Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-04-2008, 05:59 AM   #61
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by RaduA Quote
I am sorry but from what I understand basically the design of a big sensor will cost about the same. The major differences in final cost per unit comes from yield and numbers per waffers and the quantity that's finaly produced. Again, speculating if this new sensor is not that more expensive to manufacture and could generate a real advantage for the next KxxD or KxD compared to its competitors in the same price bracket why this could mean from Hoya to pour more money into Pentax than a regular design? They have only 2 choices to make either keep the current sensor and electronics or if they change something basically the R&D costs will be the same only manufacturing costs willl differ and I think Samsung has some prowess in this field anyway.
Regards,
Radu
I think you are labouring under some misapprehensions. The yield size is not proportional to sensor size but is exponentially related to sensor area because of the probability of a defect occuring on a particular sensor. With 50% more area per sensor, and 30% fewer sensors per chip, the yields are considerably lower for APSH - about 5X higher cost (10X for FF). The stitching issue for FF is significant but not the major factor.

Assuming Pentax have to go FF at some point, supporting 3 different sizes in future will cause massive confusion for users unsure which lenses will work on which body. For a manufacturer that will at most have 4 SLRS in their range, to spread them over 3 formats and only have the bottom 2 able to use the wideangle DA glass is just a nonsense.

Canon have a 7 model range and even then some are asking why the 1D mk2 is not FF given the success (and comparable price of) the D3. Its a very good question. I would not be remotely surprised if the 1Dmk4 was FF using a low noise 12mp sensor.

11-04-2008, 07:36 AM   #62
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
I think you are labouring under some misapprehensions.

Canon have a 7 model range and even then some are asking why the 1D mk2 is not FF given the success (and comparable price of) the D3. Its a very good question. I would not be remotely surprised if the 1Dmk4 was FF using a low noise 12mp sensor.
APS-H 16:9 30*16 mm will be interesting as second mode.
And approx. 20 MP.
But not 14 MP.

If Hoya/Samsung can make APS-H 20 MP sensor with cost of 14.6 MP APS-C sensor, I agree to it.
11-04-2008, 07:54 AM   #63
RaduA
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
I think you are labouring under some misapprehensions. The yield size is not proportional to sensor size but is exponentially related to sensor area because of the probability of a defect occuring on a particular sensor. With 50% more area per sensor, and 30% fewer sensors per chip, the yields are considerably lower for APSH - about 5X higher cost (10X for FF). The stitching issue for FF is significant but not the major factor.

Assuming Pentax have to go FF at some point, supporting 3 different sizes in future will cause massive confusion for users unsure which lenses will work on which body. For a manufacturer that will at most have 4 SLRS in their range, to spread them over 3 formats and only have the bottom 2 able to use the wideangle DA glass is just a nonsense.

Canon have a 7 model range and even then some are asking why the 1D mk2 is not FF given the success (and comparable price of) the D3. Its a very good question. I would not be remotely surprised if the 1Dmk4 was FF using a low noise 12mp sensor.
I don't question your numbers since I have no clue about the real yield percentages which btw are probably the most guarded secrets of a foundry. But assuming you are correct and:

- APS-C sensor costs x (let's say 50 bucks);
- APS-H sensor for an area of 1,46x costs 5 times more;
- FF sensor for an area of 2.34x costs 10 times more.

Then please tell me how much a 1/2.5 sensor for a p&s camera will cost? It has an area of 15.3 times less than APS-C and 36 times less than FF so I will venture to say it cost in cents range after what you told me about exponentially increase in cost with the size. Somehow I doubt such a sensor costs couple of dollars for the simple reason that such a camera will cost 20-30 bucks!

I guess a more complete answer is that besides the lithography phase that will yield a certain number of resonable good chips (probably not a single one is perfect but some are in the admisible tolerance range) one major cost aspect is the packaging phase that adds to the final cost as well.

What I realise I failled to make clear in my previous posts is that numbers don't mean anything per se and if Canon can get away with a slighly smaller APS-C sensor than the rest so Samsung/Pentax could get away with a slighly larger one IMO. Not necessarely APS-H by any means btw and not necesarely that I think it will happend but I still don't think this is a bad idea!

Regards,
Radu
11-04-2008, 08:48 AM   #64
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
1) I know I'll be forever sorry (or for the next few months, whatever comes first) for posting in this thread because it'll continue to show-up in the top of the list when I search for threads I posted in...

2) I opened this thread just to see if you were serious... based on all mentioned in the OP, I see you are not.

3) Ogl, you MUST stop posting, NOW! And that's not because of threads like this, but because your post count is 645 as I type this. That's it. Done.

11-04-2008, 01:50 PM   #65
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by RaduA Quote
I don't question your numbers since I have no clue about the real yield percentages which btw are probably the most guarded secrets of a foundry. But assuming you are correct and:

- APS-C sensor costs x (let's say 50 bucks);
- APS-H sensor for an area of 1,46x costs 5 times more;
- FF sensor for an area of 2.34x costs 10 times more.

Then please tell me how much a 1/2.5 sensor for a p&s camera will cost? It has an area of 15.3 times less than APS-C and 36 times less than FF so I will venture to say it cost in cents range after what you told me about exponentially increase in cost with the size. Somehow I doubt such a sensor costs couple of dollars for the simple reason that such a camera will cost 20-30 bucks!
You had to buy your own film but most cameras did not cost $20.


QuoteOriginally posted by RaduA Quote
I guess a more complete answer is that besides the lithography phase that will yield a certain number of resonable good chips (probably not a single one is perfect but some are in the admisible tolerance range) one major cost aspect is the packaging phase that adds to the final cost as well.

What I realise I failled to make clear in my previous posts is that numbers don't mean anything per se and if Canon can get away with a slighly smaller APS-C sensor than the rest so Samsung/Pentax could get away with a slighly larger one IMO. Not necessarely APS-H by any means btw and not necesarely that I think it will happend but I still don't think this is a bad idea!

Regards,
Radu
Its only a bad idea because Pentax could end up with every camera in their range having a different sensor size - APSC. APSH FF and 645. You'd need a lens compatability chart every time you enter a store.
11-04-2008, 11:42 PM   #66
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
Original Poster
Olympus launches E-30 DSLR: Digital Photography Review
E-30 has aspect ratio 4:3 / 3:2 / 16:9 / 6:6 / 5:4 / 7:6 / 6:5 / 7:5 / 3:4.

It's easy. No need to make new sensor.
11-05-2008, 04:31 AM   #67
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 841
I don't believe in APS-H because it would only confuse the customers. The APS-C lenses has focal lengths especially designed for APS-C. Now when we are learning that wide angles are below 24, standard lenses are 28 - 35, portrait lenses are 50 - 70, and medium telephoto is 100 - re-learning a new format *again*... oh oh my poor head.
No thank you! No more confusion please.
It is better to improve APS-C sensors and stick with it, than coming with a APS-H sensor as a solution that falls in-between. Thank you but no thank you.

A slight update of the existing 14,6MP CMOS is all that is needed.
It is still very competetive.
11-05-2008, 04:33 AM   #68
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Denbigh, Wales
Posts: 63
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Olympus launches E-30 DSLR: Digital Photography Review
E-30 has aspect ratio 4:3 / 3:2 / 16:9 / 6:6 / 5:4 / 7:6 / 6:5 / 7:5 / 3:4.

It's easy. No need to make new sensor.
Yes, no need to make a new sensor.... from what I gather from K20D users that sensor is more than adequate, if Pentax address other percieved issues then I may be tempted to buy the new model...

And what if I want an aspect ration different from 3:2......?

Easy Peasy - Crop tool in Photoshop

11-05-2008, 04:45 AM   #69
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Staten Island, NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,663
It seems that the new E-30 displays the crop in the vf, however, and hopefully it doesn't keep the extra data so it's not taking up space. I'd like if there was an option to do that even with the RAW files. I don't know if the E-30 does that.

Cropping to 4/3 or 5/4 (which I tend to prefer) with a feature like that in a pentax camera would be wonderful.
11-05-2008, 09:36 AM   #70
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 31
Hi!
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Its only a bad idea because Pentax could end up with every camera in their range having a different sensor size - APSC. APSH FF and 645. You'd need a lens compatability chart every time you enter a store.
And a square sensor with side of 23.5mm? Although not so cost effective and needing a larger mirror, it would satisfy those who want more squarer pictures. In that case cropping would become more important, but also the composition would be easier to get with it. I know it isn't very efficient (as there would be many unused pixels most time), but if we look at it as an extension to current aspect ratios and not as cutting of the edges of 3:2 ration, it is a plus in number of megapixels (150%), in vertical dimension. No need for additional grip, although the batteries that can be stored there a a plus.

I think the ultimate sensor shape for digital photography is a square. Or are there some other drawbacks than larger mirror, higher cost and wasted pixels that make this a bad idea? When cropping in digital is a matter of moments, there is no need to make any different aspect ratio than 1:1 I think.

Last edited by Myn.pheos; 11-05-2008 at 09:46 AM.
11-05-2008, 11:49 AM   #71
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 379
QuoteOriginally posted by Myn.pheos Quote
Hi!

And a square sensor with side of 23.5mm? Although not so cost effective and needing a larger mirror, it would satisfy those who want more squarer pictures. In that case cropping would become more important, but also the composition would be easier to get with it. I know it isn't very efficient (as there would be many unused pixels most time), but if we look at it as an extension to current aspect ratios and not as cutting of the edges of 3:2 ration, it is a plus in number of megapixels (150%), in vertical dimension. No need for additional grip, although the batteries that can be stored there a a plus.

I think the ultimate sensor shape for digital photography is a square. Or are there some other drawbacks than larger mirror, higher cost and wasted pixels that make this a bad idea? When cropping in digital is a matter of moments, there is no need to make any different aspect ratio than 1:1 I think.
I would love to own a DSLR with a square sensor. That's my favorite feature of the Hasselblad. It's so much easier to compose without the constant switching from horizontal to vertical orientation.
11-05-2008, 02:17 PM   #72
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 402
QuoteOriginally posted by GaryM Quote
I would love to own a DSLR with a square sensor. That's my favorite feature of the Hasselblad. It's so much easier to compose without the constant switching from horizontal to vertical orientation.
Hey! Wouldn't this new camera then be called a PentHassy?

I agree with the square sensor idea. Except we all know that in the real world media is in vertical/horizontal format (3x5, 4x6, 8x10, 8x12, 16x9, A2, A4, etc....) Hence somebody eventually crops the image.
11-05-2008, 03:08 PM   #73
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by RMabo Quote
I don't believe in APS-H because it would only confuse the customers. The APS-C lenses has focal lengths especially designed for APS-C. Now when we are learning that wide angles are below 24, standard lenses are 28 - 35, portrait lenses are 50 - 70, and medium telephoto is 100 - re-learning a new format *again*... oh oh my poor head.
No thank you! No more confusion please.
It is better to improve APS-C sensors and stick with it, than coming with a APS-H sensor as a solution that falls in-between. Thank you but no thank you.

A slight update of the existing 14,6MP CMOS is all that is needed.
It is still very competetive.
They may be able to make the body compatible with DA lenses using an APS-H. The only thing that would really change would be the crop factor, 1.3 vs. 1.55.

This may be a compromise with the DA line so that vignetting could be avoided.

Last edited by Blue; 11-05-2008 at 03:36 PM.
11-05-2008, 03:39 PM   #74
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Talk with APS-H Canon's camera's users - no normal wide-angle, no normal tele.
Canon offered APS-H in the time of very expensive FF and it's (no doubts)temporary format. Leica will launch S2 (new MF camera) in 2009 and new FF camera in 2010 and refuse from crop 1.3.

DA14, for example, can't cover APS-H. DA*16-50 and 50-135 too.

It's absolutely nonsense if DA*50-135 will be 65-175 or 16-50 = 20-65.
And e.t.c. DA*200 = 260.
Have you seen it verified that a Pentax APS-H sensor wouldn't work with DA lenses?
11-05-2008, 05:52 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Calif
Posts: 557
Hmmm...

One can also think about it another way, if the sensors photo site's were to remain as large as possible, then remaining at 12-14mp would also be a good idea in APS-H. And possibly boost the heck out of the sensor ala the D3/D700 for lots of High ISO capability. In fact less MP and larger photo site's seems like a good idea.

I for one can also see the benefits to smaller file sizes.


QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
APS-H 16:9 30*16 mm will be interesting as second mode.
And approx. 20 MP.
But not 14 MP.

If Hoya/Samsung can make APS-H 20 MP sensor with cost of 14.6 MP APS-C sensor, I agree to it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af, aps-c, cmos, fa, ii, mp, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sdm, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-7 Speculations (moved over from review section) sctybear Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 05-07-2010 05:48 PM
Thoughts: K30D, APS-H, Ultrawide lenses jfsavage Pentax News and Rumors 59 02-16-2009 10:51 AM
K300D and K30D soon? flyer Pentax News and Rumors 102 02-08-2009 07:19 PM
put your money where your mouth is! K30D/K300D bet pool! Gooshin Pentax News and Rumors 22 11-10-2008 09:27 AM
Your Speculations? (on the Hoya-Pentax Issue) RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 37 06-16-2007 03:08 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:40 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top