Új hozzászólás Aktív témák

• #34 Ed Parker nagyúr TeeJay #31

  Új Válasz 2013-02-27 08:14:10 #34

  Új hozzászólás

  Összes hozzászólása itt Válaszok az összes hozzászólására itt Válaszok erre a hozzászólásra

  Privát üzenet küldése

  

  Ed Parker

  nagyúr

  válasz TeeJay #31 üzenetére

  Itt egy relatív jo leírás miért drágább az fx:
  I'm not sure anyone has directly addresses your question yet. Semiconductors like sensors have a cost that is generally proportional to their surface area. Within a given technology family, a larger semiconductor is always more expensive than a smaller one. This is because the way semiconductors are made is on a wafer and the smaller a given semiconductor is, the more can be made in one wafer and it costs about the same to process a wafer whether it contains 20 devices or 100 devices.

  The D800 sensor is 35.9mm x 24mm which is 861.6 square mm.
  The D300 sensor is 23.6mm x 15.8mm which is 372.88 square mm.

  The means the D800 FX sensor is 2.3x the area of the D300 DX sensor.

  So, from purely the semiconductor fabrication point of view, the D800 FX sensor would be 2.3x the cost of the D300 DX sensor as you get that many fewer out of the same materials and the same number of runs through the semiconductor fab. There may be additional differences on top of this for the larger chip, but the cost difference is at least this much.

  That cost ratio is constant (as long as the sensor sizes stay constant). Both will drop over time so the absolute amount of the difference will get smaller over time, but given that the sensor is a significant cost part already, putting one that is at least 2.3x the cost into an FX body will certainly lead to higher prices for FX, now and forever.

  Ever wonder why cell phone sensors are so small. It's not only because they have to fit into a cell phone - it's also because the budget for lens and sensor is small too.

Új hozzászólás Aktív témák