Skip Williams wrote:
>I'm glad to see Nikon do something spectacular and different, rather than
>following Canon's lead.
>
Well, they followed one lead from there. The new sensor is CMOS. I
wonder who makes the sensor?
> The new VR lenses are nice too, they must have finally gotten around
> constraining patents. It's obvious that they are sticking with the APS-sized
> sensor. I continue to think that Canon's three-sensor lineup is very
> confusing
>
Makes sense to me. Want a bigger sensor, buy another body and all but
the few small sensor lenses and all the accessories you already have
work with the new body. Sound systems approach, I think.
> and can't be cost effective long-term.
>
Their cost structure is very different than Nik*n or anybody else in the
DSLR market. They design and build their own sensors, so producing
different sizes is easy and relatively cheap. Also, they are really
selling a lot of the small sensor size bodies. As in all manufacturing
processes, high volume brings the marginal and average unit cost down,
sometimes way down. Since pretty much everything else about different
chips is the same except for the number that will fit on a wafer, most
of those cost savings go right on over to the bigger sensors. When you
buy from a foundry, you only share in some of the volume savings, at best.
>Obviously the E-1's issue that everyone harped on, which was photosites that
>were too small on the sensor, will be completely ignored now that one of the
>big-boys has introduced a pro camera with small pixels. If you do the math,
>the D2X has 54% more pixels per sq-mm than the E-1, which makes the individual
>pixels significantly smaller. Discounting technological differences (which
>are not trivial) what this also means is that the E-1's sensor could be sized
>up to 7.5M pixels with the same pixel density.
>
Did you look at the detailed description? I assume that switching to a
CMOS and the 4 channel signal processing are to get the noise from small
sensor sites down to pro level. It's been clear all along that only some
of the noise comes from the sensors themselves, and other parts come
from handling, both within and after the chip itself, amplification and
processing downstream. It looks like they found a way to really reduce
channel crosstalk and other post sensor site noise.
It looks like a very interesting design, that really can't be compared
to the E-1 sensor and support electronics. My bet is that noise will be
well below that on the E-1.
>Olympus will likely introduce a consumer camera in a couple of weeks. A new
>pro body with higher pixel density and faster speeds had better follow within
>6-9 months with deliery soon thereafter, or Olympus is going to get eaten
>alive.
>
I certainly hope so. I may have a Can*n DSLR for now, but I'd love to
have an Oly that met my needs.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|