New backs to give 35mm format shooters the "drools"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121698929.208043.33820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/ [...] 3backs.asp
>
> Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
> Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
> afford it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

It's $30K (U.S.), - what a bargain!

BTW, you can use the back on any camera that accepts Hasselblad A or H
series backs, or Mamiya backs. You can also use the back on view cameras
via adapters.

I'm sure they'll sell like crazy! <not>

Walt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:26:53 -0400, "Walt Hanks"
<walthanks@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Alan Browne" <alan1browne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1121698929.208043.33820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> 31 Mpix not enough? How about 39 Mpix?
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/ [...] 3backs.asp
>>
>> Doesn't state the bodies, but prob. Hassy and Mamiya models offered.
>> Price not stated... but as the man said, if you need to ask, you can't
>> afford it.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Alan
>>
>
>It's $30K (U.S.), - what a bargain!
>
>BTW, you can use the back on any camera that accepts Hasselblad A or H
>series backs, or Mamiya backs. You can also use the back on view cameras
>via adapters.
>
>I'm sure they'll sell like crazy! <not>
>
>Walt
>

Lets compare cost to resolution:
Phase 1 39mp $30k = 1300 pixels per $1.
Canon 16mp $8k = 2000 pixels per $1.
Olympus E-300 8mp $800 = 10000 pixels per $1. With lenses!
Cheapo Fuji 4mp $250 = 16000 pixels per $1. With a lens!

What does this mean?
Nothing.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As this comparison shows, it's not the number of pixels, but the size of the
sensor that drives the price. The challenge is to produce a defect-free
piece of silicon. If the manufacturing process has an average of one defect
per area the size of a medium format sensor, half of them will end up bad.
On the other hand, if the same process is used to make the tiny sensors of a
P&S, the same piece of silicon will yield perhaps 99 good sensors and one
bad. A much cheaper manufacturing process, like one having ten defects over
the same area will still yield around 80-90 good small sensors, allowing to
produce them and make good money. But no matter how many times one tries,
such process will practically never deliver even a single defect-free medium
format sensor. Not exact numbers by any stretch of imagination, but you can
see the logic behind the price ratio.


> Lets compare cost to resolution:
> Phase 1 39mp $30k = 1300 pixels per $1.
> Canon 16mp $8k = 2000 pixels per $1.
> Olympus E-300 8mp $800 = 10000 pixels per $1. With lenses!
> Cheapo Fuji 4mp $250 = 16000 pixels per $1. With a lens!
>
> What does this mean?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yikes!

So you're saying you can spend $30,000 and then you STILL need a camera and
a lens to be able to take photos?


"Walt Hanks" <walthanks@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9fOdncNu8a6_zEHfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
> "Cockpit Colin" <spam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:WYXCe.1546$PL5.186611@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Can someone please explain to me just what a "back" is, as compared to a
> > camera "body"?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > CC
> >
> >
>
> The "back" is the portion of the camera that holds the film. With medium
> format and large format cameras, they are typically interchangeable, so
you
> can have multiple backs for one camera body.
>
> The digital backs in question simply replace the film backs on existing
> cameras, so you don't buy an entirely new camera to go digital, you just
buy
> the back.
>
> However, these backs are extremely expensive because of low volume
> production and very high pixel counts to satisfy the needs of demanding
> commercial photographers.
>
> Walt
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:44:03 -0700, "Happy Traveler"
<happy_traveler@abc.net> wrote:

>As this comparison shows, it's not the number of pixels, but the size of the
>sensor that drives the price. The challenge is to produce a defect-free
>piece of silicon. If the manufacturing process has an average of one defect
>per area the size of a medium format sensor, half of them will end up bad.
>On the other hand, if the same process is used to make the tiny sensors of a
>P&S, the same piece of silicon will yield perhaps 99 good sensors and one
>bad. A much cheaper manufacturing process, like one having ten defects over
>the same area will still yield around 80-90 good small sensors, allowing to
>produce them and make good money. But no matter how many times one tries,
>such process will practically never deliver even a single defect-free medium
>format sensor. Not exact numbers by any stretch of imagination, but you can
>see the logic behind the price ratio.

True enough, but ...

Most semi-conductor manufacturers practice "yield" management. For
microprocessors, it means testing all "dies" at the highest speed
rating (for your current product line). Those that pass get packaged
up and labeled at that fastest speed, and sold for a correspondingly
high price.

Those that don't pass, they get tested at the next speed rating, "one
down" from the fastest. The same yield process. Those that don't
pass this slower speed test get rejected and then tested again at the
next lower speed, and so on and so forth. If the manufacturing
process is good, not that many "dies" are actually defective and have
to be discarded.

Same process for memory chips, and also for photosensors, CMOS and
CCD. So in principle all sensors can be tested for that 54 MB
Hasselblad-back part. Those that fail, which is probably most of
those parts, will be sliced up and then tested again as ???? size the
manufacturer also sells.

Part of the logic behind the pricing is that there is a market at that
high price. At some point, the price for all these sensors will drop
as volumes increase and manufacturing processes are tweaked to improve
yields.

It has always been this way in semiconductors and will probably always
be this way.

Back in the long-ago day of single-sided and double-sided floppy
disks, Verbatim and others practiced the same yield management for
floppy disk media,

Father (grandfather??) Kodak

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:
[]
> Most semi-conductor manufacturers practice "yield" management. For
> microprocessors, it means testing all "dies" at the highest speed
> rating (for your current product line). Those that pass get packaged
> up and labeled at that fastest speed, and sold for a correspondingly
> high price.
>
> Those that don't pass, they get tested at the next speed rating, "one
> down" from the fastest. The same yield process. Those that don't
> pass this slower speed test get rejected and then tested again at the
> next lower speed, and so on and so forth. If the manufacturing
> process is good, not that many "dies" are actually defective and have
> to be discarded.
>
> Same process for memory chips, and also for photosensors, CMOS and
> CCD. So in principle all sensors can be tested for that 54 MB
> Hasselblad-back part. Those that fail, which is probably most of
> those parts, will be sliced up and then tested again as ???? size the
> manufacturer also sells.

Not for imaging chips, though. You can't re-slice them. Idon't know if
any manufacturers make a large imager from two smaller chips physically
abutted - I would guess not for the market segments we are considering.
Whether there might be anything to be gained by putting, say, four sensors
at a single "pixel" site, and being able to discard one dead one, I don't
know. I suspect not, as the dead ones amy come in clumps.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> Most semi-conductor manufacturers practice "yield" management. For
> microprocessors, it means testing all "dies" at the highest speed
> rating (for your current product line). Those that pass get packaged
> up and labeled at that fastest speed, and sold for a correspondingly
> high price.

Lately the yield management in CPUs has focused more on binning by
lowest power. You pay a big premium for the lowest power chips. The
el-cheapo no-name notebook PCs are using the highest power parts, both
in CPUs and graphics, which results in more heat, and shorter battery life.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:20:43 GMT, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Father Kodak wrote:
>
>> Most semi-conductor manufacturers practice "yield" management. For
>> microprocessors, it means testing all "dies" at the highest speed
>> rating (for your current product line). Those that pass get packaged
>> up and labeled at that fastest speed, and sold for a correspondingly
>> high price.
>
>Lately the yield management in CPUs has focused more on binning by
>lowest power. You pay a big premium for the lowest power chips. The
>el-cheapo no-name notebook PCs are using the highest power parts, both
>in CPUs and graphics, which results in more heat, and shorter battery life.

True enough. Very good addition. The main point is that the
"binning" process always allows a manufacturer to eke out revenues
from parts that are not the "best."

F K