# The REAL scoop on MX!

Started Nov 9, 2008 | Discussions thread
Re: And a little more...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

michaeljberman wrote:

OK, I started running numbers. I spent 25 years making computer
chips, so I know a "little" about that end. Taking a look at the 3
DSLR size:

18 x 24 mm
24 x 36 mm
36 x 48 mm

Next, find the number of gross die per 200 mm wafer (still the main
wafer size for sensors), it comes out at:

18 x 24 mm 55 gross die wafer
24 x 36 mm 24 GDW
36 x 48 mm 10 GDW

Lets add a 90% die yield and a \$1,000 wafer cost, we have a net cost
per die of:

18 x 24 mm \$20.41
24 x 36 mm \$45.45
36 x 48 mm \$111.11

If we have a 90% yield at 18x24, shouldn't we be down to 56% at 36x48?

But someone with "25 years making computer chips" should know better
than to make assumptions about someone else's yield, now, shouldn't
they?

No not really. . .90% is a common yield goal, besides, as you may know, the defect density is very much a function of want is there, a small rule SRAM will have a much higher DD, then a loose one on the same DR. If you are with the size of the photo sites we are talking about, > 5 sq. microns, the DD will be very low, also they can map out a few defects, so 90% should be a lot closer than 56%. Your point should have been that if there was 5 killer defects, on 18 x 24 why did it drop to 4 and 1 killer defects? This was a quick and fast set of numbers. Even if you drop the yeild from 10 to 5, that only about \$100 to the cost of the final part, still well in the range of the numbers being used here.

[the rest of your numbers seem equally off the wall]

In some cases you are right, the cost for a 200 mm CMOS wafer in 2004 at 180 nm was about \$850 USD, so with most sensors being made at 350 nm and added 4 years, and the way fabs are running today, the cost of \$1,000 is very much on the high side, but it is a nice round number, and that would drive the final cost down.

Please give details. . .BTW where did you make chips?

OK, I may be off a little,

More than a little.

but it is not going to be \$1,000's more to make.

Bet it is...

You can also see why Nikon will want to price it so it will
sell in big numbers > 100,000 production run (in 18 months),

The combined MF sales of three camera manufacturers and four back
manufacturers is 6,000 units/year. 9,000 in 18 months.

As much as I admire Nikon, I am having a little trouble picturing
their first MF system starting such a wild feeding frenzy that it
outsells the entire existing medium format industry by a factor of 12.

that is a
run rate of
came out?

IF THE coment that the D3 is going to be replaced, and they go with hi MP count and you can use FF lens and the price is D700/D3 price why do you thank they will only get a small piece of the current MF market, yes it is now only 6K/yr-ish but that is also at the price of \$\$\$\$\$\$.

This isn't the D3. The D3 was not only compatible with existing Nikon
lenses, but used many of them to a fuller potential than any other
Nikon DSLR did, to that date.

Are you saying that there are not any Nikon lens that will give better res. than 12 meg?

OK, I did not talk about the cost of the computer processing needs in
the camera, true, but if the Sensor is about 2X, then the computer
power needed will be about 2X,

No, it really doesn't. I don't think one wants a MF system to shoot 9
frames/sec.

So the computer part of the costs will be less than the computer parts cost on the D3??

that is the normal increase in 18
months (OK the D3 is not quit that old( it was per DPR Announced
23-Aug-07), but you get the idea, based on Moore's law ( which is for
computer type chips NOT sensors!)

Someone with industry experience is using the term "Moore's law?"

Where was it you worked, again?

Fabs that made TTL, PALs, CPU's, UVEPROMS FLASH and ASIC.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

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

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

-- hide signature --

If you have low standards, you can take a look:
http://michaeljberman.zenfolio.com

michaeljberman's gear list:michaeljberman's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF VR Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D +4 more
Complain
Post ()
Keyboard shortcuts: