Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Started Oct 19, 2012 | Discussions thread
Leif Goodwin Senior Member • Posts: 1,390
Re: It's here
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Leif Goodwin wrote:

The problem is that you are making a whole shed load of assumptions, which if accepted, means that the technology exists and is cheap. However some of us question those assertions. In no case have you provided any form of proof other than "because I say so", and your response to me has been to ignore me when I ask you for some kind of proof for your assertions i.e. an FX sensor costs about £150 to £200 (effective cost to the customer), it is cheap to make a suitable mechanism to support removal sensors, there will be no significant increase in camera size, and the user will not mind if after 4 years their modular camera cannot support the latest sensors because it has locked in old technology.

What to post? ...are you so unable to think that if a D700 bares at introduction 50% increased price that a d300 (world average) and if it additionally bares 1. FF sensor, 2.Japan construction, 3.FF pentaprism and mirror assembly as well as FF shutter.... that there is no way that the sensor costs 20 times more than the APS-c one...? ...or that there is no chance that the D300 sensor costs 1/3 or anywhere near to the camera price? ...don't you have brains? If the D300's sensor would cost 15% of the camera and D700 was 20 times as this, the D700 would be at about 16000 selling price...

What to tell you? ...that the D800 sensor (probably the most expensive among DSLRs) doesn't cost them more than 150? ...there is no way that Nikon (or anybody) will waver share that info with you... nor P1 will ever share that IQ180 sensor costs less than 500..., DO YOU HAVE INFO FOR THE OPPOSITE? ...or are you just based on wikipedia info that an "FF sensor CAN cost UP to 20x as much as an APS-c sensor" ...based 7 years ago where FF sensors where no more than 2% than they are today and that their wafers where "ancient"? ...FF sensors will soon cost less than 50 to makers buddy and this is tech advancement that nor you or anybody can stop, ...while the same will never apply to mechanical construction of bodies, which can only based to "advanced productivity" to decrease cost...

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

So your response is to stamp your foot up and down and call me stupid. You do realise don't you that FF cameras used to be quite common, and not expensive? Therefore the extra cost due to FF shutter, mirror and pentaprism cannot be much. I have no more information than you, but you are the one making rabbit out of a hat claims, and expecting other people to simple accept them without question. It is clear from the above that you are actually making guesses.

Incidentally, you continually ignore points I have made about amortisation of costs, and the fact that an interchangeable sensor camera would sell in lower numbers than a D800, and each sensor would sell in even lower numbers. That would increase the cost, possibly substantially. Another issue, you now talk about the cost to Nikon. All we care about is the cost to us. If the sensor costs them £300, it will cost us £600. You have to add profit to Nikon, distribution and packaging costs, profit to distributer, and profit to retailer.

 Leif Goodwin's gear list:Leif Goodwin's gear list
Nikon D200 Nikon D600 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow