Why not a 21.6mm x 21.6mm sensor?

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
reygon Senior Member • Posts: 2,037
Re: So...

Great Bustard wrote:

reygon wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

MaxB1 wrote:

Having worked in the Semiconductor Industry (Eng'r Mgr) for 40+ years, I think that mfg. COST** of a larger sensor is the biggest problem followed by increased software issues. Also, the internal needs of the camera would be different.

...you think the cost of sensor 25% larger than APS-C would be the largest problem? I wonder what an APS-C sensor costs compared to an mFT sensor, as APS-C sensors are 65% larger.

** Mfg cost includes the decreased number of sensors on a wafer as well as the yield (which decreases dramatically with chip size.) After production testing also increases with chip size.

So... It's VERY expensive, complex and requires time from the initial set-up and then production costs. You are technically introducing a new standard as it will impact not only hardware but also software and peripherals (lens & etc.). In my previous work as product engineer for wiring harnesses for Ford and GM cars, it takes 2-3 years from design to prototype work before 'green light' for first production.

we haven't even discussed R&D and registering/approval of patent. How many companies worked and agreed together before micro 4/3rds became a reality?

Soooo.... your reasoning and justifications are very minute and not financially logical on the overall scheme. Personally I think 3D and better phones sensors are the commercially and viable investments. 3D lenses for camera are slowly coming our.

The way I was thinking is that there is a whole slew of different sized sensors for compacts, there are two different sizes for APS-C, the mFT (4/3) sensors, and now the new 1" (2.7x) sensors, so it sure doesn't seem like making a new sensor size has presented any difficulties.

I mean, what makes 21.6mm x 21.6mm (the sensor I am proposing) any more difficult to get going than the 1" sensor Nikon uses in their 1 series and Sony uses in the RX100? Both those systems seem to be rather successful, no?

You said "so it sure doesn't seem like making a new sensor size has presented any difficulties" and even comparing other sensor sizes so kindly read again if I said "it's difficult". What I emphasized is it's not commercially logical (cost). As I said, you are introducing a new standard with odd size which is not too far from APS-C (Canon or Nikon size) except it's square. Hey, why not produce a circle sensor? it compliments the lens right but hey it will be more expensive to produce it (beside new production line there will be considerable wasted material from silicon wafers).

For the output and viewing, are you saying it's also better to view in square screens? The film academy, who also uses same camera and lenses principles, came up with 4:3 being the ideal ratio for projecting on a screen. It used most of the image circle a lens produced. It was known as the Academy Ratio. Ernst Leitz doubled the size for his 35mm (movie film) still camera. It has a ratio of 2:3 (still not square!!!) which are basis for APS chips so it still maximize the use of image circle a lens produced. Olympus, Panasonic and 4/3rds system is based on the Academy Ratio. Let's not even discuss printing square photos. So... it's not just engineering it's also complimenting the overall industry. I'm sure the 'beautiful and great minds' out there in the R&D considered and evaluated these so many times before as the camera and film industry progress to a million then to a billion dollar industry.

Take nothing but photos... Kill nothing but time... Leave nothing but footprints...

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