Sensor Replacement

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 5, 2008

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
The argument against sensor replacement seems to be a case of, "they
haven't done it yet, so they shouldn't do it in the future".

You're still a little confused about this. That's OK, it's a confusing concept.

"they haven't done it yet, so they shouldn't do it in the future" is the only argument in favor of sensor replacement, not an argument against it.

The arguments against it are hard, and factual.

As I pointed out, it would be a major ergonomic hit to the camera, because you'd have to add a door large enough to accommodate a sensor and processor board that's pretty much the size of the whole camera interior. This would have to have a securing mechanism strong enough to lock an extremely heavy (relative to a strip of 35mm film) circuit board into place accurately enough so that the sensor exactly meets the focal plane, and so the sensor is accurately centered in the viewfinder. Large seals with strength aren't easy. They need a big dogging (clamping) mechanism. I don't the controls of my nicely ergonomic Nikons moved to accommodate the big seams, seals, and clamping mechanisms that your desire for interchangeable sensors would foist upon me.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

That is because they are so far behind Nikon or Canon in electronics that the new generations of backs don't tax the capabilities of existing bodies. Medium format backs and bodies run about 1 frame/second. Ask a modern DSLR shooter if giving up the 9 or 10 frames/second of a Nikon 3D or Canon 1D III (or even the 5 frames/sec of an intermediate level Nikon D300 or Canon 40D) is worth it, to get sensor upgrade capability.

And ask if they want to give up live view, because that took a substantial shutter and mirror mechanism modification to implement it the way Canon did in 1D III and 40D.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
£90 P&S cameras have electronics which can spot a face, a smile and a
blink; I am sure the disparity in price between top end and simple
consumer goods is not based on the included processing electronics.

I'm sure you're wrong. There's a lot of difference between spotting a face and moving 120 million pixels per second from sensor to memory. That's why a D3 or 1D III has a battery that weighs more than an entire point and shoot.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Before long, like computers, the electronic bits will be cheap and
readily available. I know R&D has to be paid for but Nikon have lead
the way. Their new camera is half the price of their top end model

No, it's not. It's 37% ($1800) cheaper. And when you consider the cost of the battery grip, larger battery and charger that you need to bring a D300 up to the handling, speed, and battery life level of a the D3 ($538 all totaled) the difference is actually 26% ($1262). A quarter, not half.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28515672

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
and, and as far as I can see, from the reports, the sensor and
processing hardware is virtually the same.

The shutter isn't, nor is the viewfinder.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
A number of contributors have quoted costs in dollars, in the UK
double it.

And I quoted costs including the things D700 leaves out. Read it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28515672

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Quite a chunk of money for enthusiastic amateurs to cover
and, now we are about to hit a black hole in credit availability and
an increase in money lending prices, maybe the time of dump the old
and buy the new model of the year is soon to go.

So, with net cost of money increasing, you're suggesting modifications that will raise the price of every single camera sold, whether or not it will end up being upgraded (like PCs, the majority are never upgraded).

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
I still think that given a brief, "that image processing and sensors
must be upgradable for a period of five years" the engineers at
Canon, Nikon and any of the boys who wish to play in the big pool,
would soon solve the problem in a way that would reduce upgrade
prices to little more than the cost of the parts.

I still thing that you're wrong. Have you ever worked in engineering? I've covered the gamut from product design to product planning, market research, user interface design.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Okay so the LCD
might not be as big on the old camera or the latest model might
evaluate more zones for exposure or/and focusing; it won't matter,
the important end, the print will be as good.

If the exposure and or focusing aren't "as good", then the print obviously won't be "as good". So, you're now asking the entire world to accept performance decreases in addition to price, size, and weight increases, in order to support ubgradability that most people will not use.

And you're simply ignoring features like live view (which could not have been done on the Canon 30D and 1D II chassis) that require a new mechanical system.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 5, 2008

Charles Self said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

The argument against sensor replacement seems to be a case of, "they
haven't done it yet, so they shouldn't do it in the future".

Click to expand...

I don't think ANYONE has made a "shouldn't do it" argument.

Exactly. We have simply pointed out the side effects of a changeable sensor, such as compromising ergonomics or sealing integrity, increasing cost, size, and weight, and creating a mismatch between body capabilities and new features such as live view.

It is up to Gandofi to provide some description of advantages to a changeable sensor (aside from his nebulous "credit supply" arguments) that would outweigh the numerous liabilities.

Charles Self said:
We have
argued that it is not currently practical, and I, for one, believe
that some day changeable sensors may be available on a select few
DSLRs, probablyin the pro price ranges (3K and up).

I'd say much farther up.

Charles Self said:
Charles Self said:

The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

Click to expand...

Yup. And they're using old technology, removable backs, to do it. Add
the cost of a 5K camera to the cost of a 15-30K back, and what are
you saving? The cost of another 5K camera? It still costs at least
$15,000 to upgrade an MF digital.

And you've still got a medium format back and body, a combination where the control placement are awkward because of the need to be able to break the camera "in half" instead of treating it as one unit.

If you never got a chance to play with the Mamiya ZD camera (not the ZD back on a 645 body, but the MF DSLR that was sold in much smaller quantities) than you can understand. The ZD had buttons that would normally be on the back up on the "front", where you could actually work them.

Charles Self said:
Too, MF cameras are awfully bulky, almost unwieldy, for the kind of
shooting I like to do most...races. I know from experience that
tgrotting around to cover motorized speed or timed events with
something like a Pentax 6x7 around your neck is not vey much fun.

Since you cover races, you'd appreciate that no matter what electronics you stuffed in an original 1D body, it was only doing 8 frames/sec, instead of the 10.5 of a 1D III body, and the 1D body would take 25ms longer (long enough for a motor bike to move an entire bike's length) to respond to a shutter press than a 1D III.

Charles Self said:
Charles Self said:

Before long, like computers, the electronic bits will be cheap and
readily available. I know R&D has to be paid for but Nikon have lead
the way. Their new camera is half the price of their top end model
and, and as far as I can see, from the reports, the sensor and
processing hardware is virtually the same.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Someone pointed out your errors in comparing different levels
of Canon DSLRs to you. Nikon is almost certaintly similar.

Nikon is even more extreme.

D1 started with a Nikon F100 (film camera) chassis that could hit 6 frames/sec with enough power, but the processor and sensor couldn't hit that speed, limiting the overall speed of the camera.

D2 had a processor and sensor that could do 8 frames/sec, faster than the F100 chassis could accommodate, so it got a brand new shutter and mirror. By downsizing that from the F100 "full frame" to APS (or as Nikon calls it, DX) size, they were not only able to hit 8 frames/sec, but to reduce noise and vibration substantially over D1. A new aperture control coupling system so that the aperture wasn't driven by the main motor (aka the "sequence motor") any more and could be stopped down per the needs of the CLS flash system. And there's that flash system itself: in order independently monitor three banks of flashes, and meter wide open, the flash metering system was moved from the mirror box to the prism housing. There's also the ambient light sensor (the "white dot") in the prism housing.

D3 again got a shutter and mirror update, this time to a full frame that can actually do 11 frames/sec.

Gandalfi talks about ""that image processing and sensors must be upgradable for a period of five years". That would have required Nikon to have perfected the D3 11 frame/sec full frame shutter five years earlier than they did, the D2 aperture mechanism and CLS metering, and installed it all in D1, as insurance against the day when they would be bringing out D3. Canon, similarly, would have had to come up with the more accurate E-TTL 2 of the 1D II and the independent shutter and mirror motors of the 1D III and included all that in 1D, even though it would have added cost for features that wouldn't be used for 5 years.

Basically, his five year proposal would have the camera companies determining all the chassis related features (power system, metering, flash system, auto focus, display system, viewfinder) about 7 years in advance, so that they could design it into cameras that wouldn't be needing it for five years, to protect for upgrades. And if they got something wrong, too bad, there will be another chance for new features, in 7 years.

Don't bother to consider that designing a chassis to support features that "might be" included in cameras 5 years in the future is a lot more expensive than designing just what you need right now. Or, that with the sales volumes 5 years ago being 1/8 of what they are today that there wouldn't have been the R&D budget to support designing those bodies...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

MikeAusA200 · Jul 6, 2008

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Isn't it about time the major manufacturers started offering sensor
upgrades for their top of the range cameras.

I predict that will happen right after Ford offer Engine Upgrades on used vehicles.

--
Mike . Sydney, Australia
http://www.pbase.com/mikeaus/galleries
http://s23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/MikeAus/?

BIJ001 · Jul 6, 2008

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
That's basically the extent of upgradability in a DSLR, you can have
any new sensor you like, as long as it's just like the old sensor.l

It is similar with the PC which can be custom built of various parts, and there is the chance to change one part or other.

But after some time you will find that the given motherboard does not support the newer really faster processors, there are memory speed issues etc. So while it is worth the cange a broken DVD-drive or a defective hard disk, or to plug in more memory, after some months/years you will not change the processor alone. Practically processor, mother board, and memory have to be of the same generation.

synp · Jul 6, 2008

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

Click to expand...

That is because they are so far behind Nikon or Canon in electronics
that the new generations of backs don't tax the capabilities of
existing bodies. Medium format backs and bodies run about 1
frame/second. Ask a modern DSLR shooter if giving up the 9 or 10
frames/second of a Nikon 3D or Canon 1D III (or even the 5 frames/sec
of an intermediate level Nikon D300 or Canon 40D) is worth it, to get
sensor upgrade capability.

I guess that depends on the modern DSLR shooter. I never shoot burst. Any speed greater than 1 frame/second is superfluous for me, so I'd give it up in a second for almost any feature. (well, not face detection, but almost any featrue)

I agree that upgradeable sensors don't make sense. I won't get a D90 sensor in my D70 without paying way more than the D90 will cost. But it would be nice if a camera came with replaceable sensors: color, B&W at twice the res (but same noise), IR, non-Bayer.

I know it ain't gonna happen, but one can dream...

Garth Raber · Jul 6, 2008

MikeAusA200 said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

Isn't it about time the major manufacturers started offering sensor
upgrades for their top of the range cameras.

Click to expand...

I predict that will happen right after Ford offer Engine Upgrades on
used vehicles.

--
Mike . Sydney, Australia

Right on there.

The problem is not can it be done ..... that's the consumer point of view. From the manufacturer point of view .... they want to sell more of whatever they're selling. Putting new parts in old cars, cameras or whatever just doesn't fit into their bottom line.

We can make all sorts of moral or economic arguments , but until we own a company ourselves and make the big decisions can we even pretend to know what it's like to manage it. Look at the bigger picture.

-cheers

RedFox88 · Jul 6, 2008

Charles Self said:
RedFox88 said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The LCD screen is an adhesive mount, pry the old one out, glue a new
one in, you don't even have to open the camera.

The shutter replacement is a high labor expense than changing a
screen, but nothing like changing the sensor, main processor, and (if

Click to expand...

Canon replaces worn out shutters for about $225.

Click to expand...

But what happens when you replace sensor, shutter and most of the
computer parts? That won't total $225. Maybe, just maybe, $1,000. So
you have to make all sorts of judgments about how long you want to
keep the camera, whether it's worth investing a grand in, and so on.

Read what I wrote. I was commenting on Wisniewski's comment that replacing a shutter is a "high labor expense".

Roger Krueger · Jul 6, 2008

I'm still mostly happy with my 1dsII's sensor (which, incidentally, has been replaced, under warranty, about 9 months from introduction/purchase, for banding at high ISO.)

But I'm really lusting after the persistent mirror-up, bigger buffer, faster write speeds, bigger LCD, splitting RAW+L to separate cards and better AF of a 1dsIII.

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 6, 2008

synp said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Member said:

The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

Click to expand...

That is because they are so far behind Nikon or Canon in electronics
that the new generations of backs don't tax the capabilities of
existing bodies. Medium format backs and bodies run about 1
frame/second. Ask a modern DSLR shooter if giving up the 9 or 10
frames/second of a Nikon 3D or Canon 1D III (or even the 5 frames/sec
of an intermediate level Nikon D300 or Canon 40D) is worth it, to get
sensor upgrade capability.

Click to expand...

I guess that depends on the modern DSLR shooter. I never shoot burst.
Any speed greater than 1 frame/second is superfluous for me, so I'd
give it up in a second for almost any feature. (well, not face
detection, but almost any featrue)

That's the problem. Camera companies can't release a thousand different cameras, because one doesn't care about high peed, another doesn't care how small the LCD is, another wants ultra high ISO at lower resolutions. They do their best to make a small number of cameras that satisfy a large number of users, and so each of those cameras has features some people never need. I checked my image database, I haven't shot "P" mode, ever, on the D2X, D200, or D3.

Now, here's an example of how your 1 frame/second shooting style can benefit from the mechanical and processor technology that brings us 8 frame/second cameras. There's a feature we currently only see in large format cameras: multiple shot exposures...

They have a mechanism for moving the sensor a small amount, and shoot four pictures in rapid succession, moving the sensor 1 pixel to the right, one pixel down, one to the left between the shots. Now you've got four images you can stack one on top of the other to have a full red, green (actually two green, average them and lower the noise), and blue sample at each location, so no Bayer interpolation.

Right now, we have cameras on the market from Sony and Pentax that can move their sensors around a bit under computer control, for the purpose of vibration reduction. A software upgrade, and you've duplicated a feature that Imacon and Phase One charge an extra $10,000 for.

And, a camera with enough processing to do 8 frames/sec can complete the multishot in 1/2 second, unlike a medium format that needs 6 seconds to do it.

Then there's HDR (high dynamic range) photography. Use the high speed mode to rattle off a 3, 5, or 7 shot bracket so fast that the trees don't sway much in the wind. Then combine them into a single image with incredible shadow detail and no blown highlights. Sunsets without gradient ND filters..

And what if we mixed multi-shot and HDR, each of those four positions got a 3 shot + - 2 stop exposure bracket. That's 12 exposures, or 1.5 seconds at 9 frames/sec. Then the camera combined all those 12 exposures into one high resolution, anti-aliased, high dynamic range image.

On an entirely different theme...

I thought I would never shoot 9 frames/sec on the D3, but I found a use for it, in a place I wasn't expecting. Last week, we had a 5 gallon (about 20 liter) aquarium set up in the studio, filled with distilled water. Four Nikon speedlights, turned down to 1/32 power, because at that power their flash duration is about 1/37,000 of a second, or 30 microseconds, so they have excellent motion stopping ability. We were dropping cherries, strawberries, coins, nuts and bolts, etc. into the water, and shooting them as they plunged under teh water, sucking a trail of bubbles behind them.

At 1/32 power, the little flashes were quite capable of keeping up with 9 frames/sec, and I had the D3 chugging along at that rate. Hold down the release button, drop an object, and pick the best image out of the 6 from that 2/3 second event.

Even working my normal way, putting an optical trigger across the spot where I thought the plunging object would make the best picture, and shooting in the dark with a long exposure, didn't catch anywhere near as many good shots as the "shoot a movie" approach did.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 6, 2008

synp said:
I agree that upgradeable sensors don't make sense. I won't get a D90
sensor in my D70 without paying way more than the D90 will cost. But
it would be nice if a camera came with replaceable sensors: color,
B&W at twice the res (but same noise), IR, non-Bayer.

I know it ain't gonna happen, but one can dream...

Member said:
I agree that upgradeable sensors don't make sense. I won't get a D90
sensor in my D70 without paying way more than the D90 will cost.

Yup.

Member said:
But
it would be nice if a camera came with replaceable sensors: color,
B&W at twice the res (but same noise)

I'm with you on that one, even if you have some misconceptions about monochrome sensors...

B&W with the same number of pixels has about twice the effective pixels of a color camera, or 40% higher resolution. Basically, a full paper size.

The noise isn't the same, it's better, a lot better. Even my clunky old monochrome D100, with a base ISO of 60 (it lost its microlenses in the monochrome conversion, negating the speed advantage of shooting without the Bayer filters) can shoot a stunning ISO 800 image, much cleaner shadows than it could produce at that ISO in color. I need to do a better camera (I'm eyeballing my D2X), but do a really thorough "before and after" test with step wedges, resolution targets, real world scenes...

But I don't see a camera company offering it as an "interchangeable" option. While it's a cool idea, and not that much trouble to make the sensor, if a camera company wants a large batch, I see it as something more suitable as a "specialty camera". Rather than cripple the camera (heavier, larger, less ergonomic, more expensive) for all users, just make a batch of monochrome cameras for the small percentage who want them.

Now, I agree, the higher sensitivity of a real B&W sensor would be nice, and the ability to use honest to God color filters would also be great, there's something coming that will compete with a monochrome sensor, and that's just color sensors getting insane resolutions. Right now, Sony has a 24mp sensor to trump Canon's 21. 24mp is double what I have in the D2X and D3, a full paper size larger. I know what the 12mp cameras do on a full C size (17x22 inch) print, 24mp is not that high a priority.

But think of what a 24mp color would look like, converted to monochrome. The resolution should be at least equal to a 12mp color, and the dynamic range should be better.

Member said:
IR,

IR doesn't require changing the sensor, only removing the IR filter. Sigma introduced that ability on their SD-10, where the filter could be removed in the field by removing one screw (and the camera even came with a little screwdriver). Their later SD-14 actually had a sliding latch for the IR filter, so you simply slid it out and stored it.

But you will only see IR on the "niche" cameras like Sigma and Fuji. No main stream player will ever do it. They remember angry mobs of parents burning piles of Sony camcorders in protest to the "x-ray camera that lets perverts see through our children's bathing suits".

Member said:
non-Bayer.

I'd say probably not. First, there's the issue that if a different sensor technology emerged that was clearly superior to a Bayer filter array, camera companies would simply switch to it, rather than offering it as an interchangeable option.

And this applies to any way you might define "non-Bayer".

Inorganic multiplane sensors (the Foveon, the recent Nikon patent) suffer from color accuracy problems and other issues that have, so far, not given them a clear advantage to make using them worthwhile.

Organic color filter arrays can be made in a pattern other than Bayer's. But the first one on the market, the four color Sony RGBE, failed dismally, and actually offered poorer color accuracy than the competing 3 color Bayer pattern sensors (even those produced by Sony). The new Kodak luminance patterns have more promise, but I'd say we're not there yet.

Member said:
I know it ain't gonna happen, but one can dream...

True.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 6, 2008

MikeAusA200 said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

Isn't it about time the major manufacturers started offering sensor
upgrades for their top of the range cameras.

Click to expand...

I predict that will happen right after Ford offer Engine Upgrades on
used vehicles.

Exactly.

The only time there's ever been a sensor upgrade in the camera industry was when Kodak needed to subsidize one to keep from having to buy back cameras.

That's the only time you'd ever see an engine swap from Ford, when the situation was so bad that they were in danger of having to do a "lemon law" refund on an entire vehicle.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 6, 2008

Roger Krueger said:
I'm still mostly happy with my 1dsII's sensor (which, incidentally,
has been replaced, under warranty, about 9 months from
introduction/purchase, for banding at high ISO.)

But I'm really lusting after the persistent mirror-up, bigger buffer,
faster write speeds, bigger LCD, splitting RAW+L to separate cards
and better AF of a 1dsIII.

I predicted something along those lines, years ago. Not that we would be able to move our favorite sensor from body to body, but that we would at least hit the point where the body started to matter as much as, or more than, the sensor. That we would hit a point when people like the "film" they were using, and wanted a better body.

I even gave examples of a couple of situations where camera companies upgraded the body, and left the sensor alone.

Canon used the same sensor in D60 and 10D, they upgraded the daylights out of the body (metal shell, faster and more accurate AF, AF points increased from 3 to 7, quieter and more reliable shutter and mirror, mirror blackout time cut in half, EF-S capability)

A newer example, Nikon D60 takes the D40X sensor and adds a 3 way cleaning system.

You often have the same sensor in two bodies...

Nikon D3 and D700
Nikon D200 and D80
Nikon D70, D50, and D40

Canon 10D and dRebel

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 6, 2008

Garth Raber said:
MikeAusA200 said:

Gandolfi WholePlate said:

Isn't it about time the major manufacturers started offering sensor
upgrades for their top of the range cameras.

Click to expand...

I predict that will happen right after Ford offer Engine Upgrades on
used vehicles.

Click to expand...

Right on there.

The problem is not can it be done ..... that's the consumer point of
view. From the manufacturer point of view .... they want to sell more
of whatever they're selling.

No, that's just a conspiracy theory view of the issue.

The manufacturer would have to raise the price of the camera to accommodate interchangeable sensors. That is a given.

The part that has to be changed costs a lot more than the part that stays behind. That is also a given.

Only a small percentage of owners would upgrade. That has been seen in multiple industries with upgradeable hardware.

Therefore, the manufacturers would make more money with an interchangeable sensor system, provided....

That the quite obvious disadvantages of increased size and weight and compromised ergonomics didn't cost them enough total sales to offset the added profits from interchangeable sensors.

Garth Raber said:
Putting new parts in old cars, cameras
or whatever just doesn't fit into their bottom line.

Only because it makes a less sellable product.

Garth Raber said:
We can make all sorts of moral or economic arguments , but until we
own a company ourselves and make the big decisions can we even
pretend to know what it's like to manage it.

No, but some of us do know what it's like to develop a pretty big project, and all the different steps involved...

Garth Raber said:
Look at the bigger picture.

Good advice.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

synp · Jul 6, 2008

Yeah, you can make a 12-MP-B&W-like sensor from a 24-MP-Bayer sensor, but that doesn't alter the basic fact that given the same technology, a non-filtered sensor gets more light (2x as much? 3x?) then a filtered sensor. So I'm not getting the best that Nikon could be offering and for pennies in R&D costs.

But I understand you argument. Interchangeable sensors won't happen. Unfortunately, it appears that specialty B&W cameras are not happening either. You would have thought that some company would make at least a P&S that was B&W. Companies have dozens of models of P&S. Surely one of the bridge ones could be made in a small B&W run.

It could even have face detection (God forbid...)

Gandolfi WholePlate · Jul 7, 2008

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Gandolfi WholePlate wrote:

As I pointed out, it would be a major ergonomic hit to the camera,
because you'd have to add a door large enough to accommodate a sensor
and processor board that's pretty much the size of the whole camera
.................

I am not suggesting an "at home" do it yourself kit but a factory installed replacement so this argument is erroneous.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

Click to expand...

That is because they are so far behind Nikon or Canon in electronics
that the new generations of backs don't tax the capabilities of
existing bodies. Medium format backs and bodies run about 1
................

I would agree in principle that there is always a problem in "adding" to an existing body but a fresh, newly designed and developed item would not be limited.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
And ask if they want to give up live view, because that took a
substantial shutter and mirror mechanism modification to implement it
the way Canon did in 1D III and 40D.

I am not asking anybody to give up any thing. The newly designed body would obviously be up to date, the only diffeence being a module which could, under sanitary conditions be replaced.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

£90 P&S cameras have electronics which can spot a face, a smile and a
blink; I am sure the disparity in price between top end and simple
.........

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're wrong. There's a lot of difference between spotting a
face and moving 120 million pixels per second from sensor to memory.
..............

The information from the sensor has to be processed for the face recognition and anti blink software to kick in. Probably more labour intensive than just "moving". Again, not a valid argument.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
No, it's not. It's 37% ($1800) cheaper. And when you consider the
cost of the battery grip, larger battery and charger that you need to
bring a D300 up to the handling, speed, and battery life level of a
the D3 ($538 all totaled) the difference is actually 26% ($1262). A
quarter, not half.

One moment you are saying the "basic camera" costs are negligible (I wonder why my old Leica cost so much) and then you write up a battery and grip as 11% percent of a total price. The simple fact is, as you seem to agree, a major part of the camera cost is the camera itself and, as the processing part of the process, as opposed to the image forming part, are separate, I can see no real reason why, for the top end cameras, a replacement service for the sensor cannot be accommodated.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28515672

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

and, and as far as I can see, from the reports, the sensor and
processing hardware is virtually the same.

Click to expand...

The shutter isn't, nor is the viewfinder.

Nothing to do with the debate, we are talking post taking operations.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

A number of contributors have quoted costs in dollars, in the UK
double it.

Click to expand...

And I quoted costs including the things D700 leaves out. Read it.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=28515672

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Quite a chunk of money for enthusiastic amateurs to cover
and, now we are about to hit a black hole in credit availability and
an increase in money lending prices, maybe the time of dump the old
and buy the new model of the year is soon to go.

Click to expand...

So, with net cost of money increasing, you're suggesting
modifications that will raise the price of every single camera sold,
whether or not it will end up being upgraded (like PCs, the majority
are never upgraded).

I am suggesting an improvement for the top end cameras so maybe a couple of models in each manufacturer's range. It would be facile to suggest a 450d or a GR II should be able to enjoy an upgrade.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

I still think that given a brief, "that image processing and sensors
must be upgradable for a period of five years" the engineers at
Canon, Nikon and any of the boys who wish to play in the big pool,
would soon solve the problem in a way that would reduce upgrade
prices to little more than the cost of the parts.

Click to expand...

I still thing that you're wrong. Have you ever worked in engineering?

Yes, and engineering is about solving problems.
.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Okay so the LCD
might not be as big on the old camera or the latest model might
evaluate more zones for exposure or/and focusing; it won't matter,
the important end, the print will be as good.

Click to expand...

If the exposure and or focusing aren't "as good", then the print
obviously won't be "as good". So, you're now asking the entire world
to accept performance decreases in addition to price, size, and
weight increases, in order to support ubgradability that most people
will not use.

Rubbish and an insult to photographers. Are you suggesting that all photographs taken to date are not sharp and correctly exposed. A multi zone exposure evaluation might make exposure easier but not better and, believe it or believe it not, we actually managed to get sharp photographs before AF.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
And you're simply ignoring features like live view (which could not
have been done on the Canon 30D and 1D II chassis) that require a new
mechanical system.

I have answered this previously, I am not suggesting any thing is surrendered but I would add we spent years getting out from behind our Field cameras and later getting a decent pentaprism system for our 35mm SLRs rather than the waist level finders of the old Exactas, we have a lot to thank Pentax, Canon and Nikon for and, and this is purely a personal opinion, I am not overly turned on to the benefits of live view.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving
grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

synp · Jul 7, 2008

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Gandolfi WholePlate wrote:

As I pointed out, it would be a major ergonomic hit to the camera,
because you'd have to add a door large enough to accommodate a sensor
and processor board that's pretty much the size of the whole camera
.................

Click to expand...

I am not suggesting an "at home" do it yourself kit but a factory
installed replacement so this argument is erroneous.

Factory installed makes it worse. You want to upgrade your Nikon D4 to a D5 sensor. You want the 70MP sensor of the D5, but you don't want to pay for the telepathic autofocus system that debuted on the D5 ("I don't need a camera reading my mind, I'll tell it what to focus on by selecting a focus area with the joystick")

Now Nikon has two choices:
1. Factory upgrade the sensor in the D4

2. Trade in the D4 for a D5 for a discount. Your old D4 gets cleaned and re-sold on eBay as "refurbished"

I think Nikon would prefer #2. Why?

1. To facilitate swapping sensors there's extra cost in manufacturing the D4. How much or a higher price do you think the market will take for future upgradeability?

2. Thousands would upgrade the first month, then it would drop to hundreds a month, then dozens. Nikon would need to set up a servicing facility, train some workers in a very delicate work over and above their regular lab workforce, then fire them all when the numbers go down. This is a logistic and HR nightmare. By comparison, cleaning the D4s is easy.

3. Customer experience. In the trade-in scheme, you get your D5 sensor immediately. In the upgrade scheme you hand in your camera and wait for weeks. Some cameras will break or get lost in shipping.

4. Big hassles: "we couldn't upgrade your camera because the thingie is dented. You must have dropped it." "No, I didn't, just swap it." "Can't do, unless you're willing to pay a little extra for replacing the thingie" "I won't!!! You promised an upgrade to D5" or "Upgraded D4 is junk - it doesn't focus well at all. I've been using this D4 for 2 years, but it doesn't focus well since the upgrade. Nikon must have broken the AF system in the upgrade"

5. If a D5 sells for $5000 (as did the D4 when it was introduced) and a refurbished D4 can bring in $2000 (refurbished from Nikon comes with 1yr warranty), Nikon can sell you the D5 for $3000 and lose very little. For the upgrade option, Nikon needs shipping, handling, pay $1500 for the parts, $500 for labor, ~$200 to cover losses, shipping and packaging. Don't see it coming much under $2500 if Nikon is to make any profit.

So you get a used, beat up camera with a new sensor and no telepathic AF instead of a new camera with all the new stuff. I can't see Nikon doing it.

Gregory King · Jul 7, 2008

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Professional photographers may be able to offset camera purchases
against profits but amateurs can't and just to throw in the argument,
"get rid of it and buy another" as the solution is not really very
helpful.

Hmm, I'd say the "disposable" nature of cameras (having to sell one to upgrade) that was mentioned here actually SUPPORTS amateurs and their frugality. They can buy a perfectly good camera used from a pro who can affor to upgrade every cycle.

Greg

TrapperJohn · Jul 7, 2008

Sure, one exists. There are at least four digital backs that can be obtained for the Hasselblad 500 series, prices range from a couple of grand for an older Kodak 16mp back to twenty nine grand for the 3i9mp Hassy back, and a few in between.

Of course, the Hassy is not small, and the glass is priced like sin. For around five grand or so, you could put together a modest Hassy/Kodak setup with a few lenses. So you get 5D results for about twice the price.

I used to think that replaceable electronics was the answer, but you have to remember how cheap camera bodies have become these days. One reason the bodies are cheap is that they don't have support for replaceable sensors, or have to be built to last twenty years. It's more cost effective to replace the entire body than just the sensor.

What I want to see now is a single body that can fully utilize several different lens mounts, including full AF functionality. The current bodies are so close in performance that the available lenses are the major distinguishing factor.

Joseph S Wisniewski · Jul 7, 2008

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Gandolfi WholePlate wrote:
As I pointed out, it would be a major ergonomic hit to the camera,
because you'd have to add a door large enough to accommodate a sensor
and processor board that's pretty much the size of the whole camera

Click to expand...

I am not suggesting an "at home" do it yourself kit but a factory
installed replacement so this argument is erroneous.

No, it's not. Even as a factory job, cameras are designed for assembly line production. As synp pointed out, a factory teardown and board replacement, with existing designs, is expensive, requiring highly trained people. That's why you have people in the "infrared conversion" market charging $500 just to open up a camera and replace the filter in front of the lens.

And the deployment of those people is not steady: large numbers of cameras come in when the upgrade is announced, then it tapers off.

Redesign the camera to make the upgrade job easier and lower the skill level of the people involved will still increase the cost, weight, size, and impact the ergonomics.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

Gandolfi WholePlate said:

The medium format guys seem to have managed what is, effectively.,
sensor replacement. They can buy a new back. They don't seem to
consider the rest of the body old and useless.

Click to expand...

That is because they are so far behind Nikon or Canon in electronics
that the new generations of backs don't tax the capabilities of
existing bodies. Medium format backs and bodies run about 1

Click to expand...

I would agree in principle that there is always a problem in "adding"
to an existing body but a fresh, newly designed and developed item
would not be limited.

Of course it would. The new body would still have to be "over designed" relative to the current generation of sensors, in order to accommodate the features of the next. Every new D has upped the speed by about 70%. 3fps for D1X, 5 for D2X, 9 for D3. If Nikon wanted to have a D3 body ready for the 14 frame/sec D4, they would have had to pay extra to design that 2-3 years earlier than they should have, and it would go to waste for the 90% of D3 owners who wouldn't be upgrading.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

And ask if they want to give up live view, because that took a
substantial shutter and mirror mechanism modification to implement it
the way Canon did in 1D III and 40D.

Click to expand...

I am not asking anybody to give up any thing. The newly designed body
would obviously be up to date,

It can only be "up to date" with today. How can it be "up to date" with the features that will be released 5 years from now?

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
the only diffeence being a module
which could, under sanitary conditions be replaced.

Gandolfi WholePlate said:

Gandolfi WholePlate said:

£90 P&S cameras have electronics which can spot a face, a smile and a
blink; I am sure the disparity in price between top end and simple

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're wrong. There's a lot of difference between spotting a
face and moving 120 million pixels per second from sensor to memory.

Click to expand...

The information from the sensor has to be processed for the face
recognition and anti blink software to kick in. Probably more labour
intensive than just "moving". Again, not a valid argument.

I write that kind off stuff. You don't. It is you who have the invalid arguments. You're being told real reasons why this thing can't happen, from people with real project design and management experience, and you keep saying "invalid argument".

Gandolfi WholePlate said:
Gandolfi WholePlate said:

No, it's not. It's 37% ($1800) cheaper. And when you consider the
cost of the battery grip, larger battery and charger that you need to
bring a D300 up to the handling, speed, and battery life level of a
the D3 ($538 all totaled) the difference is actually 26% ($1262). A
quarter, not half.

Click to expand...

One moment you are saying the "basic camera" costs are negligible (I
wonder why my old Leica cost so much)

It's a collectible. The value drops dramatically if you scuff up the film rails by actually loading film and taking a single picture.

Well, you asked...

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

rgmoore · Jul 7, 2008

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
It is up to Gandofi to provide some description of advantages to a
changeable sensor (aside from his nebulous "credit supply" arguments)
that would outweigh the numerous liabilities.

One potential advantage- if the unit is user-upgradable- is that you could customize the camera for different circumstances. Instead of having separate cameras for high resolution, high frame rate, UV/IR imaging, and monochrome, you could have a single body with different sensor packages. That would let you set up for different shooting conditions while keeping the same control layout and ergonomics. It would also make it much easier to clean and/or replace the filter pack, which would be a real boon for people who want to do UV/IR imaging but don't want a dedicated camera.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:
D3 again got a shutter and mirror update, this time to a full frame
that can actually do 11 frames/sec.

Not to mention a completely different AF package, an upgraded metering system, and all of the electronics to let the two talk to each other. (That actually gave me an oddball idea: would it make sense to use Foveon x3 type sensors for the line sensors in the AF system? Doing so would let you focus using color contrast as well as brightness contrast, which might be useful in some circumstances.)
--

As with all creative work, the craft must be adequate for the demands of expression. I am disturbed when I find craft relegated to inferior consideration; I believe that the euphoric involvement with subject or self is not sufficient to justify the making and display of photographic images. --Ansel Adams

Sensor Replacement

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

synp

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

synp

Guest

Member

synp

Guest

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts