Sharp unveils 8.28-megapixel 1/2.5-inch CCD sensor

Although Sharp has already busted out 10- and 12-megapixel sensors for ultracompacts, the firm is toning it down a bit and making things even more compact with its latest 8.28-megapixel 1/2.5-inch CCD rendition. The company achieved the resolution "using the 1.75 μm x 1.75 μm pixel cell, which is claimed as is the industry's smallest class," and comes in at 60-percent of the volume of Sharp's previous model. Presumably hoping to cram these things into wafer-thin cameras of the future, it plans to start shipping the 10- x 10- x 3.5-millimeter sample packages later next week, while volume production of the ¥4,000 ($33) sensors are scheduled for April.

[Evan @ Jan 21st 2007 11:08AM]

And this is supposed to be a good thing?

Smaller cells collect fewer photons, so they are less sensitive. They can compensate by using longer exposure times (blurrier images) or higher gain (worst signal-to-noise ratio). In general, a similiar sized sensor with fewer, but larger, cells will take photographs that are superior in every aspect except raw resolution.

It's unfortunate that camera makers use "megapixels" to hype their products to consumers, and try to pack in more and more pixels even though the image quality suffers.

[David @ Jan 21st 2007 11:46AM]

[sigh] Will no one ever understand that megapixels don't matter?

[mike @ Jan 21st 2007 11:30AM]

Agree with Evan.

When will they finally start with larger, lower-resolution, lower-noise, higher dynamic range sensors? When they do, I'm buying.

I love my D200, but I want high quality PS sensors too.

[Rajiv Kotecha @ Jan 21st 2007 5:28PM]

I definetely agree. Once you get past approx 5/6 Mp it doesn't really make a difference; and in the case of these small high Mp cameras, just creates massive files with crappy quality.

[Toulouse Le-Plot @ Jan 21st 2007 2:38PM]

what does 1/2.5 inch mean?

[CM @ Jan 21st 2007 2:56PM]

Well, it appears that 1/2.5 inch means "1 divided by 2.5 inch" which translates to "0.4 inch" or "10 mm". In addition, this measurement looks to be the size of the entire package, and not the sensor itself, which is smaller than the package. The width of the sensor appears to be less than 8 mm.

Unless you're designed the PCB (printed circuit board) for this device, I don't know why they state the package size as opposed to the actual sensor size.

[taka @ Jan 21st 2007 1:41PM]

megapixels do matter when printing big pics tho, cuz if you print out a 5 megapixel, 16x20 or 20x24 weven w/ the best quality itll be pwnd by a mediocre 8 or 10 megapixel

who even needs 20x24 pictures anyway...

[idunno @ Jan 21st 2007 2:57PM]

To Evan,

I really don't know anything about Cameras but I have a hard time believing that the amount of photons the sensor picks up makes any difference. Photons are quite small and I don't think the sensors are capable of differentiating between each individual photon.

A link to your source would be nice...

[Jan @ Jan 22nd 2007 1:18AM]

8 megapixels + small size = noise at ISO 100....

[Steven C @ Jan 21st 2007 3:25PM]

To idunno,


It's simple principles of Digital Photography/Imaging my man........It the first thing you learn when you start to read about how a CCD sensor actually works or when your DigiPhoto Professor starts class.

Yes the photons are small......but size ISNT everything especially when it comes to Photography.

[Jonny @ Jan 21st 2007 4:47PM]

It's amazing the ignorant comments here. The size of the sensor (CMOS or CCD) matters more than megapixels. I've seen images from the first mainstream digital Canon D30 (3mp) that were far and above anything these little barbie-cameras sporting 10mp. You can have a camera with lots of megapixels but the noise level with these cameras are crazy when the sensors get that small. No, a 5mp SLR camera wouldn't get pwned by a 10mp pointandshoot.

So, go ahead and believe the marketing hype. I have a high-mp pointandshoot and a 8mp digital SLR and for times when quality counts, I'll take my SLR any time. For pics of the kids on the go, I leave my SLR at home. Each has its place.

[Eric @ Jan 21st 2007 6:46PM]

Why 1/2.5 inch!!! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD keep up with units of measurments. I see inches then milimeters then micro meters. 1/2.5 inch IS 1 cm or 10mm damnit! Sorry the english measurment system just pisses me off. I hope people stop completely using that stupid measurement system very soon!

[oj @ Jan 21st 2007 5:58PM]

whats wrong with them cant they use whole fractions. is it realy hard to say 2/5ths

[wasp @ Jan 22nd 2007 12:24AM]

Yes, is it so hard to say 1 centimeter? Or you just cannot imagine what is it's length?

[CM @ Jan 22nd 2007 3:11AM]

Thinking about this measurement issue a bit more, I know that there are 1/2 inch, 1/3 inch, 1/4 inch, etc. CMOS sensors that are commonly used. I guess some idiot just wanted to stick with the "1/n inch" system of measurement. It looks really stupid when "n" isn't an integer.

And in answer to my own question regarding why they state a measurement that's larger than the sensor's width, it's because the measurement refers to the sensor's diagonal dimension (just like TVs).

[TIMMAH! @ Jan 22nd 2007 6:27PM]

"It's amazing the ignorant comments here. The size of the sensor (CMOS or CCD) matters more than megapixels. I've seen images from the first mainstream digital Canon D30 (3mp) that were far and above anything these little barbie-cameras sporting 10mp. You can have a camera with lots of megapixels but the noise level with these cameras are crazy when the sensors get that small. No, a 5mp SLR camera wouldn't get pwned by a 10mp pointandshoot."

You really don't even need to compare it to barbie-cameras. A prime example is the Nikon Coolpix 8700 vs 5400. The 8700 crammed 8mp in the same sensor area as the 5400's 5mp. The noise levels on the 8700 made pictures at anything above 100 ASA total crap as compared to the equivalent picture taken with the 5400. I think it's a conspiracy between the hard drive, computer, photo software, and camera manufacturers...

[kombizz @ Jan 29th 2007 12:21PM]

I stick with my film camera and do not touch them till they improve in lower-noise with higher dynamic range sensors.
Then when the price is right, I would buy.

[CelestialMinion @ Feb 4th 2007 12:37PM]

Yeah, I think when I get the money I'm going to get a Cannon EOS Digital Rebel XT.
I have a Kodak Easyshare C743, which is 7.1MP on a 10cm image sensor. I just CAN'T take pictures the way I'd like to with it. Anyway, does anyone know if the Rebel XT handles blur very well(e.g. blur from handholding the camera, subject not perfectly still, etc.)? I want a camera that will last for quite some time, and take excellent
pictures in a variety of situations. It costs 700.00USD where I am, and I don't want to buy it if it is known to break, take blurry pictures, etc. I would also like to be able to do macro photography with it so any suggestions would be appreciated.

[CelestialMinion @ Feb 4th 2007 1:11PM]

On my previous comment, the sensor size on my current camera is "10mm" NOT "10cm." Sorry for any confusion. I was REALLY tired when I wrote that comment. Thanks!