Chipworks analyzes FF sensors Locked

Started Oct 25, 2012 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
schmegg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,768
Re: I see that you are anonymous

bobn2 wrote:

schmegg wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Thus Canon users options are limited by Canon's poor decision to use in-house fab rather than use foundry services. Whereas Nikon, with their use of foundry services, has migrated from 350nm to 250nm, Canon simply cannot, since it has to utilise the capital tied up in these fab lines.

Nope - disagree here though. Canon chooses to manufacture and use their own sensors rather than use "foundry services". I personally don't see this as a negative for the long term evolution of photographic sensors, but rather, as a positive.

Well, you are wrong. Canon is fab locked, they cannot produce a competitive sensor at FF level. They can produce competitive cameras, lacking in sensor capability and making up for it in other areas.

Well - I'm wrong in the sense that I don't agree with your assessment.

That's the same thing.


Canon are no more "fab locked" (as you put it) than Nikon or anyone else. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from using a foundry service should they so choose.

Yes there is. Accountancy. They have sunk the capital into those fab lines, they have to use them, otherwise the bottom line goes into the red.

Business will quickly write off an investment if it has a significantly deleterious effect on the bottom line. Sales are part of the bottom line, and their actions seem to indicate that the balance between these factors, at least as far as they care about, does not dictate the move to reliance on a foundry service.

Perhaps this will change in the future - when it becomes necessary. But, to this point in time, it has not become necessary.

Now, if Canon cameras were incapable of producing competitive images, I'd say they would have a big problem ahead. But this is not the case. Not currently anyway.

It is the case. No Canon can produce an image competitive with those that the D800, or even the D600 or D3X can produce. Sometimes, probably often, there is no need for a competitive image, but that does not mean that those cameras cannot produce better images than Canons are capable of, they can - no question.

Really? I've not seen any final images that are clearly and unquestionably better than what Canon cameras produce.

You wouldn't looking on the web. You get 2MP max on the web, but then if you are just judging web images, any good P&S is more or less as good as a 5DIII.

Throwaway line Bob.

There are situation where the extra DR might be an asset - just as there are situations where the built-in flash might be an asset, or a higher burst rate etc.

Resolution is the thing. 36MP produces better images than 22MP. Simples.

If you need to print large or crop heavily, it is a practical consideration. If you don't, then 36MP of resolution is no better than 22MP of it.

The claim is akin to claiming that a car that has a top speed of 200mph is better than one that has a top speed of 180mph. If you don't ever get above 150mph, then the difference is moot - and perhaps the seats are more important!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow