>Do you have any data to back this up? It's a pretty bold statement that
>folks are putting this much R&D into a product line and not making a
>profit. I'm sure Canon made something on the $8k I just gave them.
>What about the cost of not capturing market share?
This is a well known industry fact. Not a bold statement, but the cold hard truth unfortunately. That is why, only a few makers with deep pockets have the money to play the pro DSLR game.
So why the heck they are still building these DSLRs if they are loosing money on them? The true fact is this, these cameras are more show than go. Yes, they are great cameras, but they are better as show stoppers in the hopes that people who come just to see, drool and or admire them will buy something else along their brand of line. If you want a more retail term, it's called a loss-leader.
>Yes they do. They have very different curves, different noise levels, different readout >noise levels, different amps, etc. etc. just download
>a data sheet. CCDs are a very analog device and have a huge impact on
>image quality.
But final image quality is not derived from a CCD alone.. Image quality is derived from a number of factors, namely the acquiring optics in the front of the CCD, which has a much larger impact to image quality rather than the CCD alone and the image processing software, which is also important for achieving good overall image quality.
While a CCD may look to behave like an analog device, you are still dealing with the final image, which is in "digital" form. Digital is 1s and 0s and nothing in between like analog. The image processing system, which contain the algorithm to process raw CCD data into a final digital image is key. But, many of you still feel that the final image stored in the digital camera's memory card still pertain some analog information. That is simply impossible. Memory stores digital binary code of 1s and 0s and nothing in between. Whatever analog superiority the CCD chip possess needs to be stored either as a 1 or a 0. It can not be stored in memory as a 1.1 or 1.2 or 0.1.
>I'd argue that none of these high res, (near) full frame chips are a
>commodity. They're still have very low yeilds.
If you say a Pentium 4 is low yield chip, then I think Intel will be very concerned about it.
Every chip maker wants their chips to be high yield. The game in this business is purely numbers. The more you make, the better the profit margin.
Rick...
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
