Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .  (Read 14603 times)

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« on: December 19, 2006, 02:03:19 pm »

Now that Sony has killed their superb fixed-lens R1, and no one else is producing such a large sensor fixed lens zoom, my hopes for someday upgrading to a 20+ MP R2 or R3 lie in ruins.  That's too bad, as the ultra short backfocus lens design has some real advantages over SLR lens mounts.  However that is not my primary reason for choosing the R1 over a dSLR.

What I want is a live LCD higher megapixel camera.  The advantages of composing with the LCD instead of an optical viewfinder are numerous:

1) autofocus using a slower but more reliable contrast-detection system for landscape shooting (never any front/back focus issues).

2) You see the cameras sensor image with its limitations on DR instead of your eye with unlimited DR.  Thus you get a sense of the captured file.

3) Camera does not have to be glued to your face!  Makes shooting at kids eye level easier, frog eye level MUCH easier!  Composing landscapes can be done with both eyes open, looking at the scene and at the image instead of peeping through a tunnel.  No need to crouch down to tripod height if you are shooting low, and you can use a very tall tripod and see what you are composing.

4) Get your exposure right the FIRST TIME, EVERY TIME with a live histogram.

5) Of course, the camera should ALSO have a standard mirror and standard dSLR autofocus / metering for all the times when the TTL optical view is an advantage.

6) Video.  While the R1 does not allow video recording, virtually all other fixed-lens live LCD digital cameras do.  This is a great feature to have, and should be included in future digital cameras.

Olympus has done most of this this with the E330 and Fuji to a lesser extent with the S3.  I believe even one of the Canon astrophotography cameras can do some of these things.  Come on, let's add this to all dSLRs.  Geez!  I feel that Canon and Nikon are stuck in some kind of time-warp with dSLR design, totally unwilling to do anything truly innovative, perhaps out of fear that their customers are too hide-bound to appreciate it.
Logged

gochugogi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 80
    • http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2006, 02:36:42 am »

I've never cared for live LCD composing and that's why I choose a DSLR. I did mess with my friend's Oly and it sucks as a SLR (tiny 'n dark) and the live preview was underwhelming. What I'd really to see is Canon bring back ECF. Well, it's still current on the the Elan 7NE and EOS 3, but not on any DSLR. ECF really sped up AF point selection for me. That joystick thingie is medieval!
Logged
[span style='font-family:Impact']I'm try

X-Re

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2006, 10:01:26 am »

I had mixed results w/ ECF - for some moving subjects, I want focus in one spot, but I want to look at another in order to get good focus AND good composition...

It seemed to work well, though, when I calibrated it properly. I had both an Elan-IIe and an EOS-3, so...
Logged
Dave Re
[email protected] website: [u

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2006, 11:54:41 am »

Quote
I've never cared for live LCD composing . . .

I suspect many who "don't care for it" would find themselves using it at least sometimes. . . if it were offered.

It's a no-brainer for certain shots, especially in the "swivel" version that is offered on some cameras.

I'm not trying to take away anyone's optical viewfinder, just to get the manufacturers to add a missing feature to dSLRs.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2006, 12:33:54 pm »

I wouldn't mind having the option, for macro shots and the like, and the occasional exotic angle portrait, but I think it would be a minority use feature for me.  I would like to try it though.
Logged

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2006, 12:52:35 pm »

I love my R1 and am sad to think that it's a dead end product.

It's worth it's weight in gold for street photography where the ability to shoot from the waist really keeps the process unobtrusive....  and quality is great... and RAW (albeit massive, uncompressed files - I just run the DNG plug in from Breeze Downloader Pro which I unload the files).
Logged

MatthewCromer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 505
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2006, 01:22:39 pm »

Quote
I love my R1 and am sad to think that it's a dead end product.

It's worth it's weight in gold for street photography where the ability to shoot from the waist really keeps the process unobtrusive....  and quality is great... and RAW (albeit massive, uncompressed files - I just run the DNG plug in from Breeze Downloader Pro which I unload the files).

I love my R1 too, and also shoot only RAW + 1mpx jpeg normal and compress to DNG.  Probably should switch to 4mpx jpeg normal to make my chimping for critical focus more productive. . .
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2006, 03:50:02 pm »

Quote
What I want is a live LCD higher megapixel camera.

Olympus has done most of this this with the E330 and Fuji to a lesser extent with the S3.  I believe even one of the Canon astrophotography cameras can do some of these things.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just amongst those of us who do see advantages in some situations of live video preview on an interchangeable lens camera, I predict that Olympus will soon announce several more cameras with this feature and 10MP or more: announced if not shipping by PMA 2007, March 8-11.

The sensor in at least new such model is likely to be the new "10.68MP" Kodak KAI-10100 interline CCD, announced so far only through its use in a special astro-photography camera from SBIG: [a href=\"http://www.astropix.com/wp/category/news/]http://www.astropix.com/wp/category/news/[/url]

That sensor is possibly the one in the Olympus E-400, but has a few features not exploited by the E-400, like electronic shuttering, probably video preview support (as video is the main reason that Kodak ever bothers with interline style CCD instead of full frame CCD), and 2-1, 4-1 and 16-pixel binning, for the first time binning has been offered on a color sensor with Bayer CFA as far as I know.

Electronic shuttering offers possibilities like flash sync at any shutter speed and the ability, when combined with a video viewfinder, to eliminate both mirror and shutter motion from the "shutter release" process. The latter is enticing, as it could offer negligible shutter lag, negligible shutter release noise, and negligible shutter release vibration: the true digital heir of range-finder cameras?

2-1 binning gives the option of output at half the pixel count (5.34MP?) in exchange for roughly twice the usable ISO speed, and perhaps about double the frame rate too. The improvement in low noise at high ISO is better than got by down-sampling to half the pixel count later, because it potentially halves the effect of the "per pixel" noise accumulated during read-out from the sensor.

The options of 4-1 and 16-1 binning are less interesting for taking photographs, giving only about 2.67MP and 0.67MP, but they could be useful for video output.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2006, 09:49:26 pm »

Quote
The options of 4-1 and 16-1 binning are less interesting for taking photographs, giving only about 2.67MP and 0.67MP, but they could be useful for video output.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, very useful. Whilst overseas recently, I picked up the new Sony DSC T30 ultra compact camera. This is a 7.2mp version of the original 5mp T1. I was pleased that the sensor size was slightly larger (than the T1) to accommodate the additional pixels. Viewing sample picture comparisons on the net (at imaging-resource for example) it was quite clear that the T30 had improved resolution as well as improved noise. Other features such as zoom facility during recording of video, image stabilisation with stills and video, much improved battery life using a bigger battery, impressive 3" EVF (who needs an optical viewfinder with that?), tripod socket that was left off the T1 etc etc, made it an irresistable buy.

However, low light video capability was pretty awful. There were many situations when I wanted to record cultural shows in the evening with less than ideal lighting. The results are way too dark. Perhaps this is because Sony haven't used binning to get the 640x480 video resolution.

Whatever the reason, I thought that next time I go on such a trip, I might take with me one of the new HD camcorders such as the Canon HV-10 that has a 3mp senor and records 1920x1080i. However, checking out the reviews and specs for this camcorder, I was surprised to find that the sensor is really tiny. In fact, the same size as in my first ultra compact P&S camera, the Sony DSC T1, which 1/2.7", or 5.3mm x4mm.

Not surprisngly, the Canon HV-10 does not get good ratings for low light capability. How can it with such a tiny sensor? I suspect this is the situation with all consumer grade, compact HD camcorders.

So after this long preamble, the one feature I want in a DSLR, that currently doesn't exist as far as I know, is High Definition video capability.

Consider what might be possible with a camera such as the 5D, which as you know has rather amazing low light capability at ISO 3200. 4 to 1 binning would give you a 3mp sensor with a huge dynamic range and superb low light capability at maybe ISO 6400.

Now that would be a very, very useful feature. Why is no manufacturer providing it? I know there's the argument that you can't expect good quality stills from a dedicated video camera for the obvious reason that the sensors don't have the resolution. But I see no reason why the reverse of this argument should be true. Admittedly, faster processors will be required. If the 5D can shoot 12.8mp images at 3 frames/sec, one would not expect it to shoot 3mp images at greater than 12 frames/sec, or 2mp images at greater than 18 frames/sec, which is not fast enough. However, a 5D upgrade with the 8/sec frame rate of a 1D Mk2 would appear to be fast enough. Perhaps the write speed of the flash card would be the bottle neck, and if it is, I'd settle for slightly less than full HD video resolution. 1024x768p would be nice   .
« Last Edit: December 20, 2006, 09:59:13 pm by Ray »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2006, 10:47:56 pm »

Or, if 16:9 aspect ratio is preferred, the upgrade to the 5D, which will probably be a 16mp camera at a similar or lower price, could probably do 16 to 1 binning which would provide adequate resolution for un uncompressed, RAW mode, super DR, 1280x720p video at maybe even ISO 128,000.

The potential advantages seem so great, I can't understand why there's no movement in this direction, unless of course there's some conspiracy going on to protect the existing videocam market.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2006, 12:20:54 pm »

Quote
Consider what might be possible with a camera such as the 5D, which as you know has rather amazing low light capability at ISO 3200. 4 to 1 binning would give you a 3mp sensor with a huge dynamic range and superb low light capability at maybe ISO 6400.

Now that would be a very, very useful feature. Why is no manufacturer providing it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91699\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
    that is a good question to end with, because I tend to believe that no-one is manufacturing such a camera even in high end professional video cameras for good practical and technical reasons, not due to the higher cost of 24x36mm sensors, or an industry-wide failure to appreciate the widely touted advantages of larger sensors and larger pixels.

What formats are judged by experts with very large budgets judge to be good choices for high end digital video? 2/3" and smaller. The current state-of-the-art seems to be Sony CineAlta 24P HDCAM cameras, $80,000 items using 2/3": 6.6x8.8mm in 4:3 mode, cropped to about 5x8.8mm for 16:9 format.

As to why, I can only speculate:
1) a camera's high shutter speed/low light performance is, as you should well now by now, limited by maximum aperture size, not directly by pixel or sensor size. Using larger sensors and pixels with the same aperture size if anything makes things worse: the same amount of light gathered and delivered to the sensor and so the same signal (in photons) is available at each photosite, but there will probably be a bit more read-noise.
2) HD video camera lenses can have very low aperture ratios. Many zoom lenses for 2/3" format HD cameras offer f/1.8 over a wide zoom range like the Fujinon HA22x7.8DERD-S 2/3" 22x High Definition Lens: f/1.8 at 7.8-122mm ("31-488mm equiv.") and reaching 172mm ("690mm equiv") at f/2.5. (Standard definition zoom lenses go even faster, like one offering f/1.4 at 9.5-253mm ("40-1000mm equiv.") Strangely primes seem not to get much faster, say f/1.5: maybe sensor/micro-lens characteristics limit minimum f-stop.
3) AS to dynamic range: at HD pixel counts like 1080x1920, pixel pitch on a 2/3" sensor is about 4.8 microns, and despite some wild exaggeration of DR needs in forums, this is large enough to give quite good dynamic range, way beyond what a straight print can display. For example, it is about the same pixel spacing as in the Kodak KAI-10100 4/3" interline CCD mentioned above and used in an astrophotography camera, and surely the astrophotography market cares about dynamic range.

So maybe speed limits are already set in 2/3" format largely by lens size and weight (or even desire for adequate DOF!), so that larger formats would by limited much of the time to similar aperture sizes, and thus not much opportunity for speed gain.

In this case, you can not argue that Sony is not capable of making sensors larger than 2/3" format.


Aside: Any suggestions as to why all high end video cameras, including those from Canon, use interline CCD's rather than CMOS sensors?
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2006, 12:46:58 pm »

Quote
I can't understand why there's no movement in this direction, unless of course there's some conspiracy going on to protect the existing videocam market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
   the key word here is probably "understand". Might you entertain the idea that the HD video industry understands the technological issues better that you? (Likewise for the dominant industry-wide preference for formats smaller than 35mm, which you also seem to have trouble understanding.)

Perhaps this and many other dilemmas expressed in forum posts lie largely in the posters' inadequate knowledge and understanding, rather than the industry's collective incompetence. If so, the solution involves us putting more effort into seeking rational, technical/commercial reasons for why the digital imaging industry goes in the directions that it does.

P. S. I am still open to another kind of cynicism: that profit motives can sometimes lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of customers.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2006, 12:47:45 pm by BJL »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2006, 04:48:01 pm »

Ray,

    to be fair, there is at least one digital motion picture camera using a format larger than 2/3": the Panavision Genesis used for commercial motion picture making. It is in traditional 35mm format, but in the movie world, that means 23.62mm x 13.28mm. The output is "1920x1080" with each  of those roughly 2 million pixels getting its light from a 12µm square region, but each pixel comes from six photo-sites, arranged
RGB
RGB
with binning of output from each pair of photosites for the same color.  So each photosite is about 4µm x 6µm, with binning to effective 4µmx12µm. (Why do it this way, always binning? Maybe making one long thin 4x12 photosite for each color is more difficult.) So, no Bayer interpolation.

This camera is so expensive that it is only ever rented, not sold: Au$5,000/day for you at http://www.panavision.com.au/RentalCatalogue.htm
This is perhaps another hint as to why your idea of a video camera with 24x36mm sensor has not yet been adopted. And clearly it is not just sensor cost that dictates the extremely high overall cost of this camera, or of those $80,000 Sony video cameras with three tiny 2/3" CCD's.

By the way, the lenses for this format are generally less bright (higher minimum f-stops) than for 2/3" format professional video, but brighter overall than for 35mm still camera format: zooms as bright as 14.5-50 constant T2.2 (so minimum f-stop a bit faster than f/2.2), 17.5-75mm T2.3, and 135-420mm T2.8. This again emphasizes the trend that larger formats tend to use higher f-stops, and so do not in general achieve shutter speed gains in proportion to their ISO speed gains.
Logged

Bobtrips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 679
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2006, 05:02:26 pm »

Quote
Ray,

    to be fair, there is at least one digital motion picture camera using a format larger than 2/3": the Panavision Genesis used for commercial motion picture making. It is in traditional 35mm format, but in the movie world, that means 23.62mm x 13.28mm. The output is "1920x1080"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Changing topic a bit here...

The Genesis has a 2 meg capture and a 3 meg EVF?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2006, 05:36:43 pm »

Quote
As to why, I can only speculate:
1) a camera's high shutter speed/low light performance is, as you should well now by now, limited by maximum aperture size, not directly by pixel or sensor size.

BJL,
I can see there's a DoF disadvantage here, using a 5D with, say, the Canon 50/1.4 for video. The lens on the Canon HV-10 camcorder, for example, is f1.8, just half a stop less but with significantly greater DoF. However, if the choice is between dark and grainy footage with good DoF and clear and bright, noise-free footage with shallow DoF, I prefer the latter, especially considering that what's at a distance from the focussed subject in low light conditions (with inadequate electric lighting for example) is usually so dark that great DoF is irrelevant.

Quote
Using larger sensors and pixels with the same aperture size if anything makes things worse: the same amount of light gathered and delivered to the sensor and so the same signal (in photons) is available at each photosite, but there will probably be a bit more read-noise.

I think I mentioned once, after getting my first P&S camera, the tiny Sony T1, I did a comparison of that camera and my D60, increasing ISO on the D60 to correspond with the smaller apertures required for same DoF, keeping shutter speeds the same on both cameras.

The D60, despite being an earlier model of camera with noise levels at high ISOs hardly being better than underexposed images at base ISO, still produced better and cleaner images than the T1.

This is one type of comparison that reviewers of cameras never seem to make. Consequently the consumers is misled into thinking their small sensor P&S camera with great DoF at small f numbers, is ideal for low light shooting.

It appears to be the case, judging by my own experiments as well as the occasional report on the internet from other individuals who have made similar experiments, that there's no advantage for the small P&S in this respect. In fact, the reverse appears to be true, but of course one can't be sure to what extent the reverse is true because reviewers simply don't make the comparisons. It might well be the case that there is some P&S camera out there that does a better job at ISO 160 and f3.5 than the 5D at f11 and ISO 1600.

Quote
AS to dynamic range: at HD pixel counts like 1080x1920, pixel pitch on a 2/3" sensor is about 4.8 microns, and despite some wild exaggeration of DR needs in forums, this is large enough to give quite good dynamic range, way beyond what a straight print can display. For example, it is about the same pixel spacing as in the Kodak KAI-10100 4/3" interline CCD mentioned above and used in an astrophotography camera, and surely the astrophotography market cares about dynamic range.

There's no doubt that expensive broadcast quality video cameras (costing much, much more than a 5D) seem to have adequate dynamic range. It's the cheaper consumer grade camcorders that tend to suffer from blown highlights or grainy shadows. I'm not suggesting that a high end DSLR should take the place of all dedicated video cameras, but rather that the superior 'still image' capability of DSLRs could be downgraded (through binning) to provide very acceptable HD video, better in many respects than we are currently getting from camcorders such as the high definition Canon HV-10.
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #15 on: December 24, 2006, 11:10:32 am »

Quote
I'm not suggesting that a high end DSLR should take the place of all dedicated video cameras, but rather that the superior 'still image' capability of DSLRs could be downgraded (through binning) to provide very acceptable HD video, better in many respects than we are currently getting from camcorders such as the high definition Canon HV-10.

I wonder if that would be technically possible.  Are the internal electronics of still cameras and video cameras the same ?  In video, we are talking about refresh/storage cycles continually happening every 1/25th to 1/30th of a second.  That will be moving (and storing) a HUGE volume of data, while the sensor is continually running and potentially heating up.  If it is technically feasible, why has that not been done yet ?  I believe most high-end consumer camcorders have sensors in the 1MP range.  The 3CCD versions operate similarly to a FOVEON sensor I guess, just that there are 3 dedicated CCDs catering to the 3 color channels.

I think the R1 goes through some hoops to make the live-preview work and Sony makes it work by the CMOS sensor going into a low power mode (I guess CCDs consume a lot more power) to prevent the sensor heating up, or something along those lines.   The Olympus sensor, which is slightly smaller than the R1 sensor, also uses something similar. But in either of these situations, we don't have video capability.
Logged

aaykay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 359
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2006, 11:21:28 am »

Quote
Now that Sony has killed their superb fixed-lens R1, and no one else is producing such a large sensor fixed lens zoom, my hopes for someday upgrading to a 20+ MP R2 or R3 lie in ruins.  That's too bad, as the ultra short backfocus lens design has some real advantages over SLR lens mounts.  However that is not my primary reason for choosing the R1 over a dSLR.

I love my R1 too and use it extensively in situations that demand "stealth", where we can silently be shooting images, with the targets being absolutely unaware that their likeness is being captured and stored.  After they went into the dSLR business, I have zero hope that Sony will come out with an R2/R3 etc.  I believe the "killing" of the R1 was a deliberate business decision to remove the cannibalistic competition from within their fold, for their dSLR.

The only downsides to the R1 was a shallow buffer (thus compromising its continuous shooting ability, which is exacerbated by its large RAW files), slow (but accurate) focusing in low-light conditions and probably the lack of an optical viewfinder.  If you can work around the above limitations, it is truly a gem.....the only camera I carry around on a vacation !
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10475
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2006, 06:04:59 pm »

Quote
In video, we are talking about refresh/storage cycles continually happening every 1/25th to 1/30th of a second.  That will be moving (and storing) a HUGE volume of data, while the sensor is continually running and potentially heating up.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point. That sounds like a major technological obstacle and could be the reason why we don't get DSLRs with high quality video capability. Overcoming such a heating problem might add considerably to the cost of the camera.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2006, 03:11:25 pm »

Quote
The Genesis has a 2 meg capture and a 3 meg EVF?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The wonders of creative pixel counting: with LCDs and EVFs, usually each signal of each color is counted, so that the Genesis sensor would be 2MPx3=6MP. Indeed, Panavision describes the Genesis sensor as 12MP! I had to read a while to find out about the 2-1 binning.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
the one feature I want in a dSLR. . .
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2006, 05:36:04 pm »

Quote
... if the choice is between dark and grainy footage with good DoF and clear and bright, noise-free footage with shallow DoF, I prefer the latter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can only repeat my main point from above: rather than thinking in terms of what you would prefer, without having had any experience using such equipment or in professional video photography, I invite you to consider what a great number of people far more knowledgeable than you or I have chosen, and try to understand why. By the way, have you actually seen a lot of "dark and grainy footage" from professional video cameras?

Quote
I think I mentioned once, after getting my first P&S camera, the tiny Sony T1, I did a comparison of that camera and my D60 ... The D60, despite being an earlier model of camera with noise levels at high ISOs hardly being better than underexposed images at base ISO, still produced better and cleaner images than the T1.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are comparing products using very different technologies (Sony interline CCD vs Canon CMOS and in very different price ranges: too many variables to be able to attribute the results to photo-site size difference alone. Also, when pixel sizes get far smaller as with the 5MP 1/2.4" sensor of the Sony T1, they start to suffer from diminishing fill factor: a smaller fraction of the photo-site available for the electron well. Those 2MP 2/3" format video sensors have photo-sites about four times the area of the T1's sensor. What is more, newer fabrication technologies increase fill-factor at  a given pixel size: with under 2 micron interline CCD photo-sites now viable, the 4.7 microns of a 2MP 2/3" sensor is probably easy for Sony to get a good fill factor with. Especially with the high budget allowed by the $80,000 price of those video-cameras
Yet another point is that these are three CCD cameras, with no color filter arrays on the sensors, improving sensitivity.

Why not try comparing two sensors using similar technology from a similar era, like those of the Canon 20D, 1DsMkII and 1DMkII (or the Canon 5D, though that is a somewhat newer design.) Another interesting sensor to look at in this context is the Kodak KAI-10100, an interline CCD with about the same pixel size as those 2MP 2/3" format Sony video sensors.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up