Nikon going the way Pentax did

Philip Homburg wrote:

In article Pgwif.10229$dv.5863@fed1read02,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

What some are noting, however, is Nikon's troublesome dependence upon a
competitor for the heart of their DSLRs (Sony chips).


To what extent are Nikon and Sony competitors in the DLSR market? Sony doesn't
really make any glass. Whose glass is Sony going to use to compete with Nikon
in the professional market?


Just because Sony doesn't make an interchangeable lens camera doesn't
mean they're not competing with Nikon. And does Nikon get the best chips
Sony can manufacture? Or does Sony keep those chips for their own products?


For entry level DSLRs there may be some competition, but staying friendly
with Nikon as a whole may make more sense than trying to squash them in one
part of the market.



It wouldn't be the first time a corporation took a less sensible
marketing option, looking for short term advantage gain at the expense
of a long time corporate customer/partner.

Jerry L wrote:

How does this equate to Pentax?

Pentax used to be (a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away) one of
Nikon's major competitors. Where are they today? What's their
market-share of the pro-market?

AFAIK, they aren't even manufacturing a PRO digital SLR; *ist-D comes
close, but it's really a high-end pro-sumer model. And it's not even in
production any more. *ist-DS & *ist-DL don't even have all the pro-level
features the *ist-D had.

Canon used to be nowhere. Where are THEY today? Did they get there all
by themselves? Or did they get help from Nikon allowing themselves to
slip relative to Canon?

Has Nikon done all they can to service the market segment that Canon has
taken away from Nikon? I think not. And if they continue down that
course, they're going to continue to lose to Canon.

You can argue the merits of the APS-C sized sensors until you're blue in
the face, but there's a market demand for full-frame DSLRs; mainly
driven by those who already own high quality wide-angle glass that
doesn't perform fully with APS-C sized sensors.

I don't want my 24mm lens to give me a 35mm lens angle of view.

If Nikon doesn't address that, they're going to lose market share to
someone who does.

And Nikon has a problem with their chip supplier also being a competitor
in digital camera markets. Pentax at least seems to be addressing that
problem.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article ,
JR wrote:
In article Nsyif.10244$dv.1055@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Higher resolution??
Ah...You mean smaller pixels.
-That's not an advantage.

And bigger pixels are???? oh...i think you mean that a FF sensor is
better than a APS-C sensor? NO.....Currently its not. Do you realize
that the edges of a FF sensor are underexposed by as much as 2 stops
because the light is hitting the sensor at too wide an angle?

That's not what causes light falloff in the corners of an image. Play with
a
view camera some time, especially one where the corners are cut out of the
focus screen so you can see the lens aperture - all will become clear.

It happens with film as well. All lenses do it, and stopping down reduces
it
(again, playing with a view camera will make it immediately obvious why).

But it is true that digital sensors need the light to strike it directly and
not obliquely, and this is different than film. Thus he isn't just talking
about vignetting, and it stands to reason that with typical 35mm lenses, a
smaller sensor will have less fall off on the edges than a larger sensor.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

In article ,
no_name wrote:
Just because Sony doesn't make an interchangeable lens camera doesn't
mean they're not competing with Nikon. And does Nikon get the best chips
Sony can manufacture? Or does Sony keep those chips for their own products?

It is quite possible that Nikon pays more for Sony's chips, then Sony
charges themselves. But if Nikon can afford to pay for the best chips (say
the ones they put in the D2X or in the D200) and Sony has no application
for those chips, then Nikon gets the best chips.

It wouldn't be the first time a corporation took a less sensible
marketing option, looking for short term advantage gain at the expense
of a long time corporate customer/partner.

Possible. But with that kind of speculation, you have to examine all
sources of parts used to Nikon to see if there is a second source for those
parts.

Does anybody know who makes the LBCAST sensor that goes in the D2Hs?


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

"MR" wrote:
Um, go into any TV or Video production facility anywhere in the world and
what do you find?. Sony cameras with Sony chips!
Sony knows chips, their IT type ccd's found in almost every brodcast and
industrial camera in the world, are the best in the world.

They might be the best TV/video chips in the world, but that doesn't
necessarily translate to still photography. For example, Sony's still
digital cameras have been duff from day one, and they still are. Now
Sony are relying on another third rate company (Konica Minolta) to
help them make a good one.

Yawn.

History shows that two weak companies don't usually make a strong
combination.

They use the same thechnoligy in their chips for photography (Nikon
cameras).

I think you will find the technology is quite different.

Nikon's no fool, and their glass is simply the best in the world.

Don't be silly. Nikon glass varies from very bad to very good, just
like Canon glass, Pentax glass, Olympus glass, Konica Minolta glass
etc., etc., but if you really want the best glass, look elsewhere.

Canon does make a nice copier.

Just like Konica Minolta. So what? The strength of a brand in one
area of manufacturing doesn't necessarily determine its strength in
other areas.

Matt White wrote:

Mark² wrote:

Nobody is saying Sony makes bad chips.
What some are noting, however, is Nikon's troublesome dependence upon a
competitor for the heart of their DSLRs (Sony chips). This is a real and
significant disadvantage for them as they compete with Canon--a company that
has full control over their own sensor design for their DSLRs.

I've always been surprised that Nikon doesn't work more closely with
Fuji for DSLR sensors. Fuji has some innovative ideas in sensor design,
and Fuji has experience in F-mount DSLR design.


Apart from selling Fuji large numbers of outdated N80 components on
which the FujiFilm FinePix Pro, S2 and S3 are built, Nikon is pretty
hostile to Fuji's incursion into F mount territory. Nikon sold more
or less the same components to Kodak for the DCS Pro 14n, and there
certainly wasn't any love lost between Nikon and Kodak either.

Fuji has one advantage over all other DSLR manufacturers, and that is
the outstanding dynamic range of the Super CCD sensor in the S3. Do
you really think Fuji would give up that single advantage to Nikon?

(Philip Homburg) wrote:

In article Pgwif.10229$dv.5863@fed1read02,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
What some are noting, however, is Nikon's troublesome dependence upon a
competitor for the heart of their DSLRs (Sony chips).

To what extent are Nikon and Sony competitors in the DLSR market? Sony doesn't
really make any glass. Whose glass is Sony going to use to compete with Nikon
in the professional market?


You obviously aren't aware of Sony's
collaboration with Konica Minolta.

(Philip Homburg) wrote:

In article ,
no_name wrote:
Just because Sony doesn't make an interchangeable lens camera doesn't
mean they're not competing with Nikon. And does Nikon get the best chips
Sony can manufacture? Or does Sony keep those chips for their own products?

It is quite possible that Nikon pays more for Sony's chips, then Sony
charges themselves. But if Nikon can afford to pay for the best chips (say
the ones they put in the D2X or in the D200) and Sony has no application
for those chips, then Nikon gets the best chips.


Two words. Konica Minolta.

Try a Google search on "Sony Konica Minolta", and read the results
before you make any further comment here.

JR wrote:

??????????...That is crazy...The D2X is arguably the best DSLR on the
market with MAYBE the 1DS IIN being equal or better.

That is very arguable. If you have a need for 16 MP, Nikon simply
don't have a product that will do the job. If 12 MP is enough, the
Canon EOS 5D is a lot cheaper than the Nikon D2X. If you need 12 MP
and tough build quality, the D2X is the way to go, otherwise Canon has
all the solutions.

The D200 looks to
be an AMAZING camera that will match or better anything in its
catetgory...so.....how is Nikon resting on its laurels? By releasing
amazing cameras?

The only amazing things about the D200 are that it is so little, so
late. It is inferior to the Canon EOS D5 in pixel count, sensor size
and almost certainly in its control of noise. Right up to the moment
of its announcement, many people were anticipating a 12 MP full frame
LBCAST sensor, only to find that it's a mere 10 MP Sony-made CCD.

Oh.. and the next generation LBCAST sensor designed by
NIKON will be available soon, and this will have lower noise and better
color than any current DSLR sensor technology....

Soon?

Everything with Nikon is "soon", or "next year" or "to be announced".

JR wrote:

HMMMM.....thats not true...The D50 is EVERY bit as good as the Rebel XT
even though it's 2 MP less resolution. I have read many a review that
says the output of a D50 is BETTER in detail, color and clarity than the
Rebel XT. So how is the sensor limiting that camera? The D70s is neck
and neck with the NEWER 20D.


Unfortunately, the new Nikon D200 is also not much more than neck and
neck with the 20D. A ~10% increase in resolution isn't anything to
write home about.