And you’re making the statement that they’re not, which is not the case. fF sensors are about the largest chips made. So few are on a wafer, and that brings the cost up. There are still millions of cameras, for several years of sales. So it’s not a tiny number of sensors. Intel sells many different chips. Many of them only sell in the high hundreds of thousands. Millions isn’t a small number.Honestly, I haven't seen the hard numbers, but my understanding that it is the kind of price you can expect from foundries that do CMOS sensors for you. R&D and having a luxury of running your own fab grossly under its capacity are extra, but once the sensor technology matures, they won't be a big deal either.
You claimed (or at least suggested) that the cameras for such sensors (using EF optics) must be too big, too heavy and too expensive. Which is not the case.
No, they are generally harder to sell, in particular, because of a very small choice of compatible modern lenses, which are also very heavy and expensive, and that's what makes the sensor expensive (R&D and fab setup costs split between a tiny amount of sensors).
If a sensor flawlessly works with almost all big (and small; at least everything that accepts a teleconverter) whites, that would not be a problem.
Upvote
0