Nikon's own sensor, any difference?

[baruth]

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

 

[JonyDirk]

I think I read the press release as saying that Nikon "developed" its own sensor....might be a subtle difference from "make". Not trying to nit-pick semantics, but:

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers (AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with? Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt a particular product line development in a multiple-product company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

 

[baruth]

There is reason to believe that Nikon is MAKING its own sensors now. The delay in bringing out models laterly while Canon announces one model after another, Nikon is "starting" its own in house factory. The reason why Nikon is now making its own sensors is economic: they want to keep the profit for themselves now that the DigCam has proved to be profitable and is the future of photography.

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

 

[HAE]

They developed the sensor in house, and (from another post) apparently from technology they have been working on for some years. They will contract the manufacturing for a third party but will do the final stages of the manufacturing themselves: filters, microlenses, etc. My guess that they wanted want to have more control on sensor technology and development especially with an aggressive competitor like Canon, cut the costs in the sensor part of the DSLR, and that they found that their inhouse technology was better than thrid party solutions they were offered to try or at least good enough for their next gen high speed DSLR.

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

 

[JonyDirk]

Whooooaaa...nope. You're correct in saying that if there were no barriers, Nikon would love to have they're own manufacturing capability. But alas, there is a barrier: the $2 billion or so it takes to build fabrication facility, and then the requirement to keep it running (and profitable).

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an "o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777 cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

 

[David Martin]

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

PS I agree with you on sensor production
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[JonyDirk]

Dave,

Thanks! I have an assistant that works for me that checks 90% of what I type out. I vie with other some others somewhere in the world for history's worst speller.

I'd used MS Encarta, but it takes forever to boot up (I even have a P-IV 2.8)...and then its default is set on "encyclopedia" instead of dictionary (can't for the life of me figure out how to change its default). So by the time I've got all those steps in place, I've lost my train of thought (reason why some confuse me with George W.....it's impossible to lose one's train of thought with a small volcabulary).

Ciao for now...
John

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

PS I agree with you on sensor production
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[Rudolph Kaplan]

Whooooaaa...nope. You're correct in saying that if there were no
barriers, Nikon would love to have they're own manufacturing
capability. But alas, there is a barrier: the $2 billion or so it
takes to build fabrication facility, and then the requirement to
keep it running (and profitable).

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

John: You did well. "Oligopoly" is both spelled and used correctly. And capital is correctly used too- -the United States capitol is in Washington, D.C. Your post is thus both informative and accurate. Trust an old teacher of English.

RK

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

 

[Peter Phan]

A few weeks ago I made a comment saying that I was beginning to realize that in the digital age, a camera manufacturer that didn't make its own sensors was akin to a camera manufacturer that didn't make its own lenses. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable comment, given that Canon and Nikon certainly don't outsource their lenses, bodies, flashes or any other accessories to anyone, neither for design nor manufacture. After all, the sensor is such a pivotal part of a DSLR, and to maintain complete control over all aspects of it would be vitally important to ones DSLR business.

But of course, I got slammed hard by the likes of Thom Hogan and others. I hope that Nikon's important announcement that they are now making their own sensors adds credence to my argument. Ultimately, Nikon now has much more control over their digital destiny, without reliance on any third party. Obviously, Nikon has seen the light, whereas some of their users have not.

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

 

[Roddynal]

A few weeks ago I made a comment saying that I was beginning to
realize that in the digital age, a camera manufacturer that didn't
make its own sensors was akin to a camera manufacturer that didn't
make its own lenses. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable
comment, given that Canon and Nikon certainly don't outsource their
lenses, bodies, flashes or any other accessories to anyone, neither
for design nor manufacture. After all, the sensor is such a
pivotal part of a DSLR, and to maintain complete control over all
aspects of it would be vitally important to ones DSLR business.

I might be wrong, but I think that Nikon does outsource the manufacture of some of its lenses to Tamron. At least that was the speculation for the 70-300ED AFD. It wouldn't surprise me if other manfacturers did the same for some of their products. It makes sense because of the economics of having factory capacity available at all times, better to outsource some of it.

But of course, I got slammed hard by the likes of Thom Hogan and
others. I hope that Nikon's important announcement that they are
now making their own sensors adds credence to my argument.
Ultimately, Nikon now has much more control over their digital
destiny, without reliance on any third party. Obviously, Nikon has
seen the light, whereas some of their users have not.

Why is it necessary to have all of your sensors designed and manufactured inhouse? And why is it necessary to have your sensors manufactured inhouse? Does Canon manufacture and design all of the CCDs for its PowerShot cameras?

--
Richard D.
http://members.aol.com/richdong
http://www.photocritique.net/g/phtg?RICHARD+DONG

 

[David Martin]

Thanks! I have an assistant that works for me that checks 90% of
what I type out. I vie with other some others somewhere in the
world for history's worst speller.

I'd used MS Encarta, but it takes forever to boot up (I even have a
P-IV 2.8)...and then its default is set on "encyclopedia" instead
of dictionary (can't for the life of me figure out how to change
its default). So by the time I've got all those steps in place,
I've lost my train of thought (reason why some confuse me with
George W.....it's impossible to lose one's train of thought with a
small volcabulary).

Ciao for now...
John

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

PS I agree with you on sensor production
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[LutzB]

... i think. oligopoly sounds at best ;-)

Thanks! I have an assistant that works for me that checks 90% of
what I type out. I vie with other some others somewhere in the
world for history's worst speller.

I'd used MS Encarta, but it takes forever to boot up (I even have a
P-IV 2.8)...and then its default is set on "encyclopedia" instead
of dictionary (can't for the life of me figure out how to change
its default). So by the time I've got all those steps in place,
I've lost my train of thought (reason why some confuse me with
George W.....it's impossible to lose one's train of thought with a
small volcabulary).

Ciao for now...
John

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

PS I agree with you on sensor production
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[Peter Phan]

Why is it necessary to have all of your sensors designed and
manufactured inhouse? And why is it necessary to have your sensors
manufactured inhouse? Does Canon manufacture and design all of the
CCDs for its PowerShot cameras?

Control, integrity, reputation. They may outsource some of their lower end consumer stuff to someone else, just to save them the hassle. But they aren't doing "new Nikon 200-400/4 VR made by Tamron!" Also, it can give you more creative control, shorter development/launch intervals, and access to more in-house experience/expertise.

Hey, if you're buying a Lexus, it's just reassuring to know that the engine is made my Lexus.

 

[baruth]

Thanks! I have an assistant that works for me that checks 90% of
what I type out. I vie with other some others somewhere in the
world for history's worst speller.

I'd used MS Encarta, but it takes forever to boot up (I even have a
P-IV 2.8)...and then its default is set on "encyclopedia" instead
of dictionary (can't for the life of me figure out how to change
its default). So by the time I've got all those steps in place,
I've lost my train of thought (reason why some confuse me with
George W.....it's impossible to lose one's train of thought with a
small volcabulary).

Ciao for now...
John

And if one owns such a facility, then there is the need to make all
sorts of things: chips, flash memory, etc. etc.

The semiconductor manufacturing industry (like so many others) is
headed toward an oligopoly (sorry for any
misspelling)....consolidation down to 5 or 6 major players. Simply
because of the immense amount of capital (does this word have an
"o" or an "a"....I'm a horrible, horrible speller) required.

So it is most likely that Nikon has only "developed" its CCD
in-house (or perhaps even contracted out to a sub group of
specialists.....specialty subbing happens often....Boeing's 777
cockpit design, for example, was actually done by Porsche) while
manufacturing was done by an established CCD-capable manufacturer.

Cheers,
John

Some others closer to the chip industry may be more accurate and
better at explaining this, but I believe that chip manufacturers
(AMD, etc.) do allow (certain) customers to come to them with a
design which in turn they manufacture. In theory, this cuts down
on R&D costs, etc. and keeps up the flow of work for the
fabrication plants.

Then there is the politics of business. Who is Nikon aligned with?
Is it Sony?

The tough thing for Nikon is their relative size to Canon. Size
equals dollars for R&D. At the same time, sometimes size can hurt
a particular product line development in a multiple-product
company. If photography is not "pulling its weight" in a large
corporation such as Canon, then it doesn't get the attention more
successful (and profitable) divisions do.

I wonder if at some point the DSLR cameras will have the ability to
swap-out CCDs...making upgrades less expensive. I believe the
professional video camera world has that....Sony pro-vid-cams can
swap upgrade with new chips without having the whole body etc.

Cheers,
John

Now that Nikon is making its own sensor, it seems on the surface
that the market of DSLRs has changed. Has it? Peronally, I think it
doesn't change a thing because until now, Sony has been making the
sensors to Nikon's spefication any way.
--
baruth

--
baruth

PS I agree with you on sensor production
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

--
baruth

 

[JonyDirk]

In Formula One racing, the McLaren's "Mercedes" engine is designed and manufactured by Ilmor in England.

Sometimes a smaller company - or product-specific supplier - is able to make something better than the large or "brand" company.

As crazy as the world is today with it's bizarre global economy (remember Ross Perot and that "sucking sound" of jobs going off-shore?), who knows where the different parts that make up a product line come from....

Ciao for now...
John

Hey, if you're buying a Lexus, it's just reassuring to know that
the engine is made my Lexus.

 

[Roddynal]

Control, integrity, reputation. They may outsource some of their
lower end consumer stuff to someone else, just to save them the
hassle. But they aren't doing "new Nikon 200-400/4 VR made by
Tamron!"

But Nikon is outsourcing the production of the new sensor chip to someone else. Everything has to be done inhouse or else it isn't any good?

Is the 1D CCD designed by Canon? Thought I read somewhere that it was someone else's sensor although I'm sure Canon had a hand in its design.

--
Richard D.
http://members.aol.com/richdong
http://www.photocritique.net/g/phtg?RICHARD+DONG

 

[David Wicks]

Hey, if you're buying a Lexus, it's just reassuring to know that
the engine is made my Lexus.

But we all know that Lexus engines are made by Toyota.

 

[peripheralfocus]

A few weeks ago I made a comment saying that I was beginning to
realize that in the digital age, a camera manufacturer that didn't
make its own sensors was akin to a camera manufacturer that didn't
make its own lenses. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable
comment, given that Canon and Nikon certainly don't outsource their
lenses, bodies, flashes or any other accessories to anyone, neither
for design nor manufacture.

This last comment is nearly completely false. Nikon and Canon outsource tons of manufacturing, especially accessories like flashes, cables, power supplies, radio remotes etc. Nikon sells an SLR body made by Cosina, and there is no question in my mind that at least one lens Nikon sells is made by Tamron. I am not as familiar with specific Canon products as I am with Nikon's line -- I was a Nikon sales and technical rep for 8 years -- but I would be simply astounded if Canon has not sourced at least some of their major products -- lenses, say -- from third parties in the recent past.

And if you drop down into the point-and-shoot class of products -- film or digital -- you will find almost no in-house manufacturing at Nikon or Canon. A very large percentage of the world's point-and-shoot cameras are made by relatively anonymous OEM manufacturers in countries like Indonesia, Malayasia, Taiwan, and of course, China. According to news reports I've read recently (sorry, don't have the links) Sanyo is the world's largest manufacturer of point-and-shoot digital cameras. Sanyo will not say who they make these cameras for, but it's easy to figure out that it must be some of the usual suspects -- Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, maybe even Sony.

Nearly all companies outsource some or much of their manufacturing. It's as common as breathing air. It's how business is done.

And neither Nikon nor Canon deserves deification. They're just regular companies, trying to make a buck, subject to the same economic pressures as everybody else. Both companies have decided to pursue profit by targeting quality-conscious consumers (and in some cases, professional users) in the various markets in which they compete. That means they turn out some nice products. But their basic business behavior is essentially no different than 10,000 other corporations around the world. If outsourcing is cheaper or faster or allows them to offer a product they otherwise couldn't, they'll do it without a second thought. As they should.