Hi Colin,
This is BAD NEWS for Pentax.
The reason Canon succeeds so strongly is that
Canon DSLRs use Canon-made sensors. All other
DSLR manufacturers have to buy in sensors from
sensor manufacturers. This has led to many
problems.
<snip contax>
Kodak failed with the DCS 14n, Pro/n and Pro/c
because their 14 MP sensor was noisy. The
problem: Kodak ended the product line.
You are contradicting yourself: Kodak did not have to buy their sensors
elsewhere, yet it still failed? And, on the other side: Nikon, who does
not make their own sensors, seems quite succesfull... I think there are
several other reasons that Canon is succesfull. Hint: they already were
before the advent of DSLR's...
Olympus failed with the E-1 and E-300 because the
Kodak sensors are noisy at all but the lowest ISO
settings. The problem: Kodak ended their
interest in Four Thirds and decided to co-operate
with Minolta, meaning Olympus have had to
co-operate with Panasonic whose sensors are even
noisier than Kodak's.
Did Kodak really end 4/3, that's news to me. And I thought _Sony_ was
cooperating with Minolta. Which would leave Nikon in trouble...
The Kodak co-operation with Minolta means that
camera makers currently using Kodak sensors are
having to find other suppliers. Nikon are
Do they? Why couldn't a suppliers supply sensors to more than one customer?
considering co-operating with Fuji, and Pentax
desperately needs to co-operate with someone
else.
But who? All the major designers and
manufacturers of photo sensors are already tied
up or talking to other DSLR makers.
So, out of sheer desperation, Pentax pick
Samsung, a company with zero experience of
producing APS-sized sensors, let alone the holy
grail of the full frame sensor. Has Samsung ever
produced any high quality photo sensors in *any*
size?
They make a few P&S sensors: 5 and 8 Mpixel. So it could have been worse,
they could have picked Intel ;-)
Samsung gets a partner with decades of experience
of producing fine SLRs and even better lenses,
and what does Pentax get? A firm with a
reputation for low end products that sell on
price alone.
<devil's advocate> Samsung gets a small partner, with zero market share,
that is struggling to keep up with half the development pace of the
competition, and misses some key technologies for it's market. Pentax gets
access to a large, agressive and highly succesfull international
marketing, sales and distribution network. Pentax gets bucketloads of
money to develop new products. Pentax gets direct ties to an OEM of some
of it's key components. </devils advocate>
<snip>
Canon must be laughing out loud.
And Mark Roberts as well, I guess...
--
Regards, Lucas
