I don't think anyone thinks Fuji's color is natural. Pleasing, yes.
But maybe the naturalness is in the post processing and Olympus knows
how to do that. They have not sold sensors to anyone and provided any
indication that they might go in that direction when their investors
are clamoring for them to provide some kind of plan for saving the
company.
I think the Canon iteration of the dust buster is enough different
that they don't owe that much to Olympus and they have never sold
their sensor. Sensor sales are zero part of their income. Besides
the Oly product might be interesting enough and with "Canon Inside",
Canon might see that as a way to lose some sales. Profit on a camera
is probably more than profit on a sensor. I would guess that the
sensor will come from one of the 4/3 group that can make sensors and
are committed to the format. That just leaves Panasonic and Kodak.
Right? If they go outside the 4/3 group I doubt Sony would be
interested in doing a low production 4/3 format chip for them. Who
does that leave? Dalsa and Fill Factory?
Then again perhaps Oly will just learn what Canon and Fuji know about
post processing in the raw format and apply it to whatever they use.
I saw converted high ISO raw image without any other processing from
a Fuji E800 and it was really, really ugly. Nikon has used
essentially the same 6MP sensor from the D100 through the D50 and the
jpg noise characteristics improved on each camera so that the D50 is
the same or a little better than most of the Canons. They learn along
the way.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Sep 12, 2006, at 9:44 AM, AG Schnozz wrote:
>> sensor. None of them have a Kodak sensor. There are surprises
>> in there. I hope they make the right choice; the one I have
>> in mind because that sensor will produce absolutely stunning
>> natural colours.
>
> Ok, the "stunning natural colours" would be a characteristic of
> a Kodak or Dalsa sensor, but it seems apparant that the Kodak
> connection is DEAD DEAD DEAD! So, who else has "stunning
> natural colours"? Fuji. Hmmm. That'd be nice. I could live
> with that. Give me another three-stops of dynamic range too? :)
>
> But I'm going to speculate for a second and get my own almonds
> in a vice and say that it could be a Canon CMOS sensor. Why do
> I say that? I'm making a guess that there was a "technology
> trade agreement" with the dust-shaker. It seems unlikely,
> though, as Canon generally "goes it alone" with everything
> they've done in the photographic world. A Canon CMOS sensor
> would take care of any arguments against 4/3 as being "noisy".
>
> But, in the end, it wouldn't suprise me if they bought some
> oddball sensor from "Wang's House of Overruns and Sweepers".
>
> AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|