[Caat]

Pentax wouldn't be a large enough customer by itself to get Samsung to manufacture a FF sensor, possibly even if Pentax did all the design work (even if they had the expertise). There would be additional costs in Samsung setting up its fabrication plants to produce a FF sensor which would also add to costs (given that it seems unlikely they are set up already, although who knows!)

[Wasp]

Samsung produced sensors for their NX line. If they still have the manufacturing equipment, it won't be that hard to start production again. As for APS versus full frame, it shouldn't matter since the sensors are cut from a single wafer. Bigger sensors just mean fewer come out out of one wafer and there is more waste from cutting rectangles out of a circle. That is (mostly) what makes bigger more expensive.

[Mistral75]

(...) Bigger sensors just mean fewer come out out of one wafer and there is more waste from cutting rectangles out of a circle. That is (mostly) what makes bigger more expensive.

There is more to it than that. The same 'quantity' of impurities on a wafer leads to a lower yield (lesser percentage of usable sensors) when the sensor size increases.

[dafbp]

Bigger sensors just mean fewer come out out of one wafer and there is more waste from cutting rectangles out of a circle.

If they did elliptical sensors that'd help reduce vignetting, and maybe with the wafer waste too.

[D1N0]

If they did elliptical sensors that'd help reduce vignetting, and maybe with the wafer waste too.

Then you wouldn't just have waste in the borders.


This illustrates what Mistral says:


If they could make different sensors sizes on a single wafer they could utilize the wasted area.

[jumbleview]

If they could make different sensors sizes on a single wafer they could utilize the wasted area.

Nice idea. Make two dozens of full-frame, one dozen of APS-C and half dozen of smartphone sensors out of a single wafer. You should try to patent it.

[dafbp]

Then you wouldn't just have waste in the borders.

I thought a smilie would make it clear I was kidding.
But thanks for those images explaining your point (no sarcasm). I'm used to seeing that for computer chips, knew it'd be the same for sensors, but the extra data is quite appreciated.
If the sensors had the same manufacturing technique, and the client specified it, they would do as you say and mix sensor sizes in a wafer, but there must be technical and commercial reasons not to do so.

[Mistral75]

Then you wouldn't just have waste in the borders.


This illustrates what Mistral says:

(...)

Thank you for your illustration. My point is a bit different and I will use your pictures to make it clearer.

Let's imagine that there are 100 defects (e.g. zones including impurities) regularly distributed on the wafer and that any sensor including a defective zone of the wafer can't be used .

Out of the 244 1" sensors, may be 150 wouldn't be affected and could be used. Out of the 80 APS-C sensors, only a few wouldn't be affected and could be used. Out of the 24 full frame sensors, a priori none could be used.

Of course the figures are exaggerated but it's just to explain my point.

Edit: I just found an article explaining the point.

https://www.globalspec.com/reference/50021/203279/5-8-chip-size-and-yield



In Fig. (a), where a small chip size is used, the yield is 87/94 = 93%. In Fig. (b), where the chip size is large, the yield is zero.

Another one:

'The larger the die you try to harvest from any given wafer, the greater the chance that any particular die will have a defect in it thus lowering yields. Here's a graphical representation of the situation:



As you can see, each wafer has the exact same number and placement of defects (red dots). Each defect is ruining a higher percentage of each large die simply due to the size of the chip. Thus the larger the die, the lower the yield.

In addition, the larger the die you try to harvest from a wafer the more waste you have. Which also increases your cost.'

Source: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/pascal-tesla-availability-clue.2464491/page-2

[UncleVanya]

UPDATED: New Panasonic Full Frame camera "might" have Leica SL mount and ship in March 2019 - 43 Rumors

https://www.43rumors.com/ft3-seems-like-olympus-plays-no-role-in-the-new-pan...partner-of-it/

Thanks, the first is from March and may be outdated. That second one starts by saying...

"I previously had heard that Panasonic might NOT use the Leica SL mount…but now I am not certain about this anymore as I have been told “there is a connection"

So I'd say there's certainly no consensus about the new mount not being SL.

[Mistral75]

??? The first is from 'September 3, 2018'.

[UncleVanya]

??? The first is from 'September 3, 2018'.

Argh. I misread it. Lol. Thanks.

[reh321]

If they did elliptical sensors that'd help reduce vignetting, and maybe with the wafer waste too.

Let's forget the added waste for a moment. We know how to mindlessly cut straight lines - how do you propose to cut elliptical lines???

[UncleVanya]

If they did elliptical sensors that'd help reduce vignetting, and maybe with the wafer waste too.

How would that help? Vigetting is a lens issue where the image fails to cover the full sensor size. Making it a different shape isn't going to change that unless you simply reduce the size.

[RonHendriks1966]

How would that help? Vigetting is a lens issue where the image fails to cover the full sensor size. Making it a different shape isn't going to change that unless you simply reduce the size.

That sounds like an oval shaped aps-h sensor!

[dafbp]

I was kidding!!