Herb wrote:
which means that both Nikon and Pentax are fully at the mercy of some 3rd party vendor's ability to develop a good sensor. Canon isn't. it takes deep pockets to play in the DSLR game, as Leica is finding out, and for a company that is on as thin a financial base as Leica, it may break the company if it doesn't deliver everything expected of a Leica. Pentax doesn't have the money to play at the leading edge, no matter how ambitious its engineers and CEO are. REPLY: I'm always sceptical when someone claims to know how much money a company has for development. I though this was quite sensitive inside information. Personally, I believe every major camera company have enough resources to make clones, or even improvement, on anything Nikon or Canon may be doing (incidentally Nikon isn't that large a camera company anyway). What matters for these companies is almost certainly whether such developments make business sense. Nikon and Canons market positions means that they have much larger potential for making money from "pro" 35mm gear than any of the competition. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of funds. I do believe Nikon makes some sensors as well. On the other hand, not making sensor can just as well be an advantage as you can shop whatever sensor needed. The major sensor manufacturers don't sell high-end cameras and are therfore looking for those who do. There are in fact a number of companies wanting cooperation with Pentax for sensors for their MF systems. P�l
