Note that while Nikon had their chips fabbed elsewhere, they did develop most of them in-house (By the release of the D100 Nikon had been making DSLR's for over a decade). Pentax lacked the in-house design team Nikon had and thus had to rely on outside sensor development until the Samsung partnership.
Kodak would have been a poor choice, they haven't had a competitive small format sensor since the DCS760 and that sensor was already obsolete by the time the issues with the Phillips sensor became known. -Adam On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Desjardins, Steve <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the info. > > The article in the original email cited lack of expertise or investment as > the big problem with the film to digital transition. It seems to me that > Pentax was trying to keep up but definitely needed a partner in the > electronics industry to make the sensors. Maybe they should have tried > Kodak. I do remember (now) that Canon was in-house but that Nikon was > getting their chips from elsewhere. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adam > Maas > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 3:00 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The Rise of Digital imaging and the Fall of the Old Camera > industry > > 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. > > -- > 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.
