Rick Diaz wrote:
It's not well known to me... so do yo have a source? These product lines are making money- my only source is a kodak person, and each product has a business case behind it (and obviously this is w/o glass revenue).
>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.A loss leader for what? To downsell film cameras? To bring people into the store to buy a Rebel? Doesn't happen.
I think the semi-pros/advanced amateurs and pros are the folks driving the DSLR market.
But that's where it starts (right after the lens anyway). Your quantized data contains all the limitations of the CCD and cannot be improved upon. Noise levels for different CCDs are massively different and have very different sensitivity curves- this all impacts the final image and cannot be fixed digitally. In other words, the Philips chip is junk and a camera built around it will be junk as well.
>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
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
I never said that. I understand what is stored in the file.
>I'd argue that none of these high res, (near) full frame chips are aA p4 isn't low yield because it's much less area than an image sensor. This is why process has had scale down to keep the area constant while the transistor count increases.
>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.Yup- which is why image sensors (that we care about anyway) aren't a commodity.
R
