This is all on the forum. How bout those poor nikon sensor makers that have to do it for real=)

LOL and we have not even brought the 3rd or 4th dimension in yet !! heh!

blckcat said:
Ofcourse they can't have gaps in between lol. I meant like can't they twice more amount of pixels on the sides of the crop sensor from the manufacturing stage.
Oh and wait... so am I thinking this wrong? I thought two crop sensor on top and two sensors on bottom equals twice of the crop sensor which is the full frame?

width x height = area
D3000's sensor size = 23.6mm x 15.8mm; Area = 372.88
(4 x 23.6mm) x (4 x 15.8mm) = 94.4 x 63.2; Area = 5966.08
which is... oh 16 times the crop sensor lol nvm.

So if that kind of manufacturing is possible we can have Medium format for price of just two grand!!!!

How do you go from putting 4 sensors together and getting 16 times? If 1 sensor = 372.88 surface area, then 4 sensors = 4 x 372.88 = 1491.52.

If you look at your example, you are multiplying 4 x 23.6mm, which is the length of 4 sensors side by side right? Then multiplying 4 x 15.8, so basically stacking 4 sensors on top of each other, so that is 16 sensors! And you seem shocked that you came up with 16 times?

Here is a quick check. Take 4 blocks made of anything, legos, whatever. Draw them. So how do you use 4 blocks and get a combined sensor of 4 blocks long, and 4 blocks high? Impossible, unless you used 16 blocks.

jbl said:
blckcat. Also keep in mind that Dx sensors are only 1.5 smaller than FX.. not 2x.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Before you try to correct someone . . . learn the difference.
Nikon D700 36mm × 23.9mm = 860mm2 (119.8mm perimeter)
Nikon D3100 23.1mm × 15.4mm = 355.74mm2 (77mm perimeter)

You see the surface area? 355.74mm2 x 1.5 certainly does not equal 860mm2 . . .

The 1.5 crop factor comes from the measurements (compare the sensor length 36mm to 23.1, and compare height 23.9 to 15.4). So according to the measurements, the FX sensor is approximately 1.55x larger on the length, and 1.55x larger on the height. So the dimensions of the FX sensor is approximately 1.55 times larger than a DX sensor.

But since area is a multiple of the dimensions, then it must be be a multiple of the increase in length and height, so it must equal 1.55 squared, or 1.55 x 1.55, or approx 2.4 x larger. When we calculate the surface area of the D3100 (355.74mm2) compared to the D700 (860mm2), we see the FX sensor is 2.417 times bigger in surface area than DX.

Since zoom is a function of crop, it is calculated using the dimensions of the sensor, so zoom will use the 1.55 multiplier.
Since sensor performance (low light) is a function of pixel density, the 2.417 greater surface area is used to calculate this performance.

Ergo, you were both wrong, and somewhat right at the same time, but you were mostly wrong (calling someone wrong when you were wrong yourself)

Feel free to check my math http://www.mathplayground.com/area_perimeter.html ;)

A good rule of thumb that i heard a while back was that cellphone sensors cost $5, DX sensors cost $50 and FX sensors cost $500. (i think it was either Hogan or Scott bourne...)

Thus the price of a FX camera cannot drop more than a certain amount.

Plus this is unrelated to moore's law, so it isn't getting any cheaper unless there is a revolution in how sensors are made.

Also looking at the cost of a F6 shows what the rest of the camera costs. Put it together and a bargain FX camera does not seem to be in the cards, unless you want a cheap(er) body like the a850.

blckcat. Also keep in mind that Dx sensors are only 1.5 smaller than FX.. not 2x.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

blckcat, please PM me the name of your dealer. I want some of whatever he's giving you. ;)

But seriously. Issues include:
1- the exponential increase in cost of said larger sensors due to a whole variety of reasons wikipedia will gladly educate you on,
2 - Where the $2000 number came from
3 - The complete inability to mosaic sensors as you describe considering the large amount of edge-placed circuitry on the sensor's die. The gap in light gathering at the joint would be very significant.

blckcat lost me as well. I think he is thinking surface area equals MP of a camera.

Did you ever test shoot a a850 - sound was cheaper than a tin can and the feel of it was almost as worse. ;)-

???I fail to follow your logic blkcat???

Interesting how the a850 never really caught on as much as Sony had hoped. But they redeemed themselves with the hot selling NEX cameras.

adamz said:
Nsx - I'm former minolta user

I am so sorry for you. You poor thing ;^P

Ofcourse they can't have gaps in between lol. I meant like can't they twice more amount of pixels on the sides of the crop sensor from the manufacturing stage.
Oh and wait... so am I thinking this wrong? I thought two crop sensor on top and two sensors on bottom equals twice of the crop sensor which is the full frame?

width x height = area
D3000's sensor size = 23.6mm x 15.8mm; Area = 372.88
(4 x 23.6mm) x (4 x 15.8mm) = 94.4 x 63.2; Area = 5966.08
which is... oh 16 times the crop sensor lol nvm.

So if that kind of manufacturing is possible we can have Medium format for price of just two grand!!!!

It's a nice thought, blckcat, but the problem is that you need the sensors to not have any gap between them.

FX actually only has about 2.25x as much area of DX, not 4x. But that doesn't make FX cost only 2.25x as much to make—the manufacturing cost doesn't scale linearly with area.

I have always wondered why Nikon can't just put together four D3000 sensors and make cheaper FX? That would make cheapest line of FX DSLR with a price of around 2000 bucks.

NSX - I haven't stayed with Minolta (was using Minolta 505si) c-z at one point I wanted to go for a better camera, went to a camera shop, and got my hand on f100, I'm instantly felt in love with this camera and moved to Nikon, and You know, once You get used to Nikons functionality it's really hard to be happy with anything else, but a900 is really close - certainly doesn't have this look, but still it's a great camera

gentoo - I think that once sony will release a camera with a faster fps and some more long range lenses You will see more of them among us
as for pictures taken with a900, check this page (LINK) - polish adventure photographer Marek Arcimowicz, he is using sony since it showed on the market (former nikon user)

Adamz, I'm not saying Minolta or Sony are bad cameras. I just don't think their camera bodies are all that nice. Just curious, how come you didn't stay with Monolta/Sony then, Adamz?

I would say Nikon in the camera business is more like Honda in the car business- not all too powerful cars, but great usability- anyone can drive it, everything from the NSX to the Civic, but with great engineering and ergonomics.

:D

Actually I like to think of my Nikon D70 as a 1971 Corvette ZR2 :^)

Welcome to the forum jkilroy

Sure a Hyundai is no Ferrari, and Hyundai makes more money in one month that Ferrari makes in years, and they sell probably three order of magnitude more cars. Does anyone want Nikon to turn into Ferrari? (Leica)

Sony will probably catch up at some point in time. Replacing brands like Pentax and Olympus in the old days. They will probaly never go beyond Canon and Nikon because Sony will always be connected to consumer products in people's minds. In my field I've not yet seen anybody shooting with a Sony camera as yet, almost exclusively Canon and Nikon (and of course Nikon gets the best results, but we all already know that here!)"

I agree and because of where I work (in a theme park), I can attest to this. Sony Cameras are uncommon around peoples necks and on their shoulders. Generally, Nikons are, at the moment, the most commonly seen, Cana is the close second. All others combined account for about 15% which seems to also reflect official market share numbers.

If I already had some DX and wanted to get into full frame, I don't think you could make a smarter move than a D700 and 14-24/2.8 - costs about $4,150 and you got the king of wide at a fast aperture. Carry a DX body with a mid-zoom through tele for everything else.

Also a former Minolta owner - SRT-101 left in the cold by Minolta, moved to Nikon AI, became AIs (Nikon converted them for little cost) and they're still usable.

Nsx - I'm former minolta user

No offense, but just because the pricing is really nice, it doesn't mean it's a better camera. Like you said, they're missing some lenses.

It's like a Hyundai and a Ferrari. Both are cars. The Hyundai is really cheap. But it doesn't mean it's an exciting car.

what annoys me is the pricing!!

It makes financial sense to buy a sony FF body and get a couple of their Zeiss zooms (16-35 and 24-70 would be about $4000 for both, a STEAL compared to our nikkor options). . .however, the selection is STILL very limited, and you can't top what Nikon offers. . .

Sports shooter and need fast zooms: 300 f/4, 300 f/2.8, 500 f/4, 600 f/?? , etc. . .

Wedding portraits and need excellent bokeh: 70-200 f/2.8, 105 f/2, 135 f/2, 180 f/2.8, etc. . . .

Primes: 20, 24, 28 f/2.8; 35 1.8 and 2.0; 50 1.4 and 1.8; 85 1.4 and 1.8. . .

So I remain stuck and "dedicated" to Nikon. . .and A550 Sony just released with 14 or 15 mpx, I suspect it'll find it's way into a D400 wicked soon. . .

Adamz, have you tried a Sony DSLR lately? I have, and honestly, I couldn't figure it out. Yes, it was a glance, and no, I didn't have the manual, but really, their menu system is very odd. And they have small viewfinders.

Yes, I didn't try a full frame one, but that's already out of my range, when the cost of the body equals good Nikkor glass.

Not worth noticing, for me at least.

Sony will probably catch up at some point in time. Replacing brands like Pentax and Olympus in the old days. They will probaly never go beyond Canon and Nikon because Sony will always be connected to consumer products in people's minds. In my field I've not yet seen anybody shooting with a Sony camera as yet, almost exclusively Canon and Nikon (and of course Nikon gets the best results, but we all already know that here!)

So, as You probably know, Sony released the a850 today, first FF dslr for less than $2000. Any opinions, Niko, You still think that Sony will not catch up with the big two?