P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense?

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:12:04 GMT, Clive <clive.RemoveThis@cs.com> wrote:

>I have a Canon S3 IS and a Pentax K100D - both 6mp cameras. Some time
>ago I did some comparison shots (of the same subject). Very little to
>choose at the same exposure when I printed A4, but when I printed the
>same item at A3 - the K100D was visibly better.
>
>Same number of pixels, but bigger on the K100D - sensor size does make a
>difference.
>
>Clive

Clive,
The age old question "Does size matter?" In terms of
photographic sensors, it's not so much the physical size as it is "how
many photos can it record per unit of time!"

Some sensors with the same physical size have larger micro
lenses made possible by a more effective shape, layout or circuit
trace design or even a more efficient filter over them.

So, does size matter? Yes & no. It's also important to take
into consideration, things like "read noise" where in most newer
sensors has decreased, helping to make reasonable results possible
from very small sensors.

Just my 2 cents but I think the "average consumer" is willing
to tolerate a fairly high amount of noise or noise reduction artifacts
if it provides them with the following:

<1> Proper focus.
<2> Good color reproduction.
<3> Pocket size (for most).
<4> Results that look good in 5x7" & a rare 8x10" print.
<5> A large LCD display to frame & view (show others) pictures on.
<6> Reasonable price, (affordable).
<7> A reasonable zoom range of 3-4X or (more for some).
<8> More MP is usually believed to be better!

In spite of it's faults, I do like my Fuji F11 for it's low
light performance thanks "mainly" to it's larger than average CCD size
of (1/1.7" 6.3MP) for a pocket size P&S.

Respectfully, DHB


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

"David J Taylor" <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:ZOXpi.4389$By5.987@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> aniramca.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
>> I want to buy a DSLR because it is the only type of digital camera
>> that has larger size sensor, not because I am looking for more
>> flexibility of using (and spent more money on) different types and
>> ranges of lenses. As long as it has a reasonable zoom lens, I am
>> happy.
>> Comments?
>
> You don't /have/ to go DSLR:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/
>
> and perhaps one of two rangefinder cameras.
>
> But the Sony may end up as big, heavy and expensive as more versatile DSLR
> with a kit lens. Might work better in a dusty enviroment, though.
>
> David

Not necessarily better, any lens going in and out has to move air somewhere,
if your zoomy P&S manages to get some dust into the sensor area it is
basicly impossible to get out, with a D-SLR it is easy.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

In article <g31qi.4613$By5.4234@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> writes
>Raphael Bustin wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:11:53 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>[]
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/
>[]
>> Pretty much. The Sony that's pictured in the link isn't
>> exactly sized for a shirt or jacket pocket.
>>
>> It's not an unusual form factor nowadays, but it's not
>> exactly "compact."
>>
>> I still don't see why a 15x23 mm sensor "requires" a
>> large, heavy camera body. Back in the day, there
>> were slim, lightweight "half-frame" 35 mm cameras.
>>
>> You're talking about a "normal" lens of 28 mm, which
>> isn't that much of a challenge.
>>
>>
>> rafe b
>
>
>Rafe,
>
>"People" expect a zoom lens with auto-focus these days! Batteries and
>electronics may take up more space than a film canister. IIRC, Sigma
>offer a non-zoom camera:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030807sigmadp1.asp
>
>but I don't know if you can actually buy it, yet. And I wouldn't call it
>compact, either!

It lacks an optical viewfinder, the optional clip-on viewfinder prevents
using an external flash. I also suspect that with purchasers wanting
more and more MP there will be little enthusiasm for 5MP fixed focal
length camera; a lack of enthusiasm that could make the price required
to recoup the development cost prohibitive. Perhaps this is why it seems
to be nothing more than a concept product.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 26, 8:15 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
<usern....RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
> anira....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 11:34 am, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veld....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Why do you want a bigger sensor? (playing Devil's advocate here)
> > It is a good question! Then, perhaps the same question may be asked
> > to those who bought medium format cameras, instead of using the
> > regular 35mm.
>
> Some articles covering this issue:
>
> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Factors in Choosing a Digital Camerahttp://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
>
> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Part 2: Example Images using Different Pixel Sizeshttp://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter2
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.sum...
>
> Roger

Thanks for the information! I briefly read your article with interest.
I also visited your website and noticed the beautiful photos!
I will go and visit back and read the details and its references. Once
again... thanks!
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

TTV> In rec.photo.digital aniramca.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:
TTV> > I want to buy a DSLR because it is the only type of digital camera
TTV> > that has larger size sensor, not because I am looking for more
TTV> > flexibility of using (and spent more money on) different types and
TTV> > ranges of lenses. As long as it has a reasonable zoom lens, I am
TTV> > happy.
TTV>
TTV> Why do you want a bigger sensor? (playing Devil's advocate here)
TTV>
TTV>

Boke.


--
Alan

( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
through. )
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 27, 11:30 am, acl <achilleaslazari... RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:35 am, Noons <wizofo... RemoveThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > While it is theoretically possible to produce sensors with
> > pixels smaller than the light's wavelength, it will serve
> > no purpose whatsoever as the sensors will be unable to
> > capture any!
>
> Then how do you explain that atoms, which are in general much smaller
> than the wavelength of visible light, can interact with it (eg absorb
> it, emit it etc)?

Simple: I don't take photos of atoms.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 28, 1:04 am, Noons <wizofo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> Simple: I don't take photos of atoms.

Ha, very clever answer! Nevertheless, what you said,
> > > While it is theoretically possible to produce sensors with
> > > pixels smaller than the light's wavelength, it will serve
> > > no purpose whatsoever as the sensors will be unable to
> > > capture any!
isn't true (although the sensor will indeed be useless, it can capture
photons just fine).
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 28, 7:27 am, acl <achilleaslazari....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Simple: I don't take photos of atoms.
>
> Ha, very clever answer! Nevertheless, what you said,> > > While it is theoretically possible to produce sensors with
> > > > pixels smaller than the light's wavelength, it will serve
> > > > no purpose whatsoever as the sensors will be unable to
> > > > capture any!
>
> isn't true (although the sensor will indeed be useless, it can capture
> photons just fine).

Unless you want to discuss the Heisenberg principle
and the wave/particle nature of light, I'd say
the above doesn't matter jack.

Make the sensels smaller than the wavelength
you want to capture and all you'll get is difraction
patterns. Simple as that: nature doesn't
change to match technological progress.

Unfortunately.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 28, 3:23 am, Noons <wizofo... DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Unless you want to discuss the Heisenberg principle
> and the wave/particle nature of light, I'd say
> the above doesn't matter jack.

No, of course it doesn't

>
> Make the sensels smaller than the wavelength
> you want to capture and all you'll get is difraction
> patterns. Simple as that: nature doesn't
> change to match technological progress.
>
> Unfortunately.

Well you're right in that the sensor will be useless (too small pixels
so too much shot noise or photons/sec etc), irrespective of the wave-
like aspect of photons. I was just making the point that a detector
smaller than the wavelength of a wave can still detect it, eg long-
wavelength radio, which has wavelengths of the order of 1000m, can be
detected by an antenna. Or myself floating on the surface while a very
long wave caused by an earthquake reached the shore feeling it (this
has happened to me).

Deterioration of the noise performance of sensors with decreasing
"sensel" size isn't related to the nonzero wavelength of light at all
(although diffraction effects do come into play at faster and faster
apertures, as you say).
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:05:32 -0700, aniramca wrote:

> I want to buy a DSLR because it is the only type of digital camera
> that has larger size sensor, not because I am looking for more
> flexibility of using (and spent more money on) different types and
> ranges of lenses. As long as it has a reasonable zoom lens, I am
> happy.
> Comments?

It might make sense - what exactly do you intend to accomplish? Why is
sensor size such an overriding concern?
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

On Jul 28, 11:18 am, acl <achilleaslazari....RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:


> detected by an antenna. Or myself floating on the surface while a very
> long wave caused by an earthquake reached the shore feeling it (this
> has happened to me).

now, that is imagery I can relate to!


>
> Deterioration of the noise performance of sensors with decreasing
> "sensel" size isn't related to the nonzero wavelength of light at all
> (although diffraction effects do come into play at faster and faster
> apertures, as you say).

Bingo.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

<aniramca RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185415532.856053.261930@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I want to buy a DSLR because it is the only type of digital camera
> that has larger size sensor, not because I am looking for more
> flexibility of using (and spent more money on) different types and
> ranges of lenses. As long as it has a reasonable zoom lens, I am
> happy.
> Comments?

Are you willing to give up real time LCD preview and the ability to shoot
video to trade for larger sensor?
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense? 

peter wrote:
> <aniramca DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1185415532.856053.261930@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> I want to buy a DSLR because it is the only type of digital camera
>> that has larger size sensor, not because I am looking for more
>> flexibility of using (and spent more money on) different types and
>> ranges of lenses. As long as it has a reasonable zoom lens, I am
>> happy.
>> Comments?
>
> Are you willing to give up real time LCD preview

LCD preview is NOT real time: it is delayed time.
 >> Stay informed about: P&S vs DSLR - Does this argument make sense?