Rob Studdert wrote:
Yes. The actual utilisation of the silicon has improved a bit over the years, though, hasn't it.On 16 Dec 2004 at 16:00, Toralf Lund wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that, though. If there's one thing the development of digital technology has taught us, it is that, well, it *develops*.
Again it comes back to economies, the relative cost of silicon per area remains a constant, sensors that use larger areas of wafer will be significantly more expensive to produce for quite some years yet.
Another question is how large a portion of the sensor price is raw material cost, anyway, and also how much of what you pay for the camera actually goes to the sensor producer. I haven't really tried to check lately...
Yes. That's what I meant, more or less, when I said there isn't much in it for the camera producers. However, what I'm also saying, is that *maybe* you can hope that one of the camera makers will see upgradeability as enough of a selling point to make (economic) sense for that company, even though it's not "good" for the business as a whole. (And if one vendor does it, the others will possibly feel obliged to follow.)
Unfortunately user changeable sensors isn't going to happen any day soon either.No, I don't think so, either. Actually, it doesn't seem like much of challenge from a technological view-point, but what's in it for the camera producers? Much better for them to sell people a new camera every time they want an upgraded sensor, of course. And the "film" companies don't seem interested in anything like this, either; I think if I were in charge "film" companies, I'd try to push *something* that might allow me to sell equipment to consumers again. However, I guess it still could make sense for one camera vendor to go in this direction at some point in order to position themselves in the market.
Try to relate what you are suggesting back to other popular high technologies, most are now striving to quell upgrade paths. It might seem easy to implement but it would impact on the profitability of camera makers so it's not likely to be embraced. Film makers no longer dictate to the market, they are now simply parallel players, they have little market significance at the capture end of the process. Think 4/3 Sensor consortium and just how blazingly successful it's been since the launch fanfare.
As for the traditional film makers, what I was referring to is that the same companies are to a certain extent the ones that make the digital sensors, but I guess they are not significant enough in that area to be able to call the shots.
- Toralf
