Why were early digital camera sensors smaller than 35mm full frame?
Asked 9/10/2019
4 views
2 answers
0
Full-frame sensors are often praised for image quality, but they have long been much more expensive than smaller sensors. If 35mm film was already the standard size for many cameras, why did early digital SLRs and other digital cameras often use smaller-than-full-frame sensors instead? I’m mainly asking about the original historical and technical reasons, not just today’s price differences. Why didn’t manufacturers simply match the film frame size from the start, especially when some film-era lenses could still be used?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
6y ago
2 Answers
50
Making large semiconductor devices with no, or only a very small number, of defects is very hard. Smaller ones are much less demanding to make.
In particular the yield – the proportion of the ones you make which are usable – for semiconductors drops as you try and make them larger. If the yield is low, then you have to make a lot of devices for each good one, and this means that the cost per device becomes very high: possibly higher than the market will bear. Smaller sensors, with the resulting higher yields, are then strongly preferred.
Here's a way of understanding the yield curve. Let's say that the chance of a defect per unit area in a process is c, and that such a defect will kill any device which is made out of that bit of semiconductor. There are other models for defects in devices but this is quite a good one.
If we want to make a device which has an area A then the chance of it not having a defect is (1 - c)A. So if A is 1 then the chance is (1 - c) and it gets smaller (since (1 - c) is less than one) as A gets larger.
The chance of a device of area A not having a defect is the yield: it's the proportion of good devices of area A we get. (In fact the yield may be lower, because there may be other things that can go wrong).
If we know the yield yA for decives of some some area A, then we can work out c: c = 1 - yA1/A (you get this by taking logs of both sides and rearranging). Equivalently we can compute the yield for any other area a as y = yAa/A.
So now, let's say that when we make 24x36mm (full-frame) sensors we get a yield of 10%: 90% of the devices we make are no good. Manufacturers are shy about saying what their yields are, but this is not implausibly low. This is equivalent to saying that c, the chance of a defect per mm2 is approximately 0.0027.
And now we can compute the yields for other areas: in fact we can just plot the yield curve against area:
In this plot I've marked the expected yields for sensors of various less-than-full-frame sizes if the full-frame yield is 10% (these may be approximate, as APS-C can mean various things, for instance). As you can see smaller sensors get much higher yields.
Over time, as manufacturing processes improve, this yield curve flattens, and the yields for big sensors improve. As this happens, larger sensors drop in price to the point where the market will bear their cost.
Originally by user82065. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user82065
6y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
The main reason was manufacturing difficulty and cost. Large image sensors are semiconductor devices, and the bigger the chip, the more likely it is to contain a defect. That lowers production yield sharply, so each good full-frame sensor costs much more than a smaller one.
So although “miniaturization” can be hard in some areas of electronics, making a larger flawless sensor is also very hard. A smaller sensor uses less silicon area, gives better yield, and makes cameras affordable enough for a broader market.
There was also historical momentum: electronic image sensors first became common in video, where sensor sizes and resolution needs were generally smaller than 35mm still photography. Early digital imaging technology developed around those smaller formats, and only later became practical at 35mm full-frame sizes.
Using smaller sensors also let makers reuse existing camera bodies and lens mounts, even if the field of view changed because of the crop factor.
So the choice was not because smaller sensors were inherently better than full frame; it was mostly because they were far easier and cheaper to produce at acceptable quality when digital camera technology was developing.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI6y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why were crop-sensor cameras introduced instead of only full-frame cameras?
Why aren’t full-frame digital cameras as small, light, and cheap as 35mm film cameras?
Why is 35mm/full-frame the standard reference for sensor size?
Why are modern full-frame DSLRs usually larger than older 35mm film SLRs?
Why did common photo aspect ratios like 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, and 16:9 become standard?
