3 ms·
This is not a point-and-shoot camera for your grandma to use. It's hardened against radiation, vibration, heat, cold, dust, etc., sending back high-quality RAW
by nollidge 14y ago
This is not a point-and-shoot camera for your grandma to use. It's hardened against radiation, vibration, heat, cold, dust, etc., sending back high-quality RAW images for a planned two-year mission.
So no, it's not "$100 more".
- wmf 14y agoI think your argument can be used to reach the opposite conclusion: since most of the cost is not in the sensor but in the hardening against radiation, vibration, heat, cold, dust, etc. then putting in a better sensor would be basically free. Of course the article explains why they didn't; maybe mtgx just didn't read it.
- nollidge 14y agoMaybe... IANAEE but chip design and materials is probably still important for all that. It's not necessarily a regular chip wrapped in heat/radiation/whatever shielding. I'm trying to google around a bit for more info but have to get back to work eventually...
- wmf 14y agoIt is an off-the-shelf Kodak sensor.