Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Started Oct 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
1

Grevture wrote:

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?

This doesn't mean that a todays processor won't be able to cope with ALL todays sensors to their max performance, it only means that todays sensors (if kept) will perform better in the future (when fitted in next generation body) and that next generation sensors will have degraded performance in a current body... It then comes to the user to judge if he an upgrade is worthwhile and the extend of it... doesn't it? The major advantage of having specialized sensor for the task remains ...no? I mean (as an example) that there are people that wouldn't give a dime to improve their D800E's IQ performance further.... even if another sensor would do better in the future... but at the same time, they would prefer to have a D4 sensor also to improve speed or to cope with ultra low light ...and may be a (true) B&W sensor too... Then (in the future) they may decide to move to a better processor or replace one of their sensors with a future one (although the later will perform even better with a "new" body).... The upgrade path becomes much more flexible (if needed)... doesn't 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).

Even in the basic Hasselblad (H4-40?) the WHOLE back (which is much more expensive than the sensor) doesn't cost half the price of the camera... and the sensor only is much-much more expensive than a FF sensor.... and this I repeat is for the back... not for the sensor! Clearly there is a wide spread impression that sensors are too expensive... There are some people I know in the MF industry... I can say with confidence that sensor cost has been improved dramatically during the last years, to an extend that it has no relevance whatsoever than the past...

Finally, correct sensor positioning is nothing difficult or costly to achieve... a simple spring loaded extract/detract mechanism that would apply pressure in the extract position, along with an appropriate "slot" on the body behind the shutter would do the job just fine...


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