If the GS400 costs about 1/2 of the MX5 and GS100, but only has 1/6" CCDs, shouldn't the MX5 and GS100 CCD size be 2 X 1/6"? That would be 1/3" CCDs, right?

But a 1/6" CCD is a *quarter* the size of a 1/3" CCD, not a half :-)

Yes, but 2 X 1/6 = 2/6, simplify it, and you get 1/3. :-))

Other than all the planets in our solar system aligning what else would need to happen for a GS100 to sport 1/3" ccds? Would it have to be fatter (wider)? Has there ever been a compact handheld 1/3" 3CCD?

but you see bruce ur statement was wrong.
they are not in fact a quater they are a half!!! the reason being is that the measure the "size" of ccd's by measuring across them. It would be true to say that they are 1/4 if you consider the surface area of them but we are not. and anyway frank my suggestion is that to fit 800k on one ccd the size of 1/6 inch would be just as expensive as they same on 1/3 inch because of the refined and detailed process of making them smaller. i would guess that the reason why they might have used the 1/6 is because they could make them more compact. to make 1/3 they would have needed bigger prisms and focal lenses to focus on the larger area. just a suggestion from backyard enthusiast.

Justin

Then people wouldn't buy the DVC80.

Then people wouldn't buy the DVC80.

You're probably right but I bet a super compact 1/3" 3CCD would blow the doors off of DVC80 sales.

Who wouldn't buy the DVC80? The Japanese? I think there's a strong market for puffed-plastic, so the DVC80 would still sell.