If they're going to cram 16 MP onto a chip that size, why not just make a
24x36mm sensor?
The cost of silicon per area.
Yes but I don't understand - why continue to try and get the best out of
a smaller sensor? Surely the aspiration of all SLR camera makers who have
ventured into digital, is to produce a DSLR that captures the full 35mm
frame? Anything else is surely too complicated for most people to
understand WRT smaller chips mean that lenses don't work quite the same
way as before etc etc. Or is the 1.5 crop here to stay forever, as a sort
of 'new format' along with a smattering of 'D' lenses?
I think most users are more concerned about getting sufficiently large prints
(up to 30x40cm at the most) from a camera that does not cost too much. This is
possible for the sensors with 1.5 crop, so why pay more for a larger sensor?
The silicon prices per area has been fairly constant for years,
Yes, but the yield for this kind of chips (and chips in general, I
guess) has gone up quite a bit, or at least that what I've read...
Actually, what I read was that Canon now gets a 25% yield when producing
their FF sensors. That's not very high, but apparently it was only 10% a
couple of years ago.
I'm quite sure the price as such isn't high enough to matter - I mean,
if you can actually utilise all the silicon and/or don't need
special-quality material to get usable components. I have a chip in
front of me that measures 30x30 mm, and costs $10 per unit when
purchased in large batches...
Also, most other types of chips are different as there is usually no
reason not to increase the integration factor (except perhaps that chips
with components tend to generate more heat.) For photo sensors, the size
is not only governed by electronics, but also by optics. Again, a quite
different situation.
- T
