Why not use better sensors in superzooms? (1 Viewer)

From what I've read on Birdforum it seems that one of the main reasons is that DSLR's produce better images than superzoom cameras is that they have larger/better sensors.

Could camera manufacturers use the same sensors in superzooms as they do in DSLR's if they wanted to? If so then why don't they do it?

I think we may see slightly larger sensors coming from Sony, Nikon or maybe even Canon soon but a small sensor is what allows such a long focal range lens to be relatively compact. However, the 90-400mm zoom for the micro 4/3 format G1 is easy 2-3x larger at 400mm than the 30x 24-700mm+ superzoom lenses we have now.

Rick

What interests me are the prospects for signficant improvements to small sensors bringing them up to the current SLR standard (or better). Considering the spectacular payoff if successful, I would think that the major manufacturers would be funneling considerable research effort along these lines.

RJM said:

I think we may see slightly larger sensors coming from Sony, Nikon or maybe even Canon soon but a small sensor is what allows such a long focal range lens to be relatively compact. However, the 90-400mm zoom for the micro 4/3 format G1 is easy 2-3x larger at 400mm than the 30x 24-700mm+ superzoom lenses we have now.

Rick

Click to expand...

the 90-400 is that in equivalent size, ie 45-200 real size?


Apart from that, I completely agree that a smaller sensor is what allows a superzoom to have a very long reach without beeing nearly as large and bulky when compared to the dSLRs.

Niels

The biggest answer to the question is "product segmentation" and will continue to be. The cameras must not replace the higher end DSLRs in the critical features - focus speed, lens sharpness, range, ISO performance, shutter range, focal length, etc. Sure there will be models that are good in _some_ of these, but not all.

"Back in the day", there were two kinds of specialty digital camera - the "prosumer" and the super-zoom. Super zooms (like the various UZ models from Olympus) were few and far between. Now it seems that the prosumer and super zoom worlds are merging. Unfortunately, the result is much more "user" and less "pro".

The ultimate prosumer was the Sony R1. It had a DSLR sensor (APS) and was a great camera, but only went to 120mm equiv.

Then the Olympus C8080 came out which out with 140mm equiv. The UZ models were about but the noise made them very difficult to use and were a specialty item, IMHO.

Then the DSLR explosion caused the prosumer models to fall off the face of the earth. Only in the last couple years , it seems, has there been a trend toward better, all in one cameras. There are exceptions but I think that's a good assessment. It seems now that the DSLR market is somewhat saturated, the manufacturers have to keep generating demand, while at the same time not cutting their own throat.

So a superzoom with better sensor? What is a better sensor? Larger? Then the lens gets larger for the same 35mm equivalent range - more expensive, heavier, may be too much of a niche product. Higher resolution or ISO performance? With a chip smaller than the size of one's pinky nail, we must be hitting the limits of quantum physics or getting close to it. How much more can we improve it?

It's striking that Fuji is having mixed success with the HS10. They really did it right with the legendary F30 series with the only major flaw being lens chromatic aberration. They have a track record of creating a high resolution camera with incredible image quality and great high ISO. The new model has at least a stop or two advantage over the Panasonic FZ 28/38 it appears but lens sharpness, speed and excessive noise reduction are leading to the appearance of a wash. I hope they can fix some of the issues with a firmware update. But while the HS10 is extremely innovative, it is a "first generation" in a lot of ways and hopefully it will lead to further enhancements and competitive offerings.

Thanks for answering my question. I have a Canon s2 IS now. I'm watching what's coming out and waiting for the right camera before I buy an upgrade .

One way to get a camera with the size and reach of a superzoom but the image quality of a DSLR is to reduce the pixel count. If, like me, you almost never print off your photos a couple of megapixels is all you need. That number of pixels on a superzoom sensor will enable you to have a pixel size equivalent to a DSLR with the increase in quality and the inherent reduction in noise.

But in a market obsessed with more is better I know such a beast would never get built but one can dream.

fugl said:

What interests me are the prospects for signficant improvements to small sensors bringing them up to the current SLR standard (or better). Considering the spectacular payoff if successful, I would think that the major manufacturers would be funneling considerable research effort along these lines.

Click to expand...

But then one could apply those same improvements to the bigger sensors to make them even better, thus retaining the gap between the ranges.

As already pointed out a larger sensor would require a physically larger lens.
And the price of lenses increases exponentially with their size and speed.
As the result you would get something that is as bulky and at least as expensive than lets say a Nikon/Canon entry level dSLR with a Sigma 150-500 mm lens. Nothing gained for user and manufacturer!

In the dSLR sector we see more and more cameras with full format sensors on the market. Physically larger sensors in this segment would led to the same problem, as current lenses, if they are not already designed for crop sensors and don't work on full format sensors, will likely not be able to deliver an image covering the larger sensor evenly. Again we are looking at physically larger and more expensive lenses and cameras, which by the way already exist as middle format systems.

The pixel race in the upper dSLR segment was never close to what happened in the p&s sector. I guess the potential buyers would have not fallen for this marketing pitch. Nikon took a long time to come out with a dSLR with more than 13Mpixel, and this is a FF model.

hollis_f said:

But then one could apply those same improvements to the bigger sensors to make them even better, thus retaining the gap between the ranges.

Click to expand...

True enough, but I for one don’t care about the “gap" but simply want a small “superzoom” camera equal in performance to the current crop of cropped-frame DSLRs. My guess is that a camera of this sort will appear on the market eventually as sensor-making technology continues to improve. But, I’m no engineer, & maybe the limits of minaturization have already been reached & I’m wrong about this. Time will tell.

The industry has been pretty honest imo about moving better sensor technology to the market as fast as economically possible.
The gating item for the improved performance superzoom is the production of a sensor with much lower inherent noise, so the modest light captured by the small lens can still make a first class image.
Unfortunately, that goal is only indirectly relevant to the main thrust of the semiconductor industry, which is to cut costs by folding more electronics onto a single chip. That requires using ever smaller transistors, using ever less power. So the sensor makers do eventually get the materials and the tools they need, as a byproduct, after they have been applied in the computing components sector. The gap is pretty wide though, considering that currently sensors are 10-30 million pixels per chip whereas billion bit memory chips are the norm.
So lots more improvement is possible and is in the pipeline, provided the economics remain supportive.