|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2005 12:39:24 PM · #51 |
Hey Scott,
Was that printed using a RIP or any other kind of upsampling? Just curious.
Owen
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 12:44:06 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
And when you realize that Canon offers full frame and 1.6x, you realize you can choose either of the worlds - whichever is best for you. |
Ahh...but is it a good idea to overpay for tech you can't use? :-D
And to orussell...we do RIP to the lightjet and obviously we have to do some upsampling in the process. Combine a great RIP with the highest level of print and ...boom..you get stuff most people can't believe.
People who see our gallery of stuff are blown away when we tell them that half of it was done with either a Nikon D70s or a D2x and not our scan backs, medium format stuff or film.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 12:54:42 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by "hokie":
Ahh...but is it a good idea to overpay for tech you can't use? :-D |
I see no over-paying for tech one can't use. If I recall correctly, the Canon RebelXT is one of the lowest priced DSLRs while at the same time being a reasonably "fast" camera, 8megapixel 1.6x crop.
As for the 5D, the benefits of full frame for certain photographic work is well known. And at approx. $3,000, I believe the 5D is the cheapest full frame DSLR.
???
So on both ends of the spectrum is opportunity and customizability to those who have need. And then there is the 1D Mark IIn with it's 1.3 crop offers a good midway point for many users.
What I will say is Canon's customer service SUCKS ARSE! |
|
|
|
12/05/2005 01:11:38 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "hokie":
Ahh...but is it a good idea to overpay for tech you can't use? :-D |
I see no over-paying for tech one can't use. If I recall correctly, the Canon RebelXT is one of the lowest priced DSLRs while at the same time being a reasonably "fast" camera, 8megapixel 1.6x crop.
As for the 5D, the benefits of full frame for certain photographic work is well known. And at approx. $3,000, I believe the 5D is the cheapest full frame DSLR.
|
I like Canon, don't get me wrong. I have a G2 that is awesome. And I wasn't really referring to the rebel line.
My real nitpick is the whole full frame thing. I think Canon seized this thing and like the good corporate giant that they are, are making the most of it.
Photography is about making photos, not the tech. Whatever gets the job done. Full frame helps to get wider shots but hurts on the long ended shots. Just because some film size was chosen years ago doesn't mean it is the best choice today for the technology today.
If you study the way sensors collect light versus film...light hitting sensors at wide angles leads to light falloff and chromatic problems. It is just physics. Not a cut on any camera maker.
Until the technology addresses this issue, I don't think people should be spending their time or money paying $3,200 for a camera that, in reality, should go for half that. Full frame is a red herring and doesn't address the real changes needed in digital...changes in the Bayer sensors, improvements in lens technology and even simple things like Vibration Control IN CAMERA!!
Anywhoo...I am sure most people's eyes have glazed over by now :-D
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 13:13:33.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 02:59:00 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by hokie:
My real nitpick is the whole full frame thing. I think Canon seized this thing and like the good corporate giant that they are, are making the most of it.
Photography is about making photos, not the tech. Whatever gets the job done. Full frame helps to get wider shots but hurts on the long ended shots. Just because some film size was chosen years ago doesn't mean it is the best choice today for the technology today.
If you study the way sensors collect light versus film...light hitting sensors at wide angles leads to light falloff and chromatic problems. It is just physics. Not a cut on any camera maker.
Until the technology addresses this issue, I don't think people should be spending their time or money paying $3,200 for a camera that, in reality, should go for half that. Full frame is a red herring and doesn't address the real changes needed in digital...changes in the Bayer sensors, improvements in lens technology and even simple things like Vibration Control IN CAMERA!!
Anywhoo...I am sure most people's eyes have glazed over by now :-D |
My eyes have glazed over, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:07:52 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by hokie:
The light space that is thrown by lenses will only allow a certain sized piece of silicon to fit and capture light. Canon is at around 8.5 microns and Nikon is about 5.5 microns.
|
Just out of interest (so that I can bore people at parties), is this due to lens differences or sensor differences? You seem to imply that it's the lenses, but are there really that many differences between Canon and Nikon top-line lenses?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 03:57:41 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by "hokie":
"Until the technology addresses this issue, I don't think people should be spending their time or money paying $3,200 for a camera that, in reality, should go for half that." |
The reason for $3,200 is:
a) it's a new release model thus at a premium
b) there is a much higher cost to manufacturing a full frame sensor. The large the sensor the less chips can be cut from the wafer. Plus, the fact that a bad spot will mean greater loss.
For example: if you have a 1 square foot of wafer, and you are making 1" chips. You get 144 chips. If you have a bad spot in one chip your ratio is 143/1.
If you make a 2" chip. You now have a max of 36 chips. A loss equates to a 35/1 ratio. However, with that same amount of loss had you been making 1" chips you'd be writing off 4 chips.
Thus 4 errors in a wafer being used to make 2" equates to 16 units lost had you been making 1" chips.
So in manufacturing, you realize that a 2" chip production equates to 4 1" chips.
Now in the case of a full frame 5D vs. 20D. You have to look at production.
With a 12 unit wafer. I can produce either 12 5D's or 20 20D's (very approx. figures here).
So let's base it on a hypothetical wafer cost of $10,000
Sensor cost for 5D: $833
Sensor cost for 20D: $500
Base cost of 5D would start at 1.6x the 20D
$1,500 * 1.6 = $2,400... so yes, there seems to be a difference of 1,000 in price.
Now if we look at the Rebel XT (@$999) vs 20D (@$1,499) we see a cost increase of 1.5 between product lines. For an 8mp vs 8mp. So let's use that formula on our $2,400 estimate (which corresponded to the variance of full frame vs 1.6 crop). 1.5x $2,400 = $3,600 which seems to amazingly correspond to the 5D's price range.
Now, let's say there is a 5% production loss. (5% of chips are bad).
$10,000/wafer x 10 wafers = 120 sensors with a 5% loss = 6 bad chips.
$100,000 wafer investment nets Canon 114 5D's.
114 unites * $3,300 = 376,200
$10,000/wafer x 10 wafers = 200 sensors with a 5% loss = 610 bad chips.
$100,000 wafer investment nets Canon 190 20D's.
190 units * $1,500 = 285,000
Remember, the 5D is a) new product line, b) full frame c) 12mp vs 8mp. So with all of that, one would expect a 12mp to be more expensive than an 8mp. The premium is not unexpected nor outrageous.
Now all of the above figures are merely demonstrative, they do not relate to Canon's actual production, costs, etc. But they do reflect how
a) larger frame equals reduced production quantity per wafer
b) standard "error" rates affect much greater loss in full frame sensor than it does in a 1.6x
Thus showing that not all the costs are exhorberant.
DISCLAIMER: If you are not thoroughly confused by what I wrote above...you should be, otherwise...it's nice to meet a member of MENSA!
|
|
|
|
12/05/2005 04:12:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "hokie":
"Until the technology addresses this issue, I don't think people should be spending their time or money paying $3,200 for a camera that, in reality, should go for half that." |
The reason for $3,200 is:
a) it's a new release model thus at a premium
b) there is a much higher cost to manufacturing a full frame sensor. The large the sensor the less chips can be cut from the wafer. Plus, the fact that a bad spot will mean greater loss.
For example: if you have a 1 square foot of wafer, and you are making 1" chips. You get 144 chips. If you have a bad spot in one chip your ratio is 143/1.
If you make a 2" chip. You now have a max of 36 chips. A loss equates to a 35/1 ratio. However, with that same amount of loss had you been making 1" chips you'd be writing off 4 chips.
Thus 4 errors in a wafer being used to make 2" equates to 16 units lost had you been making 1" chips.
So in manufacturing, you realize that a 2" chip production equates to 4 1" chips.
Now in the case of a full frame 5D vs. 20D. You have to look at production.
With a 12 unit wafer. I can produce either 12 5D's or 20 20D's (very approx. figures here).
So let's base it on a hypothetical wafer cost of $10,000
Sensor cost for 5D: $833
Sensor cost for 20D: $500
Base cost of 5D would start at 1.6x the 20D
$1,500 * 1.6 = $2,400... so yes, there seems to be a difference of 1,000 in price.
Now if we look at the Rebel XT (@$999) vs 20D (@$1,499) we see a cost increase of 1.5 between product lines. For an 8mp vs 8mp. So let's use that formula on our $2,400 estimate (which corresponded to the variance of full frame vs 1.6 crop). 1.5x $2,400 = $3,600 which seems to amazingly correspond to the 5D's price range.
Now, let's say there is a 5% production loss. (5% of chips are bad).
$10,000/wafer x 10 wafers = 120 sensors with a 5% loss = 6 bad chips.
$100,000 wafer investment nets Canon 114 5D's.
114 unites * $3,300 = 376,200
$10,000/wafer x 10 wafers = 200 sensors with a 5% loss = 610 bad chips.
$100,000 wafer investment nets Canon 190 20D's.
190 units * $1,500 = 285,000
Remember, the 5D is a) new product line, b) full frame c) 12mp vs 8mp. So with all of that, one would expect a 12mp to be more expensive than an 8mp. The premium is not unexpected nor outrageous.
Now all of the above figures are merely demonstrative, they do not relate to Canon's actual production, costs, etc. But they do reflect how
a) larger frame equals reduced production quantity per wafer
b) standard "error" rates affect much greater loss in full frame sensor than it does in a 1.6x
Thus showing that not all the costs are exhorberant.
DISCLAIMER: If you are not thoroughly confused by what I wrote above...you should be, otherwise...it's nice to meet a member of MENSA! |
DUDE! Have you ever thought of going on the road for Canon! That was like reading the IRS tax code. :-D
I tell you what, if when the Nikon D200 comes out and Canon can still sell the 5D for $2,800 -$3,200....THEN I will believe they weren't jacking the price. When I was handling the Dx2 and a Canon 5D...I could not come close to understanding why I was going to pay $3,200 for that camera versus $4,500 for the D2x. It wasn't even close.
Of course I think ALL DSLR's are overpriced but I had to have a 12 megapixel camera for the file size at 300 dpi...the job I was quoting demanded it..so I bent over :-/
Message edited by author 2005-12-05 16:15:59.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2005 03:13:54 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by AJAger:
Originally posted by hokie:
The light space that is thrown by lenses will only allow a certain sized piece of silicon to fit and capture light. Canon is at around 8.5 microns and Nikon is about 5.5 microns.
|
Just out of interest (so that I can bore people at parties), is this due to lens differences or sensor differences? You seem to imply that it's the lenses, but are there really that many differences between Canon and Nikon top-line lenses? |
Just for the avoidance of doubt, that was a serious question, not an attempt at any sort of trolling.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 05/11/2026 06:55:57 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/11/2026 06:55:57 PM EDT.
|
