Nikon D2x - it's official

Gisle Hannemyr wrote in
:

Magnus W writes:
Dallas is simply extremely misinformed. Very few cameras have done
image stitching -- of course the two Minolta DSLRs being the most
prominent, and in fact the only two I can think of...

Very early Kodak DCS 460 models (1995) uses two 3 Mpx sensors and
stiching. Later models use a single 6 Mpx sensor.

Interesting. I looked for a reference of the tech, especially one with
pictures but couldn't find one -- can you help me?

Dallas wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:21:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:


Dallas wrote:



Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of linked
page).


We're talking about the Canon, Alan.



ooops. Of course! Sorry.

So where is your reference that it is two sensors joined together.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Dallas wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:21:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:


Dallas wrote:



Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of linked
page).


We're talking about the Canon, Alan.



ooops. Of course! Sorry.

So where is your reference that it is two sensors joined together.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Dallas wrote:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 11:21:40 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:


Dallas wrote:



Please bear in mind that the "full frame" sensor of the EOS 1Ds is
actually two 6 megapixel CMOS chips welded together.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

looks suspiciously like a single piece to me (look near bottom of linked
page).


We're talking about the Canon, Alan.



ooops. Of course! Sorry.

So where is your reference that it is two sensors joined together.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:56:33 +0000, Magnus W wrote:

Dallas wrote in
news
The relevance is that they had to use two sensors to get full frame,
rather than manufacture a single 12MP CMOS sensor.

Total BS. The 1Ds uses a single CMOS sensor.

I seem to remember loads of discussions about this when the 1Ds first
came out. The camera apparently uses software of some sort to stitch the
images together.

No, you are grossly misinformed.

I could have sworn that was the subject of a very long thread right here
on this group. Just goes to say...

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:56:33 +0000, Magnus W wrote:

Dallas wrote in
news
The relevance is that they had to use two sensors to get full frame,
rather than manufacture a single 12MP CMOS sensor.

Total BS. The 1Ds uses a single CMOS sensor.

I seem to remember loads of discussions about this when the 1Ds first
came out. The camera apparently uses software of some sort to stitch the
images together.

No, you are grossly misinformed.

I could have sworn that was the subject of a very long thread right here
on this group. Just goes to say...

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:56:33 +0000, Magnus W wrote:

Dallas wrote in
news
The relevance is that they had to use two sensors to get full frame,
rather than manufacture a single 12MP CMOS sensor.

Total BS. The 1Ds uses a single CMOS sensor.

I seem to remember loads of discussions about this when the 1Ds first
came out. The camera apparently uses software of some sort to stitch the
images together.

No, you are grossly misinformed.

I could have sworn that was the subject of a very long thread right here
on this group. Just goes to say...

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

Dallas writes:

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:56:33 +0000, Magnus W wrote:

Dallas wrote in
news
The relevance is that they had to use two sensors to get full frame,
rather than manufacture a single 12MP CMOS sensor.

Total BS. The 1Ds uses a single CMOS sensor.

I seem to remember loads of discussions about this when the 1Ds first
came out. The camera apparently uses software of some sort to stitch the
images together.

No, you are grossly misinformed.

I could have sworn that was the subject of a very long thread right here
on this group. Just goes to say...

Many years ago, the first Kodak DCS460 cameras used two 3MP sensors
together to get 6MP. After Kodak had their 6MP sensor in production,
they used that instead. Could you be thinking of that?

Anyway, mosaicing multiple sensors is a perfectly respectable
technique used often by astronomers, for example. Cost and the
headache of alignment are the only reasons I can think of to avoid it
in a volume-produced camera.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

"Magnus W" wrote in message
. ..
poco wrote in
7.77:

Mount size has no direct relation to the image circle. However, the mount
size, together with what's behind the mount (i.e. mirror) may limit some
optical designs. Big difference. The F mount doesn't need to be
redesigned,
some would probably even say that sub-35mm sized sensors are the F mount's
saving grace as the mount reportedly /has/ been somewhat limiting for
/full
frame/ sensors (i.e. film).

This is exactly right. Nikon's attempt to dismiss full-frame is very
self-serving, because the F mount isn't well suited for full frame sensors.
If they want to go full frame, and be as good as Canon,, then they need a
new lens mount. But if they need a new lens mount, what's the advantage of
the existing customer base with a lot of F mount lenses to migrate to the
new Nikon mount versus the EOS mount?

Bottom line is that the pro's are all going to go the Canon route when they
move to digital, because Nikon has nothing to offer them. Perhaps, as some
have pointed out, the professional market isn't big enough to worry about,
and the big money is in the higher volume, lower cost, amateur and prosumer
segments. It's ironic that prior to the introduction of the EOS mount, Canon
had a good position in the amateur market with the AE series, but very
little of the professional market. Now they have a big market share in
professional film (close to 100% in some segments of the professional film
market), and completely dominate high end digital, with 100% market share,
and no need to budge on price. And the root cause of Nikon's decline is the
unwillingness to update their mount.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 15:55:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

ooops. Of course! Sorry.

So where is your reference that it is two sensors joined together.

I'm almost certain I remember reading that this was the way Canon did it
when the camera first came out. Of course I appear to be completely wrong.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez