| Joined: | Thu Apr 12th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Geoff don't forget that on a Hasselblad/Mamiya/PhaseOne you can switch backs which is the same concept of modular components.
You are right of course but the cost of these cameras is significantly more than that of a, current, Nikon making the extra cost of machining an accurate mounting less of a significant part of the cost. On a small sensor, and 24mm x 36mm was regarded as small for a long time, the additional cost may push the price of the camera beyond that acceptable to the target market. It is more a matter of cost than engineering.
I remember the Datum Flux valve, that didn't require a compass swing after being replaced, it was revolutionary at the time. Accurate manufacture of the mountings on both sides and correct alignment of the internals meant that everything was interchangeable. The same would be required of a sensor module but I think the acceptable degree of misalignment would be much smaller. Within 15 years we didn't even use flux valves, an aircraft "magnetic" compass relies on Inertial/GPS position and Magnetic variation tables. What that would mean in camera terms I don't know.
The point however is that moving the skilled job of alignment from maintenance to manufacture reduced down time and costs. What an interchangeable sensor requires is almost exactly the same but, flux valves weren't actually changed very often and the saving in maintenance probably didn't equate to the increased cost of the part. Likewise if the sensor isn't likely to be changed very often is the increased manufacturing cost offset by a reduced upgrade (maintenance) cost?
I suppose that if a manufacturer were to commit to keeping the parts compatible for, say, 20 years it might be feasible but look what difficulties Nikon had with the F mount. Now, 60 years on, the mechanical bayonet is unchanged but almost everything around it is different. The electronics of a digital camera change much faster and I wonder how practical it would be to keep the central core unchanged for even 10 years. Back to aviation, in flight entertainment systems don't advance as fast as passengers would like, most in-seat screens are smaller and lower resolution than an iPad Mini 4 and even the system fitted last month is technically obsolete. The passenger is already carrying a better system than the airline can provide, but not the content. In camera terms; if the central core was using Expeed 6 processors at design then by the time it was ready the Expeed 7 would be in production and within two years of launch the central core would already be two generations behind (depending which module hosts the processing).
I'd like the idea to work because I like the thought of keeping the comfortable hardware of the shell and upgrading the inside to keep pace with advancing technology.