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

[Mathias Tornqvist]

The sad part is that you're validating a camera's role in the marketplace from if it will sell at Costco. However:

The problem with your analogy is that you omit that for every 20 Crazyshots at Costco, there's another 200 almost identical Gooofyshots and Weirdoshots. So when a random purchaser grabs a camera, there's a 90% chance that he'll grab a Loonyshot instead of your Crazyshot.

However, if somebody wants the specialized features and high quality of the Monochrome (at a camera store, I hope, not at Costco), he'll buy your camera, since there are no competing brands.

Put 20 Crazyshots on a shelf in Costco. Put 20 B&W digidreamcams
next to them. Which do you think will sell out first? There doesn't
have to be a market for a specific color camera because people will
buy anything, at least to a certain degree.

 

[peripheralfocus]

If it came from T3 his source was an Indian web site that simply makes stuff up. The article itself was written in a kind of quasi-news report style but it had no attribution for any of the information in it, and it was unbylined. And the site itself publishes a disclaimer that explicitly states that nothing on it should necessarily be considered factual.

In short, it's bogus info. I cover the digital camera industry for several magazines and web sites, so I have some idea of how difficult it would be to get information like that. It's remotely possible that a Japanese news organization could get that info -- in which case it would carry a credible attribution -- but the chances are very small; it's just not the kind of information that Canon is going to divulge.

I read it from a recent interview with a Canon rep. about the 5D,
cited in a recent thread, maybe by T3.

But do not bet the house on it! I might have got it wrong. The 10%
1DsII yield was offered to explain its high price.

 

[BJL]

Thanks for the warning! Perhaps I should have been more careful with anything asociated with the latest avatar of Peter Phan!

Can you point me to that website?

(The numbers do fit fairly well with "reverse engineering" of know price and cost data, so maybe that is where they came from?)

 

[Victor Engel]

Ever seen or taken pictures this way? Just because you have multicolored waves doesn't mean the picture is ruined. In fact, it makes for a nice effect sometimes.

Besides, the whole process could go by very quickly. Suppose, for example, all three frames could be captured within 1/1000 second? Probably in order for this to happen, there would have to be photosite-level A/D processors that could cache the data before tranferring it all in a later data dump.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/



Halloween Eclipse, 2004

 

[Bruce McL]

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a camera manufacturer. What would make them choose to devote resourrces to a B&W camera instead of another color one?

As far as introducing other brands in the equation, I would say that the other brands are doing some of the marketing for a given brand. Even if a brand does no marketing they can still sell cookie cutter cameras at Costco. All they have to do is get them placed on the same shelf with the popular brands. A B&W camera will take some effort to sell.

One more thing, again from the camera manufacturer's perspective. How many people who want a B&W camera are between 20 and 35? That's an important group for manufacturers. In the car industry here in the US Toyota has started a new brand (Scion) because young people associate Toyotas with their parents and grandparents and won't buy them. They want something different. If the camera manufacturers think that adding a BW digital camera to their lineup will turn off younger people that will be one more reason not to do it.

Let me turn this discussion around a bit and ask what manufacturer do you think has the most to gain by making a digtal BW camera. The name Leica comes to mind, but I think they'd have to OEM it with Panasonic. Nikon might be able to turn such a camera into a "prestige item," but it could backfire on them. I suspect they are feeling a bit of the "Toyota effect" with younger buyers already considering Nikon a bit "old school." I could be wrong about that.

Elswhere in the thread the validity of the sensor report has been questioned, so this may be only an acedemic discussion. But my main point is that instead of "seeing like film," this subject requires one to " think like a manufacturer."

Put 20 Crazyshots on a shelf in Costco. Put 20 B&W digidreamcams
next to them. Which do you think will sell out first? There doesn't
have to be a market for a specific color camera because people will
buy anything, at least to a certain degree.

 

[stephenmelvin]

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a camera
manufacturer. What would make them choose to devote resourrces to
a B&W camera instead of another color one?

Well, the resources required wouldn't be that great in the year 2005.

As far as introducing other brands in the equation, I would say
that the other brands are doing some of the marketing for a given
brand. Even if a brand does no marketing they can still sell cookie
cutter cameras at Costco. All they have to do is get them placed on
the same shelf with the popular brands.

You make that sound like an easy task. Do you have any idea how valuable shelf space at a place like Costco is?

A B&W camera will take some

effort to sell.

Less effort than a camera geared specifically to astrophotographers, I expect.

One more thing, again from the camera manufacturer's perspective.
How many people who want a B&W camera are between 20 and 35? That's
an important group for manufacturers.

It depends on the industry. Cell phones and iPods, yes. High end camera makers? Well, it depends. That said, I've seen a lot more interest in black & white photography from young brides than from their parents. I specialize in B&W, by the way, and that's how I market my photography.

In the car industry here in

the US Toyota has started a new brand (Scion) because young people
associate Toyotas with their parents and grandparents and won't buy
them.

That's because Toyota's been producing boring cars for over a decade. They're sort of the Buick of Japan, only more reliable.

They want something different.

Funny you should say that...

If the camera manufacturers
think that adding a BW digital camera to their lineup will turn off
younger people that will be one more reason not to do it.

Or maybe the kids want to try something different...

Let me turn this discussion around a bit and ask what manufacturer
do you think has the most to gain by making a digtal BW camera. The
name Leica comes to mind, but I think they'd have to OEM it with
Panasonic.

Of course they would.

Nikon might be able to turn such a camera into a

"prestige item," but it could backfire on them. I suspect they are
feeling a bit of the "Toyota effect" with younger buyers already
considering Nikon a bit "old school." I could be wrong about that.

I think you are on that point.

Canon's in the best position to do this. They're by far the most successful dSLR maker, and they control the whole process from top to bottom. The fact that they've introduced a camera specifically for astrophotographers (surely a tiny niche) shows that they're ready to consider introducing other niche products.

Epson's the only other maker who's introduced such a niche product.

I think a B&W dSLR is a distinct possibility in the next twelve months.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of a camera
manufacturer. What would make them choose to devote resourrces to
a B&W camera instead of another color one?

Well, the resources required wouldn't be that great in the year 2005.

They're great enough to trouble someone like Nikon, who probably has a few higher priorities: finally shipping the D200, a digital compatible macro flash, more VR lenses, recent firmware updates to D70 and D2X, etc.

And the resources are really astronomical from the viewpoint of someone like Konica-Minolta or Fuji, trying to decide if they even should remain in the DSLR business at all.

I think about the only people who could pull it off is Canon.

A B&W camera will take some
effort to sell.

Less effort than a camera geared specifically to
astrophotographers, I expect.

Actually, no.

Astrophotographers are used to dealing with very limited distribution channels. Very few of us have the luxury of a major telescope shop close by, we've mostly mail (phone or internet) ordered our stuff for decades. Canon can ship 20Da totally outside their normal network, there's already enough astrophoto network in place to handle it.

A monochrome DSLR is another story entirely. People expect to see it in cameras stores. That means you ahve to put it in the existing channel, exactly the same way you do with smaller run digital cameras like Sigma SD10 or the Epson RD-1 rangefinder. Camera stores don't want to commit shelf space to low volume items.

Canon's in the best position to do this. They're by far the most
successful dSLR maker, and they control the whole process from top
to bottom. The fact that they've introduced a camera specifically
for astrophotographers (surely a tiny niche) shows that they're
ready to consider introducing other niche products.

Agree, completly.

Epson's the only other maker who's introduced such a niche product.

I think a B&W dSLR is a distinct possibility in the next twelve
months.

Would be nice.

--
Detroit Reds Wings - Leading the whole darn NHL!
Fourteen, two, and one!
Original Six Hockey with Motown Style

(So what if this signature needs to be updated three times a week. It's the wings!)

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[stephenmelvin]

Well, the resources required wouldn't be that great in the year 2005.

They're great enough to trouble someone like Nikon, who probably
has a few higher priorities: finally shipping the D200, a digital
compatible macro flash, more VR lenses, recent firmware updates to
D70 and D2X, etc.

Well of course every company has its priorities. But in the scheme of things, it would take fewer resources for Nikon to put out a B&W D70 than it took to put out the D200. Of course, the D200 is much more vital to Nikon than a B&W D70. But now that it's done, and they have competitive products at all the major price points, they could possibly consider a project like this.

And the resources are really astronomical from the viewpoint of
someone like Konica-Minolta or Fuji, trying to decide if they even
should remain in the DSLR business at all.

For Fuji, almost certainly. But for Minolta, I don't think it's entirely out of the question. The 7D has probably the most photographer-friendly control layout of any dSLR, at least for an old manual shooter like me. It shows somebody has their heart in photography, and having an existing camera to begin with does simplify matters to some degree. But it is a long shot.

I think about the only people who could pull it off is Canon.

I agree with you here, though it wouldn't be a complete shock if Sony did it.

Less effort than a camera geared specifically to
astrophotographers, I expect.

Actually, no.

Astrophotographers are used to dealing with very limited
distribution channels.

A monochrome DSLR is another story entirely. People expect to see
it in cameras stores. That means you ahve to put it in the existing
channel, exactly the same way you do with smaller run digital
cameras like Sigma SD10 or the Epson RD-1 rangefinder. Camera
stores don't want to commit shelf space to low volume items.

You're forgetting all of the low volume film cameras that have been, and continue to be, out there. How many camera stores carry the Noblex, or that Fuji 6 x 8 camera? How many carry 11 x 14" view cameras? Fine art photographers (and of course a B&W dSLR holds tremendous appeal for us) are also used to searching for equipment that's hard to find.

It's quite true that film cameras are much more economical to produce in low volumes than dSLR's, but I don't think lack of shelf space in small market camera shops is necessarily enough to kill the idea.

Of course, if Canon produced it, it would definitely be on shelves. I think the same would hold true for Nikon. I think if either one produced it, you could get one at Best Buy. They sold the EOS 1Ds, and they have the 5D for sale on their web site.

Canon's in the best position to do this. They're by far the most
successful dSLR maker, and they control the whole process from top
to bottom. The fact that they've introduced a camera specifically
for astrophotographers (surely a tiny niche) shows that they're
ready to consider introducing other niche products.

Agree, completly.

Epson's the only other maker who's introduced such a niche product.

I think a B&W dSLR is a distinct possibility in the next twelve
months.

Would be nice.

--
Detroit Reds Wings - Leading the whole darn NHL!
Fourteen, two, and one!
Original Six Hockey with Motown Style

(So what if this signature needs to be updated three times a week.
It's the wings!)

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Ever seen or taken pictures this way? Just because you have
multicolored waves doesn't mean the picture is ruined. In fact, it
makes for a nice effect sometimes.

Yes and no. I have seen it - and I don't like the effect. When I want effects I make them in photoshop. When I take general photos I don't want effects.

Besides, the whole process could go by very quickly. Suppose, for
example, all three frames could be captured within 1/1000 second?
Probably in order for this to happen, there would have to be
photosite-level A/D processors that could cache the data before
tranferring it all in a later data dump.

No.

If the process can be so fast it needs space on the sensor chip. This space is then better used to have photo sites of different sensitivity - the way Fuiji does it.

Roland

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Ever seen or taken pictures this way? Just because you have
multicolored waves doesn't mean the picture is ruined. In fact, it
makes for a nice effect sometimes.

Besides, the whole process could go by very quickly. Suppose, for
example, all three frames could be captured within 1/1000 second?
Probably in order for this to happen, there would have to be
photosite-level A/D processors that could cache the data before
tranferring it all in a later data dump.

You're talking about spinning a filter wheel at 1000 revs/second, or 60,000 RPM. I have enough trouble making this work at 3 exposures/second on a D70, and the wheel is going around at 180 RPM.

Even electro-optical techniques usually aren't good for 3000 color changes/second.

On the bright side, you wouldn't need cell level A/D, you could do it at the row or column level. Clocking at 15 million conversions a second, you can get by with 3000 converters to let you read a 15mp sensor 3000 times a second. That's one converter for every other column.

--
Detroit Reds Wings - Leading the whole darn NHL!
Fourteen, two, and one!
Original Six Hockey with Motown Style

(So what if this signature needs to be updated three times a week. It's the wings!)

Ciao!

Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com