Oh it's fair. Fuji spent a lot of time and effort on clever sensor
design with the Super CCD instead of cramming every possible photo-
diode into the smallest possible chip to compete purely on megapixel
numbers. At 1/1.7" the chip isn't that small - there's lots of
1/1.8"s out there. And it's a conventional pocket design at what,
$350? Consequently I recommend the F30/40 to many people who want a
point and shoot, especially if they have children or do parties.
So they went a different road and got a better result - how does that
become unfair? They can certainly charge a premium for it in the S5.
Shame they didn't keep the distinctive 'brick' design of the F10 though.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 10/04/2007, at 9:44 AM, Moose wrote:
> Quite unfair, really. I've no brief for Panny, but Oly and others
> are in
> the same boat. As I have pointed out recently, the F30 sensor has
> about
> 82% more surface area than the 1/2.x sensors used in most super-zooms.
> The TZ-2/3 use an odd size sensor, but the pixel pitch is obviously
> about the same as the 1/2.5" sensors. By the time you allow for Fuji's
> hexagonal layout and the fact that support circuitry per pixel doesn't
> get bigger with bigger sensor size, I'd guess Fuji is playing with at
> least twice the sensing area per pixel
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|