Andreas Pirner wrote:
>And the Canon features a full sized 24 x 36 sensor
>with 16.7 mpix ...
>
>
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>That may be true, but comparison only. I don't think noise is a serious
>issue for any DSLR. And I am a skeptical of a Mark II version that will
>be significantly different any time soon. There is no serious
>competition now, none on the horizon, and no marketing reason upgrade.
>
>On Aug 3, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of noise, think carefully about buying a 2 year old design.
>>The dpreview test shows noise not much better than a D60, which is noiser
>>than a 300D. It looks to me like all of the newer, smaller sensor
>>bodies have better noise. 'Twere me, I'd wait for the Mk II, or whatever they
>>call the upgrade which must be due soon.
>>
OK, Winsor, I didn't feel like responding at the time, 7 weeks ago, as I
had nothing to go on but intuition. Your LCD/CRT may be better than
mine, but my crystal ball rules. :-)
My sense is that Can*n is on a roll, wants to really OWN the DSLR
market. top to bottom, and won't just wait for competition. They are
agressively moving forward on their own as fast as they can make real
improvements at the various price/performance points. The 300D showed
that on the bottom end, the 1Ds Mark II shows it at the top and the 20D
is no slouch in the middle. They want everybody else panting as they
play catch-up.
I nattered on before about economies of scale from big production volume
of small sensors lowering costs for big ones. On the other end, the R&D
for the top end products then improves the lower end, so it really
doesn't have the cost per unit of a high end only maker. Design new
amplifiers, A/D converters, DIGIC image processing chip for 12mp and the
cost to use that technology for the next generation of 6-8mp bodies is
very low.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|