Not trying to debate. While I want a FF DSLR and I believe they will become the norm for high end offerings, there's a compact P&S Fuji, model the F31fd, 6MP, that goes to Adams's point more or less. The reviews and tests blow away the competitition in it's class and above, image-quality wise:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/page17.asp Fuji really missed the mark with it by not having other features. It's sub $300. I'd be buying it for my wife and son except that it lacks a viewfinder for my wife, and lacks anti-shake for my son (plus I'd like him to have a wider zoom range). Excerpts from the review: But let's not forget, the FinePix F31fd offers a tantalizing glimpse of how very different compact cameras would be if all manufacturers put as much effort into developing sensor and processing technology as they do into designing and marketing pretty cameras with features no one ever asked for. Our tests show that the F31fd's sensor gives you at least a two-stop advantage over the best that conventional CCD technology can offer, and in many cases a three-stop advantage, with ISO 800 output that can rival some cameras at ISO 200. Given that most 'average' casual snap shooters are likely to use their camera at (dimly lit) social occasions more than at any other time, this is a real, significant advantage; allowing flash-free photography without blur. More serious photographers will welcome a camera that brings the low light capabilities of a compact a step or two closer to those of most digital SLRs. Of course the Super CCD chip isn't magic; it's a bit bigger than the average CCD, and the pixel arrangement is such that more of the surface area is used to gather light - so it is more sensitive, but there's a limit to what you can do with a chip this small. At ISO 800 you're beginning to lose low contrast detail to noise reduction, and ISO 1600 / 3200 - though better than any CCD camera by a long stretch - are hardly what a serious user would call 'photo quality'. These settings are fine for snapping your friends in the pub, where fine detail isn't too important, or for producing small prints, but they are really pushing the capabilities of the sensor a little too far. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the F31fd blows away all its competitors at anything over ISO 200, which is no mean feat. Tom C. >From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ? >Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:24:09 -0400 > >Bob Blakely wrote: > >>From my point of view... > > > > Only so many photons are captured by a sensor element (pixel, if you >will) > > of a given size and that to a certain efficiency. There is an upper >limit. > > Further, everything that has a temperature generates noise in proportion >to > > that temperature. There is a lower limit. > > > > The upper limit can only be expanded by increasing the element size to > > capture more photons per element. Maintaining the effective resolution >then > > means increasing the overall sensor size (to full frame?) The lower >limit > > can only be pushed further down by operating the sensor at a lower > > temperature. Currently, the K10D shows noise beginning on the side where > > most of the hotter the electronics is located. Red pixels light up >first, > > then green, then blue. Noise temperature can be further reduced by >active > > cooling. I suspect that this is not likely to happen with digital >cameras > > any time soon, sensors for astrophotography and other scientific >purposes > > excepted. Everybody knows this, and ultimately the larger sensors will > > prevail. When this happens, lenses with APS size image circles will >become > > as useless, practically speaking, as 8 tracks. > > > > Have you noticed that the upper ISO limits for digital sensors and film >are > > about the same, 1600 and sometimes 3200? Tere is a reason for this and > > ultimately it is the physics of noise that produce thes limits. > > > > Noise power, N = k*T*B*Nf, where: > > > > k = Boltzmann's constant; > > T = Absolute temperature; > > B = Noise Bandwidth of the sensor or film; > > Nf = Noise figure, a measure of sensor efficiency. > > > > Bottom line... there are rules and nature enforces them. > > > > So... where's my effecient full frame sensor? > > > > Regards, > > Bob... > >In the Nikon D3. Improvements in fill factor (reducing the wasted space >between sensor sites) have significantly increased sensor performance by >increasing the effective area of the sensor sites by a fair margin. The >current crop oof 10/12MP APS-C sensors are capable of ISO6400 with >quality superior to the old ones at 1600-3200, and can match a 5D at >1600-3200. The D3, which is unique in being a low-density sensor with >the new sensor tech, is capable of natve ISO 6400 (the cropped bodies >achieve it in Boost) and boost up to ISO 25,600. From the posted samples >6400 on the D3 looks as good as 1600 on the similar-density 5D did, with >similar amounts of detail. > >-Adam > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
