1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Death of Small Sensors

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by ianwaite, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Agreed and those who can afford a budget compact, the kit you use doesn't equate to your ability in photography.Many FF users can't see a good image if it smacked them in the face and I'm sure there are those out there with compacts that see a good image out of instinct.

    Ian
     
  2. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    Bridge cameras do have some advantages in specific situations. Their small sensors make it easier to get more depth of field when required, e.g. for macro when focus stacking is impractical, or some landscape shots. They also make equivalent focal lengths of 600mm or more affordable and portable - interchangeable lenses are not necessarily convenient when they have to be carried long distances in difficult terrain. In good light, they can with care produce 10x8" prints which would require very close examination to tell apart from those from a larger sensor camera.

    To be honest, I think there's a place for sensors of all sizes, though I think that medium format sensors are probably more endangered than mobile phone, compact, 4/3 or APS sized sensors.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2013
  3. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Please keep in mind there are some highend bridge cameras out there. Fujifilm make a speciality of them. :)

    http://www.fujifilm.com/support/digital_cameras/specifications/s/finepix_s200exr/

    As I have pointed out before Jack Hood got a AP cover with this very camera.
     
  4. jocky

    jocky Well-Known Member

    "convenience of interchangeable lenses....." what's convenient about changing lenses?

    For me and many other bridge owners the cost is the driving factor in choosing a camera. If the small sensor / long lens combo did not exist then I would not enjoy photography so much to the extent that photography would not be my hobby.

    CHEERS
     
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Nope. In our family the Bridge camera meets needs precisely. Portability, not having to change lenses, wide zoom range, adequate quality. Give me an SLR and bag of lenses every day but not everyone wants that.
     
  6. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    Indeed, and I didn't mean to sound condescending, as I myself am a bridge camera owner. I was just illustrating the point that they are a lot cheaper than any given camera/lens combo, and your point illustrates beautifully that in the right hands they can be made to work.
     
  7. Zou

    Zou Well-Known Member


    Well, it's far more convenient to use the right tool for the job than something which is a jack of all, master of none. I think it was a sweeping comment, but I see where Ian is coming from.
     
  8. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Changing lenses is more convenient than having the wrong lens for the job!
     
  9. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Indeed. For me a bridge camera is pretty much useless all the time.....they can probably do what I do with my 24mm but that's easily the least used of the three lenses I typically carry. (the other two being a MP-E 65mm and TS-E 90mm....not exactly the kind of thing a bridge camera competes with but they suit me right down to the ground....and sometimes even below ground ;) )
     
  10. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    It appears I have quite a small one!

    [​IMG]
     
  11. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Actually your size of sensor is not on the diagram 1/2.3" :)

    I think we might see some highend bridge cameras with just slightly larger sensors down the line.

    Nothing stopping designers making a sensor with a 3.2x crop factor or 3.5x.

    We might see a bridge using the Sony CX 1" (20MP) sensor say with a 24mm - 500mm (135 equiv) lens.

    Plus don't think there is anything stopping Fuji putting their X-Trans technology into the bridge range.
     
  12. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Just the way you walk my friend

    Regards
    Ian
     
  13. AlexMonro

    AlexMonro Old Grand Part Deux

    Well, they've already done it for the X20 compact, so I expect there'll be an XS-2 (X-Trans version of XS-1) along shortly.
     
  14. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    I suspect you right. :)

    It make sense to stop making the existing 2/3" sensor and switch the production to the new one.
     
  15. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

  16. alanS

    alanS Well-Known Member

    Jeeezz. What an amazing thread.... and reminds me why I rarely visit this forum now... So much unnecessary bitchiness/nastiness, IMVHO. That off my chest and back on point...

    In years past I've owned SLR's and 35mm compacts and RF's and moved to digital with a bridge and then very quickly to DSLR's. The problem with DSLR's for me is that they're too bulky, too heavy and too attention grabbing. That's just me. What I've always wanted is a direct digital replacement for my 35mm SLR's and smaller film bodies but to date and by my own criteria of what's a direct replacement neither are available, ignoring the Leica M series which costs more than I'm willing to pay.

    I bought a GF1 hoping that it could replace my 35mm compacts but after a honeymoon period I decided that I needed a VF so I changed it for a G1 which I now use mostly with legacy lenses. I use this system much more than I use my 5D because it's more compact, lighter and attracts much less attention. I find that at low to mid ISO's the G1 produces images that when viewed on screen or printed up to A3 are easily lost amongst 5D images, the 5D only noticeably pulling ahead at the higher ISO's. More recent CSC's both MFT and APS-C are better in this respect, so I believe. I've done my own little tests with both printed and screen images and no one has been able to accurately and constantly tell what camera, GF1, G1, 20D or 5D took what image so for me MFT is good enough although I accept that for high ISO shots, prints exceeding A3 and for very heavy cropping the big sensors producing bigger images will be better.

    I'll be very disappointed if the small form smaller chip CSC's disappear and personally I don't believe that they will. I'm sure we'll see more smaller form FF CSC (we have one now, the Sony FF jobbie) but I do hope that small chip CSC's survive because of the size and weight advantage a small chip CSC body and lens combination offers as until some new technology comes along FF interchangeable lens cameras can not match MFT or APS-C + lens combination size and weight. Even if FF + lens could match small chip CSC + lens for size and weight IMVHO the small chip and smaller lens combination will still offer advantages for hand held shooting in the same way that FF offers advantages over large format for hand held shooting, when thinking about shutter speed and DoF.

    Sorry to bore you all.
     
  17. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Not bored at all, some good reasoned arguments for your type of photography.

    That surely is the point, though, isn't it? Different people have different requirements from their photographic equipment. Personally, I am happy with a DSLR and a compact, though I do sometimes wish the DSLR was lighter. I looked at the G1 some years ago, when it first came out, and despite the EVF resolution being higher than was normal at the time (1.44 million dots, I believe) it still did not suit me.

    I tried bridge cameras, and have been satisfied with the results at my maximum printing size of A4, but the poor EVFs (200,000 dots) let the whole thing down.

    So what I need to replace my DSLR is a bridge camera with about 24x zoom and an optical viewfinder; failing which, a good (2 million+ dots) EVF. Or perhaps a G1 with a better EVF.

    And NO VIDEO thank you.

    Wishful thinking?
     
  18. thornrider

    thornrider In the Stop Bath


    Unnecessary ? What do you mean --- unnecessary ? :D
     
  19. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    Hey Roy, one of the things we apparently share is a camera is for stills, video should be something separate. I reckon top end cameras should have the option of video or not, suitable price reduction for those of us who just want still photography. I take pictures, no interest in video at all and feel ripped off at times when the new model has a big price increase and includes video as it's big jump foreword.

    Regards
    Ian
     
  20. ianwaite

    ianwaite Well-Known Member

    You mean adult human beings exchanging thoughts with expression and meaning between each other. Thought that is what a forum is about. We all understand each other and nobody died! so good banter from my point of view!

    regards
    Ian
     

Share This Page