Nikon D3x buyers beware - D700x already in prototype

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Minolta had a reputation for making extremely good lenses and not
quite such good camera bodies.

Ahem, as an example, the Maxxum 9 is every bit as good and solid as the
Nikon F5/F6 and EOS 1v and exceeds both of them in some areas.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, a worried Alan Browne wrote:

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

Not completely accurate. Most, but not all of their DSLR sensors
are based on Sony's sensors, but Nikon has them fabricated using
their own design for on-chip (and sometimes off-chip, as in the D3
vs. the D700) electronics and microlenses. It's not just camera
firmware that is responsible for Nikon besting Sony's performance
when similar sensors are used. Sony also buys much of the sensor
fabrication hardware it uses from Nikon, so there's less to worry
about. If Sony were to suddenly stop providing large sensors to
Nikon they'd lose their largest customer by far, and the cost of
future sensors would rise dramatically as volume is needed to keep
sensor costs reasonably low. Sony's DSLRs don't yet come close to
the sales volume needed. You can thank Nikon for the relatively low
price you paid for your A900, but as a Sony-fanboy/Nikon-basher I
don't really expect that you will.

Paul Furman wrote in news:LoJ0l.9500$Ei5.6866
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

John Sheehy wrote:
the 5D2 is horrible at ISO 100, in the deep shadows.

Why?

Because in light of the other cameras Canon has recently released, the 5D2
has the most visible banding noise at ISO 100. You won't see it in high-
key shots, but bring up the shadows and it hits you in the face suddenly
like a colored burlap bag. The 1Ds3 has almost no banding visible at ISO
100 in the deep shadows.

John Sheehy wrote:
Paul Furman wrote in news:LoJ0l.9500$Ei5.6866
@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:

John Sheehy wrote:
the 5D2 is horrible at ISO 100, in the deep shadows.

Why?

Because in light of the other cameras Canon has recently released, the 5D2
has the most visible banding noise at ISO 100. You won't see it in high-
key shots, but bring up the shadows and it hits you in the face suddenly
like a colored burlap bag. The 1Ds3 has almost no banding visible at ISO
100 in the deep shadows.

aus.photo- removed

Is this in prints as well as screen? Have you an example you'd be
willing to post? (pref. a RAW file)

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 14/12/2008 1:35 AM:

I'll bet you cannot, in 100 words or less, make a cogent argument that
idiot and ****wit, as commonly used on usenet, are different.

Knuckle dragger!


I'll bet you don't have a ****ing clue
what you're talking about.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

But if absolute image quality is important, there is a reason why
Nikon and Canon are at the top of the heap. With film, the camera
brand wasn't nearly as important as long as you were using good film
and a decent lens.

The "reason" that Minolta fell behind in absolute mass was due to the AF
lawsuit, which they lost at both great cost and interference with their
business. This cut their ability to go toe-2-toe on every lens.

However, in the lenses they did make (high end) they had nothing to say
they were second class and several lenses that outperformed their Canon
and Nikon counterparts.

As often happens, the inertia from such events tilts strongly in favour
of those standing stronger. Nikon then lost a lot of market to the
strong technology and marketing push that Canon put on and have yet to
return to full glory although they seem to have stopped their decline.

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

However, Nikon does still manufacture their own optical glass, which
even Canon doesn't do any more.

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, Alan Browne

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

However, Nikon does still manufacture their own optical glass, which
even Canon doesn't do any more.

Where does this revelation come from? Your source, please, not me Googling!

--
john mcwilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

However, Nikon does still manufacture their own optical glass, which
even Canon doesn't do any more.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/t...t/f_index.html
Go into the museum, and click on the process, and you'll see a video of
their process from raw to product.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 18:04:10 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

However, Nikon does still manufacture their own optical glass, which
even Canon doesn't do any more.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/t...t/f_index.html
Go into the museum, and click on the process, and you'll see a video of
their process from raw to product.

However, the video doesn't state that the melting of the raw glass
actually takes place in their own facility. This could be something
they subcontract out to their specifications. This sort of thing
happens all the time in industry.

Nikon, otoh, has a standalone glass division which makes optical glass
for all sorts of applications in addition to their own camera lenses.

I could be wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:42:41 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:48:51 -0500, Alan Browne

What should be worrying Nikon is that they, like Pentax and Oly, do not
fabricate their own sensors and in many cases buy them from Sony.

However, Nikon does still manufacture their own optical glass, which
even Canon doesn't do any more.

Where does this revelation come from? Your source, please, not me Googling!


It must have been from the "dictionary of obscure but disputed facts
to use in usenet discussions." LOL Actually, it's something I had
heard elsewhere, so perhaps my source wasn't accurate. However,
Nikon makes a point in their brochures to mention that they are one of
the very few companies who still make their own glass.

Canon is such a huge corporation with cameras as a fairly small part
of their entire product line. Their own website even classifies
their high end cameras and L lenses as "consumer items."

But to the point of the thread, it really doesn't matter who makes
the glass or the sensors. Many companies are interdependent on one
another to a huge degree; particularly in "Japan, Inc."