Point and shoot with the largest CCD ?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by ben brugman, Nov 4, 2007.

  1. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    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 ?

    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

    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).

    ben brugman, Nov 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Here's one.


    May be available second hand or discontinued stock. Bigger, heavier, and
    less versatile than a DSLR. A lost opportunity?

    David J Taylor, Nov 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. ben brugman

    John Bean Guest

    A Sony R1 is a "point and shoot"? I think not ;-)

    It's not smaller than some dSLRs either so it doesn't even
    meet the "small camera" category either. I never did work
    out what photographic problem the R1 was supposed to solve,
    and I suspect its failure to insire buyers implies a lot of
    people felt the same.
    John Bean, Nov 4, 2007
  4. ...
    Well larger could be better, but not always. Most P&S are not of the
    highest quality as their primary market does not call for it.
    Define improved. If you mean it will have less DOF, then you are
    right, but if you want more, you go to a smaller image area. Have you ever
    seen the difference in the DOF of
    an 8x10 view camera next to a 35 mm at the same aperature?

    Joseph Meehan, Nov 4, 2007
  5. ben brugman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Sigma (is coming out with?) a 'rangefinder' with a fixed wideangle lens
    & DSLR sensor for probably under $1,000 which a lot less than the Leica
    digital rangefinder that takes expensive interchangeable lenses. It's
    somewhat small though not much smaller than an entry level DSLR with a
    pancake lens, it's more of a slim rectangle shape. The problem is the
    lenses for a DSLR sized sensor become rather large. Sigma's solution is
    a fixed 17mm f/4 (28mm equivalent) which is a good compromise to keep it
    in budget but whole lot less versatile than P&S zooms or a small DSLR
    with a fairly small kit lens. It would slip easily into a coat pocket or
    purse, maybe could be jammed in a large shirt pocket. A small DSLR could
    be jammed in a coat pocket with a compact lens.
    Paul Furman, Nov 4, 2007
  6. ben brugman

    Mark B. Guest

    This is representative of the smallest current production digicam with a
    larger than usual sensor for a compact:


    Unfortunately it has 12mp squeezed onto a 1/1.7" sensor. You might still
    find the Canon A630 even though it's been discontinued; very similar sensor
    size (1/1.8") but only 8mp, which should be less noisy. Sigma announced a
    fixed lens CMOS compact in September 2006, but it's a no show so far so
    don't count too much on this.

    Mark B., Nov 5, 2007
  7. ben brugman

    Guest Guest

    the sigma dp1 is pure vapor. it was annoucned over a year ago and has
    yet to materialize. latest rumors are 'spring 2008' but that remains
    to be seen. in fact, b&h photo lists it as discontinued.

    it also has the foveon chip so its ability to take decent images at
    higher iso is awful, in addition to its lens being slow.
    Guest, Nov 5, 2007
  8. ben brugman

    Doug Jewell Guest

    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
    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.
    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?
    Doug Jewell, Nov 5, 2007
  9. I almost mentioned the R8 digital as it is an elegant solution (for
    which you have to pay an understandably elegant price!)...never a
    rangefinder fan myself, but I know there are no more rabidly parochial
    shooters than the Leica legion...spent many a drinking session in B*W
    film days, listening to the virtues of the silent, silken
    whatever-they-were-on-about, and yet never tempted to sell my car in
    order to buy a Summicron...
    Serge Desplanques, Nov 6, 2007
  10. Used as a P&S it does produce remarkably good results.
    I thought it was supposed to offer a cheaper and better performing
    alternative to those folks who want a DSLR, but only with one standard
    zoom. It's a bit early to say whether all those folk who only have one
    general purpose zoom on their SLRs will remain content with it, but
    back in the old pre-digital days, once zooms had become good enough to
    offer fairly good performance, quite a lot of film SLR owners ended up
    using a general purpose zoom all the time. In fact quite a few film
    SLR owners very happily used a rather crap general purpose zoom
    all the time :)

    I suspect the main reason the R1 didn't sell was because explaining
    its virtues to a shopper who might have liked it was beyond the
    intellectual reach of the average camera shop salesdroid.

    Generally speaking, judging by the on-line camera chat communities, it
    does seem to have inspired most of those who actually bought one.
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 8, 2007
  11. Chris Malcolm wrote:
    My feeling is that it was too large, and too expensive. With the
    admittedly useful exception of the swivel LCD, you could do as well with a
    DSLR, and have the benefit of interchangeable lenses if you need them. My
    own photography does include the medium wide-angle, and I would have found
    the 24mm eq. attractive, but I also routinely want up to 300mm eq., and
    IIRC the Sony didn't offer that. With the extenders it was too large and
    heavy, and not telephoto enough.

    A pity, as I really liked the idea!

    David J Taylor, Nov 8, 2007
  12. ben brugman

    John Bean Guest

    I'm sure it does, but "used as" and "is" are rather
    different concepts in this context - almost any digital
    camera can be used as a "P&S" but only some are "P&S".
    I think you may be right initially, but it also very soon
    lost its niche with the introduction of small, cheap dSLRs
    and the introduction of live view to the SLR world.
    I agree, and it's a camera I actually considered buying at
    one point.
    John Bean, Nov 8, 2007
  13. Except for the higher price you'd have to pay to match the image
    quality. Some reviewers suggested that it would be a very much higher
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 10, 2007
  14. Yes, they did - but I never saw that suggestion put into actual figures.
    Of course, some DSLR lenses are very expensive, some with almost a cult
    following, and perhaps if you wanted to match the focal length range
    exactly, that might affect the cost. I did like the 24mm wide-angle.

    David J Taylor, Nov 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.