Sony Shoots For 4-Filter CCD, 8 Megapixel Camera

Artifex writes "If you're looking to spend about $1200 on a new digital camera, check out this Digital Photography Review look at Sony's upcoming 8 MegaPixel Cyber-shot DSC-F828. The most interesting thing isn't the number of pixels in this prosumer-grade camera, but its 4-color filter CCD system. ['Instead of the traditional RGB color filter array, the new CFA is made up of Red, Green, Blue and Emerald (like Cyan) color filters.'] I've always been a strict Canon fan, but this is making me think twice."

Comments

Forget it

[furiousgeorge]

http://www.foveon.com

'nuff said.

Color filters and staggered pixels? Ringing, moire patterns and color bleeding. No thank you.

Now that there is a proper color CCD technology, why is anybody using the old system (at least, on a $1200 'professional' camera).

j

Re:Forget it

[SheldonYoung]

No, not 'nuff said. The tradeoff with the Foveon sensor is the stacked detectors for each color component create much more noise in the bottom component. In the end it will mostly come down to which sensor type can be produced more practically.

It's still CCD....

[Atilla]

CCD is getting kind of old... And the quality is not even close to the CMOS type pickups. A CCD camera has to correct the image using its software before it actually becomes half-ass tolerable, and you still end up with some artifacts when photographing certain textures.

Yes, CMOS cameras are a lot more expensive, but image quality is IMHO better than 35mm film.

Take Canon's EOS DS-1.. Take a look at some of the sample pictures - they are amazing.
http://www.canoneos.com

Re:It's still CCD....

[hungfarlow]

"The advantage of CMOS sensors is that it can produce a larger sensor with fewer defects. " - actually no. In general CCDs can be a simpler technology using fewer mask levels. The manufacturing benefit of CMOS was supposed to be because you could make them using a standard CMOS process and gain economy of scale. This is not currently entirely true. A custom CMOS sensor is required for good performing CMOS sensors. "You can also pack the sensors more densly, though there is more "gap" between the individual sensors ..." - not currently and maybe never. Consumer CCDs are 3.3 micron squre pixels, CMOS struggles to get belo 5 micron using 0.18 micron design rules. ' The first paragraph on the software and microlenses was right on!

Re:It is a single CCD!

[pbox]

Well if you somehow manage to fabricate the 2.7 micrometer pixel pitch filter array, and also manage to remove the currently mounted one, and replace it with this custom-made of yours.

Well, good luck..

the best thing is...

[BobTheLawyer]

...that Sony have finally conceded that "Memory Sticks" are a hopeless piece of proprietary crap and have included a Compact Flash slot.

Re:What is 35mm equal to?

[buckeyeguy]

Lost in the comparison between film and digital is the issue of dynamic range... I have been told by photographers that, at best, digital is close to where slide film is at (~5 stops) while print film's dynamic range is 6-7 stops. Resolution won't matter much if you're losing detail in the highlights and shadows.

Re:What is 35mm equal to?

[jovlinger]

Just to amplify parent:

Depends on film. The pixels in film are the light grains, and are bigger the faster (more light sensitive) the film is. Better films will have smaller grains for any given speed.

Then you start comparing to medium format cameras (think fashion fotographer peering down into camera infront of chest), and digital falls even further behind.

OT comment: Digital is better than film for 90% of the population. The key is that people take a whole lot more pictures with digital cameras, thus taking pictures they never would with a film camera, and any picture you take is MUCH better than the picture you didn't. And, the more pictures you take, the higher your chances of snapping a gem by sheer luck (I know skill plays no part in my photography).

I've taken several pictures with a digital camera where I was bummed there wasn't more cropping availible, but I would never have taken the pictures at all if I had to lug an SLR or 35 mm "compact" (compared to digital compacts, that's a bit of a joke) along with me.

Nope, you are wrong...

[gregorio]

(...) CCD is getting kind of old... And the quality is not even close to the CMOS type pickups. (...) Yes, CMOS cameras are a lot more expensive (...)

I'm sorry, but CMOS cameras cost less than CCD cameras and the technology is inferior.

From What is the difference between CCD and CMOS image sensors in a digital camera?:

CCD sensors, as mentioned above, create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise.
Because each pixel on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower. Many of the photons hitting the chip hit the transistors instead of the photodiode.
CMOS chips can be fabricated on just about any standard silicon production line, so they tend to be extremely inexpensive compared to CCD sensors.

Re:What is 35mm equal to?

[rgmoore]

The key is that people take a whole lot more pictures with digital cameras, thus taking pictures they never would with a film camera, and any picture you take is MUCH better than the picture you didn't. And, the more pictures you take, the higher your chances of snapping a gem by sheer luck (I know skill plays no part in my photography).

There's probably also a matter of practice. The more often you take pictures, the more you develop the skills needed to do a good job of it. If you only break out the camera once a year at Christmas, the chances are that you will have forgotten just about everything that your last batch of photos would have taught you about photography. But if you get in the habit of taking pictures all the time, you're much more likely to be able to learn from your mistakes (and successes) the next time.

Digitals also have the huge advantage of instant feedback. You can tell right away if you got the picture that you want, and you can try again if you didn't. There are few things more annoying than discovering that the "perfect" picture that you thought you took actually had some flaw in it when it's too late to try again. That's much less of a problem with a digital.

Re:What is 35mm equal to?

[adrianbaugh]

Mmm, I can see how that would be convenient for me to carry up mountains an' stuff. I'll just stick with my bombproof Canon weatherproof compact and my EOS-10, and Velvia. Ah well, horses for courses as they say. That's the nice thing about photography; there /is/ no perfect one-size-fits-all supercamera, as well as the skill of taking decent pictures, which can be learnt with pretty much any old cheapo camera with manual settings, there's the skill of selecting the equipment that'll get the job done most easily (and affordably...)

Selective Focus

[phliar]

So the thing that interested me most about this Sony was it's Carl Zeiss lens 28 - 200 mm equiv. F2.0 - F2.8 aperture.

Zeiss is famous for quality, and 105 mm lens, at f 2.8 is a beautiful combination for selective focus portraits.

Only problem is that background blur (a.k.a. bokeh ) depends on the sensor size. This camera has a minuscule 8.8mm x 6.6mm sensor, compared with the 36mm x 24mm image you get from 35mm. My favourite portrait lens is my EF 100/2.0 USM which is beautiful with 35mm film. However my G1 (digital) at the 35mm equivalent of 105mm and f/2.8 is totally disappointing, at least for background blur.