Do we have any indication what the next generation of MF sensors is going to look like in terms of size and resolution?

What kind of stuff might realistically get announced at Photokina 2010?

This time a couple of years ago we knew that there were going to be 50-60 Mpixel sensors coming through.
e.g. (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=12532)

Is there any indication from Dalsa or Kodak or anyone else where things might go?

^
Something between 60-80 Mp as CMOS sensor would be nice. Oh I forgot Dalsa and Kodak don't make them...

I fear the net generation will be a 80Mp sensor with more or less the same features.

ISO 50-400, no real long exposures, perhaps 0.5 more dynamic range, but overall nothing new.

Probably no live view, no real surprise. Perhaps Phase even dares to sell the same LCD again :-P

However as a P65 owner, there would need to be a big change. 60Mp are now enough for even 40x60 prints. So I think a 75 or even 90 Mp sensor would not really make a difference. What we really want and need are NEW features. Oh I forgot again, we would only need features other companies are offering for quite some years now.

Dalsa and Kodak are still rolling out their latest technology: another round of Full Frame type CCDs, this time with 6 micron cell size. Dalsa also has a new approach to microlenses that promises to eliminate the off-perpendicular sensitivity restrictions which have so far kept microlenses of the larger MF sensors. So Dalsa might be able to put microlenses on all future MF sensors, adding about one stop of sensitivity (ISO speed). RED is also talking about making a MF cameras with full 645 sized CMOS "Mysterium" sensors, and if I recall correctly also with 6 micron cell size. But RED
is the industry leader in ratio of products promised to products delivered so far.

Neither Kodak nor Dalsa is near going to a next generation beyond those 6 micron cell size products by 2010, and I have read no hints about their next generation plans. If you wish to speculate, Kodak has made one FF CCD sensor with 5.4 micron cell size, the 8MP one for Four Thirds models E-300 and E-500. Thanks to its microlenses, that sensor seems to outperform Kodak's current larger cell size sensors without microlenses in low light (anything higher than base ISO speed) but is not as good for per pixel signal to noise ratio ("per pixel dynamic range") at base ISO speed.

My predictions: as of Photokina 2010, there will be FF CCD sensors with 6 micron cell size in sensor sizes of 44x33mm, 45x30mm, 48x36mm/49x37mm, and nearly 645 (54x40mm or whatever); not much more than we have now.

Kodak once mentioned that they can go down to 5µm without compromising IQ - lenses that are capable to resolve such high frequencies (100lp/mm!!) with low aberration over large areas of the (quite large) frame are really rare. I don't expect any revolutions here. Interesting options to downsample to large files again or to do pixel binning, but no major breakthroughs regarding IQ.

CMOS offers interesting possibilities - but right now, when highest IQ is necessary, there's no other choice than full-frame CCDs (due to larger photosites).

Dalsa offers CMOS, RED offers marketing but they don't manufacture cameras, lenses or sensors - but they're not willing to reveal their suppliers, either. Only one thing is sure: it's 5.4µm-CMOS-sensor offers ordinary performance. Sensor-technology for 60fps creates extreme challenges and no pro would be happy to see such a quality in photography (just google-search for "red"-images with 4096x2048pixels size).

So be careful what you wish for...

I don't follow this. Would you mind clarifying for me?

Wouldn't sensor (and A/D converter) bit depth be more useful than more mpix at this stage?

-N

At the risk of sounding like a broken record... why do they insist on offering more and more megapixels? For every person here asking for more resolution there are ten asking for better high ISO performance. If Kodak and Dalsa never make the chips we want then we won't see the backs we really want either.

Still wishing for a 30MP 645 chip!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: because is nothing a 30MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 60MP 645 sensor cannot, with appropriate processing (downsampling or NR processing to improve S/N ratio while reducing resolution to match that of the 30MP sensor, *if and when* the lower res. is enough), but there *is* something that a 60MP 645 sensor can offer in IQ than a 30MP 645 sensor cannot: more resolution. Within reason, a somewhat higher pixel count simply gives more options in resolution/noise level/DR trade-offs.

All else being equal, a larger photosite will yield a greater DR (and therefore better high ISO performance). So my point was that the sensor manufacturers should be concentrating on achieving this instead of ever more resolution.

To my eyes, the focus for the next generation should not be size/resolution.

It should be:
- DSLR level live view in back capability,
- Reduction of silly problems like color casts,
- Price reduction.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'd like 2 frames per second.
Or for Hasselblad, 1 frame per .5 second.

I've been impressed with the pixel binning feature on the P65+, I'm getting clean files at ISO 800 allied to a MF look. And I'm sure there's more that could be done with this technology. If we get to a 100MP back with pixel binning delivering clean 25MP files at ISO 1600, along with a live view facility on a better screen, then I'd upgrade. Otherwise I'm more than happy to stay with the P65+.

I know this has been said many times before without ever happening, but it does seem to me that we're approaching, if not the end game, then at least a plateau in MF digital development.

@aaanorton
RED currently offers one camera and many people are excited about their annoncement for future cameras, even with 645-sized sensors. These cameras use fast CMOS-sensors (so they have liveview and they're basically video-cameras). But this ability has a high price regarding IQ for still photography - a camera which is capable to shot 60fps video is hardly a good MFDB-replacement... Just take a look at Kodak and their current offerings:

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba...ductSummary.pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acroba...ductSummary.pdf

The first one is a state-of-the art full-frame CCD, which basically means it has a very high fill-rate (large sensitive area) for high IQ (it's theoretical DR/contrast is 1:3200) but it liveview is problematic and it's slow. The second sensor is a state-of-the-art interline CCD. It has a lower fill-rate (more circuitry besides photodiodes - lower charge capacity and about half the DR) but is capable of video. With current technology, it's always the samge game - if it's called CCD, CMOS or Mysterium... You want liveview? You want video? You want internal NR for high-iso? Say goodbye to MDFB-IQ.

Technology progresses and it will be interesting to see how Leica will implement CMOS (there are rumors that they're working on a full-frame EVIL). When their CMOS-system is prefered by photographers over their previous CCD-offerings, MDFBs will most likely follow!?

@ georgl
Yes, I'm familiar with RED's offerings and have been following their imminent release announcements. Thanks for replying, the info on Kodak chips is interesting.
I get what you're saying and really have no arguments with any of it. I just don't see RED's potential easily dismissed. Ask a fashion photographer (or any people shooter) how they would feel about a 25-65 mpxl RAW file from a camera able to capture them in or near double digits, which can store them directly to an on-board SSD allowing virtually limitless shooting, has a quality EVF and live LCD and that can mount a variety of lenses from different manufacturers. Oh, and it can also shoot better-than-cinema quality RAW video footage at 50-350 frames per second. If someone offered me that option and it provided > 90% of the IQ from current MFDB, I'd jump without hesitation. I think many would.
I posted earlier in this thread that I'd like 2 fps from MFD. A totally reasonable request. I know lots of people who want that. We want that a whole lot more than we want 20 more megapixels. And we've been asking for it for 5+ years. RED may answer this request with a totally unreasonable response and I am truly excited about it.
I've also been excited (and still am) about Leica's S2. Mostly for the speed, though 1.5 fps now seems a little timid. I like everything they are doing with that camera and look forward to what they will bring in the future (cheers the Leica for true DNG writing!). I also think Phase made some great lemonade with the Mamiya lemons they got. Good for them! But all of the discussions we are, and have been, having regarding MFD seem so stale.
This is the most exciting time in MFD I can remember since pre-P25 (able to shoot untethered!). Gonna be an interesting year.

c!

Shouldn't we let lens technology catch up first?

Do we have to go over this yet again?

If you get 30 million pixels from one sensor that has 30 million photosites, and then get 30 million pixels by downsampling or such from a sensor of the same size but with 60 million photosites of similar technology, and then measure the DR of these two 30MP files, the DR is likely to be about the same. Downsampling (and other processes) can give "super pixels" with a higher S/N ratio and higher DR than the individual photosites used to form them. The simple explanation is that when the signal from several photosites is combined, the combined signal is increased about in proportion to the number of photosites uses, but the combined noise grows roughly as the square root of the noise in the individual pixels, so the S/N ratio and DR increases roughly in proportion to the square root of the number of photosites used to get the "super-pixel". A factor of 1.4 in the above example, or half a stop.

My favorite example: the "photosites" of black and white film (clumps of silver halide crystals) have pathetically low S/N ratio, but aggregation of many billions of these can give quite good DR.


Please at least stop making arguments which ignore the increase in S/N ratio and DR that downsampling (and other options like spatial averaging) can produce.


P. S. Sometimes, the downsampling or spatial averaging can be done simply by the printing technology, or by the resolution limits of the viewer's eyes. When 30MP is enough to print at a PPI figure high enough to match the viewer's resolution limits (say 300PPI for a viewing distance of 12" or more?), then 60MP give the same print size at 1.4x higher PPI, 420PPI. This now exceeds the viewer's resolving power, so the tiny pixels get blurred together: spatial averaging again, this time by the rods and cones of the viewer's eyes. This increases the S/N ratio of the signal detected by those rods and cones.

How many sensor manufacturers replace a current sensor with another that has larger photosites? None, right? It's always the other way around. So to compare a 30 mpxl sensor's DR with that of a 60 mpxl upgrade to the first sensor is to ignore foto-z's qualifier of "All else being equal". The 60 mpxl back didn't just happen. People had to make it. More importantly, people were paid to make it. And since they were paid, decisions had to be made: More pixels or improve the ones we got? More pixels or better bandwidth from the chip? Instead of talking about a 30 mpxl base, let's consider a 60 mpxl position. Is the answer to IQ concerns always the doubling of resolution? Should we hope for a down sampled 120 mpxl file to deliver the 800 iso DR we want at a 60 mpxl resolution? And the 1600 iso DR we really want at 30 mpxl? And if what we really want (no kidding here) is a 30-40 mpxl file (really!), should we continue to hope for IQ to be improved only through down sampling from successively larger and larger RAW files that we have to waste storage space on and production time copying, moving, backing up and archiving? I'm sure there some people over at Seagate Technologies that like this idea!
This becomes an exercise in marketing. A smooth progression of consecutively larger numbers is easier to market and sell. Plateaus on sales brochures look like turds.

Please keep in mind that I am not arguing with your technical assessment. I'm just questioning at what cost resolution.

Thanks,
c!

no more pixels please, stooooop . to do what ? 30 MP is enough in MF
25 ISO will be great

there a new sensor here >> http://www.scmos.com/

Digital backs desperately need higher resolution LCD screens with live view directly on the back itself. Then on view cameras, we don't need anymore inaccurate sliding backs or tethering. Is the only reason they don't have live view because they use CCDs instead of CMOS?

No-one is disputing that binning helps to achieve a higher S/N ratio, but it is of limited value. My point is that the sensor makers should be concentrating on techniques to lower sources of dark current and read noise, and to increase quantum efficiency. At the end of the day, it is the S/N ratio which matters and not the technology used to achieve it.

The formula for calculating the S/N ratio in a pixel binned system is


Where
M represents the number of binned pixels
P is the incident photon flux (photons/pixel/second)
Q(e) represents the CCD quantum efficiency
t is the integration time (seconds)
D is the dark current value (electrons/pixel/second)
N® represents read noise (electrons rms/pixel)

You can see that we get between 1-2 stops more S/N ratio with 2x2 pixel binning (depending on dominance of read noise). Nice, but it's not going to make any headlines, and to get a decent resolution after binning you would need 120MP+ on the sensor. Otherwise the DSLRs are in the lead.

Agreed; and 1/2 to 1 stop for a 2:1 downsampling or binning. Also, for normal photographic exposure times, substantially less than one second, dark current is rather irrelevant so S/N ratio scales about
- proportional to sqrt(M) for well lit parts of the scene, where shot noise dominates and the result is approximately sqrt(M P Q_e t).
and
- proportional to M in deep shadows, where read noise dominates and the result is approximately M P Q_e t/N_r.


But if instead of binning from 60MP to 30MP (or in general M to 1 down-ressing), one just uses a 30MP sensor to start with (or more generally, reduce the pixel count by factor M, and so increase pixel area by a factor M), the result is about the same: again about half to one gain in S/N ratio in exchange for halving the final pixel count!

- In well lit parts of the image, shot noise again dominates: S/N ratio approximately sqrt(P Q_e t).
Reducing photosite count by factor M and so increasing photosite area by a factor of M has the effect of increasing P by about that factor of M, so has the same effect on S/N ratio as above: a factor of sqrt(M).

- In dimly lit parts of the scene where read noise dominates the S/N ratio is about P Q_e t/((N_r)^2).
It is tricker to work out the effect of photosite increase because you have to know how the read noise N_r varies with photosite size. For this you should note that the major source of read noise is probably amplifier noise, and with larger photosite size and well capacity, the amplifier has to be larger, and it is likely that the read noise level in electrons increases. For example, CCD's for digicams with small photosites have read noise of around 2-4 electrons, whereas the best large photosite CCD's from Kodak are at around 12 electrons. Also, the history of Kodak CCD's show read noise in electrons increasing with pixel size. What is more, the Kodak data I have seen has read noise scaling roughly with the square root of pixel area! This makes some sense in terms of what little I know about amplifier shot noise.

If that pattern of read noise N_r increasing as the square root of photosite are holds, then increasing pixel size by a factor M increases P by a factor M and also increases N_r by sqrt(M), so S/N ratio improves by factor sqrt(M). That would be worse that for binning!
If instead, amplifier noise does not increase at all, the improvement is a factor of M, as for binning.


In all these rough reckonings, I see no clear advantage for fewer, bigger photosites over binning when the lower resolution is sufficient. So I am inclined to trust Kodak, Dalsa and other industry players over half-baked theory in internet forums, including my own.


Of course if one NEVER needs the higher resolution, a lower res. sensor probably has some marginal advantages. But unfortunately for MF makers, high end 35mm systems will probably take over that market.

Are you sure that downsampling significantly increases DR? Reducing noise definitely helps but isn't the capacity/saturation a limiting factor?

@aaanorton
I'm sure that would be great but technology has to catch up first. We have no high-quality EVF (RED uses a standard 800x600 version), no fast sensors with the IQ of current full-frame CCDs and the RED has to use strong compression (similar to JPG2000) to capture these large images at this speed.
The Leica S2 achieves about 120MB/s - that's pretty much and increasing that speed would propably increase noise caused by the amplifiers!?

That will depend on specific dark current and read noise figures which I don't have, but you seem to be missing my point which I will restate. Rather than spending time and money on higher and higher MP counts with marginal S/N improvements through the compromised option of binning, the sensor designers should be working on chips with much lower noise (by several stops) so we finally get 16-bits of clean data, and excellent high ISO performance.



I am more sceptical. It wouldn't surprise me if the chip designers have never met a working photographer, and are caught up in the megapixel race.

Binning effectively increases the capacity.

before increasing megapixel (aren't we at the max resolution for lenses right now ?), they have other things to work on...

live view as good as 5D MARK II
long exposure free of noise
sensor as big as possible
color cast free
focussing help

I do not disagree with you much actually: increasing resolution is for a great many of us a lower priority than other improvements. My point was only that more smaller pixels does little or no harm to noise levels, dynamic range and such if one compares fairly: equal sized final images, appropriately prepared (maybe just a touch of spatial averaging away of "unneeded" excess detail from the "excessively detailed" higher res. file).

I also suspect that photosite downsizing is relatively cheap and easy to do: mostly a consequence of feature size downsizing in each new generation of semiconductor fabrication equipment, which happens without sensor makers having to spend a cent on that R&D. So maybe sensor resolution keeps increasing in good part because it costs almost nothing to do it, and the market place (yes even the relatively serious and knowledgeable medium format market place) keeps rewarding this behavior by its willingness to pay higher prices for higher resolution options.

And so maybe these resolution improvements are fairly independent of work in other directions, like improved microlenses and further reducing amplifier noise.

As to what might be better priorities: the most solid good news is probably Dalsa's innovation which promises to make micro-lenses usable on all MF sensors, good for about a one stop gain in sensitivity (ISO speed).

But a lot of the progress that people hope for in MF probably requires moving away from CCD's (as they celebrate forty years and a Nobel Prize!), to something like CMOS sensors. Kodak just abandoned CMOS after many years of work on it; Dalsa has never scaled its CMOS up beyond small sensors; RED talks of a 645 live view capable CMOS sensor, but RED talks a lot more that it delivers so far. Fuji created a near 645 sized SuperCCD sensor, but it went nowhere. Could a large, modern sensor maker and seller like Sony or Panasonic be interested is stitching up a MF sized sensor? Both have demonstrated stitching abilities, needed to get beyond about 33x26mm.

Or will the rising tide of higher end 35mm format continue to squeeze MF, slowing ever more its ability to fund technological progress? After all, look how long MF lagged in getting auto-focus, in which it is still stuck at a single AF point!

Actually, RED is talking about a 6x17 full cinema and stills DSMC (digital stills motion camera). There's no denying that they haven't delivered many cameras (just the Red ONE), but it is a fairly revolutionary camera in terms of specs and price point for its intended market. Maybe they'll do it maybe they won't; we'll know more this month when final specs and delivery dates are finally released. But isn't this the exact type of creative thinking that this market needs?

@ georgl
See above!

c!

Yes, binning rises capacity - but this has to be done during shooting, while any kind of downsampling in software leaves this problem unsolved, doesn't it?

Downsampling is also perfectly capable of increasing the overall signal to noise ratio, or DR. For example, of you have photosites with capacity 40,000e- and noise floor of 10e- (mostly amp. noise), pixels produced from a single photosite have DR of about 4000:1 which if converted 14 bit one has maximum level about 16,000, noise floor at about 4 bits RMS. If one downsamples 4:1 by adding levels, the maximum level is now about 64,000, and noise floor rises to about 8 levels (assuming independence of noise so that it combines in RMS fashion). So the downsample super-pixels have maximum signal level 16,000, noise floor, DR 2,000: one stop more. (Or if you average back down to 14 bits by dividing by four: maximum signal back to level 16,000, noise floor at level 2 RMS.)

By the way, photon shot noise definitely combines in RMS fashion, so there is as clear gain in that contribution to overall S/N ratio.


The key to getting an increase in "per pixel DR" by reducing pixel count is having dark noise (dark current, amp. noise etc.) that is somewhat uncorrelated between the raw pixels used to produce a downsampled pixel. Then there is some degree of cancellation of noise when signals are added, so RMS noise level increases less than signal strength. With partially correlated noise, the gain is not as much as in my above example, but it is still there.

If and only if they deliver. So far, RED has not delivered a single sensor bigger than about APS-C size; that is, all existing RED sensors fit the 33x26mm stepper size limit and so need no stitching or such to be fabricated.

For creative thinking, nice CGI images, and proposals of wonderful new photographic products without realization as actual products, I do not need the RED web site: I have all the self-styled geniuses in photography forums who are happy to tell us how to make a far better camera and that the camera and sensor makers are stupidly ignoring their great ideas.

Isn't maximum die size increasing?

Edmund

Not that I can see.

As far as maximum field size in steppers, it has has been steady at 33x26mm for some years now for all major stepper makers, with one unhelpful exception. The exception is that some years ago, both Canon and Nikon introduced steppers with larger maximum field sizes. The Nikon is now discontinued, industry leader AMSL never bothered with field size larger than 33x26mm, leaving that one big Canon stepper, announced in December 2001: the FPA-5500iX http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?ac...mp;modelid=9165


The Canon FPA-5500iX offers 50x50mm field size, but has a huge 500nm minimum feature size, and it is advertised mostly for early rough stages of fabrication and for making LCD panels. That huge feature size (the current state of the art is 45nm going on 32nm) makes it rather useless for camera sensors. Good CMOS photosites seem to need cell size about 20 or 30 times minimum feature size, giving a 10 to 15 micron minimum for that stepper. Kodak might well be using this to make its huge 50x50mm CCD's for Xray machines, but they have 24 micron cell size (only 4MP!).

As to die sizes:
- memory chips have no need to grow anywhere near 33x26mm.
- well over 99% of image sensors are considerably smaller than 33x26mm.
- IC's wobble up and down in size, going up as more cores and cache are added, and then down again with moves to a new smaller feature size. The latest Intel core i7 processors with four cores using 45nm process have a die size of 243sqmm, which coincidentally is the same as the nominal area of a 4/3" sensor, 18x13.5mm. It is way below the 858sqmm of 33x26mm. The next step for Intel will be downsizing to 32nm process, roughly halving die size.

So I see no signs of interest in increasing the maximum field size of steppers beyond 33x26mm.

Which leads us to the interesting question of how the current generation of Sony and Canon fullframe sensors are made.

I have a feeling that the Canon production tools department may have made a few internal samples of a special stepper, and Nikon may have done the same for Sony.

Edmund

Hi,

I have seen some article on the Sony sensor where it was visible that it is stitched.

Best regards
Erik

I am curious about the basis for that feeling, as I am not aware of any evidence in that direction, and there is significant evidence suggesting otherwise: that the standard stitching method is used.

Canon has repeatedly said in whitepapers that it needs to use stitching to make its 36x24mm sensors, and that the 1D series sensors (about 29x19mm) are about the largest that can be made without stitching: Canon cites the currrent 33x26mm size limit in this context.

So with respect to Canon, the question is only "interesting" if you ignore what Canon has said.

I think I recall reading a Sony discussion of the technical challenges involved in making its new 36x24mm sensors which included the need for stitching for this sensor size.

I must also wonder why the impressive technological achievement of designing and making a special stepper would be concealed, even to the point of lying, rather than being boasted about in some website, press release or white paper.

it also seems very unlikely to me that Canon or Nikon would design and produce such a once-off stepper, requiring new optical components and such, for a single very low yield product. Steppers are usually made at least in dozens or hundreds to defray the R&D costs. Also, stitching is a well-established practice for producing relatively small volumes of large IC's: why would there be a exception, and indeed a "secret" exception, for this one case of large DSLR sensors?

And yes, 36x24mm sensors are small volume items. Steppers can have a throughput of about 130 300mm wafers per hour, so even if the yield for 36x24mm sensors were a pathetically low one per wafer (making the cost contribution of the wafer alone about $2000 per sensor, so yields must be better than this), one stepper could be producing almost 100,000 per month: far more than the estimated total production of all Canon, Nikon and Sony sensors in that format. So such a stepper would hav a capacity to make far more than any one company is actually fabricating.

It is thus far more likely that a single standard issue stepper working in stitching mode is all that each of Canon and Sony and whoever makes Nikon FX sensor need to make these 36x24mm sensors. Better yet, DSLR photosites are large enough that they do not need the latest generation steppers: something like 120nm process is probably fine, so older "hand-me-down" equipment can be used, for a further cost saving. That approach seems likely to be far cheaper than designing and building a custom stepper that would be used at well below full capacity.

In the future the "megapixel race" will stop.

I see two possibilities for sensor improvement:

1. Sophisticated sensor binning technologies.
Fuji EXR sensor is the best example at this moment. You can use the full resolution (12MP) or a lower resolution (6MP). In this second case the pixels are merged in pairs. There are two modes: 1. binning for wider dynamic range; 2. binning for lower noise.
This type of development bring more sense to additional increases in megapixels.


2. Three-layer sensors.
The Foveon is the only working example right now. It is to be seen this technology can be scaled up to larger sensors at reasonable cost.

More CMOS tech improvements. Keep buying CCD folks. Those MFD companies need to support their CEO's

Sorry, I just have to slam cameras that cost $30k. I want one though..

CMOS link:
http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/index.c...es&ID=90916

I am wondering if this is really true particularly with respect to diffraction / DOF concerns? I would also expect a moderate 30mpix pixel count back to have a faster frame rate than a 60mpix back with pixel binning algorithm.

Definitely with respect to those two. Processed down to the same resolution and displayed at the same size, both diffraction and OOF (DOF) effects will be the same for the same f-stop and focal length, because the diffraction blur spots and circles of confusion are the same size on the sensor, and so are the same size on the displayed image.

One related difference: equal diffraction spot size combined with higher resolution sampling of the higher pixel count sensor should reduce aliasing with sensors that lack an AA filter, and so help to reduce moiré. In DSP-speak, "oversampling is good".


Agreed: higher frame rates are possible the single greatest real reason for a camera company making a camera with a lower resolution sensor than it is capable of. That is probably why all the high speed PJ models from Canon and Nikon have fewer (and mostly bigger) photosites than their other high-end models. (Latest news: the "mere" 16MP of the Canon 1DMkIV and the even more humble 12MP of the Nikon D3S, each about US$5000.)

Actually true binning on the sensor might maintain fairly good speed, as only the binned lower pixel count has to be amplified and digitized. But that has to at least halve the linear resolution, 60MP -> 15MP. To get intermediate pixel counts like 30MP requires off-sensor down-ressing of the digital output, and so processing the whole 60MP through to A/D.

Hi Gary,

Are you finding the lenses are performing well enough for your P65+ back? My goal for a MF camera would be edge to edge un-compromised image quality. Do you have a wide angle lenses that is that good on a back of this resolution? Megapixels are great but if the image is not sharp or has CA then what's the point for an architectural or landscape photographer.

Thanks for any help.

If only the price for these cameras would fall fast enough, I think they would sell more than enough to cover their costs. Many professional photographers would love to buy a MF system but I think the prices are just out of line with the return on investment. I personally don't see the need for high ISO on a MF camera at all. But live view on a hi-res LCD and on a tethered computer is mandatory for me as all my clients expect it.

If you mean through cutting retail prices by lowering margins: if it were that simple, MF makers would have figured it out a long time ago; their managers are not all brain dead, despite some forum cynicism.

If you mean cutting priced through cutting costs, that is also an utterly obvious goal ... I have to conclude that it is not at all easy to reduce the costs of these huge sensors, for reason that have been discussed a great deal.

By the way, there is no evidence that changing to CMOS sensors would reduce costs significantly; that is a misunderstanding of cost advantages that only apply to small, cheap "camera on a chip" CMOS sensor modules for phones, web-cams, and such. Note for example that Dalsa offers custom CMOS sensors, including the ability to make huge ones, and so did Kodak before discontinuing its CMOS division, yet no MF maker has taken that option.

If one would know the exact correlation between price drop and increase in sales, in any field, there would be a lot of billionaires.

Thierry

At the risk of stating the obvious, the problem is probably the cost of the sensor. I can't imagine that the electronics or body add all that much, especially given that they are not having to support a high frame rate (which would require high speed electronics) or fancy auto focus. We know what sort of price the body, prism etc costs from the pre-digital age. And I presume the manufacturers buy the sensor from a third party, so the development costs will be spread over multiple customers, and priced in to the sensor. The issue is the large real estate. A 35mm sensor has a much higher reject rate compared to an APS-C one. And a MF sensor would be much worse. I'm sure someone could say what sort of price one might naively expect to pay for a sensor. I think the APS-C ones are down to $50-$100 a piece.

In the past MF had a key advantage over 35mm as the size of film grain was fixed for a given film speed e.g. Velvia 50. So increasing the film size was the route to higher quality. But digital can just increase the pixel density, subject to the lens resolution constraints. I guess this gets back to another thread on this forum about MF versus 35mm.

And the one closest to knowing that correlation are surely not in the peanut gallery of internet forums ... unless the now-it-all posters telling camera companies how to run their businesses are all retired billionaire entrepreneurs ...

Yes, exacerbated by the poor and ever worse economies of scale in a MF market that has shrunk from a rather small 100,000 units a year or so late in the film era to maybe 10,000 a year for the whole MF industry with digital, while Canon and Nikon/Sony can each sell about 10,000 or more of their high end sensors every month (1DsMkIII+5DMkII, D3X+A900+A850.)


Yes, and MF body prices have gone way up since the film era (consider Mamiya 645AF then and now), indicating to me that lower volumes are forcing ever higher mark-ups to cover R&D costs ... Or that the total morons running all MF companies would have been far better off by keeping prices down where they were. Take your pick.

Not so at all, believe me: around 15% to 20%, maximum 30% of the total costs, depending on different variables (new product, end-of-life product, agreement on quantities, agreement on exclusivity, ... with manufacturer(s), etc ...).

R&D and software are the main costs, by far.

Gross margins are part of the enduser prices and are calculated according to business laws and to assure the survival of the companies, for those who still believe that the MF manufacturers are working with excessive margins.

Best regards,
Thierry

Do you mean that the price to MFDB makers are 15% to 30% of the total retail price? I have been told that the normal process of margins along the way mean that each $1 increase in component costs can add about $3 to retail, and if so, your percentages translate to sensor costs causing about 30% to 60% of retail price.

I can see that defraying R&D over unit sales only a few percent of what 35mm format DSLR's achieve and way under 1% of mainstream DLSR volume is a nasty cost multiplier too!

But if R&D dominates costs, not sensors, can you explain the big price differences between the Aptus-II models 5, 6 and 7 and 10? R&D costs should be similar for all models, with sensor differences then main difference, which makes me naively believe that sensor costs have a lot to do with the retail price.

Dear BJL,

What I was saying, to be clear, is that the cost of a sensor in the total costs of a manufacturer are those in my post above. Usually around 30% for a new product. The rest being mainly R&D and software costs + Parts. To these costs the manufacturer applies a gross margin which gives a "Export Price", the price the distributors are paying. This Gross Margin can obviously vary from one product to another (see answer to your last question below), but usually not from one distributor to another (or from one country to another), except for special deals (based mainly on quantities or special promotions in certain countries). I believe this is known and can be understood by all.

What happens after that can be very different, from one manufacturer to another, and I believe this is where there is so much confusion in pricing (not only with manufacturers of DMFBs): some manufacturers are working with MSRPs (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price) or RRPs (Recommended Retail Price) or List Prices. We all know that these prices have been created to have a standard worldwide, or at least in some regions, but we also know that there are huge differences in "final" retail prices (so-called "Enduser Price") despite the MSRPs, simply because these "Enduser Prices" cannot be the same everywhere. While many distributors are working with these recommended prices with their endusers, some simply cannot: the transport or shipping costs, the import taxes, the import duties, the luxury taxes, the storage fees at custom clearance, the insurances, etc ... are sometimes/often very different from one continent, country or region to another. This gives a "Landed Price" which can be very different from one country to another. All distributors have to work with these "Landed Costs", to which they apply their margin: most if not all of the distributors are working with the same and normal margins, but the "Landed Price" makes the difference. Some countries in Asia are a good example for how it can be different, and I could write a book about it (grey market, smuggling, etc ...).

To answer your last question: I cannot speak for Leaf and the Aptus products in particular. But I can speak for what I know. There are products which include less/more margin than others (Entry product, Top-of-Line product, products which are discounted, products which have reached the "Break-Even" (Total Costs = Sales).

Remark: in your last sentence (... R&D dominates costs ...) you forgot the word "software": these together represent the main costs. Software costs are not to be underestimated: think about the number of people working alone for the software part, they have to be paid somehow, given that most MFDB manufacturers are giving the software FOC. But no, it is not FOC, a software.

Best regards,
Thierry

I'm not sure there is a disagreement here. BJL indicated that the number of units sold is low, which means that the overheads are spread over fewer units, pushing up the end user price. So the sensor is a significant part of the cost, but so is the cost of distribution, marketing, sales etc due to smaller numbers sold.

BTW Thierry, when you refer to 'software' do you mean the in camera firmware? Or do you mean the software installed on a PC/Mac to process the RAW files? If the latter, then surely that is pretty much a one off cost, and the associated overhead is thus less and less each year. And in fact much of the firmware (JPG creation) must be a one off cost too, since the basic algorithms are pretty much the same irrespective of pixel count. Or maybe I'm missing something.