Not one to normally complain, but

My e-mail this morning from dpreview had two notes of interest with respect to Canon: the release of the G12 with it tiny 1/1.7 10 megapixel CCD and Canon's annoucement that it has developed the world's largest CMOS sensor measuring 202 x 205mm, which is 40 times the size of their largest commercial CMOS sensor and which can capture images with 1/100th the amount of light required by an SLR camera. That's great news. Bully for them.

So how come they're putting puny CCDs in arguably their best non-SLR walkabout camera for experienced photographers?

They accidentally used up all their CMOS material on that one big sensor.

Actually, that's a pretty good question. I'm not terribly familiar with the production costs of the two, but the G## series have always used CCD, I think. Might it be that CMOS is more expensive and would raise the price out of the target range?

Sensors are very expensive, and are cut from a larger piece of material (so-to-speak).

Full frame sensors are extremely expensive to produce compared to APS-C sensors, which is why a camera with essentially the same parts will be so much more if it's full frame.

Point and shoots can be had for a hundred fifty bucks a year after they're released because the sensor is so small.

Have you seen the Leicas? They have a full-frame pocketable camera: It's 8k for the body alone and another 3k for the lens.

Comerfjc wrote in post #10932504
They accidentally used up all their CMOS material on that one big sensor.

Actually, that's a pretty good question. I'm not terribly familiar with the production costs of the two, but the G## series have always used CCD, I think. Might it be that CMOS is more expensive and would raise the price out of the target range?

CCD and CMOS are paralell sensor technologies. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. Neither is better than the other, similar cost too. So, it's just an engineering choice, nothing more.