Reading mode: Light Dark

Cypress *MONOCHROME* sensor... please please please...

Go to last post
Petteri Sulonen said:
Probably because there are just too many of 'em to database properly.
Click to expand...
maybe... to me it seems that it is just not that easy to fix. The fillfactory design is a pretty bad idea imho. Some problems obviously disappear in a monochrome version, like color crosstalk or bad color seperation but other problems are still there.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Why does this complaint remind me of the Nikonians' complaints
about Canon's "plastic skin" or the Canonians' complaints about
Nikon's moiré or the Olympians' complaints about dust on every
camera that they don't use and so on ad nauseam...?
Click to expand...
don't know, imho all of these complaints have some validity, although this depends much more on what one actually does with the product than the people who throw these complains around realize.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Whazzup on the Sigma front, by the way? I haven't been following
stuff much, but wasn't something big supposed to be in the pipeline
from there? Anything new about that?
Click to expand...
I have seen no leaks or new rumors for maybe half a year...

--
http://www.pbase.com/dgross (work in progress)
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

 
It uses the same CMOS technology used in Kodak 14n? Are people forgetting how terrible they looked? The image looked painted. The noise was unacceptable as well.

If you want the "monochrome" sensor, X3 Foveon camera does it well. X3 is the only one that can function as a monochrome sensor with a bigger advantage - it records 3 different grayscales through 3 different color filters and it can be color or monochrome. A monochrome sensor cannot do that unless you put a color filter over the lens.

The only advantage I see with the Cypress sensor is the pixel count - 9 MP output compared to 3 MP output in X3.

-jeff
 
I have to re-ask the question someone else asked: how does the latest Coolpix Optio Stylus Ixus 5500 hit a bigger niche than a putative high-quality monochrome compact? When I was in the Army, one of the things they taught us in officers' school was that it's somewhat easier to take a hill if there's nobody else there yet. This particular hill is undefended, even if it isn't the Mt. Olympus of, say, consumer dSLR's.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
 
Phil Askey said:
Yes, there's got to be an absolutely huge market for that :)
Click to expand...
It is hard to tell with this kind of comment whether you think it is a bad idea, or just one with limited market appeal that would never get built.

How large is the market for the Canon 20Da? Is the IR and astrophotography market really larger than that of black and white photo enthusiats?

FillFactory does have a history of doing monochrome sensors as some of their customers use them. And if you've already designed a camera around the sensor, doing a special B&W edition with a run of a couple thousand might be worthwhile.

-Z-
 
Actually, put it in anything but please please please let it do infrared too. I'll be first in line.

Tom
 
michalc said:
$50 APS, $500 FF so it'd mean an APS DSLR for $500 and FF for $950
or $1000 and $1500 respectively. Some folks overpaying :).
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way. The rule of thumb is that whatever you pay for something as a raw part results in a 3.5x increase in retail price. If the US$50 sensor makes for a US$500 DSLR then the implied contribution of the sensor to the retail price is something between US$150-200. If the FF sensor were US$500, the implied contribution of the sensor to the retail price would be US$1500-2000, thus that FF DSLR using the same parts as the APS one would be somewhere around US$1800 to US$2300.

Why does it work this way? Return on investment. If you get a 3.5x payback on $10, you still want a 3.5x payback on $100.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
It would be nice to see this monochrome sensor in the rangefinder with M39 mount for the price around $400-$500. :)

Regards,
Sebastian
 
Thom Hogan said:
michalc said:
$50 APS, $500 FF so it'd mean an APS DSLR for $500 and FF for $950
or $1000 and $1500 respectively. Some folks overpaying :).
Click to expand...
It doesn't work that way. The rule of thumb is that whatever you
pay for something as a raw part results in a 3.5x increase in
retail price. If the US$50 sensor makes for a US$500 DSLR then the
implied contribution of the sensor to the retail price is something
between US$150-200. If the FF sensor were US$500, the implied
contribution of the sensor to the retail price would be
US$1500-2000, thus that FF DSLR using the same parts as the APS one
would be somewhere around US$1800 to US$2300.

Why does it work this way? Return on investment. If you get a 3.5x
payback on $10, you still want a 3.5x payback on $100.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. With fierce competition on the digital market some companies still losing I don't expect anyone would afford a 350% margin. Besides it also works this way: if a competitor has an X product priced at $1000 and I want to beat that I will price it $950 no matter the production costs being $100 or $900.
Thom Hogan said:
--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D70, D100, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
Click to expand...
--
mc
 
michalc said:
Well, yes and no. With fierce competition on the digital market
some companies still losing I don't expect anyone would afford a
350% margin. Besides it also works this way: if a competitor has an
X product priced at $1000 and I want to beat that I will price it
$950 no matter the production costs being $100 or $900.
Click to expand...
You did not get the whole picture here? The component cost is not the only one, the manufacturing process costs, as does design for the manufacturer that buys this components. Then they do write manuals, print the boxes and the manuals etc, give you the warranty, then shipping costs too, mostly overseas since you do not buy you D200 from Thailand nor your D2x from Japan, do you? And then the distributor/importer buys the camera from Nikon, and the shop from the distributor and again, you from the shop. So the whole value chain consume the 250% but that includes other services and costs that are a must. You can not buy a camera "free to collect on factory in Japan" etc. And the value chain pays also for the advertising... So the final profit margin the value hain gets after all these costs involved is usually in the 10-25% range, 10-15 % would be a fine result for the manufacturer (actually they get more like 15-25% of the factory price they sell the items for, and that might be below 10% of the street price in some continents with long value chain) and 5-10% for the reseller (in expensive dSLR items, that is). And those values are % of the final street price.

So no one gets actually +350% (or 250% extra over the original part cost). It is just the way to calculate the efect of the single components price efect to the final street price, and is only a rule of thumb as Thom put it. (He might have more accurate figeures of the profits the manufacturers do make, but I assume you got the idea where the 350% came from).

--
Osku
 
I would guess that most of this horde of B&W shooters are serious enthusiasts who use SLRs. Wouldn't it be more logical for Nikon or Canon to make a D70bw or 20Dbw that you could use with all their lenses? Canon has already made a limited-edition 20Da for another purpose.

This camera could also be great for IR if they skip the IR filter. For regular B&W you'd need to use an IR cut filter on the lens.
Petteri Sulonen said:
I have to re-ask the question someone else asked: how does the
latest Coolpix Optio Stylus Ixus 5500 hit a bigger niche than a
putative high-quality monochrome compact? When I was in the Army,
one of the things they taught us in officers' school was that it's
somewhat easier to take a hill if there's nobody else there yet.
This particular hill is undefended, even if it isn't the Mt.
Olympus of, say, consumer dSLR's.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Click to expand...
 
Wow good thing the autopilot in my new flying car is so good!

I was just surfing dpreview and reading your post on the heads up display when a heard of pigs strayed across my path. Most autopilots would not have been able to react at Mach 0.8, but the HAL 9000 mkII I have did a great job. I would have barely noticed what happened if it didn't tell me. It didn't even spill the cup of espresso I just made :)
 
Some fully manual camera with BW would sell actually in quite many copies, if the stories about Japanese Nikon enthusiasts/collectors are true. So 200.000 pcs limited batch of those might be sold rapidly. You never know... But if it is not Contax T2 style high end compact with titanium case etc, it has to be manual focus dSLR.
synp said:
This camera could also be great for IR if they skip the IR filter.
For regular B&W you'd need to use an IR cut filter on the lens.
Petteri Sulonen said:
I have to re-ask the question someone else asked: how does the
latest Coolpix Optio Stylus Ixus 5500 hit a bigger niche than a
putative high-quality monochrome compact? When I was in the Army,
one of the things they taught us in officers' school was that it's
somewhat easier to take a hill if there's nobody else there yet.
This particular hill is undefended, even if it isn't the Mt.
Olympus of, say, consumer dSLR's.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Osku
 
Osku said:
michalc said:
Well, yes and no. With fierce competition on the digital market
some companies still losing I don't expect anyone would afford a
350% margin. Besides it also works this way: if a competitor has an
X product priced at $1000 and I want to beat that I will price it
$950 no matter the production costs being $100 or $900.
Click to expand...
You did not get the whole picture here?
Click to expand...
Did you?

The component cost is not
Osku said:
the only one, the manufacturing process costs, as does design for
the manufacturer that buys this components. Then they do write
manuals, print the boxes and the manuals etc, give you the
warranty, then shipping costs too, mostly overseas since you do not
buy you D200 from Thailand nor your D2x from Japan, do you? And
then the distributor/importer buys the camera from Nikon, and the
shop from the distributor and again, you from the shop. So the
whole value chain consume the 250% but that includes other services
and costs that are a must. You can not buy a camera "free to
collect on factory in Japan" etc. And the value chain pays also for
the advertising... So the final profit margin the value hain gets
after all these costs involved is usually in the 10-25% range,
10-15 % would be a fine result for the manufacturer (actually they
get more like 15-25% of the factory price they sell the items for,
and that might be below 10% of the street price in some continents
with long value chain) and 5-10% for the reseller (in expensive
dSLR items, that is). And those values are % of the final street
price.
Click to expand...
That is pretty obvious they print manuals etc. Also that there is a distribution chain. And that the prices ex Canon or Nikon factory have nothing to do with the final consumer price. But the cost of printing manuals and sending the camera from Thailand to Finland don't vary no matter whether we are talking about a $500 camera and $5000 camera right? That is first. Second you are mixing production costs and marketing costs which do not relate in a simple way. Third as I said it is the manufacturer who sets first "ex factory" price and this price does not necessarily reflect the cost but also market prices of competition. And the chain costs, margins of wholesalers, retailers etc derive from the first ex factory price. Finally it is the official manufacturer's distributor in a given country that sets the market price - that's why prices of the same camera differ so much all over the place. That's something about getting the whole picture.
Osku said:
So no one gets actually +350% (or 250% extra over the original part
cost). It is just the way to calculate the efect of the single
components price efect to the final street price, and is only a
rule of thumb as Thom put it. (He might have more accurate figeures
of the profits the manufacturers do make, but I assume you got the
idea where the 350% came from).
Click to expand...
Yes Thom put it this way but I doubt this rule applies to all parts regardless of price. I believe there is a different multiplier for a $50 part and $500 part. But that's my opinion.
Osku said:
--
Osku
Click to expand...
--
mc
 
I would love to have a digital rangefinder that was B&W, especially if I could be in control of the IR. :)
PLEASE!!! Somebody build this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top