Why aren’t low-resolution full-frame sensors much cheaper to make?
Asked 1/28/2012
8 views
2 answers
0
I understand that sensor size affects image quality, depth of field, and high-ISO performance. Since some APS-C cameras have very high megapixel counts, I’m wondering why manufacturers haven’t offered many inexpensive full-frame cameras with relatively low-resolution sensors, such as 8–10 MP.
Would a low-resolution full-frame sensor be significantly cheaper to manufacture than a higher-resolution full-frame sensor? Or are full-frame sensors expensive mainly because of their physical size rather than pixel count?
I’m also curious whether larger pixels automatically improve sensitivity, or whether modern high-ISO performance depends more on sensor technology than just resolution.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
13
As mentioned by the answers by @matt and @rowland, the price is directly linked to the the area of silicon used to create the sensor. Ideally a sensor with twice the area should cost about twice as much. Since all production of electronics on silicon (and other substrates) will have flaws, not all the produced chips/sensors will work. The yield rate (as it's called) is lower when the sensor is bigger, using the same production process.
Imagine a sensor A that is twice as large in both directions compared to another sensor B. That means you can make 4 times as many of sensor B in the same area of sensor A. But if you have one flaw in that area, you're still left with 3 usable sensor Bs. If you were producing sensor A you'd have to scrap that sensor. This means that the yield rate is much greater for smaller sensors, which adds to the price differences.
The smaller the chip/sensor the less area and higher yield rate, which means a much lower price.
Originally by user7271. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user7271
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A full-frame sensor is expensive mainly because of its physical size, not just its megapixel count.
Larger sensors use much more silicon area, and that has a big effect on manufacturing cost and yield. On a wafer, small sensors fit in greater numbers; if there’s a defect, you may only lose one small sensor. With a large full-frame sensor, a single defect is more likely to ruin the whole chip, so yield drops and cost rises.
Lower resolution can reduce complexity somewhat, and there have been lower-resolution full-frame cameras. But making the pixel count lower does not make the sensor dramatically cheaper in the way many people expect, because the sensor is still physically large.
Also, better high-ISO performance is not simply a matter of using larger pixels. Newer sensor designs and processing improvements matter a lot. That’s why some older low-resolution full-frame sensors are not automatically more sensitive than newer designs.
So yes, a low-resolution full-frame camera can make sense for image quality goals, but it would still likely remain relatively expensive because full-frame size itself is the biggest cost factor.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why don't medium format cameras prioritize low-resolution sensors for better high-ISO performance?
Why were crop-sensor cameras introduced instead of only full-frame cameras?
Have APS-C and smaller camera sensors reached their practical limits?
Why are digital medium format cameras often considered to have better image quality?
Does a lower-resolution sensor have better low-light performance if sensor size is the same?