10-12 meg versus 20 meg+ sensors. Price difference

Does it really cost Canon (and perhaps, Nikon?) so much more to
produce a viable 21 meg sensor of the same physical size as a 10-12
meg sensor? The wafer yield must be much lower for them to need a
$2000 premium over a lower megapixel sensor. Unless the camera that
is released is vastly different than it's lesser pixel sibling...Same
thing is seen with the medium format backs, same sensor size versus
different pixel counts. The pricing structure could be purely
marketing and have nothing to do with production cost from one back to
another.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Does it really cost Canon (and perhaps, Nikon?) so much more to
produce a viable 21 meg sensor of the same physical size as a 10-12
meg sensor? The wafer yield must be much lower for them to need a
$2000 premium over a lower megapixel sensor. Unless the camera that
is released is vastly different than it's lesser pixel sibling...Same
thing is seen with the medium format backs, same sensor size versus
different pixel counts. The pricing structure could be purely
marketing and have nothing to do with production cost from one back to
another.

The problem is probably not the sensor manufacturing cost but the power
needed to process those larger images in a timely manner. Can you imagine
how much processing power would be needed to handle 3 times more data than a
20D does but in the same (or quicker) time?

Technology hasn't progressed so far that we can expect dual core 4 GHz
processing power in a hand sized devise. It'll take a lot more in
minituration of powerful computers before on-board processing can keep up
with the sensor sizes it is now possible to make. The sensor is the least
cost when it comes to building a 50 Mp camera.

Douglas

I think that modern digital slrs are astonishing and great value for
what they do.

Of course, Americans think they must get everything for nothing.

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

"RichA" wrote in message
...
Does it really cost Canon (and perhaps, Nikon?) so much more to
produce a viable 21 meg sensor of the same physical size as a 10-12
meg sensor? The wafer yield must be much lower for them to need a
$2000 premium over a lower megapixel sensor. Unless the camera that
is released is vastly different than it's lesser pixel sibling...Same
thing is seen with the medium format backs, same sensor size versus
different pixel counts. The pricing structure could be purely
marketing and have nothing to do with production cost from one back to
another.

The problem is probably not the sensor manufacturing cost but the power
needed to process those larger images in a timely manner. Can you imagine
how much processing power would be needed to handle 3 times more data than
a 20D does but in the same (or quicker) time?

Technology hasn't progressed so far that we can expect dual core 4 GHz
processing power in a hand sized devise. It'll take a lot more in
minituration of powerful computers before on-board processing can keep up
with the sensor sizes it is now possible to make. The sensor is the least
cost when it comes to building a 50 Mp camera.


Makes a lot of sense. That´s probably why a Hasselblad 39 MP is not only
much slower than a 10 or 12 MP Canon or Nikon, but also costs $ 30,000.-

--
"I don´t need a camera,
I have a photographic memory..."
Sosumi

"Gearóid Muar" wrote in message
...
I think that modern digital slrs are astonishing and great value for
what they do.

Of course, Americans think they must get everything for nothing.

Correction: you must be mistaking them with the Dutch or Scottish ;-))

Actually, the Americans DO get everything for nothing, if you concider the
big price difference between EU countries and the USA..

--
"I don´t need a camera,
I have a photographic memory..."
Sosumi

On Dec 1, 2:47 am, "Gearóid Muar" wrote:
I think that modern digital slrs are astonishing and great value for
what they do.

Of course, Americans think they must get everything for nothing.

If by Americans, you mean us from the U.S., check RichA's profile.
He's Canadian, I'm pretty sure.

On Dec 1, 1:13 am, "Douglas" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...

Does it really cost Canon (and perhaps, Nikon?) so much more to
produce a viable 21 meg sensor of the same physical size as a 10-12
meg sensor? The wafer yield must be much lower for them to need a
$2000 premium over a lower megapixel sensor. Unless the camera that
is released is vastly different than it's lesser pixel sibling...Same
thing is seen with the medium format backs, same sensor size versus
different pixel counts. The pricing structure could be purely
marketing and have nothing to do with production cost from one back to
another.

The problem is probably not the sensor manufacturing cost but the power
needed to process those larger images in a timely manner. Can you imagine
how much processing power would be needed to handle 3 times more data than a
20D does but in the same (or quicker) time?

Well, they don't, really. No 9fps with a medium format back.

Technology hasn't progressed so far that we can expect dual core 4 GHz
processing power in a hand sized devise. It'll take a lot more in
minituration of powerful computers before on-board processing can keep up
with the sensor sizes it is now possible to make. The sensor is the least
cost when it comes to building a 50 Mp camera.

True, likely what you'll see if they decide to integrate the idea of
highspeed processing with one of these 20 megapixels cameras is a cut-
down sensor area in the centre of around 10 megapixels that is
readable at 10fps if that is ever needed by the users of these
cameras.

On Dec 1, 2:47 am, "Gearóid Muar" wrote:
I think that modern digital slrs are astonishing and great value for
what they do.
Of course, Americans think they must get everything for nothing.

I'd agree, but it has little to do with what I said.

"RichA" wrote in message ...
Does it really cost Canon (and perhaps, Nikon?) so much more to
produce a viable 21 meg sensor of the same physical size as a 10-12
meg sensor? The wafer yield must be much lower for them to need a
$2000 premium over a lower megapixel sensor. Unless the camera that
is released is vastly different than it's lesser pixel sibling...Same
thing is seen with the medium format backs, same sensor size versus
different pixel counts. The pricing structure could be purely
marketing and have nothing to do with production cost from one back to
another.

Well, for starters, the defect rate probably goes up as the square of the increase in the number of photosites (ie double the pixel
count and you get 4 times the risk of failure) - and that's assuming the photosites are the same size. Since the 21 meg sensor also
has smaller photosites, I'd expect a higher proportion are rejected because they're too noisy as well. If halving the area of a
photosite doubles it's risk of rejection, then that, combined with the increased risk of rejection through the increased number of
photosites would mean the overall failure rate goes up as the cube of the increase in the number of photosites. Then you've got more
expensive ancillary hardware (eg the CPU) and less economy of scale to deal with. In the end, a much more expensive process.

Cheers
--
cmyk