relative large Point and Shoot, but small camera with
a larger CCD than at the moment is available. (Large question mark).
(There were compact 35 mm point and shoot camera's).
Yes there were 35mm P&S film cameras, but look at the speed of the lenses. Most had a fixed lens of approx 35mm (sometimes up to 50mm) that was F5.6. The 3x zoom cameras had lenses that were often as slow as F11. The lenses had to be slow to keep their size down to something acceptable. This meant that DOF wasn't much different to the fast lenses in modern P&S.
Plus, when you have such small apertures, shooting in anything except bright daylight becomes a case of either high-ISO or flash (or both). A 36x24mm sensor will have much lower noise at high ISOs than a small sensor, but a lot of that will be offset by the need to use higher ISOs because of the slower lens. Put a faster lens on, and the size goes up and there's no advantage over a DSLR.
The third issue is the cost of big sensors. With film, camera cost stayed pretty much the same regardless of format while lens and film cost increased linearly with area. This meant that the cost of shooting 120 vs 35mm vs 110 increased at about the same rate as the improvement in quality. ie, pay twice the price for twice the quality.
With digital however, the cost of producing a large sensor increases exponentially with area - double the area, and the sensor cost goes up about four-fold. Compare for example the 5D vs the 30/40D. Both cameras are pretty similar except for the sensor. The 5D is about $1500AUS more expensive (not sure what the diff is in US$). Would enough people be prepared to spend $1500 extra on a compact camera so they can get a big sensor?

Ben
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: sensor size
    ... > and depth of field then a larger sensor will be using a lens at a higher f ... > cost the same improve the quality. ... In real life if you actually take pictures, one either has enough DOF or not ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: What make a lens normal ?
    ... There is a 12mm lens made by Voigtlander ... Since we were talking about the smaller APS sensor I was confining my ... Even if the materials cost is equivalent. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: CCD cleaning?
    ... across the filter. ... You're not actually cleaning the CCD sensor, ... camera off and re-attach the lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Panasonic G1 - some AF numbers
    ... They don't price it based on how much it costs them to build, they price it based on how much they think the market will pay. ... It's the smallest interchangeable lens, relatively large sensor, P&S. ... weight is worth the extra cost. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: sensor size
    ... >>manner to both film and digital cameras. ... and depth of field then a larger sensor will be using a lens at a higher f ... this can either reduce the cost of the lens or if you keep the cost ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading