Is there time for an interchangeable sensor DSLR?

Started Oct 19, 2012 | Discussions
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: It's here
1

Leif Goodwin wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Leif Goodwin wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

I do think that TH is a mindless troll... but that's my opinion...!

Wow. There is not much more to say, I'm afraid. Have a nice day.

Oh! It was a "to the guru I believe" post from the start... why don't you say so... (from the start)...?

Well... let the "Guru" post all the "predictions" and "reasoning" himself ...no? ....What are you guys? ...mindless servants to the "Guru"? ...or is the Guru so mindless to let the "servants" do "the job for him"? ...LOL (for the ...guru!)

P.S. ....(and I wondered all this time "where is TOF Guy"... ?) ....LOL!

You dismiss comments by someone who is widely respected for his reviews, and Nikon camera guides, and who has inside contacts in the industry, including in Nikon, as a 'mindless troll'. I think you need to look in the mirror. You are a complete unknown, making claim after claim, without any justification or proof whatsoever. And when someone questions you, you insult them, on the grounds that they do not accept something simply because you say so. And as for my not having any brains, I have a PhD, unlike you.

In what? ...is it in reasoning? ...because if it is in reasoning and you present it... I' ll "shut up"...., otherwise..... some "others" have to "shut up"!

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Not sure what you mean?
1

Wojciech Sawicki wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Do you mean that a creator of such a solution would "sabotage" the existence of it... ? Because none of your reasoning could apply unless he does....

Why would it be sabotage?

Newer, more capable sensors require newer, more capable electronics to handle their output. You wouldn't be able to upgrade sensors in this hypothetical system unless you upgrade large portions of other electronics, too.

Unless you keep designing new sensors only for this system, which would make them very expensive (low production numbers relative to unit production cost), but then eventually, a few years down the road, the system would bottleneck - new, higher resolution sensors, but taking ages to process and write the files, because the electronics can't keep up...

That's no sabotage, that's an inherent trait of this whole concept. You'd have to replace more than just the sensor. It would be expensive, and it would get very similar to a digital back.

We' ve been through this... read the earlier posts, ...it's there!

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
Medium format digital already does it...
5

Glen78 wrote:

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

And of 15 (not counting folks like Lomo and Holga) medium format camera and back manufacturers in business 12 years ago, three survive...

  • Pentax, who took the number one medium format spot, finishing off Blad and doing serious damage to Phase One, by building a single piece medium format DSLR that did not have an interchangeable back.
  • Leica, who went from a lab curiosity (the S1 scanning camera) to viable by doing like Pentax, and going to a one piece DSLR in the S2.
  • Phase One, who acquired the assets of the liquidated Mamiya and Leaf along the way, but still sees declining sales, even with two competitor's market shares in their bellies.

It's not far fetched that a camera company "could" do it. It is totally far fetched, far beyond the farthest fetched, to imagine anyone believing that it's viable and actually doing it.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: Medium format digital already does it...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Glen78 wrote:

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

And of 15 (not counting folks like Lomo and Holga) medium format camera and back manufacturers in business 12 years ago, three survive...

  • Pentax, who took the number one medium format spot, finishing off Blad and doing serious damage to Phase One, by building a single piece medium format DSLR that did not have an interchangeable back.
  • Leica, who went from a lab curiosity (the S1 scanning camera) to viable by doing like Pentax, and going to a one piece DSLR in the S2.
  • Phase One, who acquired the assets of the liquidated Mamiya and Leaf along the way, but still sees declining sales, even with two competitor's market shares in their bellies.

It's not far fetched that a camera company "could" do it. It is totally far fetched, far beyond the farthest fetched, to imagine anyone believing that it's viable and actually doing it.

Oh... come on Joseph! ...You are obviously right, but don't "ruin" my subject... We can obviously benefit from it if we raise a united voice.... forget about MF at the moment, we can come back whenever we save what we can...

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
Why would photographers "demand"...
4

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Wojciech Sawicki wrote:

It was how digital SLRs first came to be. Pro and semi-pro Nikon bodies with digital backs. F3, F801, F90. you could easily take the back off and load film - which I used to do often. But what Theodoros means is a digital body that already contains all the essential electronics (card slots, processing and writing provisions, etc), with the sensor being the only interchangeable part.

A digital back has to contain all the electronics for handling data, processing, writing, it needs card slots, data ports and buttons for all digital functions (delete, format etc).

A modern application could no doubt be much smaller and neater, this mid-nineties monstrosity was huge, heavy, ugly as hell and very impractical. Until the DCS-315 they had no screens so you had no clue how your photo turned out. It had PCMCIA cards for memory (they were huge, especially the harddrive variation, and vulnerable to drops), and had SCSI ports for communication.

There was a different concept about, as far as I can remember... A digital film casette you could put in most cameras. I would sooo love that for use with vintage Zenits and Leicas! Sadly, I think the project died in its concept stage, there wasn't even a prototype.

If you ask me Wojciech, it's that we forgot to care or we forgot to bother., I mean the photographers to "demand"!

We "forgot" neither of those things. Sane people do not "demand" something that ​decreases performance in every conceivable way.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
I got to that, elsewhere...
3

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Glen78 wrote:

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

And of 15 (not counting folks like Lomo and Holga) medium format camera and back manufacturers in business 12 years ago, three survive...

  • Pentax, who took the number one medium format spot, finishing off Blad and doing serious damage to Phase One, by building a single piece medium format DSLR that did not have an interchangeable back.
  • Leica, who went from a lab curiosity (the S1 scanning camera) to viable by doing like Pentax, and going to a one piece DSLR in the S2.
  • Phase One, who acquired the assets of the liquidated Mamiya and Leaf along the way, but still sees declining sales, even with two competitor's market shares in their bellies.

It's not far fetched that a camera company "could" do it. It is totally far fetched, far beyond the farthest fetched, to imagine anyone believing that it's viable and actually doing it.

Oh... come on Joseph! ...You are obviously right, but don't "ruin" my subject... We can obviously benefit from it if we raise a united voice....

But we're not going to "raise a united voice", Theodoros. There's nothing to unite over. Most of us do not want interchangeable sensor cameras, because of all the enormous compromises to the camera design that have to be made to get that feature. Others pointed out a few of the more obvious problems, and I added a few more.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50108408

It's not a tenable idea. It's just like laptops and tablets. Upgradability gave way to size, weight, and ruggedness. SSD MacBooks don't even have "drive bays" any more, all the flash is soldered directly to the main board. Tablets have nothing upgradeable. They're even shedding external connectors.

Closing the box makes for the best ergonomics. The more large doors, sealed seams, etc. you do away with, the more freedom you have to place controls. The more connectors you do away with, the more reliability rises.

Take a quick survey of how many desktop PC owners ever actually opened the machine far enough to do a processor upgrade. That's why that capability is getting emphasized less and less with each new generation of computer.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
I wish it were like film and you could upgrade...
2

Tommot1965 wrote:

I wish there were..as Id have kept my D300s and popped a new sensor in a magic camera ...too many great pieces of hardware get wasted due to being a little outdated in the sensor area..I wish it were like film and you could upgrade as new advances were made

That's the problem with film comparisons. I shot the stuff for over 30 years. Do you know how few advances were made in that time? About one major advance per decade. Kodak's T grains and 2 electron grains, and Fuji's three layer emulsion. That's about it.

And you couldn't really "upgrade as new advances were made". I shot a lot of an old, old technique that became an "advance" when a "cult" started, the use of microfilm. Back in the 70s, some of us used to shoot Kodak High Contrast Copy Film, a document film with too high a contrast for use in general photography, with a "third party" reducing developer called  "H&W Control" that gave it a longer scale. Eventually Kodak rereleased HCCF as "Tech Pan" and their own version of Control as "Technidol". But the average 35mm DSLR was not up to the task of focusing accurately enough to shoot that high resolution. We're still seeing that. Look at the debacle with the Nikon D800 focusing errors. Nikon's factory procedures weren't up to aligning a camera's focus system, mirror, and sensor well enough to feed that 36mp monster. What would happen five years from now, when the resolution doubles or triples again? There's not an existing camera that could focus it. The interchangeable sensor can't fix that.

OK, back to film. HCCF or Tech Pan (or the ADOX and EFKE that sprang up when Kodak dropped the film totally) took heroic effort. I realigned the focus systems in and FM2 and F100 to deal with it, changed screens on an 8008, gave up on the F5 totally. Changing film, for the most part, was really a solution for photographers who wanted to only maintain one camera system, a versatile 35mm system, instead of dealing with 35mm for some missions, medium format for others, and a 4x5 or 8x10 field camera or view camera (or both) for others.

And that's where we've come to, today. Film didn't let us "upgrade as new advances were made", it forced us into a pattern where we had to maintain separate and incompatible camera systems for a lot of jobs. 1980, anyone who did photojournalism had 35mm. Anyone who did weddings or events had medium format. Anyone who did architecture or product had a large format view camera. Anyone who did a lot of things had a lot of cameras. That's the one true film analogy.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: I got to that, elsewhere...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Glen78 wrote:

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

And of 15 (not counting folks like Lomo and Holga) medium format camera and back manufacturers in business 12 years ago, three survive...

  • Pentax, who took the number one medium format spot, finishing off Blad and doing serious damage to Phase One, by building a single piece medium format DSLR that did not have an interchangeable back.
  • Leica, who went from a lab curiosity (the S1 scanning camera) to viable by doing like Pentax, and going to a one piece DSLR in the S2.
  • Phase One, who acquired the assets of the liquidated Mamiya and Leaf along the way, but still sees declining sales, even with two competitor's market shares in their bellies.

It's not far fetched that a camera company "could" do it. It is totally far fetched, far beyond the farthest fetched, to imagine anyone believing that it's viable and actually doing it.

Oh... come on Joseph! ...You are obviously right, but don't "ruin" my subject... We can obviously benefit from it if we raise a united voice....

But we're not going to "raise a united voice", Theodoros. There's nothing to unite over. Most of us do not want interchangeable sensor cameras, because of all the enormous compromises to the camera design that have to be made to get that feature. Others pointed out a few of the more obvious problems, and I added a few more.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50108408

It's not a tenable idea. It's just like laptops and tablets. Upgradability gave way to size, weight, and ruggedness. SSD MacBooks don't even have "drive bays" any more, all the flash is soldered directly to the main board. Tablets have nothing upgradeable. They're even shedding external connectors.

Closing the box makes for the best ergonomics. The more large doors, sealed seams, etc. you do away with, the more freedom you have to place controls. The more connectors you do away with, the more reliability rises.

Take a quick survey of how many desktop PC owners ever actually opened the machine far enough to do a processor upgrade. That's why that capability is getting emphasized less and less with each new generation of computer.

I can feel your voice getting weak Josh, that is the reason I won't insist on what I feel wrong about it... I post this picture underneath, not to show off, but rather to share my agony onto where this all leads too... certainly it shouldn't be  to a 60mpx Bayer pattern fun boy requirement though....

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
the sensor/electronics doesn't cost more than 12% of the total cost...
5

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

You are right as far as next generation sensors are considered Jeff, but what would we care with the level of the existing sensors/processors quality...? I mean you don't expect a D200 vs. D800 IQ difference to appear in the future ...do you? ...I don't anyway! But I do agree with you that they won't do it... (a newcomer to FF may...) not because of cost, the sensor/electronics doesn't cost more than 12% of the total cost of modern DSLRs like the D800 or 5Dmkiii...

Where, on Earth, did you get that figure? Really, where?

I think this is the fundamental misconception that can put this thread to bed.

A 5D is a junkpile (I know, I have one). It represents the most lopsided "split" in the entire digital photography industry. It's based on the Canon EOS Elan 7, an under $200 "camera" (housing, prism, mirror, shutter, power supply, motors to run shutter and mirror). To that, you add a display and controls, and if you want to get an idea of how cheap that is, look at a "Gameboy". The rest, about $1800 is the digital "film" that you want to change. You got things totally backwards, in the 5D, the sensor and electronics is over 88% of the cost, the rest of the camera, the part you're so keen on saving, is under 12%.(By my best calculations, it's actually down around 8% camera, 92% sensor).

And look at the difference between a 5D I, II, and III. As that body evolved, the motors got faster, more reliable, and quieter. Canon totally redid the AF system, going from a 5D I to a III is night and day.

Look at D700 and D700. That's the F100 body that carries over from D200 and D300. You really think a D700/D800 class sensor is 12% of the $3000 cost of those beasts? What's the price difference between D200/300 and D700/800. About 250%. Hard to reconcile that with a sensor that's 12% of the camera cost. More like 70%. Nikon "beat" Canon by letting the "camera" account for about 30% of the D700, and letting the sensor drop to 70%.

(this means that we could have interchangeable sensors at the 600-1200 range), but because the sales of the higher end cameras would drop...

No, they really wouldn't. Honestly. One of the things you heard people talk about, over and over, when D700 came out, was that it had a D3 AF system, radically superior to anything the previous generation had. D2X, the previous $5,000 flagship, couldn't keep up with an under $3000 D700.

We're entering a time when people are looking at the whole camera again, not just the sensor. It's more like the film days: the film is good enough, is it time to upgrade the camera?

Another thing is that independent manufacturers could produce "film" like they now produce "battery grips" or lenses

You need to take enough business classes to be able to crunch the numbers that go along with those silly claims. Do you have any idea what it would cost to start making sensor modules? Then to match and OEM's quantities, so you could be competitive on price.

and they wouldn't like that either... Kodak and Fuji would like it though....

Kodak and Fuji, despite having created the DSLR market in the first place, failed in it.

I feel that the only way they can be forced to proceed

That's like the 100the time, in your various D700 threads and now this sensor thread, that you've talked about "force". Where is this "force" coming from? How many of these threads do you need to start before you finally understand that you're such a "fringe" case, such a small minority that you have no "force".

is if a maker (Hass?, Leica?, Pentax?, Fuji?, Mamiya/P1?....) will come up with such an alternative.

  • Leica withdrew from the 35mm SLR market (ModulR).
  • Fuji withdrew, too.
  • Pentax is committed to small, comfortable cameras, which, for reasons I outlined elsewhere, excludes interchangeable sensors.
  • Blad went under last year and is currently being milked as a marketable "brand identity" by Ventiz.
  • Mamiya was liquidated and P1 bought their assets. P1 is not doing that well.

I hope as well you (and me) both prove ....wrong!

OK, I've proved you wrong. Does that satisfy your hopes.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
Re: I got to that, elsewhere...
6

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

I can feel your voice getting weak Josh,

Josh is the nickname for Joshua. The nickname for Joseph is Joe, but I much prefer Joseph.

Now, what's with this "weak voice" comment? I made solid points that you can't refute. The only thing "weak" is you doing what you always do after someone dismantles your arguments, posting yet another picture of your camera gear.

Well, kid, that does not impress me: I have more and better gear. So, if the best gear wins, you lose. If the best arguments win, you still lose. What's the element of commonality there?

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 26,065
Technically impossible.
5

A camera is much more than a sensor, so you can't just change sensor without changing almost everything else as well.

 olyflyer's gear list:olyflyer's gear list
Nikon Z7
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: I got to that, elsewhere...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

I can feel your voice getting weak Josh,

Josh is the nickname for Joshua. The nickname for Joseph is Joe, but I much prefer Joseph.

Now, what's with this "weak voice" comment? I made solid points that you can't refute. The only thing "weak" is you doing what you always do after someone dismantles your arguments, posting yet another picture of your camera gear.

Well, kid, that does not impress me: I have more and better gear. So, if the best gear wins, you lose. If the best arguments win, you still lose. What's the element of commonality there?

Neither I lose in gear nor in logic Joseph... and you do have a "weak" voice..., ...kid!

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
B&W and IR...
3

Tony Beach wrote:

I don't think its biggest value is price, although there would be some cost saving to buying another sensor instead of an entire new camera.  I think its biggest value would be to be able to carry multiple sensors and use them on one camera -- I would like B&W as well as IR to go with the current 36 MP BFA sensor.  Since we don't get B&W or IR cameras from Nikon, it seems to me that interchangeable sensors would make that more likely.

Now you're talking.

There's two parts to the answer. IR is never going to happen, and B&W is obsolete.

IR's the easy part, so let's address it first. It isn't part of the sensor, it's part of the filter in front of it. There were several P&S cameras that  could slide that filter out of the optical path for you. Then came what has come to be called "the Sony lesson". Citizens groups in the US and Europe raised a gigantic cry about the "x-ray" cameras that "perverts" could use to get a faint glimpse of our precious children's underwear, and the next thing you know, protestors were literally having demonstrations where they smashed or burnt Sony cameras in front of government buildings. No mainstream camera maker will ever make a camera with an easily removable IR filter, ever again. So, that pretty much settles the whole idea of Nikon or Canon making interchangeable sensor packs. Right now, doing an "IR conversion" involves huge amounts of effort: you dedicate a camera to IR, then tear it apart (dozens of screws, several fragile ribbon connectors) or pay someone $400 to do so. Imagine if you could have that done to a spare sensor cartridge, much easier, without dedicating a camera. This must never be allowed to happen.

WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN!

One camera currently makes that filter removable, the number eleven maker, the smallest of the small, the fringe of the fringe: Sigma. Mad camera burning mothers never notice Sigma. They're so small, so hard to get (if you don't live in Tokyo or New York, your local store doesn't stock the SD1) that they're below the radar.

OK, a more serious, mainstream issue: B&W. It's obsolete. Not the art and craft of B&W, that's eternal and beautiful. The technology is obsolete. We did get a B&W camera from Nikon. It's called the D800. A 36mp D800 color shot, converted to B&W, outresolves an 18mp Leica M9M monochrome shot. Look at what Nokia did, a 40mp sensor in a phone camera. It doesn't deliver 40mp pictures, it delivers 8mp pictures, with the 40mp serving as "oversampling". That's the wave of the future. A 36mp color sensor, even with Bayer color filters and AA filter, extracts more information from the projected image than Leica's pure monochrome. But a 400mp sensor on an APS DSLR would extract everything that the lens had to offer. Oversample at 400mp, and knock it down to 100mp, either B&W or color, and you've got all the resolution you can expect from a real optical system (as opposed to a "synthetic" system like a stitched panorama).

That's the future. We will go 2-3x from 36mp DSLRs to 75 or 100mp, then another 2-3x, and another, until we're oversampling to the limits of the lenses. Maybe we'll stop there. Processors will also keep up, and pass the advances in sensors, so the days of needing a 12mp camera just to hit 10 frames/second are obsolete, too. Or maybe  Dr. Fossum is right, and we'll see 10s of gigapixels, counting photon strikes instead of converting charges.

In any case, we're moving in totally the opposite direction, towards sensors that can do more and more different missions, until we hit the point where one sensor  really does it all, and there's no need to change one out. The rest of the camera will have to match that sensor, as far as having enough processing speed for it, and AF system commensurate with the resolution, etc.

wizfaq interchangeable sensor

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
Wojciech Sawicki
Wojciech Sawicki Contributing Member • Posts: 661
Re: Not sure what you mean?
2

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:


Why would it be sabotage?

Newer, more capable sensors require newer, more capable electronics to handle their output. You wouldn't be able to upgrade sensors in this hypothetical system unless you upgrade large portions of other electronics, too.

Unless you keep designing new sensors only for this system, which would make them very expensive (low production numbers relative to unit production cost), but then eventually, a few years down the road, the system would bottleneck - new, higher resolution sensors, but taking ages to process and write the files, because the electronics can't keep up...

That's no sabotage, that's an inherent trait of this whole concept. You'd have to replace more than just the sensor. It would be expensive, and it would get very similar to a digital back.

We' ve been through this... read the earlier posts, ...it's there!

Way too many posts to go through, and the point I made above is perfectly valid.

It's no sabotage, it's reality. What next, chemtrails, 9-11 inside job, aliens?

Replacing nothing but the sensor wouldn't work, you'd have to replace a lot of the electronics supporting it.

If the electronics was to stay, you'd only have a limited range of sensors to choose from, until the electronics is no longer able to cope with the increased sensor output.

It's that simple.

 Wojciech Sawicki's gear list:Wojciech Sawicki's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR +19 more
kb2zuz Veteran Member • Posts: 3,202
Re: It's here
3

I listed MFDB's because I'm very familiar with them, but I also mentioned the Ricoh which is on the opposite end of the spectrum. The sensor and the processor are tied at the hip. The processor needs to know the CFA arrangement, the spectral response and the curve of the sensor, the spectral transmission of the CFA, IR, and AA filters, the bit depth of the A2D (which has to be on the sensor for speed), the noise charactersistics, the characteristics of any microlens array... The firmware on the processors is specific to all of these factors and more. Now it appears that you think that the sensor could just tell the processor and the processor could act accordingly, but the reality is that the firmware doesn't just have this raw information, very complex calculations have been run on these to create specific tone reproduction curves, color reproduction algorithms, noise reduction algorithms, etc... the processor can't just do these on the fly. So yes the firmware would have to be updated to support new sensors.

The issue being locked into proprietary systems is that there will not be a large market, and a sensor is only worth making if millions and millions can be sold, or they can be sold for very high prices (which is why MFD costs so much).

-- 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
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: B&W and IR...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I don't think its biggest value is price, although there would be some cost saving to buying another sensor instead of an entire new camera.  I think its biggest value would be to be able to carry multiple sensors and use them on one camera -- I would like B&W as well as IR to go with the current 36 MP BFA sensor.  Since we don't get B&W or IR cameras from Nikon, it seems to me that interchangeable sensors would make that more likely.

Now you're talking.

There's two parts to the answer. IR is never going to happen, and B&W is obsolete.

IR's the easy part, so let's address it first. It isn't part of the sensor, it's part of the filter in front of it. There were several P&S cameras that  could slide that filter out of the optical path for you. Then came what has come to be called "the Sony lesson". Citizens groups in the US and Europe raised a gigantic cry about the "x-ray" cameras that "perverts" could use to get a faint glimpse of our precious children's underwear, and the next thing you know, protestors were literally having demonstrations where they smashed or burnt Sony cameras in front of government buildings. No mainstream camera maker will ever make a camera with an easily removable IR filter, ever again. So, that pretty much settles the whole idea of Nikon or Canon making interchangeable sensor packs. Right now, doing an "IR conversion" involves huge amounts of effort: you dedicate a camera to IR, then tear it apart (dozens of screws, several fragile ribbon connectors) or pay someone $400 to do so. Imagine if you could have that done to a spare sensor cartridge, much easier, without dedicating a camera. This must never be allowed to happen.

WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN!

One camera currently makes that filter removable, the number eleven maker, the smallest of the small, the fringe of the fringe: Sigma. Mad camera burning mothers never notice Sigma. They're so small, so hard to get (if you don't live in Tokyo or New York, your local store doesn't stock the SD1) that they're below the radar.

OK, a more serious, mainstream issue: B&W. It's obsolete. Not the art and craft of B&W, that's eternal and beautiful. The technology is obsolete. We did get a B&W camera from Nikon. It's called the D800. A 36mp D800 color shot, converted to B&W, outresolves an 18mp Leica M9M monochrome shot. Look at what Nokia did, a 40mp sensor in a phone camera. It doesn't deliver 40mp pictures, it delivers 8mp pictures, with the 40mp serving as "oversampling". That's the wave of the future. A 36mp color sensor, even with Bayer color filters and AA filter, extracts more information from the projected image than Leica's pure monochrome. But a 400mp sensor on an APS DSLR would extract everything that the lens had to offer. Oversample at 400mp, and knock it down to 100mp, either B&W or color, and you've got all the resolution you can expect from a real optical system (as opposed to a "synthetic" system like a stitched panorama).

That's the future. We will go 2-3x from 36mp DSLRs to 75 or 100mp, then another 2-3x, and another, until we're oversampling to the limits of the lenses. Maybe we'll stop there. Processors will also keep up, and pass the advances in sensors, so the days of needing a 12mp camera just to hit 10 frames/second are obsolete, too. Or maybe  Dr. Fossum is right, and we'll see 10s of gigapixels, counting photon strikes instead of converting charges.

In any case, we're moving in totally the opposite direction, towards sensors that can do more and more different missions, until we hit the point where one sensor  really does it all, and there's no need to change one out. The rest of the camera will have to match that sensor, as far as having enough processing speed for it, and AF system commensurate with the resolution, etc.

wizfaq interchangeable sensor

Never in my life saw so much talk for saying nothing.... can you repeat in some words what you are talking about Joseph? (see? ...I am careful with the name), the OP is about interchangeable sensors in DSLRs....

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Tony Beach Forum Pro • Posts: 11,908
Re: B&W and IR...

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

I don't think its biggest value is price, although there would be some cost saving to buying another sensor instead of an entire new camera.  I think its biggest value would be to be able to carry multiple sensors and use them on one camera -- I would like B&W as well as IR to go with the current 36 MP BFA sensor.  Since we don't get B&W or IR cameras from Nikon, it seems to me that interchangeable sensors would make that more likely.

IR is never going to happen,

Certainly true if we only have the major camera companies to rely on.  With interchangeable sensors though there might be an opening for a sensor manufacturer to offer sensors directly to customers.

OK, a more serious, mainstream issue: B&W. It's obsolete. Not the art and craft of B&W, that's eternal and beautiful. The technology is obsolete. We did get a B&W camera from Nikon. It's called the D800. A 36mp D800 color shot, converted to B&W, outresolves an 18mp Leica M9M monochrome shot. Look at what Nokia did, a 40mp sensor in a phone camera. It doesn't deliver 40mp pictures, it delivers 8mp pictures, with the 40mp serving as "oversampling". That's the wave of the future. A 36mp color sensor, even with Bayer color filters and AA filter, extracts more information from the projected image than Leica's pure monochrome. But a 400mp sensor on an APS DSLR would extract everything that the lens had to offer. Oversample at 400mp, and knock it down to 100mp, either B&W or color, and you've got all the resolution you can expect from a real optical system (as opposed to a "synthetic" system like a stitched panorama).

The CFA reduces DR and makes the sensor less sensitive, and BFA reduces resolution -- so why not just remove them if that's possible?  Imagine how well a 36 MP B&W FX sensor could do today, versus a 72 MP or even a 100 MP BFA FX sensor might do sometime in the future.

In any case, we're moving in totally the opposite direction, towards sensors that can do more and more different missions, until we hit the point where one sensor really does it all, and there's no need to change one out.

Nonetheless, there is this patent that was mentioned, and there is a hole right now that is not filled by the yet-to-be-realized wonder-sensors.  Sure, for IR we could just slap an inefficient IR filter in front of the lens and crank up the ISO 4 stops to make up for it, and someday that will suffice, but I think even in the imagined future (and one many of us will not be around for) having the highest image quality by removing the unnecessary CFA and IR filters makes more sense than counteracting their effects after the fact.

Wojciech Sawicki
Wojciech Sawicki Contributing Member • Posts: 661
Joseph, don't bother...
6

This guy'll soon go Ad Hominem at you if he loses a logical debate.

Check out his exchange with me a few posts earlier. Apparently it's all a conspiracy and we're idiots.

 Wojciech Sawicki's gear list:Wojciech Sawicki's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm F3.5-5.6G ED VR +19 more
Joseph S Wisniewski Forum Pro • Posts: 34,141
You should read your own posts...
1

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Never in my life saw so much talk for saying nothing....

You should read a few of your own posts, then, because you are the living embodiment of repetition and redundancy. Post after post, new thread after new thread about the same things.

can you repeat in some words what you are talking about Joseph? (see? ...I am careful with the name), the OP is about interchangeable sensors in DSLRs....

We've been through this before. You may have started the thread, but that's all. You don't own it. That's why you don't have any moderation controls on threads you start, like exist on some sites (although it is pretty rare)

I was responding to points that Tony raised.

-- hide signature --

Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com

 Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list:Joseph S Wisniewski's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D90 Nikon D2X Nikon D3 Nikon D100 +43 more
OP Theodoros Fotometria Senior Member • Posts: 2,090
Re: You should read your own posts...
1

Joseph S Wisniewski wrote:

Theodoros Fotometria wrote:

Never in my life saw so much talk for saying nothing....

You should read a few of your own posts, then, because you are the living embodiment of repetition and redundancy. Post after post, new thread after new thread about the same things.

can you repeat in some words what you are talking about Joseph? (see? ...I am careful with the name), the OP is about interchangeable sensors in DSLRs....

We've been through this before. You may have started the thread, but that's all. You don't own it. That's why you don't have any moderation controls on threads you start, like exist on some sites (although it is pretty rare)

I was responding to points that Tony raised.


Blah, blah, blah... what are you saying man? Can't you just make up a sentence saying something based to some reasoning... where is the reasoning all this time? ...now tell me this! ....Where is the FNG reasoning to one of your posts....? ...you are pathetic!

-- hide signature --

Theodoros
www.fotometria.gr
www.fotometriawedding.gr

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads