Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #17 · Leica S-System and the future of Medium-Format |
Just watch Phase One's recent video on the new IQ2xx development series. They seem to imply a lot of the latest tech in the Dalsa chip were co-developed so they have some ownership of these IP. Also, they have been the only one who gets the 80mp sensor. And last, but not least, there was that long delay in the H4D-60 camera that uses the Dalsa chip. It may be an assumption, but put 2 and 2 together, and it's a pretty good assumption Phase One gets the latest and greatest from Dalsa.
IIRC, Phase actually either co-developed or co-funded the development, thus the lead to the market on that front. Other than that I don't think there is any preferential treatment. In theory Hasselblad could do the same, but they haven't shown quite the drive that Phase One has.
I think you've given the tiny operation at Dalsa and Kodak way too much credit. They really didn't do much development to get this color advantage. The advantage primarily comes from using CCD instead of CMOS.
No, the advantage comes from Kodak's century old knowledge of colour, and on the Dalsa side I am not sure, I am not so familiar with its history. CCD has some advantages, but colour has more to do with CFA than with CCD.
You may not realize this, but Sony cameras have the highest color accuracy in the industry, across DSLR and medium format.
Sure, I realise that, but ultimately it isn't important. It is better than poor colour accuracy, sure, but preferred over both is *pleasing* colour, and this is where Kodak (and Fuji, incidentally) come out on top. Too bad Kodak sold off its sensor business. I hope the knowledge isn't lost.
CCD definitely has a look you cannot deny.
Really? Can you characterise it? I hear this a lot, but I haven't seen any explanation for it the theory.
I'm not sure what you mean by uping their game in CFA research. The bayer filter has been known for a long time. Everything down to the precise wavelength filtration is probably standard.
The "probably" is wrong: it is not. In fact, the exact CFA choices made by a manufacturer determine the look of the sensor far more than more discussed aspects. TheSuede and other experts should chime in here, but for example, Canon made a "thin" CFA for the 5DII, in order to improve high ISO performance, under pressure from Nikon. This hurt the 5DII's colour accuracy, and IIRC it has more severe colour aliasing than competitors.
I still believe a MF sensor made with Sony's tech and production process would yield a far superior sensor than anything the MF world has ever seen.
Technically, yes, but subtlety is what is needed here. If you own a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, but the most loved sensors were never determined by the best sensor tech, but rather, by the best colour. Kodak SLR/N, Fuji S3/S5, etc. One might consider making an exception here for the Foveon-based Merrill cameras...
Yes, DSLRs are up because both top 2 players are shifting their focus.
What, are they up or down, you need to decide, I cannot argue against you in two directions at once. Anyway, I cannot agree than Canon and Nikon are shifting focus, they are rather releasing products (EOS-M, Nikon 1) which are meant to distract from the mirrorless inroads in DSLR territory. Every critique I have heard so far has been that it is too little, too late, hardly a shift of focus, more of an attempt to maintain the status quo.
Print is dying fast.
Canon might worry about their printer business, but I cannot imagine Nikon cares how you use your photos, as long as you buy Nikon.