Panasonic Lumix CM1 coming to the US

hmm not really. If you have multiple sensors you would need some kind of beam splitting, which is almost sure to add a lot of depth in the phone. This is how 3CCD/3CMOS camcorders work, for reference. Also, CMYK stands for Cyan, Magenta Yellow and blacK, so voila you have the all common problem of what to do with the last element of your matrix .

You would only need a beam splitter if you used one lens for all three sensors... a wrong assumption on your part. Little 1/2.3" sensors are small enough that for the field of view parallax issues would be essentially non-existent. And the K sensor would be a simple monochrome/luminance sensor. Not difficult at all. Arrays like this have been done already, just not with the colors split up.

Hello,
I haven't thought about having 4 lenses, but you were not clear on your side also , right? :) Anyway, I am having trouble thinking of it being able of being such a usefull mechanism as well; I mean, as on Nokia 808, you can make a sensor whatever you like, the tech is here already, so resolution is up to where you would probably like . Also, arrays like ones you are describing exist merely in space telescopes because of manufacturing properties; the wafers out of which sensors are made are usually no more than 30cm in diameter, so you have less options on having a bigger sensor. Also, it is difficult to have a faultless 30cm waffer all accross surface, so taking smaller parts you can keep better ones.
greets

The main advantage of such a setup would be as you mentioned- getting larger sensor area with a higher yield. It works for cell phones as they tend to have small sensors and cheap fixed lenses. A single color sheet over each lens will be cheaper to make and have higher transmission than a Bayer filter, and yield more accurate color data and higher resolution.

Another way to play it could be to have multiple regular cameras with Bayer filters combining to either create a physical shallow DoF effect, or real HDR, or whatever. Lot of options with sensor arrays that can approximate larger sensors without needing the bigger optics and more expensive higher yield larger sensors.

I know multiple sensor arrays are common on camcorders.

My main question is, assuming your idea is correct and there is an advantage to replacing a BFA sensor with multiple sensors, and that it can be done, the question for me is, why is it that no camera manufacturer does this? If there is an advantage, it would be an advantage for any camera, not just a cell phone camera like CM1.

Same reason DSLR makers have no selection of fast wide angle primes for APS-C or Canon/Nikon don't take mirrorless seriously. They can be very dumb/shortsighted.

"They can be very dumb/shortsighted" - and that's why you're the genius who's going to out-invent all the camera manufacturers

What a silly strawman.

you haven't proved your argument

Sure I did. I'm not going to argue points I never made though, like the idea that I could "out invent" a camera manufacturer.

your point is that your idea hasn't been implemented because manufacturers can be dumb or shortsighted?

consider the opposite thought - "a single sensor would work better than an array of sensors. it would probably be able to get more resolution and be cheaper to make, manufacturers producing this would earn profits today because they can be smart and farsighted. "

the difference between that statement and your idea is that yours has no proof.

More logical fallacies. Smaller sensors are cheaper to make than larger ones. This is camera economics 101. A monochromatic sensor with a dedicated lens (i.e. no 3CCD stuff) yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues like abberrations. Optical physics 101. Etc. etc. If you want to discuss why I'm wrong then break down exactly what you disagree with rather than trying to attack my language or wording because my ideas make you uncomfortable in ways you can't explain/argue against.

"smaller sensors are cheaper to make than larger ones" is not the same as "many small sensors in the same camera are cheaper than a large one".

"a monochromatic sensor yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues" is not the same as "several monochromatic sensors in the same camera yields more resolution and is less susceptible to optical issues"

your fallacious generalization has no proof.

Multiple smaller sensors yielding the same total area would be cheaper than an equivalent larger sensor. Sensor area vs cost has a near exponential relationship.

And yes, several monochromatic sensors would have less chromatic abberations than a single sensor covering all colors. Again simple optics.

Pedantry.... when all else fails and you have nothing of substance to argue.

you can also argue that multiple small batteries yielding the same total volume would be cheaper than an equivalent larger battery. how many cameras actually do that?

your simplistic assumptions do not hold up to the real world.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division

You could argue that, but it wouldn't be true. The non-linear relationship between sensor size and area is well known to anyone with a clue.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_01/field_size_3-2.gif

you seem to know everything about sensor quality and cost from reading this graph, why don't you educate the engineers that do this for a living with your brilliant cost saving idea, then. while you're at it, explain to them that there's nothing special needed to make the sensors work together.

That's OK, it's a lot less serious to me than it is to you.

What makes you think "routine pictures" (what the heck are those anyway??) shouldn't be the highest quality? No one wants to carry two devices and your "modern" i phone/ galaxy/ note smartphone with its obsolete tiny sensor doesn't cut it anymore. Why would you be against progressing to better quality imaging?

Could you tell me where do bought it?

"How is this any better than a regular smartphone and a Sony NEX camera?"
The fact that you don't have to bring a Sony NEX camera at all.

"How is this any better than a regular smartphone and a Sony NEX camera?"

You must have pretty big pockets to fit that Nex in them.

The QX camera I used was absolutely awful, choppy video, slow to do anything, and harder in every way than a point and shoot camera (or in this case E mount camera).

What E mount camera has a 6.44" display ? What E mount camera makes phone calls ? What E mount camera has wi-fi & LTE internet access ?
Choppy video ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZl6BbDQqzY

@teddoman, the QX1 is basically the size of a NEX camera. @darngooddesign what QX1/lens combo are you fitting in your pocket? One of the bad E pancakes?

QX1 with Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS ultra wide zoom and pistol grip :
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7507/16220628891_97e70ac11a_o.png

@sportyaccordy I would put the CM1 in my pocket.

@Joe Ogiba No offense Joe, I think QX1 will give excellent image quality, but it will be the same as like you are carrying NEX camera. Extra effort involved.

There are times when I am willing to give that extra effort, but most of the time capturing a scene the moment I saw it is more important. A good enough image is way better than a missed image.

CM1, or any slim pocketable high end compact has that kind of benefit: it slips in and out of my pocket effortlessly and take picture that second without Doing any setup.

Now, I never get my hands on CX1, so this is an honest question: how many seconds do you need to take a shot, if something happens, phone locked, Both phone and CX1 are in your pocket?

@Joe Ogiba what do a big screen and phone/data connectivity have to do with taking pictures? If we are talking serious photography I'd rather have something responsive with good controls that is easy to use... 3 things the QX series is not.

Plus not everyone likes a massive phone... I refuse to buy anything bigger than ~4.3". I don't need those inches to impress people. And when it's all said and done that combination is probably bigger than a NEX setup. QX is silly.

I don't buy large screen smartphones to impress people, I buy it to view images, videos and web pages with my eyes. My Sony A7r shoots great 36mp images but it does not make phone calls or have internet access and only has a 3" display.