Sensor size "battle" on Mirrorless cameras ? Who will win

Started Jul 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Andy Crowe
Senior MemberPosts: 1,550Gear list
This may not be as bad as you think (historic precedent)
In reply to iano, Jul 24, 2012

The point is not that the multi-aspect is a killer feature or anything, the worry it that it appears that they are shipping a camera with the multi-aspect feature fully provided for in hardware, but then deliberately crippled by software. If this is as it seems and there is not hidden reason why enabling the full use of the oversize sensor in the G5 would actually raise the cost of the product then this has a bad feel to it.

It means if you buy the G5 you are buying a camera with a multi-aspect sensor in the camera but the manufacturer prevents you using it unless (one would assume) you pay the higher price for the GH3 or similar camera. This reflects badly on both products. It feels wrong to have the cost of the oversize sensor in the G5 and you not be able to use it, plus it suggests a more expensive camera that has insufficient genuine improvements to justify its higher price.

This might not be what you think it is, if they really are using the same sensor as they are planning for the GH3 but disabling multi aspect (do we have any proof of this?) it could just be to improve sensor manufacturing yields to bring cost down: any bad pixels or columns outside the standard 4:3 capture area can just be ignored, so some GH3 sensors that would otherwise be discarded due to defects can go into the G5 instead.

Many companies do this, in multi core processors if you are manufacturing a 4-core processor and one of the cores doesn't work you can sell it as a cheaper 3-core or 2-core processor.

A famous example of this is an old Intel processor and maths co-processor (remember those?). You could either by a CPU with a built in maths co-processor, or a separate CPU and maths co-processor. Buying a separate CPU and maths co-processor cost more than a processor with both, but allowed for a user to buy a cheap CPU only system and then upgrade.

Of course all 3 chips were identical, the standalone CPU just had its maths co-processor disabled and the standalone maths co-processor just had its CPU disabled. This saved Intel a lot of money as all 3 came off the same manufacturing line and defective chips could still be used of one of the components still worked.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow