Canon Eos 300D

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:53:33 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

2) 90% of the cost of the 300D is down to the sensor.

Don't think so, I would guess 20% or less. And I would guess that the
profit margin is quite high. All these manuafacturers are raking it in!!

I agree that 90% is surely an overestimate. I was being pessimistic,
partly because my next postulate is certainly optimistic

3) Sensor cost scales linearly with area.

No, a larger sensor means more chance of getting defects from a given
wafer, and therefore fewer working sensors. It's more than a square law -
perhaps a fourth power law??

Depends on what sort of yield they are getting at current sizes.

If we ignore the fact that you can't fit rectangular sensors perfectly
on a circular wafer, then the number of working sensors you get from
a wafer is pA/x, where x is the area of the sensor, A is the area of the
wafer and p is the probability of not getting a defect in a particular
sensor. Now p is of course related to x, and worryingly it is an
exponential relationship - if we double x we have to _square_ p.

So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can
achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x
sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than
linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller
sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch!

- Len

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:53:33 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

2) 90% of the cost of the 300D is down to the sensor.

Don't think so, I would guess 20% or less. And I would guess that the
profit margin is quite high. All these manuafacturers are raking it in!!

I agree that 90% is surely an overestimate. I was being pessimistic,
partly because my next postulate is certainly optimistic

3) Sensor cost scales linearly with area.

No, a larger sensor means more chance of getting defects from a given
wafer, and therefore fewer working sensors. It's more than a square law -
perhaps a fourth power law??

Depends on what sort of yield they are getting at current sizes.

If we ignore the fact that you can't fit rectangular sensors perfectly
on a circular wafer, then the number of working sensors you get from
a wafer is pA/x, where x is the area of the sensor, A is the area of the
wafer and p is the probability of not getting a defect in a particular
sensor. Now p is of course related to x, and worryingly it is an
exponential relationship - if we double x we have to _square_ p.

So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can
achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x
sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than
linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller
sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch!

- Len

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's
been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one?
;-)

Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both?
(grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens?

- Len

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?" There's
been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce one?
;-)

Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both?
(grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens?

- Len

"Leonard" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?"
There's
been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce
one?
;-)

Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both?
(grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens?

- Len

Sigma makes a 12-24 EX in Canon mount, just what the wide angle doctor
ordered when using the 1.6x crop of the 10D. (19mm-35mm, or better than you
get with the 16-35L on the 1D mkII, 21mm-45mm. Of course, you get 16mm-31mm
with the Sigma on the mkII...)
Canon makes zoom lenses wider than the 18-55, but they're "L" lenses, the
16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L, the first runs over $1300, the second, about
$650. None of the Canon lenses are really a response to the Nikon 12-24 DX,
or the 10.5mm fisheye.
I knew you were being lighthearted, but I thought I'd share the info,
anyway... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Leonard" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:32:15 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Whadaya mean, "lack of a serious response to Nikon's 'DX' lenses?"
There's
been any response at all? Besides, of course, letting Sigma produce
one?
;-)

Is that supposed to be a slur on Sigma, a slur on the EF-S lens or both?
(grin). Or do Sigma actually make that lens?

- Len

Sigma makes a 12-24 EX in Canon mount, just what the wide angle doctor
ordered when using the 1.6x crop of the 10D. (19mm-35mm, or better than you
get with the 16-35L on the 1D mkII, 21mm-45mm. Of course, you get 16mm-31mm
with the Sigma on the mkII...)
Canon makes zoom lenses wider than the 18-55, but they're "L" lenses, the
16-35 f2.8L and the 17-40 f4L, the first runs over $1300, the second, about
$650. None of the Canon lenses are really a response to the Nikon 12-24 DX,
or the 10.5mm fisheye.
I knew you were being lighthearted, but I thought I'd share the info,
anyway... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Mark Weaver wrote:

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .

In article , weaver@nospam-
corvusdev.com says...


As for DSLRs -- my film SLR sat on the closet shelf for 10 years while

we

used P&S compacts. It just wasn't worth the hassle to haul the whole

kit.

So, for me, it wouldn't matter if DSLRs could take clean images at IS0

8000,

let alone 800 -- I have no intention of hauling one around again

(unless, of

course, they shrink it down to the form factor I have with my Powershot
Pro1).

You do realize that the Eos 300D weighs only a few more grams with the
kit lens than the Pro1?


The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if the
plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84. Add
a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in terms
of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so you
give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor. But
better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you have
to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a jacket
pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1.


That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I
bring along my Digital Rebel.

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Leonard wrote:
[]
So, if we pluck a figure from the air and suggest that Canon can
achieve a 90% yield on 1.6x sensors, we could conclude that a 1.3x
sensor (50% larger in area) would cost 58% more - not much worse than
linear wrt area. However if we only have a 50% yield on the smaller
sensors, the big ones will cost 112% more - ouch!

- Len

... so does anyone have the actual yield figures?
(and permission to release them!!!)

As I recall, the geometry isn't that fine, so perhaps the yield is good?

Cheers,
David

"G.T." wrote in message


The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if
the
plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84.
Add
a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in
terms
of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so
you
give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor.
But
better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you
have
to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a
jacket
pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1.


That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I
bring along my Digital Rebel.


Well, that's OK, I guess, if you can draw a neat line between the times you
care about the best quality and those when convenience and portability are
important but quality isn't. Wouldn't work for me, though -- I tend to care
about quality most when I'm outdoors involved in activities (hiking, biking,
sailing, skiing, kayaking) where hauling a big kit and having to swap lenses
would be a hassle.

And the DSLR kt wouldn't really provide any real benefit either, even if I
was willing to schlep it around -- since these outdoor conditions almost
always have plenty of light to shoot ISO 50 with stops left over (whereas
the extra resolution of the 8MP compact vs the 6MP DSLR *is* useful).

Mark

"G.T." wrote in message


The problem for me is more size than weight--the 300D is big (even if
the
plastic body is relatively light). And the kit lens covers only 28-84.
Add
a zoom to cover the rest of the 28-200 range and then where are you in
terms
of bulk, weight (and price)? The kit lens is also relatively slow, so
you
give up more than a stop of the speed you gain with the large sensor.
But
better lenses are a lot of $$. And changing lenses is a PITA (and you
have
to worry about dust on the sensor). I want a camera I can carry in a
jacket
pocket or a little belt pouch--and I can do that with the Pro1.


That's why I have an A70, for my pocket. When I want decent quality I
bring along my Digital Rebel.


Well, that's OK, I guess, if you can draw a neat line between the times you
care about the best quality and those when convenience and portability are
important but quality isn't. Wouldn't work for me, though -- I tend to care
about quality most when I'm outdoors involved in activities (hiking, biking,
sailing, skiing, kayaking) where hauling a big kit and having to swap lenses
would be a hassle.

And the DSLR kt wouldn't really provide any real benefit either, even if I
was willing to schlep it around -- since these outdoor conditions almost
always have plenty of light to shoot ISO 50 with stops left over (whereas
the extra resolution of the 8MP compact vs the 6MP DSLR *is* useful).

Mark