If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:53:33 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
2) 90% of the cost of the 300D is down to the sensor. Don't think so, I would guess 20% or less. And I would guess that the profit margin is quite high. All these manuafacturers are raking it in!! I agree that 90% is surely an overestimate. I was being pessimistic, partly because my next postulate is certainly optimistic 3) Sensor cost scales linearly with area. No, a larger sensor means more chance of getting defects from a given wafer, and therefore fewer working sensors. It's more than a square law - perhaps a fourth power law?? Depends on what sort of yield they are getting at current sizes. If we ignore the fact that you can't fit rectangular sensors perfectly on a circular wafer, then the number of working sensors you get from a wafer is pA/x, where x is the area of the sensor, A is the area of the wafer and p is the probability of not getting a defect in a particular sensor. Now p is of course related to x, and worryingly it is an exponential relationship - if we double x we have to _square_ p. So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch! - Len |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:53:33 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
2) 90% of the cost of the 300D is down to the sensor. Don't think so, I would guess 20% or less. And I would guess that the profit margin is quite high. All these manuafacturers are raking it in!! I agree that 90% is surely an overestimate. I was being pessimistic, partly because my next postulate is certainly optimistic 3) Sensor cost scales linearly with area. No, a larger sensor means more chance of getting defects from a given wafer, and therefore fewer working sensors. It's more than a square law - perhaps a fourth power law?? Depends on what sort of yield they are getting at current sizes. If we ignore the fact that you can't fit rectangular sensors perfectly on a circular wafer, then the number of working sensors you get from a wafer is pA/x, where x is the area of the sensor, A is the area of the wafer and p is the probability of not getting a defect in a particular sensor. Now p is of course related to x, and worryingly it is an exponential relationship - if we double x we have to _square_ p. So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch! - Len |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:
Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one? ;-) Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both? (grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens? - Len |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:
Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one? ;-) Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both? (grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens? - Len |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
"Leonard" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote: Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one? ;-) Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both? (grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens? - Len Sigma makes a 12-24 EX in Canon mount, just what the wide angle doctor ordered when using the 1.6x crop of the 10D. (19mm-35mm, or better than you get with the 16-35L on the 1D mkII, 21mm-45mm. Of course, you get 16mm-31mm with the Sigma on the mkII...) Canon makes zoom lenses wider than the 18-55, but they're "L" lenses, the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L, the first runs over $1300, the second, about $650. None of the Canon lenses are really a response to the Nikon 12-24 DX, or the 10.5mm fisheye. I knew you were being lighthearted, but I thought I'd share the info, anyway... ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
"Leonard" wrote in message
news On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote: Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one? ;-) Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both? (grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens? - Len Sigma makes a 12-24 EX in Canon mount, just what the wide angle doctor ordered when using the 1.6x crop of the 10D. (19mm-35mm, or better than you get with the 16-35L on the 1D mkII, 21mm-45mm. Of course, you get 16mm-31mm with the Sigma on the mkII...) Canon makes zoom lenses wider than the 18-55, but they're "L" lenses, the 16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L, the first runs over $1300, the second, about $650. None of the Canon lenses are really a response to the Nikon 12-24 DX, or the 10.5mm fisheye. I knew you were being lighthearted, but I thought I'd share the info, anyway... ;-) -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
Mark Weaver wrote:
"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message .. . In article , weaver@nospam- corvusdev.com says... As for DSLRs -- my film SLR sat on the closet shelf for 10 years while we used P&S compacts. It just wasn't worth the hassle to haul the whole kit. So, for me, it wouldn't matter if DSLRs could take clean images at IS0 8000, let alone 800 -- I have no intention of hauling one around again (unless, of course, they shrink it down to the form factor I have with my Powershot Pro1). You do realize that the Eos 300D weighs only a few more grams with the kit lens than the Pro1? The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if the plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84. Add a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in terms of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so you give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor. But better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you have to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a jacket pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1. That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I bring along my Digital Rebel. Greg -- Destroy your safe and happy lives Before it is too late The battles we fought were long and hard Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
Leonard wrote:
[] So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch! - Len ... so does anyone have the actual yield figures? (and permission to release them!!!) As I recall, the geometry isn't that fine, so perhaps the yield is good? Cheers, David |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
"G.T." wrote in message The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if the plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84. Add a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in terms of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so you give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor. But better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you have to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a jacket pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1. That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I bring along my Digital Rebel. Well, that's OK, I guess, if you can draw a neat line between the times you care about the best quality and those when convenience and portability are important but quality isn't. Wouldn't work for me, though -- I tend to care about quality most when I'm outdoors involved in activities (hiking, biking, sailing, skiing, kayaking) where hauling a big kit and having to swap lenses would be a hassle. And the DSLR kt wouldn't really provide any real benefit either, even if I was willing to schlep it around -- since these outdoor conditions almost always have plenty of light to shoot ISO 50 with stops left over (whereas the extra resolution of the 8MP compact vs the 6MP DSLR *is* useful). Mark |
#230
|
|||
|
|||
Canon Eos 300D
"G.T." wrote in message The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if the plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84. Add a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in terms of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so you give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor. But better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you have to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a jacket pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1. That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I bring along my Digital Rebel. Well, that's OK, I guess, if you can draw a neat line between the times you care about the best quality and those when convenience and portability are important but quality isn't. Wouldn't work for me, though -- I tend to care about quality most when I'm outdoors involved in activities (hiking, biking, sailing, skiing, kayaking) where hauling a big kit and having to swap lenses would be a hassle. And the DSLR kt wouldn't really provide any real benefit either, even if I was willing to schlep it around -- since these outdoor conditions almost always have plenty of light to shoot ISO 50 with stops left over (whereas the extra resolution of the 8MP compact vs the 6MP DSLR *is* useful). Mark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yet another 300d vs D70 post! | Rich Powell | Digital Photography | 18 | July 14th 04 05:37 PM |
Recommendation for a Canon lens | [email protected] | Photographing Nature | 13 | July 8th 04 02:10 AM |
Which lens for wedding (Canon 300d) | Joseph Meehan | Digital Photography | 11 | July 8th 04 01:40 AM |
Canon 300D + RC-5 | Mark | Photographing Nature | 0 | May 7th 04 07:19 PM |
Sunpak flash on new Canon 300d? | Paul Proefrock | Other Photographic Equipment | 2 | November 14th 03 04:36 AM |