Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Started Oct 19, 2012 | Discussions
cosmonaut
cosmonaut Senior Member • Posts: 2,223
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?
1

I would think Leica would maybe try something like this since their M cameras are so traditionally built and not lots of bells and whistles. But the sensor is probably most of the cost of a camera. How much would you actually save doing this?

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

trueview wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

trueview wrote:

Theodoros,

I strongly suspect that this is technically doable, and actually have been fantacizing about such a solution. Yes, the processing unit would have to come with the sensor, but there is no major difficulty here. Given the general level of build quality, AF, metering, etc of my 5dIII, an upgrade path to the sensor would seem logical, not to mention the possibility of adding special purpose sensors (B&W, for instance).

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening, for marketing reasons. Back in the dsays of film, a Nikon F2 or f3 had a nine year life span. Same goes for Canon equivalents. In the digital age, camera manufacturers have managed to reduce the product cycle to 3 years. I don't see them relinquishing this advantage any time soon. This of course is at the expense of the user.

Exactly... that's why I am saying that they will ONLY be forced to do it if a third manufacturer (one that wants to enter the FF market without risking to convince the customers for been a long term alternative) will do it..., then they will have to react! (please refer to previous posts)

Three years ago, Nikon send a questionary to most pros (their customers) all over the world... among the questions was if modularity of camera in relevance of sensors, screens, viewfinders, is among their requirements, needless to say that all pros I know answered positively on the matter... then they filed the patent... thereafter nothing happened! ...Now that they 've taken the FF market from Canon by a good margin, I find it even more impossible for them to proceed..., not that they can't..., they clearly don't want too... they are clearly more interested (in both C & N) to communicate a marketing "imaginary war" having stupid soldiers that pay them the more they can... clearly the most profitable war in industry and the one that is against photography from traditional "photography servants" !!!

I generally agree, except for one thing. You seem to intend that Nikon customers are mostly pros (unless I misunderstood). I'm skeptical of that. I would suspect that even for quite expensive bodies such as D800/5diii, non pros outnumber pros by quite a large margin. Which means that manufacturers would also survey amateur reaction to inrchangeable sensors before going in that direction.

No..., I also agree that enthusiasts are more than pros... I am only saying that pros would all invest in such a camera... many enthusiasts will also, but usually many of them are specializing in one kind of photography and thus the appeal would be less (in percentage) than pros.... I suspect that there will be pros that could have two such bodies (no pro works without a back up) and maybe all sensors available, surely it can't be to the same extend with enthusiasts....

Also you are saying that Nikon has overtaken Canon in full frame. I read elsewhere that in terms of market share Canon is still ahead worldwide, but this was a secondary source, and the primary source was not quoted, so no way to verify. If you actually have a reliable source of market statistics for the photo market, I'd very much like if you could give it, my interest in this  matter having nothing to do with the N/C fan war taking place here (strictly business !

No real market data no reliable source either... just what the major sellers report... Canon may still lead the market as far as ALL DSLRs are concerned but surely in the FF market Nikon is the leader and maybe by quite a margin... I know many pros that changed side this year and I know many that where using MF and replaced it with D800E for studio use.... I also happen to know many people in the MF industry.... they are in serious trouble because of the D800E lately... They where expecting market share for MF to stay constant, yet the market showed different... I myself decided to decrease my Contax645 system... I have a listing currently for my 45, 140 and 45-90 as well as one of the 3 bodies, I will only keep the 35, 55, 80, 120m and 210 as well as my Fuji GX680 system to accompany my Imacon 528c... I am only doing multishot (16x) with it and some studio stuff... all the rest has been replaced with D800E...

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

cosmonaut wrote:

But the sensor is probably most of the cost of a camera.

Yet you are mistaken... it doesn't cost that much to replace a damaged sensor of a camera... and the repair cost is mostly labor since its not an easy job at all.... given the profit from the repair, it's sensible to consider the sensor at around 10% of what a camera costs.... put it otherwise, if sensor cost was that much, could a manufacturer afford to sell a product with a 30% reduction in price than the intro price? In fact you may be surprised that the shutter mechanism of a camera costs about as much as the sensor and that a good quality real glass pentaprism viewfinder costs twice that much...

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

kb2zuz Veteran Member • Posts: 3,202
It's here
3

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

According to the now 3 years old Nikon patent, the sensor will be at the edge of a small box (much like the screen of a small cell-phone), which will be slotted in position from the left side (as we look at the VF eye-piece) and it will be user interchangeable....

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

They already exist. Medium format digital cameras are often this way with a removable back. There are several problems that come along with it:

First is the reality that the sensor alone is not enough, the processing software and many times the processing chip is designed to work in concert with the sensor. The processor would have to know how to deal with demosaicing a color file and the layout of the sensor filters, if you put in a B&W sensor, it would have to know that it's a B&W sensor and how to deal with a B&W image instead of a mosaic color file... noise reduction algorithms and settings all have to be changed on each sensor. As a result you probably want to build the processor onto the sensor unit. Now you'd still need a secondary processor on the body to run the LCD, card reader, exposure unit, autofocus system, etc. Do you plan on all of these would be full frame or DX? Because if you plan on both, then the viewfinder and AF units would have to change between the different sizes

The next problem you have is that when you start dealing with high resolution sensor, the tolerances of how exactly where the sensor must sit becomes critical. When medium format backs started getting over 17MP they started having more problems with accuracy of focus and they started getting color shifts where one side of the image would have a slight magenta color and the other side would have a slight green color. This happens because if the light enters the sensor from even an extremely slight angle, the light might pass from the color filter of the pixel next to it, so a red pixel might see a little of the light from the green filter over the pixel next to it. If the sensor is of to the left, right, up or down a little, a 100% viewfinder will be inaccurate. Many medium format cameras don't have a perfect 100% viewfinder, and companies like Hasselblad have gotten to matching tolerances between bodies and backs and not selling them separately. Basically what they do is if the mount on the body is 8 microns to thick, they sell it with a back who's mount is 8 microns too thin. They can't make every body and back perfect to the micron, but they match them up. The problem is that if you sold them separately someone might happy to buy a body and back where the flaws cancel out but they could also end up buying a body and back where the flaws are both in the same direction and make the problem even worse. Keep in mind that when I say 17MP that's on a much larger sensor with bigger pixels, when you deal with a smaller sensor like a full-frame 35mm, you'll start seeing it at lower MP.

Next, having a removable sensor is nice, but it is also a way to make it much more likely that the sensor becomes scratched or damaged. I've seen more medium format sensor scratched than 35mm sensors.

Another thing to consider is this would only be really useful if there was one standard that every camera company would agree to use, so that a smaller company like Sigma/Foveon could make 1 sensor unit that could be used in a Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Sony. I really doubt different companies could agree to a single standard. If Nikon had their format and Nikon had their format, you could only buy what sensors they offer. Right now Canon makes and an APS-C and a FF 18MP sensor, a FF 20MP sensor, and a FF 22MP sensor. Nikon is a little more diverse at the moment they have an APS-C 14MP, an APS-C 16, an APS-C and a FF 24, and a FF 36MP sensor that are hot (as well as some legacy 12MP sensors that are on the way out, I think the 14 may be too). But they limit the number of sensors they make because every new type of sensor they make costs billions in R&D and setting up the chip foundry.

Finally let's see what we'd get out of it... keep in mind that as much as sensors improve in quality, AF, LCDs, image processing, memory card readers, metering systems, etc. The sensor is not the only piece that gets upgraded, also shutters and moving parts wear out over time and need to be replaced anyway. Trust me, I'm the first person to say I'd love to pick and choose the features I want, but it's just not practical for a large manufacturer. I could see smaller companies do this. Ricoh does it with a P&S/Mirrorless system, PhaseOne/Leaf/Mamiya and Hasselblad do it with their medium format systems, but in all of these cases, the extra connections make the system bigger and bulkier and you pay more for less than you might get from a manufacturer who deals with much larger volume.

-- hide signature --

\~K

 kb2zuz's gear list:kb2zuz's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED Epson Stylus Pro 3880 +6 more
Glen78 Senior Member • Posts: 1,411
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?
1

Doesn't seem far fetched to me. Medium format digital already does it to a certain extent.

 Glen78's gear list:Glen78's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D5500 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
Leif Goodwin Senior Member • Posts: 1,390
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

cosmonaut wrote:

But the sensor is probably most of the cost of a camera.

Yet you are mistaken... it doesn't cost that much to replace a damaged sensor of a camera... and the repair cost is mostly labor since its not an easy job at all.... given the profit from the repair, it's sensible to consider the sensor at around 10% of what a camera costs....

Your posts are full of assertions pulled out of thin air, and this one in particular is hard to believe. Do you have any proof? And bear in mind that we are talking about an FX sensor.

 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 F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
trueview Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

trueview wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

trueview wrote:

Theodoros,

I strongly suspect that this is technically doable, and actually have been fantacizing about such a solution. Yes, the processing unit would have to come with the sensor, but there is no major difficulty here. Given the general level of build quality, AF, metering, etc of my 5dIII, an upgrade path to the sensor would seem logical, not to mention the possibility of adding special purpose sensors (B&W, for instance).

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening, for marketing reasons. Back in the dsays of film, a Nikon F2 or f3 had a nine year life span. Same goes for Canon equivalents. In the digital age, camera manufacturers have managed to reduce the product cycle to 3 years. I don't see them relinquishing this advantage any time soon. This of course is at the expense of the user.

Exactly... that's why I am saying that they will ONLY be forced to do it if a third manufacturer (one that wants to enter the FF market without risking to convince the customers for been a long term alternative) will do it..., then they will have to react! (please refer to previous posts)

Three years ago, Nikon send a questionary to most pros (their customers) all over the world... among the questions was if modularity of camera in relevance of sensors, screens, viewfinders, is among their requirements, needless to say that all pros I know answered positively on the matter... then they filed the patent... thereafter nothing happened! ...Now that they 've taken the FF market from Canon by a good margin, I find it even more impossible for them to proceed..., not that they can't..., they clearly don't want too... they are clearly more interested (in both C & N) to communicate a marketing "imaginary war" having stupid soldiers that pay them the more they can... clearly the most profitable war in industry and the one that is against photography from traditional "photography servants" !!!

I generally agree, except for one thing. You seem to intend that Nikon customers are mostly pros (unless I misunderstood). I'm skeptical of that. I would suspect that even for quite expensive bodies such as D800/5diii, non pros outnumber pros by quite a large margin. Which means that manufacturers would also survey amateur reaction to inrchangeable sensors before going in that direction.

No..., I also agree that enthusiasts are more than pros... I am only saying that pros would all invest in such a camera... many enthusiasts will also, but usually many of them are specializing in one kind of photography and thus the appeal would be less (in percentage) than pros.... I suspect that there will be pros that could have two such bodies (no pro works without a back up) and maybe all sensors available, surely it can't be to the same extend with enthusiasts....

Also you are saying that Nikon has overtaken Canon in full frame. I read elsewhere that in terms of market share Canon is still ahead worldwide, but this was a secondary source, and the primary source was not quoted, so no way to verify. If you actually have a reliable source of market statistics for the photo market, I'd very much like if you could give it, my interest in this  matter having nothing to do with the N/C fan war taking place here (strictly business !

No real market data no reliable source either... just what the major sellers report... Canon may still lead the market as far as ALL DSLRs are concerned but surely in the FF market Nikon is the leader and maybe by quite a margin... I know many pros that changed side this year and I know many that where using MF and replaced it with D800E for studio use.... I also happen to know many people in the MF industry.... they are in serious trouble because of the D800E lately... They where expecting market share for MF to stay constant, yet the market showed different... I myself decided to decrease my Contax645 system... I have a listing currently for my 45, 140 and 45-90 as well as one of the 3 bodies, I will only keep the 35, 55, 80, 120m and 210 as well as my Fuji GX680 system to accompany my Imacon 528c... I am only doing multishot (16x) with it and some studio stuff... all the rest has been replaced with D800E...


Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

As a canon user, I wouldn't mind seeing canon getting a kick in the butt as this always does a lot of good to a corporation's inventiveness and pricing policy. But without real statistics, it's hard to draw a conclusion. I'm wondering why it seems difficult to find such data on the photo market, whereas they are easily available for other industries.

MF switching to D800e would not make a significant difference. A few years ago, the market for medium format in France was 700/y? A drop in the sea compared to DSLR sales, even  limited to FF. So I think those switches would only marginally add to Nikon's sales, but of course are deadly for the MF manufacturers. An asymmetric shock, sort of.

Contax 645 : never had it but drooled over it. What an amazing system. I do have a 2 Contax G2, the best compact body ever made in my opinion. And what amazing lenses.

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: It's here

I don't see  why people refer to MFDBs all the time... obviously they don't read the previous posts... 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...

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

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

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
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...

-- 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

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...


-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Re: Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

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?

A lot of people has, over time, made claims like "this sensor is so good I will never need an improvement" ... And yet, a few years later they still have upgraded

So you want to be able to swap a D4 sensor in and out of a D800 body, I sort of guessed you would come around to this favorite theme of yours

The upgrade path would become more flexible, yes - but also tremendously more expensive, something you seem to ignore. Sadly that is how it works. Flexibility as in having loose parts always come at a price, while the cost-efficient approach is to bundle all possible functionality in one package and sell that package to as many customers as possible. This is why we have cameras with lots of functionality which is frequently used only by a fraction of its owners. But making separate, dedicated models, is very expensive. The D4 is a good example (among Nikon cameras) how expensive it gets to build a camera specifically for a fairly small audience.

- 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...

Either those people you know in the MF industry (whats left of it) is having fun at your expense, or they are dreaming. The harsh reality is MF manufacturers cannot even afford to use the most current sensors available in their sizes (developed for industrial, scientific or military use), but are stuck with some old, rather dated, designs which can be made at a (barely) acceptable cost.

If sensor prices has 'improved' so much lately, why is it we have seen no real price drops of MF cameras then? They are still stuck on price levels out of reach for enthusiasts where they could potentially reach the larger volumes they so desperately need.

Sensors are expensive, and the price increases exponentially with both size and level of technology. And a custom built processor which deals efficiently with the data collected from the sensor and turns it into an image is not cheap either. Unless you opt for a more generic design and lose much efficiency. Much like the 16 bit A/D converters MF manufacturers use - contrary to what many belive, it is not because they need 16 bits, its simply because they cannot afford to build more efficient customized A/D converters (where 14 bits would be more the sufficient).

Have you by the way noticed a trend among medium format cameras? Hasselblad no longer makes separate backs. Leica S2 has a built in sensor, and so does Pentax 645. The modular medium format Sinar cameras have been discontinued. Leaf have stopped making digital backs. The sole remaining player really working with replaceable medium format sensors (backs) are PhaseOne. It is because fewer and fewer are prepared to pay for the flexibility you look for.

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...

You keep saying that, but camera technicians and a lot of other knowledgeable people I know say the opposite. And their arguments - unfortunately - make a lot of sense.

You seem to think it is easy simply because you want it to be easy. I also wish it was like that, but I have seen compelling arguments it isn't.

-- 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
Leif Goodwin Senior Member • Posts: 1,390
Re: It's here
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

I don't see  why people refer to MFDBs all the time... obviously they don't read the previous posts...

I think you need to look in the mirror. I think what you mean is that others do not blindly accept you assertions.

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...

No, there is no problem, it can be solved. But you make an assertion "nor it is expensive to secure sensor positioning...".

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

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

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.

 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 F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
Leif Goodwin Senior Member • Posts: 1,390
Re: Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
2

Grevture wrote:

You seem to think it is easy simply because you want it to be easy. I also wish it was like that, but I have seen compelling arguments it isn't.

That just about sums it up. If he says that it is so, it is so. Don't waste your time.

 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 F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D +4 more
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
1

Now you've started arguing, posting all irrelevant matters that you can think off... While you agree with me, you started prejudging what people want and my relationships with people... What sensor I want on some of my D800s is up to me... The MFDB cost has come down, (ever noticed a Leaf 5 price ?) ...while on the other hand, the shrinkage of demand doesn't allow further shrinkage if survival comes into consideration... further..., (take it from one that has a MechEng British degree) you have no real info on how easy positioning of sensor is, ...neither any knowledge to support it, ...you are just guessing... and try to support a false argument for the shake of supporting it!

By the way..., there is no reason why processor and buffer electronics won't be made upgradeable also..., after all a good body is what costs more (by far) in what we pay and we have every right to replace it whenever we like... not because film improved a bit.... this was never a reason to upgrade body and lenses in photography and there is no reason (other than funboyism) to support the opposite....

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
You are, if nothing, predictable :)
2

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Now you've started arguing, posting all irrelevant matters that you can think off... While you agree with me, you started prejudging what people want and my relationships with people... What sensor I want on some of my D800s is up to me... The MFDB cost has come down, (ever noticed a Leaf 5 price ?) ...while on the other hand, the shrinkage of demand doesn't allow further shrinkage if survival comes into consideration... further..., (take it from one that has a MechEng British degree) you have no real info on how easy positioning of sensor is, ...neither any knowledge to support it, ...you are just guessing... and try to support a false argument for the shake of supporting it!

So I have started arguing? How terribly rude of me to argue in a discussion  

I guess the only thing you are really looking for are that people should agree with you? You keep starting threads with - I must say - often interesting topics. But then completely disregard of anything anybody else have to say (unless they agree completely with your assumptions) and seem to be terribly insulted when people actually have different opinions then you have.

To answer some of the specfics you bring up above:

1) No, I do not agree with you. That is why I am arguing. This is a very normal course of a discussion, and can at times be rather interesting. It is actually one reason for forums to exist.

2) I have not started pejudging 'people' (but you seem freqently to do that)

3) I do not care one bit about your relationships with people (where did that come from?)

4) What sensor you want in your D800 is up to you, but when you make that desire the topic of something like every second post you make in this forum it does sound a bit like a broken record.

5) About the Leaf Aptus II 5 price: a) it was released in 2009 (making it a bit of yesterdays news), b) it is not particularily affordable

6) Your point of me having no real info on sensor positioning: Well I did bring up one example (the D3 sensor whe upgrading buffer) while you have brought no examples or technical arguments to support your assertion that it is no proble to position a digital sensor.

7) As for guessing, I let others be the judge who, out of the two of us, which is doing the most guessing here

By the way..., there is no reason why processor and buffer electronics won't be made upgradeable also..., after all a good body is what costs more (by far) in what we pay and we have every right to replace it whenever we like... not because film improved a bit.... this was never a reason to upgrade body and lenses in photography and there is no reason (other than funboyism) to support the opposite.... 

I am sure there was a intention of yours to make a point of some sort here, but unfortenately it is hard to find among all the words.

But, in response to the point of "there is no reason why processor and buffer electronics won't be made upgradeable" it might be possible technically. But at what price? And at what benefit?

Just because something is technically possible, it does not mean it makes much if any commercial sense. The medium format manufacturers have provided us with plenty of proof of that.

The idea of a modular camera with replaceable components sound very nice - in theory. Much like the ideas (used to be common, nor rarely seen) about a digital back to put in a old 35 mm camera made for film. But they bot fail for the same reason: The technical hurdles are much to expensive to overcome in relation to the usefulness of the resulting product.

-- 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
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: It's here
1

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

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: You are, if nothing, predictable :)
1

Arguing for the purpose of arguing again buddy...?  Guess what... it will make you "friendly" to trolls (which you are not)... please post where you disagree with the topic instead of opposing unsupported claims that are only impressions... it's not beneficial for you this way... there is no problem for sensor alignment, nor future tech advancement in processors does undervalue the benefit... no?

P.S. The cost of being able to upgrade the processor, is related on demand for the matter ...no? I mean if you never demand on it, ...it will never happened ...no?

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply
1

I mean arguing all the time to the makers benefit, instead of demanding what our photography or consumer power should demand is not very beneficial to our position ...is it?

...I really don't see why so many people support the makers ability to sell US a new body whenever film advances... Is there anybody here that thinks they have that right? ....other than trolls  or funboys that only want to see a win in the (hypothetical) C/N war and don't give a dime about photography that is....

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Grevture Veteran Member • Posts: 4,188
Re: You are, if nothing, predictable :)
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Arguing for the purpose of arguing again buddy...? Guess what... it will make you "friendly" to trolls (which you are not)... please post where you disagree with the topic instead of opposing unsupported claims that are only impressions... it's not beneficial for you this way... there is no problem for sensor alignment, nor future tech advancement in processors does undervalue the benefit... no?

About arguing for the sake of arguing: Well, look who is calling the kettle black

I am disagreeing with the topic of replaceable sensors because it is a lot more complex, thus more expensive, the you seem to believe.

You keep repeating that there is "no problem for sensor alignment" where I have spoken with many people, which I know to be knowledgeable, who say it really is problematic. You might be a tremendously skilled engineer, but you are still one single voice arguing against a large number of people who think differently (now I am referring to people I have had this discussion with in the past six or seven years, not so much about this thread).

It does not take much of a engineer to realize that building a replaceable sensor is very likely quite complex.

First because, contrary to what you want to believe, it is technically difficult to replace a sensor without also replacing a lot of the supporting electronics (processor, readout circuitry, buffers and so on). And making those parts so generic it is less of a problem causes other problems like less performance.

Second because it will physically require a more of the very things all manufacturers are trying hard to get rid of - high precision mechanical parts.

Third because todays fixed-sensor cameras are (historically speaking) already fairly cheap, meaning it is hard to compete with them for a different solution.

If you have any concrete arguments to support your claim, feel free to elaborate how you are going to make this work with high enough precision and still be cheap to build. I would love to hear it. But just repeating you really, really want it will not convince me.

P.S. The cost of being able to upgrade the processor, is related on demand for the matter ...no? I mean if you never demand on it, ...it will never happened ...no?

But how large is the demand, really? I mean outside the small world of technically interested enthusiasts?

A product must have mass market appeal to be cheap, or it will become quite expensive (like small audience products like a D4). How many photographers really want a more complex, albeit more flexible, camera? Not that many I am afraid.

I like the idea with a replaceable sensor. I also like the idea of owning a Ferrari. I am however not willing to pay for either. I seriously doubt there are enough people around who want a replaceable sensor enough for it to become commercially viable.

-- 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
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: You are, if nothing, predictable :)
1

Grevture wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Arguing for the purpose of arguing again buddy...? Guess what... it will make you "friendly" to trolls (which you are not)... please post where you disagree with the topic instead of opposing unsupported claims that are only impressions... it's not beneficial for you this way... there is no problem for sensor alignment, nor future tech advancement in processors does undervalue the benefit... no?


About arguing for the sake of arguing: Well, look who is calling the kettle black

I am disagreeing with the topic of replaceable sensors because it is a lot more complex, thus more expensive, the you seem to believe.

You keep repeating that there is "no problem for sensor alignment" where I have spoken with many people, which I know to be knowledgeable, who say it really is problematic. You might be a tremendously skilled engineer, but you are still one single voice arguing against a large number of people who think differently (now I am referring to people I have had this discussion with in the past six or seven years, not so much about this thread).

It does not take much of a engineer to realize that building a replaceable sensor is very likely quite complex.

First because, contrary to what you want to believe, it is technically difficult to replace a sensor without also replacing a lot of the supporting electronics (processor, readout circuitry, buffers and so on). And making those parts so generic it is less of a problem causes other problems like less performance.

Second because it will physically require a more of the very things all manufacturers are trying hard to get rid of - high precision mechanical parts.

Third because todays fixed-sensor cameras are (historically speaking) already fairly cheap, meaning it is hard to compete with them for a different solution.

If you have any concrete arguments to support your claim, feel free to elaborate how you are going to make this work with high enough precision and still be cheap to build. I would love to hear it. But just repeating you really, really want it will not convince me.


P.S. The cost of being able to upgrade the processor, is related on demand for the matter ...no? I mean if you never demand on it, ...it will never happened ...no?

But how large is the demand, really? I mean outside the small world of technically interested enthusiasts?

A product must have mass market appeal to be cheap, or it will become quite expensive (like small audience products like a D4). How many photographers really want a more complex, albeit more flexible, camera? Not that many I am afraid.

I like the idea with a replaceable sensor. I also like the idea of owning a Ferrari. I am however not willing to pay for either. I seriously doubt there are enough people around who want a replaceable sensor enough for it to become commercially viable.

What was that? ...another 1000 words for repeating what was already said? ...again with no answers? ...Guess what, that was what it is... yet there are not many people to read it, ...I am sorry I did!

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads