| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 10:36:02 PM · #1 |
Do each of the camera manufacturers build their own CCD? Like nikon, canon, fuji minolta? do they all build their own?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:36:46 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by BowerR64:
Do each of the camera manufacturers build their own CCD? Like nikon, canon, fuji minolta? do they all build their own? |
Nope |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:37:53 PM · #3 |
sony made nikon's but not sure if they still will since sony is making their own dslr's...
sony makes a lot of them.
I believe Nikon's LBCAST sensor found in the d2h was built by someone else though.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 10:46:12 PM · #4 |
Do you think who ever is building the CCDs keep the best ones? If sony builds most of the CCDs and they build cameras how do we know everyone else isnt using CCDs that doesnt pass the sony QC?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:05:13 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BowerR64:
Do you think who ever is building the CCDs keep the best ones? If sony builds most of the CCDs and they build cameras how do we know everyone else isnt using CCDs that doesnt pass the sony QC? |
that wouldn't be good for business...besides...sony built the CCD for the d70 for example...they had no need for a sensor that size until now, possibly...so it's no biggie.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:05:32 PM · #6 |
| I know of only four sensor manufacturers for cameras: Kodak, Sony, Canon, and Fuji. There are others, I just don't know who they are. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:07:27 PM · #7 |
Sony makes a lot of stuff.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 23:07:38. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:11:22 PM · #8 |
| All of Canon sensors in their DSLRs are CMOS not ccd. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:14:07 PM · #9 |
| Panasonic also makes their own sensors and Olympus will probably be using them in their newer offerings. Up until now they have been using the Kodaks. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:23:21 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by drz01:
All of Canon sensors in their DSLRs are CMOS not ccd. |
CCD technology is based on CMOS semiconductor technology but the data is accessed very differently. So called CMOS sensors are derived from 'content addressable technology (CMOS memory devices)' where each pixel site is independently addressable. CCD (also known as 'bucket brigade' devices) clock all the sensor data sequentially through a single serial port, analog bit by analog bit, and row after row. But both types of sensors use CMOS technology. IMO the CMOS addressable type sensor has a better future than CMOS CCD technology and potentially, much lower noise. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 11:33:39 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by ElGordo:
IMO the CMOS addressable type sensor has a better future than CMOS CCD technology and potentially, much lower noise. |
and costs much less...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2006 03:00:17 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by BowerR64:
Do you think who ever is building the CCDs keep the best ones? If sony builds most of the CCDs and they build cameras how do we know everyone else isnt using CCDs that doesnt pass the sony QC? |
that wouldn't be good for business...besides...sony built the CCD for the d70 for example...they had no need for a sensor that size until now, possibly...so it's no biggie. |
But why would you let some one else put their name on the best stuff you build?
|
|
|
|
02/14/2006 03:07:10 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by BowerR64:
Originally posted by deapee:
Originally posted by BowerR64:
Do you think who ever is building the CCDs keep the best ones? If sony builds most of the CCDs and they build cameras how do we know everyone else isnt using CCDs that doesnt pass the sony QC? |
that wouldn't be good for business...besides...sony built the CCD for the d70 for example...they had no need for a sensor that size until now, possibly...so it's no biggie. |
But why would you let some one else put their name on the best stuff you build? |
Car manufacturers do it all the time. They make engines and other parts for each other. Lots of Japanese engines in "American" cars. Ditto for monitors; not that many "maufacturers" actually build their own screens, they outsource them and package them with their own styles and controls and so forth. Ditto for glass; there are only a handful of manufacturers providing optical-quality glass to the companies that make lenses.
And then you've got "house brands", where a large store contracts with a mainstreammanufacturer to produce their product under the store brand name. This kind of stuff has gone on forever, it's a major part of the big players' business.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 07:46:31 PM · #14 |
Yeah but if you look close the second hand stuff has flaws. There are flaws in it you just have to compair the top brand with the "always save" and most dont do that. It could be packaging and it could be the product. It says its 16oz, but did you weigh it? does anyone?
There are reasons why the cheap stuff is cheap but most dont see it.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2006 07:52:22 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by BowerR64:
But why would you let some one else put their name on the best stuff you build? |
because it can cost billions of dollars to build a fab plant + to make you mony back you need to ship as much as possible out of the plant
& if you make bad sensors they send them back ....
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/26/2025 06:44:00 PM EST.
