Why not a 21.6mm x 21.6mm sensor?

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 24,681
Like?
Re: So...
In reply to micksh6, Jan 24, 2013

micksh6 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

MaxB1 wrote:

Having worked in the Semiconductor Industry (Eng'r Mgr) for 40+ years, I think that mfg. COST** of a larger sensor is the biggest problem followed by increased software issues. Also, the internal needs of the camera would be different.

...you think the cost of sensor 25% larger than APS-C would be the largest problem? I wonder what an APS-C sensor costs compared to an mFT sensor, as APS-C sensors are 65% larger.

Yes, cost. The thing is sensor cost grows exponentially with sensor size. Thom Hogan stated this, for example, and the reasons were exactly what MaxB1 provided above.

APS-C sensor won't cost twice more than m4/3 sensor, it will cost 5-10 times more, so economically this doesn't make any sense. It's better to make APS-C sensor for that money.

Given the differential in price between mFT and APS-C, if APS-C sensors cost 5-10 times more than mFT sensors, then the sensor cost is so low as to be inconsequential.

If there was any practical sense in doing it, this would have appeared on smaller sensor cameras, but it hasn't. It's more practical to rotate the camera.

All sorts of things had a "practical sense in doing", such as Auto-ISO, live-view in DSLRs, etc., and it was a long, long time before they got implemented.

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