Canon's sensors have been in-house since the D30 in 2000, prior to that they supplied bodies to Kodak for Canon-mount derivations of the Kodak/Nikon DCS series bodies.
Nikon's a mix, they partnered heavily with Kodak on the Kodak-branded DCS series (there were also a couple Canon-based DCS models) while the D1 series had Nikon-designed sensors custom-fabricated for them. Their first camera with a commercially-available sensor was the D100 in 2002, which was the launch camera for the Sony 6MP sensor and Nikon almost assuredly had a 1 year exclusivity contract on that sensor. The *istD was the second camera to use that sensor and it was announced just about exactly 1 year later. Nikon had a similar deal with the DX 10MP CCD sensor in the D200 (and later in the K10D, Sony A100 and their derivatives). -Adam On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Desjardins, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > What were Nikon and Canon using? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam > Maas > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:20 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The Rise of Digital imaging and the Fall of the Old Camera > industry > > There wasn't a "safe" DX sensor at the time Pentax started work on the > MZ-D. The Sony DX 6MP CCD sensor that would become the basis for so > many Pentax and Nikon DSLR's along with both the Konica Minolta DSLR's > wasn't available until 2002. Frankly Pentax wasn't late to the party, > excepting Contax's ill-fated N Digital, Pentax was the first of the > smaller makers to announce a DSLR and pretty much tied with Olympus in > being the first to ship. > > -Adam > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Desjardins, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: >> Remember the Pentax MZ-D? Pentax was behind N and C but they also had far >> less money. If they had chosen to use a "safe" DX format chip in the MZ-D >> (instead of the ill-fated Phillips FF chip) they would have produced a more >> timely product. Would it have sold at $4-6K is another question. Probably >> why they are still gun shy about FF. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of mike >> wilson >> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 5:14 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The Rise of Digital imaging and the Fall of the Old Camera >> industry >> >> >> ---- Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Mike, >>> I heard you, but just because Hasselblad tried and got tripped up >>> doesn't mean that they could have stopped the revolution. That's kind >>> of like saying "If Longenes didn't have their head up their ass, they >>> could have saved the mechanical watch industry." Eastman Kodak had >>> the resources and the knowledge of what was on the horizon, and they >>> were much better capitalized than Hassy. They lost a lot more in this >>> revolution than a simple camera maker. >>> Regards, Bob S. >> >> That's not ("stopped the revolution") what I'm saying. Hasselblad was a >> _leader_ in the revolution until the company owners/management, for reasons >> that seem at first glance to be incredibly selfish, pulled the plug on the >> research and development and spent the money on something else. Probably >> themselves. >> >>> >>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:23 AM, mike wilson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > Bob Sullivan wrote: >>> > >>> >> Companies have an institutional memory and like to do what they know >>> >> how to do well. A major technological innovation can mean major >>> >> dislocations. Suddenly that expensive Swiss timepiece is bested by a >>> >> $6 chip watch from Texas Instruments. Mechanical time pieces became >>> >> an anachronism. So too with film cameras... Regards, Bob S. >>> > >>> > The article says that the above scenario was not the case. Engineers were >>> > working on digital solutions (did I write that out loud?) in the early >>> > 90s. >>> > There was a takeover, the research was scrapped and the considerable >>> > financial resources disappeared. Amoral bandits. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:43 PM, mike wilson <[email protected]> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Keith Whaley wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Derby Chang wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> A really fascinating essay on LL today. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rise-fall.shtml >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Well worth a read by anyone seriously interested in understanding more >>> >>>> about the turning point between film and digital use. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I thought I had a reasonable understanding of it, until I read this >>> >>>> article! >>> >>>> Well written and (until something better comes along) pretty much a >>> >>>> short >>> >>>> but seminal revelation on how it all came about. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks, Derby... >>> >>>> >>> >>>> keith whaley >>> >>> >>> >>> I saw it as more a description of the gross mismanagement, followed by >>> >>> the >>> >>> financial rape and eventual (at least partial/temporary) salvation of a >>> >>> world class camera company. It has less to do with the change from film >>> >>> to >>> >>> sensor than it has to do with asset stripping and feckless, ignorant, >>> >>> self-centred little toads. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> >>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> >> follow the directions. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: >>> >> 270.12.46/2143 - Release Date: 05/30/09 05:53:00 >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> > follow the directions. >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
