Why Not a 1 or 2 MP Bridge Camera?

[Nicks Pics]

I have a 16 mp bridge camera with a lens that's measured at 50x zoom, (1200 mm equiv)! It's large for a point and shoot, but much handier than a 400- 800 mm, let alone 1200mm lens would be for taking on a walk!
It's a pretty neat wildlife camera, but the reason it's not a fantastic camera is because if you don't have bright light, and good shooting conditions it produces tons of noise, (and also low DR, and limited colors etc.) because the pixels are tiny (1.7 qm2). So, after doing a lot of NR, re-sharpening etc. I often would downsize some of my wildlife photos from it to about 1000 or less pixels across for best presentation. If you think about it, though, a small percentage of pictures are displayed on the screen, uploaded to Flikr, posted on forums etc. or even used professionally on web sites at larger than 1000 pixels across (at 72 PPI), or maybe when just viewing on a home computer screen they are displayed at 2000 pxls or more. But according to my figuring, to get pictures this size, you would only need a 1 or 2 megapixel camera! If that was so, I figure that the pixels could be about the size that they are in my DSLR. This would give a 50x point and shoot, which is 659 grams in weight, the quality of a DSLR, (if given a good lens). And the photos would be as large as you would need for most uses, maybe not large prints, but at least for most digital display uses. I'm no camera engineer, but unless I'm just not understanding this correctly, I wonder why the camera manufacturers don't put this strategy to use to produce a pretty neat camera! A superzoom that matches DSLR with 1200 mm lens quality, under 695 grams in weight! Does that make sense to any of you?

[jcuknz]

Panasonic made a couple of models that seem to meet your Mp specifications ... about a decade ago they made the FZ2 [2Mp] and FZ3 [3Mp ] I bought an FZ3 for my wife when I foresoke Nikon's 5700 for the 5Mp FZ20 ... simply for the constant f/2.8 lens and x12 zoom out to 432mm equivalent [ the Nikon is only 280 ]. She still uses it while I have a couple of FZ50 [ 10Mp ] which rarely get used now with MFT. It is possible to add a Raynox 2020 or 2025 which gives you 950mm equivalent at a very useful f/4 ... [DSLR users eat your heart out ]

It is ironical that these days I am quite happy with 28-280 equiv. on my MFT and a TCON which takes it out to just under 500mm but at f/10

But for the small sensor I would still be happy with a bridge camera except the MFT permits up to 12800 ISO and quite reasonable, without noise reduction carry-ons, monitor sized images at 6400 ISO. Though I'm not sure if that applies with my new 23" monitor

Also while the numbers sound impressive really the difference in Angle of View between 800 and 1200 is usually hardly worth bothering about ... why I ignored the FZ100/FZ150 as I already had 950 and only the FZ200 when they returned to a constant f/2.8 would have tempted me except I had MFT by then

Also perhaps ironical is that R&D went into the tromboning super-zoom instead of increasing the sensor size to permit high ISO, another reason I didn't change as the FZ30 and FZ50 have internal focusing/zooming design instead of tromboning so facilitate tele-adaptors. But R&D goes where they think the market is and larger sensors get poor shift. The professional/advanced amateur is so small it is not worth bothering about.

Another soapbox beef on my part is the design parameter of going for a wide angle lens ... wasting potential reach by starting at 25 instead of 35 ... designed for folk who "want to get it all in"

[Manfred M]

The main reason that you don't see a camera like the one you are referring to is that it won't sell. This would be a consumer class product and camera manufacturers know that given the same price, people are likely to choose the one with higher MP and are likely to pay a premium for it.

The cost to produce a 1 or 2 MP camera is not going to be all that different from a 12MP or 18MP camera, because the only component that might be cheaper to produce would be the sensor; and even that is arguable. Sensor size (the number of pieces that can be produced on a single wafer of silicon) is the most important contributing factor when it comes the component cost. The cost difference between a 1 or 2 MP sensor and a 12 or 18MP sensor would be negligible. The other components, from the housing, lens, controls, image processor, etc. are going to be more or less the same, as the main cost driver is going to be the features that are offered and the actual cost of assembling the camera. Same number of parts = roughly the same manufactuirng costs.

The other issue is that is operation of the camera. I have enough trouble hand holding a 500mm lens on a crop frame DSLR camera. Doing so on a superzoom means a lot of missed shots, given the shutter lag, low aperture and very narrow field of view you get with a 1200mm lens. Tripod anyone?

So, if you want to post to the internet or view on a computer screen, you are looking at a 2k screen, so a 2MP would be fine. Computer displays are moving to 4k, so to be future proof, then a 4MP camera is probably a more realistic minimum spec. Just don't ever think about producing a decent, large print. HP and Canon printers have a native resolution of 300 dpi and Epson is at 360dpi. My 36MP D800's output has to be upsampled when I do a maximum size print on my Epson 3880 printer (17" x 22"). So to produce a consumer camera that is going to produce marginal prints (on those rare occasion someone is planning to print an image) is not going to sell either.

Bottom line is that is has nothing to do with engineering or manufacturing the camera you are suggestion, the market for one will be tiny, so it isn't worth anyone's effort to try to bring one to market.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for the responses guys



Perhaps the general public would THINK a high MP camera is better, but, whereas you suggested there would be a very narrow market for it, I'm suggesting that way most people would actually be doing much better with a 1-2 mp superzoom than the 12-16-20 and so on, that they do use, because the great majority of pictures people take are only viewed at 500-2000 or so, pixels. And then with the pixels that much larger, the pictures you get would be so much better. It would only be a limited market because of ignorance, (i.e. the only people who would buy it are the few who had the sense to do it )

As for cost of production of this hypothetical camera, I would expect to to be about the same as other superzooms, though if it were given better glass to make it really DSLR comparable, it could be more expensive.

The other issue is that is operation of the camera. I have enough trouble hand holding a 500mm lens on a crop frame DSLR camera. Doing so on a superzoom means a lot of missed shots, given the shutter lag, low aperture and very narrow field of view you get with a 1200mm lens. Tripod anyone?

As for lens length, it doesn't really matter, it could be a 800 mm equiv lens instead, but whatever it was, it would only be that much easier to use at greater focal lengths because it is a fraction of the weight of a DSLR and telephoto lens.

Yes, because of the increase in resolution in prints over computer screens, it wouldn't be a great camera for large prints, but very few images, relatively, are ever printed. Computer screens increasing in pixels is something to consider, would they stay at 72 ppi?

Anyway, I was just working with some of my images from my 16 mp 50x zoom, and it occurred to me that, especially since many of the images from it aren't best viewed above 1 or 2000 pixels (on screen) anyway, my camera probably would have been a lot better as a 2 mp camera. I might be tempted by such a camera if they ever get sensible enough to make it.

[pnodrog]

I agree with Manfred. A 4MP is a good practical target size for presentation. Perhaps 6 or 8MP if you allow for a bit of cropping or mild electronic zoom. The resultant increased size of the pixels should improve ISO performance, lower noise and increase dynamic range.

It would need to have stunning video performance as well to get any sustainable market size. The choice for a worthwhile support camera for my DSLR has grown amazingly in the last few years. The camera you proposed (with Manfred's enhancements) would certainly end up on my rather long short list.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps the general public would THINK a high MP camera is better, but, whereas you suggested there would be a very narrow market for it

No., I'm suggesting the exact opposite. More MP is better, to a limit because, when coupled to a good photographer and good glass, you are not limited to JUST viewing on a computer. In my view, the print is still the ultimate photographic product. The screen is really a poor substitute. I shoot pretty well 100% of my work so that it could be made into a large print.

I'm suggesting that way most people would actually be doing much better with a 1-2 mp superzoom than the 12-16-20 and so on, that they do use, because the great majority of pictures people take are only viewed at 500-2000 or so, pixels. And then with the pixels that much larger, the pictures you get would be so much better. It would only be a limited market because of ignorance, (i.e. the only people who would buy it are the few who had the sense to do it )

Again, no because it would limit your flexibility to get better images that could be viewed other than on a computer screen. Some of the low light performance is already simply amazing with some of the newer 18-36MP products.

Very few people would likely be interested in buying a camera, as the low end is already well covered by camera phones.

As for cost of production of this hypothetical camera, I would expect to to be about the same as other superzooms, though if it were given better glass to make it really DSLR comparable, it could be more expensive.

It would need a larger sensor before you gave it better lenses. The small 1/2.3" sensors are already at their resolution limits, a larger sensor first, then better glass. That being said, designing a high quality superzoom lens would be very difficult because the one reason superzooms work is that they use relatively low apertures. Fast glass is required in long lenses to give you fast shutter speeds.

Personally, I think superzooms have gone the wrong way; I would prefer to see wider angle before they make longer zooms. Wide angle glass that is good on a small lens used in superzooms requires more lens elements, hence but long zooms don't; again it is easier to sell 50x when it starts at 30mm FF equivilent than comming up with a 50x that starts at 15mm FF equivilent.

As for lens length, it doesn't really matter, it could be a 800 mm equiv lens instead, but whatever it was, it would only be that much easier to use at greater focal lengths because it is a fraction of the weight of a DSLR and telephoto lens.

I wish it were that easy. If you want quality glass on a larger sensor super zoom, the lens would start resembling the lenses you find on a crop sensor camera and the cost and weight would go up significantly. You might wish to change the laws of physics, but lens designers are stuck dealing with them when they design lenses.

The other problem is that while a lighter camera with a long lens may be easier to carry, it is harder to hold steady. So even with image stabilization, a light camera would be too difficult to hold for those long focal lengths. Take a look at DSLR shooters with long lenses; they are on gimbaled tripods or monopods. It's not the weight that is the issue, it's that framing the subject is difficult to handhold. The fact that the tripod carrys the weight is really more of a bonus.

Yes, because of the increase in resolution in prints over computer screens, it wouldn't be a great camera for large prints, but very few images, relatively, are ever printed. Computer screens increasing in pixels is something to consider, would they stay at 72 ppi?

They haven't been at 72 ppi dsiplays in a long time; that comes from the old CRT (i.e. picture tube) days. Depending on your screen size, the pixel density is already way higher, even on low end screens. A cheap 20" screen (diagonal) would have a horizontal dimension of around 14". If it is a 1920 x 1080 display then 1920/14=131ppi.

Go to a 4k display, that 131 ppi would roughly double to 262; you're starting to get into close to printer quality pixel density.

One could ask why so many people buy pickup trucks, but only use them to haul lumber once a year, or buy a sports car to drive in stop and go traffic and only get out to windy roads for a few days a year. Generally products are purchased based on a fairly minor "need", rather than the day to day stuff. Same with cameras. I can take 95% of the images I shoot with a cheap camera, but the other 5% (in my case more), I do need something that works well in sub-optimal shooting conditions.

Anyway, I was just working with some of my images from my 16 mp 50x zoom, and it occurred to me that, especially since many of the images from it aren't best viewed above 1 or 2000 pixels (on screen) anyway, my camera probably would have been a lot better as a 2 mp camera. I might be tempted by such a camera if they ever get sensible enough to make it.

They wouldn't make one because the market that would be interested in buying one for a reasonable price would be too small to justify the R&D to develop the camera and tooling to produce one. The camera manufacturers do a lot of research on what the buying public wants and needs.

Believe me, if they thought there was a decent market out there that they could make enough money on, the camera would be out there. The fact that it isn't should tell you that there isn't enough of a demand for that kind of camera. No sensible manufacturer would develop a product for a non-existent market.

[jcuknz]

Reducing weight is one of the problems of the digital camera ... I have a GH2 with the Lumix 014140 and it is a 'nice weight' similar I guess/imagine/ remember that my SLR was. But weight except for having to carry it is usually an advantage in hand holding which most people do these days thanks to stabilisation.

[chauncey]

More MP is better, to a limit because, when coupled to a good photographer and good glass, you are not limited to JUST viewing on a computer. In my view, the print is still the ultimate photographic product

Gotta agree here. Economics aside and assuming equal generational equipment and, photographer's skill,
a higher MP camera will always cough out a superior image. Downsizing that 36 MP image to that of a
22 MP size will result in a better image IQ in the resulting print. Consider those folks that use MF cameras.

Taking my work as an example, shooting with a 180 macro lens enables me to get close to my subject
and, utilizing PS, merge numerous images into a larger than normal print. Were I to move further away
from my subject, to the same field of view, that image lacks the quality of the larger, merged image.

Granted that, I'm basing this solely on my monitor display as I have not personally done a print comparison.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Nick,

As a (mostly past) bridge camera shooter, I have to say - I do see some logic in what you're suggesting Nick - mainly because like you, I really only shoot for web display.

However, I believe it ought to be about 5 or 6MP, to allow for some cropping and downsizing in PP - which I think would almost double the size of the pixels, compared to a 16MP bridge camera. (I can't be bothered to do the maths, or research relative pixel pitchs, but as a 'rule of thumb', I think it needs to be a quarter of the MP figure to double the linear pixel dimensions, which is probably necessary to give any real benefit in Dynamic Range and Noise performance)

Another feature it should have is a constant aperture zoom lens, so you're not forced to use higher iso, or drop shutter speed, to maintain exposure as you zoom in. Yes; I know several Panasonics have this feature, but I've never owned one. Ideally the zoom should be manually controlled too, not electric driven.

The final feature it should have is a decent AF system - my Nikon P510 is spoilt by a rubbish and slow AF system.

Oh - and of course it ought to shoot RAW and have a big, fast buffer (easier with less MP)

Do I think it will be made?
No, for many of the valid reasons others have stated above - although in some posts, people seem to have suggested using larger sensors, your point was to keep the sensor the size it is (in a bridge camera), which means the lens stays relatively compact (and cheaper), compared to FF/DX - less so against M4/3 and Nikon 1, etc.

Anyway, they be my thoughts, for what they're worth
I do not expect anyone to agree with me

[Nicks Pics]

No., I'm suggesting the exact opposite. More MP is better, to a limit because, when coupled to a good photographer and good glass, you are not limited to JUST viewing on a computer. In my view, the print is still the ultimate photographic product. The screen is really a poor substitute. I shoot pretty well 100% of my work so that it could be made into a large print.

In my original post I said a superzoom with few megapixels would not be great for producing prints, because it's images would need to be upsampled, but then, my 16 mp camera isn't great for large prints anyway, and many of the images don't look good on screen at larger size than 1 or 2000 mp anyway, beause the quality and noise are not good. If the 1/2.3" sensor had only 1-4 megapixels to start with, the pixels could be significantly larger, and quality of those small pictures would be much better, have lower noise, better DR, better color depth etc, and the sensor would perform much better at high ISO. That's the basic idea I was suggesting, NOT that superzooms should be used for printing, or that they would always be better than DSLRs. My point is that as most photos aren't used for print these days, but for web or digital display, why not take advantage of the non-necessity to pack a lot of pixels in a tiny sensor?

In regard to lenses, the original point wasn't about lenses anyway, only saying that if you had a superzoom with a great sensor, (something they don't have now) then putting improved glass in the lenses would make their IQ closer to DSLR.
BTW, personally I would rather have a superzoom with an 800-1000mm equiv. lens, than a 1200mm equiv. You could only put a better 800mm lens on a 1/2.3" inch sensor than a 1200mm lens, not worse. However, that's irrelevant to the point. They do make a variety of lens lengths already.

I have a 1920 x 1200 monitor, bought last year, so a 2000 mp photo is about all you need for viewing on screen, web use is almost always even smaller, but considering that screen resolution might go up in the future, and it's nice to be able to crop a little, maybe a 3 or 4 mp camera would be better, as has been suggested, but that IMO would be a lot better than a 16-20 mp 1/2 or 1/2.3" sensor.

It would need to have stunning video performance as well to get any sustainable market size.

2000 x 2000 = 4,000,000, so that would mean that a 4 mp sensor could produce 1920 x 1800 video, if I'm figuring that right. Most current superzooms do offer advanced video options.

Hi Nick,

As a (mostly past) bridge camera shooter, I have to say - I do see some logic in what you're suggesting Nick - mainly because like you, I really only shoot for web display.

However, I believe it ought to be about 5 or 6MP, to allow for some cropping and downsizing in PP - which I think would almost double the size of the pixels, compared to a 16MP bridge camera. (I can't be bothered to do the maths, or research relative pixel pitchs, but as a 'rule of thumb', I think it needs to be a quarter of the MP figure to double the linear pixel dimensions, which is probably necessary to give any real benefit in Dynamic Range and Noise performance)

Another feature it should have is a constant aperture zoom lens, so you're not forced to use higher iso, or drop shutter speed, to maintain exposure as you zoom in. Yes; I know several Panasonics have this feature, but I've never owned one. Ideally the zoom should be manually controlled too, not electric driven.

The final feature it should have is a decent AF system - my Nikon P510 is spoilt by a rubbish and slow AF system.

Oh - and of course it ought to shoot RAW and have a big, fast buffer (easier with less MP)

Do I think it will be made?
No, for many of the valid reasons others have stated above - although in some posts, people seem to have suggested using larger sensors, your point was to keep the sensor the size it is (in a bridge camera), which means the lens stays relatively compact (and cheaper), compared to FF/DX - less so against M4/3 and Nikon 1, etc.

Anyway, they be my thoughts, for what they're worth
I do not expect anyone to agree with me

I agree with your points Dave, with a few upgrades, (which might increase cost) such as bigger buffer, and other things you mentioned, and with imprived low MP sensors, superzooms could be a lot better than they are. I don't know if manufacturers would go that way with them or not, some, like Fuji, and panasonic are getting innovative with superzooms, since they don't have a big share in the DSLR market.

[JR1]

Why not a 1-2Mp camera, for the same reason we no longer rely on steam trains, horse and cart

[Nicks Pics]

Why not a 1-2Mp camera, for the same reason we no longer rely on steam trains, horse and cart

Not sure I know what your point is, please keep in mind that we're talking about superzoom cameras in this thread, and using photos for digital, (screen and Web) display mostly.

[JR1]

Not sure I know what your point is, please keep in mind that we're talking about superzoom cameras in this thread, and using photos for digital, (screen and Web) display mostly.

The point is clear, people want innovation and better and better so why think of going back in time to 1mp, the majority of cameras state in the manual how to reduce pixel count, Nikon L/M/S

[Nicks Pics]

The point is clear, people want innovation and better and better so why think of going back in time to 1mp, the majority of cameras state in the manual how to reduce pixel count, Nikon L/M/S

After discussing it, I change my suggestion to say, 4 mp, for a superzoom sensor. When you say

The point is clear, people want innovation and better and better so why think of going back in time to 1mp, the majority of cameras state in the manual how to reduce pixel count, Nikon L/M/S

are you aware that if, rather than shooting at say, 16 mp, then chucking most of the pixels when you downsample the image for web/screen display, or directly at Jpeg recording in-camera, image quality would be better if there were just fewer pixels to start with? That's because fewer pixels on the same sensor = larger pixels, larger pixels = better capabilities of capturing more light which improves IQ in a number of ways, including less noise, better dynamic range, and colors. That's what I've learned anyway, and it makes sense to me.

[xpatUSA]

By co-incidence, today I dug out my 1.5MP Foveon-powered Polaroid x530. Not the finest camera on the planet and, no, not a bridge camera by any means. But it creates passable 1420x1060px images and can save as RAW (X3F). For example, today's masterpiece, posted at 100% with no cropping:



No wires comments please. This is Texas, dammit

[Nicks Pics]

Tedd, how old is this camera? The quality is not impressive, I think sensor technology has probably improved since then.

[mrinmoyvk]

Camera with the specifications that you mentioned is not readily available because a photographer like you understands the importance of pixel size over number of pixels but a common man (most segment with buys P&S) don't know this. People buy mobile phones with 13, 20, 42 mega pixels thinking that image quality will improve. I have seen many people zooming digitally on mobile phones.
So the reason is it simply wont sell.

[Nicks Pics]

Camera with the specifications that you mentioned is not readily available because a photographer like you understands the importance of pixel size over number of pixels but a common man (most segment with buys P&S) don't know this. People buy mobile phones with 13, 20, 42 mega pixels thinking that image quality will improve. I have seen many people zooming digitally on mobile phones.
So the reason is it simply wont sell.

Maybe that's why; however, with the fact being so obvious inside the photography world, (at least it didn't take long before I heard about it) you would think most people would be catching soon within the P&S market. We'll see!

[Manfred M]

Maybe that's why; however, with the fact being so obvious inside the photography world, (at least it didn't take long before I heard about it) you would think most people would be catching soon within the P&S market. We'll see!

Most serious photographers actually look at the print as the ultimate output of their work. I'd much rather have an image to downsample when I decide to not print it, instead of being stuck with an image I can only display online.

If you start suggesting that 10MP is enough, you might find me agreeing with you, but only if you stick with a sensor that is larger than one found on most superzoom cameras so that I can work with shallow DoF. Of course, then I would want a lens that is good enough to take advantage of this.

[Nicks Pics]

Most serious photographers actually look at the print as the ultimate output of their work. I'd much rather have an image to downsample when I decide to not print it, instead of being stuck with an image I can only display online.

If you start suggesting that 10MP is enough, you might find me agreeing with you, but only if you stick with a sensor that is larger than one found on most superzoom cameras so that I can work with shallow DoF. Of course, then I would want a lens that is good enough to take advantage of this.

Manfred, I take it you are an advanced photographer, and probably?? don't have a superzoom. I really wouldn't suggest that photographers should exchange their DSLRs for a superzoom, even if it did have fewer, larger megapixels, but, assuming point and shoot cameras aren't usually used when big art prints are the goal, but mostly for use in sharing on the computer, or small prints, I am suggesting that lower MP cameras would be better, because point and shoots always do have small sensors, with 12-20 + MPs, their images are usually just downsized for their screen anyway.