dhphoto wrote:
You clearly haven't noticed it's his 256th similar response with the same image. Just gets tiresome.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill
Meanwhile - back to the S90/G11. I like 'em both and will probably buy the S90 for my wife and the G11 for me along with the underwater housing. These are pretty much the cameras I was looking for.
brainiac wrote:
No. There is very little evidence for that belief.
You are comparing 12mp FF vs 21mp FF.
Both 12mp and 21mp are well within what's sensible for a FF sensor.
But do you think that FF buyers would be happy if, in a couple of years, Canon decides to replace their 36mp FF sensor with a 50mp FF sensor with worse ISO/noise?
Same for P&Ss.
Buyers are obviously smart enough to realize that 14mp is well beyond what's sensible for the tiny P&S sensors.
Glad to see that Canon is responding to what their customers prefer.
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I still dont get why high end compacts cant have bigger sensors? They cant argue the cost as they are not much cheaper than low end DSLR's .
To add a larger sensor would probably require a new lens system and maybe a larger camera body. Altogether you're looking at a more substantial redesign than just dropping in a same-sized sensor with different resolution.
Between the reduced resolution and articulated LCD, this is what I've been waiting for... Provided that the reviews validate some of the claims regarding low light/high ISO performance, I'll be first in line for this baby.
Unfortunately I bought a G10 a month ago. Talk about bad timing. Is FM a good place to sell my G10, or better somewhere like eBay? I wonder what sort of price I can get for it...
freediverx wrote:
To add a larger sensor would probably require a new lens system and maybe a larger camera body. Altogether you're looking at a more substantial redesign than just dropping in a same-sized sensor with different resolution.
Provided that the reviews validate some of the claims regarding low light/high ISO performance, I'll be first in line for this baby. unfortunately I bought a G10 a month ago. Talk about bad timing.
That's exactly the problem. Bigger sensor means bigger lens diameter. That means bigger mechanical infrastructure to support it etc... I got from a camera designer that the sensor, by itself, is about 55% of the camera costs (cost of goods sold) by itself. So, smaller there is also better from a cost perspective.
I fear you are arguing against the tide here, where logic and sanity of position will not prevail While I'm not privy in anyway to Canon's engineering nor their thought processes, there is another possible reason for a reduced pixel count in the sensors on the G11/S9 beyond just pandering to the Internet masses. It is entirely possible that Canon has developed an entire new class of sensor and is starting production with a fairly low sensel/pixel count. This is a fairly common thing to do in chip production where density is ramped up in later iterations as the fabrication process is perfected. It seems clear that the sensor in these camera is different than their predecessors. Just how different remains to be seen. While there is much reason to fear that marketing rules Canon as it seems to run so many companies these days, there are still some excellent engineers in the company so it is possible that they created something entirely new and better. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
That's what I'm wondering as well. It does sound like a fab/process change. Also, I don't think Canon actually makes the G series sensor, but sources it from Panasonic or Samsung. I could be wrong though. I do know a lot of their PnS sensors are fabbed by others.
Another possibility is the engineers realized that they were over-resolving the lens by more than a helpful amount, in comparison to other chip optimizations. We'll see upon analysis.
brainiac wrote:
You can see the difference in resolution between 5D and 1Ds3 in prints as small as A3, and sometimes even A4. But I agree - if you don't want sharp images, ever, then don't spend the coin.
That's fine and dandy, but when you add up every Canon DSLR ever sold, how many do you think are being used by people who need to produce A3 images that are going to be viewed from 6 inches away? For the few that need it, the 1DS3 and 5D2 will do the job. It is economically inefficient for Canon to continue to put more resolution than users need or value in the rest of the bodies.
Crying foul because they reduced the number of megapixels in the G10 is like having a hissy fit because the flash on a 1983 kodak disk camera isn't powerful enough to be used for the magazine layout you were just hired to produce. Use the right tool for the job, don't expect every tool to be made for the job.
JohnJ80 wrote:
That's exactly the problem. Bigger sensor means bigger lens diameter. That means bigger mechanical infrastructure to support it etc... I got from a camera designer that the sensor, by itself, is about 55% of the camera costs (cost of goods sold) by itself. So, smaller there is also better from a cost perspective.
j.
The difference in cost between the PANA G1 and the CANON G10 was $150 when I looked at both but the difference in IQ tremendous. Cost is not a factor, but a PS similar to the IQ of a Drebel is not a wise business decision given the added income CANON can expect from accessories and lenses with a DSLR.
You can see the difference in resolution between 5D and 1Ds3 in prints as small as A3, and sometimes even A4. But I agree - if you don't want sharp images, ever, then don't spend the coin.
I'm not sure all that many P&S shooters print even at A4. I just asked my mum at the weekend how big she'd like prints of her grand daughter when i print them out and send them over. "6x4 is perfect.." was the reply. I don't think she is non-representative of normal people - for scrap books and mantlepiece family shots 6x4 and 7x5 are the norm among people i know.
Note on my flash shot of the two young ladies, regarding manual operation and accounting for the two exposure settings.
Flash photography involves two exposures, one for the ambient light and one for the flash fill. The camera operator may take control. Here, I took a few test shots until the background exposed correctly. Then I varied the flash output until the young ladies exposed close enough for later image editing.
JohnJ80 wrote:
That's exactly the problem. Bigger sensor means bigger lens diameter. That means bigger mechanical infrastructure to support it etc... I got from a camera designer that the sensor, by itself, is about 55% of the camera costs (cost of goods sold) by itself. So, smaller there is also better from a cost perspective.
j.
Dont get the size and lens agument. just quickly picked this from the canon museum becuase it was the first I came to with a lens about the same equive as the G11 http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1996-2000/1996_ab-s2.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1996-2000&p=2
FF Film and its only a little bit bigger than the G11.
as for cost of gthe sensor well yes the small sensor will be cheaper but the G11 is only just cheaper than the bottom end DSLR (more expensive if you look at the likes of sony & nikon)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's a shame that the G11 doesn't get the f/2 speed of the S90.
Or the nifty collar ring. If I were to get one of these two, it would probably be the S90. Not that there's anything wrong with the G11, it just looks to be outshined by the more compact, brighter S90.
CKrueger wrote:
Or the nifty collar ring. If I were to get one of these two, it would probably be the S90. Not that there's anything wrong with the G11, it just looks to be outshined by the more compact, brighter S90.
I'm going for the soon-to-be announced Panasonic that essentially puts a 4/3 sensor in an LX-3, already a better camera than the G10 in some ways. Panasonic has made amazing progress on contrast detect AF speed and will leave the G11 for dead in AF speed and noise above ISO 400 and I you get to change lenses.
It's a shame the G11 took 1 step forward (pixels) and then shot itself in the foot with piss poor video and slow lens. In the absence of m-4/3 the G11 looks fine, but I'm prepared to pay a lot more for a truly excellent compact and Panasonic has great video as seen on GH-1.
I was going to say 'wow, G11, I want one' then I saw the S90. Can anyone highlight for me why the G11 would be better?
Have to be honest, for all the bruha about the micro 4/3's they still don't have a decent pocket camera and if it's over my shoulder and got a lens sticking out I might as well have my 5D. A nice pocket camera would be wonderful to replace my great (and hacked) A710IS.
While I'm not privy in anyway to Canon's engineering nor their thought processes, there is another possible reason for a reduced pixel count in the sensors on the G11/S9 beyond just pandering to the Internet masses. It is entirely possible that Canon has developed an entire new class of sensor and is starting production with a fairly low sensel/pixel count. This is a fairly common thing to do in chip production where density is ramped up in later iterations as the