Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Started Oct 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
4

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

I don't see  why people refer to MFDBs all the time...

Becuase it is a pretty obvious example of this principle being very expensive and causing more problems then it solves.

obviously they don't read the previous posts...

As you did not seem to have read very much of the well phrased and thoughtful post you just responded to.

A sensor doesn't need to carry the processor with it and there is no need for processing firmware update  each time a different sensor is used an interchangeable sensor will only have to let the processor "see" its identity and act properly... There is no problem for correct sensor positioning either, nor it is expensive to secure sensor positioning...

Well those are a number of claims you make seemingly more out of faith or desire then any real knowledge about how cameras work.

Reality does not seem to agree with your arguments. Try talking to the engineers at Ricoh who looked into this issue a lot when they developed the GXR concept (another example aside medium format that the concept pf changing sensors causes more problems then it solves).

You can probably make a few sensors which work with a certain generation of processors, but you seem to have completely failed to notice that newer processors are very often significantly more powerful the its predecessor (try googling for 'moores law'). If you design new sensors to be used by old processors you will need to throw away much of the advantages which newer processors can offer.

You also seem to have missed one of the most fundamental aspects about a digital camera - the image is not created in the sensor alone, it is created by the sensor and processor together (much like our visualizations are not created in our eyes alone, but by the combination of our eyes and our brain). The processor is just as fundamental to a camera as the sensor is. In fact, one without (the full cooperation of) the other is unable to accomplish very much at all.

And your claim of "There is no problem for correct sensor positioning either" clearly show you have never encountered a camera with a misaligned sensor. It is a very, very real problem indeed, and makes some reparations where the sensor has to be removed, very time consuming and expensive (like upgrading the buffer in a D3 which required the sensor to be removed and put back again).

...and of course no "single standard" between manufacturers is needed either... why would it? Do they share the same standard for lens mount?

So you think the lens market is without any problems in regards to make it easy for smaller companies to compete with larger ones? I say it is a prime example of the very problems you seem totally unaware of. Just imagine the kind of competition over lens quality and prices we would have had if lenses really had a universal mount?

In all manufacturing, but in electronics in particular, volume matters a lot. Making electronic components in low volumes just is not economically feasible. I know you don't like medium format as an example, but it is a prime example of what happens when you work with small volumes - high prices, not much development going on and steadily declining sales.

Lenses can be made in much smaller volumes since they are primarily optical and mechanical devices, not so much electronic ones (the electronics they do have are fairly generic and can be shared among many different lenses).

I agree there is something appealing about the idea of a replaceable sensor, but it misses a couple of very fundamental parts of how a camera works and how it is made up.

- First, you may wish this is not true, but it is: Sensor and processors are very closely related. They form an image together, and separating the two will cause a lot problems over time.It could work for a short while, but after a while, who wants to use a new good sensor with an old slow processor unable to fully utilize it?

- Second, it is the sensor and the processor together which form the valuable parts of a camera. This becomes very evident when you look at mirrorless cameras who are just a rather small and cheap shell holding the two important parts together and providing a grip and a interface to interact with them. It is equally evident when you look at the medium format cameras with digital backs where the actual camera body just is a connector between the sensor-processor and the optics (and providing some grip and interface).

-- hide signature --

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every moment of it!
By the way, film is not dead.
It just smell funny

 Grevture's gear list:Grevture's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D3 Nikon D3S Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow