Why Nikon did not develop its own camera sensor?

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:20:01 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
wrote:


Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.

Well, speaking of motorcycles, Kawasaki makes very large ships,
earthmoving equipment, and motorcycles.
Diversity is common; there can be reasons Nikon doesn't make their own
chips, but being a company that makes CAMERAS isn't one of them.

Since Kawasaki makes large ships, we can assume Ford makes aspirin?
I should have said Nikon is an optics manufacturer (cameras,
microscopes, binoculars, etc.) and it is logical that they would buy the
digital electronics from others, just as Panasonic farms out its optics
to Leica. Canon has expertise in both areas, but I think this is an
exception. Most digital camera manufacturers must depend on a
collaboration to produce a digital camera.

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:20:01 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
wrote:


Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.

Well, speaking of motorcycles, Kawasaki makes very large ships,
earthmoving equipment, and motorcycles.
Diversity is common; there can be reasons Nikon doesn't make their own
chips, but being a company that makes CAMERAS isn't one of them.

Since Kawasaki makes large ships, we can assume Ford makes aspirin?

Nothing I said would give you that idea.
I should have said Nikon is an optics manufacturer (cameras,
microscopes, binoculars, etc.) and it is logical that they would buy the
digital electronics from others, just as Panasonic farms out its optics
to Leica. Canon has expertise in both areas, but I think this is an
exception. Most digital camera manufacturers must depend on a
collaboration to produce a digital camera.

Evidently, you missed my point.
Many companies make far more products than just what we see most
often.
Diversity, as in the case of Kawasaki, is frequently seen in
companies.
So, there is nothing to keep Nikon from making their own sensor chips
except a decision by it's owners/directors. Obviously, tnere are
reasons for that decision, but it's the decision that keeps Nikon from
doing so. If they reversed that decision, Nikon would make their own
sensor chips; even if doing so were not good for the company.
Expertise is fairly easy to get; simply hire the people with the
expertise. It happens all the time.

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:20:01 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
wrote:


Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.

Well, speaking of motorcycles, Kawasaki makes very large ships,
earthmoving equipment, and motorcycles.
Diversity is common; there can be reasons Nikon doesn't make their own
chips, but being a company that makes CAMERAS isn't one of them.

Since Kawasaki makes large ships, we can assume Ford makes aspirin?

Nothing I said would give you that idea.
I should have said Nikon is an optics manufacturer (cameras,
microscopes, binoculars, etc.) and it is logical that they would buy the
digital electronics from others, just as Panasonic farms out its optics
to Leica. Canon has expertise in both areas, but I think this is an
exception. Most digital camera manufacturers must depend on a
collaboration to produce a digital camera.

Evidently, you missed my point.
Many companies make far more products than just what we see most
often.
Diversity, as in the case of Kawasaki, is frequently seen in
companies.
So, there is nothing to keep Nikon from making their own sensor chips
except a decision by it's owners/directors. Obviously, tnere are
reasons for that decision, but it's the decision that keeps Nikon from
doing so. If they reversed that decision, Nikon would make their own
sensor chips; even if doing so were not good for the company.
Expertise is fairly easy to get; simply hire the people with the
expertise. It happens all the time.


Well, you'd need a factory also.
Smart companies stick to their areas of expertise, unless there is
undercapacity in the market place. Still, there is a big learning curve
to become competitive.

SMS wrote:
dbd wrote:

On Jul 13, 5:17 pm, wrote:

It is rather surprising that Nikon relies on Sony for their sensor in
their digital cameras. At the time when the digital cameras emerged,
why didn't Nikon develop their sensor technology to be used for their
barnd cameras? Would the decision to rely on other manufacturer (or
in this case a competitor) be a mistaken strategy? Or, could Nikon
not afford to develop their sensor technology, or what other reasons
that they decided against developing their own sensor.
Would using other brand sensor be a disadvantage to Nikon. Thye have
to wait for a product from others, and could not response quickly for
changing in the technology.
No wonder that Canon has DIGIC engine, Panasonic/Lumix with Venus
engine, and Sony with its Bionz, but there is none for Nikon.
Just curious and how does this effect future development for Nikon,
who in the past enjoyed a reputable brand name.


In the old days Nikon didn't have to make film to sell cameras.

Why should they have to make sensors to sell cameras?


Because Canon won't sell them full frame sensors, and no one else makes
good ones.

Please excuse my ignorance here, but was it the fasination with full
frame sensors? My D80 doesn't seem to drop anything off what I see
through the view finder. In fact, it seems to pick up a bit more.

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

In article 2007071508291316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...
On 2007-07-13 17:17:54 -0700, said:

It is rather surprising that Nikon relies on Sony for their sensor in
their digital cameras.

Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.


Hello, Irwin:

So what? Kodak was strictly a camera/film manufacturer, when it
introduced the Bayer sensor, back in the 1970's.


Cordially,
John Turco

SMS wrote:

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
In article 2007071508291316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...
On 2007-07-13 17:17:54 -0700, said:

It is rather surprising that Nikon relies on Sony for their sensor in
their digital cameras.
Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.

Yes, this is true. Canon lucked out that one of their core competencies
was in micro-electronics (the other two are in precision mechanics and
optics). Nikon did not have the first one, even though they have
division that makes manufacturing equipment for semiconductors.

Nikon did design a sensor that was used in some early D-SLRs but the
abandoned the effort, apparently due to noise issues with the technology.


Hello, Steven:

Wait a moment. Wasn't it Kodak (not Nikon), that stuck its sensors into
rebadged Nikon SLR bodies, once upon a time?


Cordially,
John Turco

SMS wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

edited, for brevity

Well, speaking of motorcycles, Kawasaki makes very large ships,
earthmoving equipment, and motorcycles.
Diversity is common; there can be reasons Nikon doesn't make their own
chips, but being a company that makes CAMERAS isn't one of them.

And Panasonic makes bicycles. But a keiretsu often has companies that
are in vastly different businesses.

I read a case study about Canon back in the 1990's where they described
how they took their core competencies of optics, micro-electronics and
micro-mechanics and applied it across the board the their businesses in
cameras, copiers, and printers in way that companies that competed
against them could not match.


Hello, Steven:

Canon is far more diversified than Nikon, certainly. However, several
other outfits (e.g., Kodak, Xerox) can match or exceed Canon's overall
technical expertise, if they so desire.


Cordially,
John Turco

In article , No One
wrote:

Please excuse my ignorance here, but was it the fasination with full
frame sensors? My D80 doesn't seem to drop anything off what I see
through the view finder. In fact, it seems to pick up a bit more.

lower noise for the same number of pixels (because each pixel is
larger), or more total pixels for the same sized pixels. also, there
is no lens crop factor which helps the wide angle shooters but can be a
drawback for telephoto shooters.

In article ,
says...
Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

In article 2007071508291316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...
On 2007-07-13 17:17:54 -0700, said:

It is rather surprising that Nikon relies on Sony for their sensor in
their digital cameras.

Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.


Hello, Irwin:

So what? Kodak was strictly a camera/film manufacturer, when it
introduced the Bayer sensor, back in the 1970's.


Cordially,
John Turco

Well, that would be about 15 years after Kodak made its last high end
camera, so maybe it was a good time to develop something new!
The decision to manufacture vs outsource a part has lots of
engineering/manufactering ramifications: can you make cheaper than buy?,
will making your own create overcapacity?, can you make a better one
than you can buy?
Virtually every manufacturer buys a large percentage of its components.
Would it make sense to make your own screws or resistors, etc.?

John Turco wrote:

SMS wrote:

Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:

In article 2007071508291316807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom,
says...

On 2007-07-13 17:17:54 -0700, said:


It is rather surprising that Nikon relies on Sony for their sensor in
their digital cameras.

Probably same reason that Nikon doesn't make computer chips or
televisions (or motorcycles for that matter). They are a CAMERA company,
no expertise in digital solid state devices.

Yes, this is true. Canon lucked out that one of their core competencies
was in micro-electronics (the other two are in precision mechanics and
optics). Nikon did not have the first one, even though they have
division that makes manufacturing equipment for semiconductors.

Nikon did design a sensor that was used in some early D-SLRs but the
abandoned the effort, apparently due to noise issues with the technology.



Hello, Steven:

Wait a moment. Wasn't it Kodak (not Nikon), that stuck its sensors into
rebadged Nikon SLR bodies, once upon a time?


Cordially,
John Turco

Yes, it was.
The Kodak DCS series of digital backs for Nikon film SLR cameras.
Starting with the Kodak DCS-100 to fit a Nikon F3 film SLR body through
to the DCS 760 to fit the Nikon F5 body.