Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 5D MK III specs leaked- what do you think guys?  (Read 12493 times)
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #60 on: March 04, 2012, 05:41:34 PM »
ReplyReply

So, maybe it's time for Panasonic to change their engineer team because it seems that a bunch of young hackers are entering the brain and discovered how to make it work like a pro camera.

Those guys are actually solving a big factory issue Panasonic never gived a damn to fix for "their loyal customers" (guess why).  So people in their garage are currently taking an on-purpose limited camera to free it from limitations, and not only that, the latest software is completly redesigning a newer powerfull brain with much less hassles and enormous dev perspectives. A bunch of hackers...yeah, people are starting to move forward the way they want.

Just my 2 cents thoughts.

Ps: if the company you refer to was Pentax, then I'd agree that this is a prety helphy company in terms of politics and transparency. Pentax being a small company, but when things start to be big, that's a all different story.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 05:55:32 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #61 on: March 04, 2012, 05:59:02 PM »
ReplyReply

...snip...
BTW, I did not work for Canon, but I have never known our engineers or marketers lower the performance of a spec. because of another model.
...snip...

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe.. And not particularly in case of Canon (however I think MKIII is a good example contradicting what you just wrote), but in general. I'm sure these are the practices.. Why not make some more profit out of old tech in which R&D you already invested if you still can actually make the profit? Apple philosophy anyone? And that's the richest company now. Even if there were companies striving to deliver always the best product with no holding back, these times are gone- I'm sure they adjusted to current market. Thanks Steve.
And coming back to Canon- it took them 3,5 year to deliver MKIII camera. Specs of MKIII is a fruit of 3,5 year development.. Canon... seriously? Ok, MKIII will probably be a good camera and heck, I don't know, for now I'm not buying D800 because I want to see how they perform head to head with MKIII. But I can't and won't believe that they are not holding back and that is the best they can do. Sad truth is that the products we see is simply a calculation of 'how much can we earn on making the smallest adjustments possible (although we could deliver more)'. That's the current trend and it's pretty obvious. And yes, it is irritating.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #62 on: March 04, 2012, 06:03:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe.. And not particularly in case of Canon (however I think MKIII is a good example contradicting what you just wrote), but in general. I'm sure these are the practices.. Why not make some more profit out of old tech in which R&D you already invested if you still can actually make the profit? Apple philosophy anyone? And that's the richest company now. Even if there were companies striving to deliver always the best product with no holding back, these times are gone- I'm sure they adjusted to current market. Thanks Steve.
And coming back to Canon- it took them 3,5 year to deliver MKIII camera. Specs of MKIII is a fruit of 3,5 year development.. Canon... seriously? Ok, MKIII will probably be a good camera and heck, I don't know, for now I'm not buying D800 because I want to see how they perform head to head with MKIII. But I can't and won't believe that they are not holding back and that is the best they can do. Sad truth is that the products we see is simply a calculation of 'how much can we earn on making the smallest adjustments possible (although we could deliver more)'. That's the current trend and it's pretty obvious. And yes, it is irritating.


This is just insinuation. Please offer proof. You sound like a bitter customer because somehow Canon is not doing what you want.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #63 on: March 04, 2012, 06:06:04 PM »
ReplyReply

So, maybe it's time for Panasonic to change their engineer team because it seems that a bunch of young hackers are entering the brain and discovered how to make it work like a pro camera.

Those guys are actually solving a big factory issue Panasonic never gived a damn to fix for "their loyal customers" (guess why).  So people in their garage are currently taking an on-purpose limited camera to free it from limitations, and not only that, the latest software is completly redesigning a newer powerfull brain with much less hassles and enormous dev perspectives. A bunch of hackers...yeah, people are starting to move forward the way they want.

Just my 2 cents thoughts.

Ps: if the company you refer to was Pentax, then I'd agree that this is a prety helphy company in terms of politics and transparency. Pentax being a small company, but when things start to be big, that's a all different story.

Well, now you have your solution. Simply hack your camera and make it into a super duper pro version.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4111



« Reply #64 on: March 04, 2012, 06:20:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, now you have your solution. Simply hack your camera and make it into a super duper pro version.

In case you hadn't noticed people have been doing this to a lot of Canon cameras as well. Especially the 5D2.
As they say "Magic Lantern was developed by independent filmmakers and tailored for video production on 5D Mark II."

Edmund
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #65 on: March 04, 2012, 06:23:41 PM »
ReplyReply

In case you hadn't noticed people have been doing this to a lot of Canon cameras as well. Especially the 5D2.
As they say "Magic Lantern was developed by independent filmmakers and tailored for video production on 5D Mark II."

Edmund

That is great. More power to them.
Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #66 on: March 04, 2012, 07:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

What I would like Canon and any other camera brand for that matter is to develop something groundbraking every 4-5 years or so. If not groundbraking then at least leave the clients with the feeling that what is offered is a significant progress. And as time goes by, we are seeing more and more incremental progress with new releases. That is Apple philosophy which, as it turned out, works great in pair with our uberconsumptonism. There are areas in which the breath of the competition doesn't allow such practices. Compare the specs of a computer processor you can buy now and 4-5 years ago. Or a graphic card, a mobile phone.. Now compare 5DMKII and MKIII. Who knows, maybe MKIII will do the magic and will be much much better- but from the tech specs it doesn't seem so and I seriously doubt it.

Why Canon / Nikon didn't come up yet with a camera that is shooting motion to RAW? I'm sure eventually it will happen and oh, the coincidence! They will deliver these solutions in a few months time span or even at the same time. Why 5DMKII has a somewhat lousy AF (at least when you compare with the technology they had at that time)?
I'm sure with Nikon / Canon budget a camera similar to RED Scarlet could be developed and cost even less. Probably even better camera than what's Scarlet offering. But they won't because the market for that product is not that big, the money is not there. And what these companies are after is not making the best cameras possible but the biggest / easiest money possible. What's unfortunate for us is that making the best cameras doesn't equal biggest income.

This is just insinuation. Please offer proof. You sound like a bitter customer because somehow Canon is not doing what you want.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8182



WWW
« Reply #67 on: March 04, 2012, 07:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

The folks I have met in my career are really interested in making the best product for their customers--customers are quite a constant in their thoughts. But this business is not a charity either. It is struggling with low margins and bankrupt companies do not make good products at all.

I don't doubt this the least bit but engineers do their job in the context of a budget and product specifications defined for them by product planning division (製品企画).

My view is that the alignement of high level specs per "generation" between manufacturers and the timing thereof is a very understandable practice that aims at ensuring long term profitability. It is also a practice that is close to unavoidable as mentioned before.

You seem to read in these statements some implication that camera manufacturers would be seen as evil because of such practices. That's at least not how I look at it.

Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well. Just look at the agreement that did bind Japanese car manufacturers for year about the power of their engines. They had decided not to go above 280hp. Honda decided to break away from this with the Honda legend for unknown reasons, maybe because they considered that it hindered their competitiveness against foreign car manufacturers, maybe for other reasons.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5496


WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 04, 2012, 07:56:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well.

I'm sure Bernard is very familiar with the term keiretsu...it's a particularly Japanese way of doing business. Back in 2003 I went to Japan to judge a photo contest. It was interesting...at the time I did a little bit of research and found out some interesting facts. I found out that the single largest source of revenue for Canon was integrated chips. They made and sold internally, a ton of chips for all their products. The other interesting thing was at that time, Nikon's single largest source of revenue was stepper motors, used in the manufacture of integrated chips. Guess who was Nikon single largest customer? Canon...

There is no question that major corporations in Japan cooperate a lot more than US companies...some of that cooperation would be illegal in the US due to FTC rules...but there's also no question that corporation in Japan will sometimes do things outside of the norm for a variety of reasons...

Japan is a really different place and it's economy is so very dependent on export. Most of the time Japanese companies will "do the right thing" for the Japanese best interests...but not always.

I do think that Nikon and Sony have a very, very uneasy relationship. Nikon, unlike Canon don't make their own chips...so Nikon relies upon Sony for their camera sensors...at the same time Sony cameras are making an impact on the industry. That makes Nikon (and Canon) rather skittish...also note the recent gyrations in Japan within the industry; Recoh buying Pentax and Olympus being so severely investigated–although I thought it was interesting that the media in Japan wrote stories in advance that Olympus offices where going to be raided, before the raids...

I really doubt anybody outside of Japan really knows what's going on inside of Japan.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8182



WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 04, 2012, 08:53:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I do think that Nikon and Sony have a very, very uneasy relationship. Nikon, unlike Canon don't make their own chips...so Nikon relies upon Sony for their camera sensors...at the same time Sony cameras are making an impact on the industry. That makes Nikon (and Canon) rather skittish...

Actually, I am not sure that the reality is what you describe.

Sony semi-conductor owes its success in DSLR sensors design mostly to nikon whose sales paid most of the tech dev of their sensors.

Simply put, we would not have the sensors we have today if Nikon hadn't sold those tens of millions of DSLRs. Sony cameras by themselves are very far from generating the amount of sales needed to justify these investments.

Japanese companies value long term relationship and mutual respect. I am pretty sure that Sony Semi-Conductor knows how important Nikon is to their business.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 04, 2012, 10:21:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how These threads would sound when there were 33mps Wink
I think deep in most brains it's still imprinted that if there are not more mps in a camera or a bigger screen on the new iPhone it's not a real upgrade.

Except for the pricing I'm very happy with the new specs, and until I see one in action I can't give a real comment of course but I expect nothing less than a big step up in video and stills.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #71 on: March 05, 2012, 08:02:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,
I am very skeptical about this persistent talk that Nikon is at a disadvantage with respect to Canon because it colaborates with Sony to get good sensors, with the claim sometimes made that Sony just designs sensors in isolation and then Nikon has to just choose from the models that Sony has to offer. Firstly, Nikon is by far the largest customer for DSLR sensors from Sony's sensor division, far larger than the (persistently loss-making last I heard) Sony DSLR division, so even simple market forces mean that Nikon has a lot of say on the direction of Sony's sensor development. Add to that indications from well-connected sources like Thom Hogan that Nikon does to some extent share some of its technology in the design of sensors that are also partly designed and also manufactured for Nikon by partners like Sony.

Compare this to today's dominant example of a company that is heavily dependent on outsourcing components and design elements for its products: Apple, which indeed has spent the last fifteen years or so moving away from in-house manufacturing and designs towards working with the biggest, most efficient, most competent designers and producers of low-level components (like shifting to Intel processors), and using its volume purchasing power to get early access and best pricing on those components. Apple even works with phone-making arch-rival Samsung for many components such as screen panels and fabrication of processors for the iPhone and iPad. It has been argued that Tim Cook played a major part if Apple's revival and massive growth by his emphasis on moving away from doing too much in-house to more cost-effective out-sourcing where appropriate.

The examples of Olympus turning to Panasonic for help (by the way, its recent debacle is nothing to do with the camera division, but bad investments made many years ago and ten covered up by senior management of what is primarily a maker of medical equipment and microscopes) and Pentax bouncing from Samsung to Hoya to Ricoh simply, both show the impracticality of trying to go it alone in the digital era against competitors with far greater resources in the electronic side of modern photography. Canon is far bigger and better endowed on the electronics side than Olympus or Pentax or even Nikon, but still smaller and weaker than Sony or Panasonic or Samsung in that respect.

So it is unclear whether Canon has the resources to continue its DIY approach to sensor development. The trend of the last five years ago has been Sony starting from well behind Sony/Nikon in CMOS sensors and moving forward at a faster pace to now be signifiantly ahead of Canon! at least in the judgement of many observers.

Heck, if the Nokia/Toshiba/Sony/whoever team behind the 808 PureView sensor are really reading all 36MP of each video frame off the sensor for processing down to 1920x1080 on a second chip at up to 30fps, even that team appears to be well ahead of Canon in that respect of electronics capabilities. And that is what a Nokia engineer has explicitly claimed, with his talk of handling about 1.2 billion pixels per second read out from the sensor. Needless to day, Nokia could not have achieved that with an all in-house, DIY approach. Likewise, I very much doubt tha Olympus could have achieved the improvements in sensor performance and continuous AF capabilities touted for the OM-D E-M5 without a major (but as-yet unnamed) electronics partner.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4111



« Reply #72 on: March 05, 2012, 08:40:00 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think sensor design is that hard, actually, compared to processors; it can be done with a small team because essentially a sensor is a replicated structure. That is why small firms like Dalsa can do so well.

However, all these companies are making sensors using the same fabbing equipment and CAD design tools- it's pretty obvious that they have very few degrees of freedom and their endproduct will converge.

Edmund

Jeff,
I am very skeptical about this persistent talk that Nikon is at a disadvantage with respect to Canon because it colaborates with Sony to get good sensors, with the claim sometimes made that Sony just designs sensors in isolation and then Nikon has to just choose from the models that Sony has to offer. Firstly, Nikon is by far the largest customer for DSLR sensors from Sony's sensor division, far larger than the (persistently loss-making last I heard) Sony DSLR division, so even simple market forces mean that Nikon has a lot of say on the direction of Sony's sensor development. Add to that indications from well-connected sources like Thom Hogan that Nikon does to some extent share some of its technology in the design of sensors that are also partly designed and also manufactured for Nikon by partners like Sony.

Compare this to today's dominant example of a company that is heavily dependent on outsourcing components and design elements for its products: Apple, which indeed has spent the last fifteen years or so moving away from in-house manufacturing and designs towards working with the biggest, most efficient, most competent designers and producers of low-level components (like shifting to Intel processors), and using its volume purchasing power to get early access and best pricing on those components. Apple even works with phone-making arch-rival Samsung for many components such as screen panels and fabrication of processors for the iPhone and iPad. It has been argued that Tim Cook played a major part if Apple's revival and massive growth by his emphasis on moving away from doing too much in-house to more cost-effective out-sourcing where appropriate.

The examples of Olympus turning to Panasonic for help (by the way, its recent debacle is nothing to do with the camera division, but bad investments made many years ago and ten covered up by senior management of what is primarily a maker of medical equipment and microscopes) and Pentax bouncing from Samsung to Hoya to Ricoh simply, both show the impracticality of trying to go it alone in the digital era against competitors with far greater resources in the electronic side of modern photography. Canon is far bigger and better endowed on the electronics side than Olympus or Pentax or even Nikon, but still smaller and weaker than Sony or Panasonic or Samsung in that respect.

So it is unclear whether Canon has the resources to continue its DIY approach to sensor development. The trend of the last five years ago has been Sony starting from well behind Sony/Nikon in CMOS sensors and moving forward at a faster pace to now be signifiantly ahead of Canon! at least in the judgement of many observers.

Heck, if the Nokia/Toshiba/Sony/whoever team behind the 808 PureView sensor are really reading all 36MP of each video frame off the sensor for processing down to 1920x1080 on a second chip at up to 30fps, even that team appears to be well ahead of Canon in that respect of electronics capabilities. And that is what a Nokia engineer has explicitly claimed, with his talk of handling about 1.2 billion pixels per second read out from the sensor. Needless to day, Nokia could not have achieved that with an all in-house, DIY approach. Likewise, I very much doubt tha Olympus could have achieved the improvements in sensor performance and continuous AF capabilities touted for the OM-D E-M5 without a major (but as-yet unnamed) electronics partner.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #73 on: March 05, 2012, 10:02:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't think sensor design is that hard, actually, compared to processors; it can be done with a small team because essentially a sensor is a replicated structure. That is why small firms like Dalsa can do so well.
Small firms like Dalsa may do well with CCD designs that perform fairly well when given enough light to make good use of the well capacity, but Dalsa and Kodak have fallen well behind bigger competitors like Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Samsung etc. in active pixel CMOS sensors, and thus in reducing read noise and offering other modern features like high frame rates, higher speed crop modes, and video capabilities.

Look at the latest Dalsa CCD of 36x24mm, 24MP, 6 micron pixel pitch that some people have got excited about: http://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/sensors/datasheets/FTF6040C_datasheet-20110328.pdf
Well capacity of 39,000 electrons, amplifier noise level of 11 electrons, electrical DR of 71dB or a bit under 12 stops, linear dynamic range even less at 69.5dB and described honestly as "a linear dynamic range of over 11 bits", 3.6fps. This is distinctly worse in every respect than what 24MP Sony/Nikon sensors or 22MP Canon sensors have been offering for several years, never mind what this years's new models will show when tested. This is even true at low ISO, where some people cling to the out-of-date idea that full frame type CCDs have an advantage due to higher fill factor and well capacity.

P.S. the per pixel performance is no better, and in some respects like well-capacity is even worse, than in the same-sized pixels of this Dalsa sensor from two years, earlier, April 2009, the familiar 48x36mm, 48MP one in some DMF backs:
http://www.teledynedalsa.com/public/sensors/datasheets/FTF6080C_datasheet_20090420.pdf
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 10:15:42 AM by BJL » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #74 on: March 05, 2012, 11:01:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I think deep in most brains it's still imprinted that if there are not more mps in a camera or a bigger screen on the new iPhone it's not a real upgrade.
I completely agree than many worthwhile improvements can be overlooked in a one-dimensional obsession with resolution improvements, and the 5D3 might be a good example of that, especially for people like wedding photographers and amateur sports photographers. But on the other hand, I am bemused by the intellectual contortions that some people are going to in order to claim that the higher resolution of the D800 is useless in 35mm format, despite solid evidence that some Nikon and Canon lenses can deliver a clear resolution improvement when the sensor resolution is increased to this level: 16MP in DX being the same sensor resolution in lp/mm as 36MP in FX is only the same lp/mm resolution as the Nikon D7000 and distinctly less than the Canon 7D.

And after all, this is not primarily a forum for wedding photographers or sports photographers or DSLR videographers, and even less so for black cat in coal mine photographers: it is in name at least a forum that attracts many landscape and nature photographers, some of whom are interested in pushing the limits of highly detailed images, and of cropping latitude for wildlife and macro enlargements, so resolution is surely one legitimate measure, just as it was when many photographers cared about Kodochrome 25 or Velvia or Kodak Tech. Pan or T-max 100 or Ilford Pan F plus or Delta 100. And some of those monochrome films probably resolve as much or more than the D800; almost surely several of them outresolve any 22MP Bayer CFA sensor in 35mm format, which is another reason that talk of 35mm format lenses not being able to benefit from going beyond 22MP does not fit the facts.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1523


WWW
« Reply #75 on: March 05, 2012, 11:06:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't get me wrong, I love more MPs Cheesy
But I would first want to invest in Dynamic Range, cleanness and smoothness.

Next generation more MPs or MF for that.
But we will see what happens when the camera is here.
Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #76 on: March 05, 2012, 11:30:57 AM »
ReplyReply

This is just a rant. You are making insinuations because the companies are not doing what you want them to do. You clearly have no idea about economics--you state the Canon/Nikon can make a RED cheaper than RED, but then say they won't because they will lose money. What do you expect. You also have no idea about margins. Go look at how well the camera divisions are doing at these companies--the annual reports are online.

What I would like Canon and any other camera brand for that matter is to develop something groundbraking every 4-5 years or so. If not groundbraking then at least leave the clients with the feeling that what is offered is a significant progress. And as time goes by, we are seeing more and more incremental progress with new releases. That is Apple philosophy which, as it turned out, works great in pair with our uberconsumptonism. There are areas in which the breath of the competition doesn't allow such practices. Compare the specs of a computer processor you can buy now and 4-5 years ago. Or a graphic card, a mobile phone.. Now compare 5DMKII and MKIII. Who knows, maybe MKIII will do the magic and will be much much better- but from the tech specs it doesn't seem so and I seriously doubt it.

Why Canon / Nikon didn't come up yet with a camera that is shooting motion to RAW? I'm sure eventually it will happen and oh, the coincidence! They will deliver these solutions in a few months time span or even at the same time. Why 5DMKII has a somewhat lousy AF (at least when you compare with the technology they had at that time)?
I'm sure with Nikon / Canon budget a camera similar to RED Scarlet could be developed and cost even less. Probably even better camera than what's Scarlet offering. But they won't because the market for that product is not that big, the money is not there. And what these companies are after is not making the best cameras possible but the biggest / easiest money possible. What's unfortunate for us is that making the best cameras doesn't equal biggest income.

Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #77 on: March 05, 2012, 11:42:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't get me wrong, I love more MPs Cheesy
But I would first want to invest in Dynamic Range, cleanness and smoothness.

Next generation more MPs or MF for that.
Indeed ... And it is this acknowledgement of a mixture of priorities which make me believe that, as usual, it is the internet peanut gallery that has got it wrong, not major players like Canon and Nikon, who with the D800 and 5D3 will probably both do very well, albeit it with somewhat different audiences.

Actually, your comment about "next generation more MP" suggests something like Intel's "tic-toc" strategy: if alternate generations of products push forward alternately in different aspect of performance rather than trying to improve everything a bit, then each generation will be able to offer a clearer upgrade incentive to at least one key target market ... and photographers wil be able to save some money by upgrading only every second DSLR generation, while still avoiding a gear inferiority complex. (Did film photographers upgrade cameras or film choices every three or four years? Or even every six to eight years as with my proposal of every second DSLR generation?)

P. S. this does not change my speculation that Canon has chosen aspects other than resolution this time around because it is for now not in the position to match Sony/Nikon for per pixel performance at the highest resolution levels, so has instead looked to its strengths in other areas.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 12:12:12 PM by BJL » Logged
theguywitha645d
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 970


« Reply #78 on: March 05, 2012, 11:54:17 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't doubt this the least bit but engineers do their job in the context of a budget and product specifications defined for them by product planning division (製品企画).

My view is that the alignement of high level specs per "generation" between manufacturers and the timing thereof is a very understandable practice that aims at ensuring long term profitability. It is also a practice that is close to unavoidable as mentioned before.

You seem to read in these statements some implication that camera manufacturers would be seen as evil because of such practices. That's at least not how I look at it.

Bythe way, cross company agreements about the enveloppe of the playing field is a well known fact in other industries as well. Just look at the agreement that did bind Japanese car manufacturers for year about the power of their engines. They had decided not to go above 280hp. Honda decided to break away from this with the Honda legend for unknown reasons, maybe because they considered that it hindered their competitiveness against foreign car manufacturers, maybe for other reasons.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard, the camera business is very competitive. Companies are looking for every break they can get. You are right about the supply of parts, but likewise, the companies want to be different. They want their products to shine. One problem with this digital revolution is that products do not have a long shelf live--you could make a film SLR body and sell it for ten years or more. Turn over has to be faster. This is not the camera companies choice, but a factor forced on them by the market. Ideally with an expensive camera, they want to keep that on the market as long as possible to get as much ROI as possible. With the natural improvements in technology, it does pay to put the best, within the constraints of cost, in the product--we were always looking for the next greatest thing. This new quick cycle is what I would say is the demise of most of the camera companies in Japan. Not only would we reverse engineer our competitor's products, but we took a great interest on their sales. We would speculate on which company would fall next.

If there is, as the Japanese like to call it, a gentleman"s agreement, I do not know about it. I had no indication, beyond what was available or possible, our engineers were not "dumbing down" the products. On the contrary, they were always looking for edges in performance. The worst was soon after one of our releases, one of our competitors did something better and cheaper--hard to sell a products under that situation.

The industry is certainly close. You have been in Japan to see how all this works. But not that close. industrial espionage was real and we were very careful about the leaking of information--if everyone is in cohorts, why bother?
Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 854


« Reply #79 on: March 05, 2012, 12:30:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Well yes I think with their power they could actually develop a Scarlet-like camera and even make it cheaper. BUT they won't because there is not enough to win/ gain- after all you don't expect half a million cameras of this caliber to be sold even if they are better deal than RED..and RED was first and established it's position. And there's always risk involved in any new technology... it's not so easy now, but it could have been if someone was thinking a bit outside the box (or should I say outside the scheme which works- the incremental upgrades...). As for new Canon cine camera- that's just re-inventing the wheel, they had the technology so they thought- why not make a camera, since not much R&D is involved..the product of this thinking is a camera neither for pros nor for amateurs.. it may be a rant, it may be that I am insinuating, but the fact is that the manufacturer's don't necessarily deliver what the users need- same goes for Phase One, Hassy, Nikon, Canon. That's true, I don't have any idea about economics, but you have no idea as well if the companies are holding back and not delivering what they could or not. The whole discussion- it's all speculation.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad