Lucas wrote: >I think there are >several other reasons that Canon is succesfull. Hint: they already were >before the advent of DSLR's...
True. The pros started buying Canon instead of Nikon as the EOS 1v (film) was introduced in 2000 - mainly because it offered higher speed (expecially AF-speed and 10 FPS)) than anyone else. Perhaps even earlier with the Canon Eos 1n in 1994. Long before the DSLR hit the market. The Canon success did continue into the digiatl era, partly because Canon used their own CMOS sensors rather than CCD's. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Lucas Rijnders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. oktober 2005 14:52 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: BAD NEWS: Pentax +Samsung DSLRs 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
