RustyBug Online Upload & Sell: On
|
As a reliability engineer in manufacturing, I appreciate your thought process. But, I doubt that the margin of failure rate would be sufficient to sway the decision regarding the sensor to be used. I get the point of QC, passing / failing ... BUT, if the inherent failure / scrap rate in the manufacturing process is sufficient to sway the decision to use it in the 6D2 ... we'd likely be seeing problems in the 5D4, 80D, 1DX2 that either "slip by" QC, or manifest themselves as problems "down the road".
In theory, QC is perfect to not allow anything out the door that doesn't pass muster, but my experience has been that when a scrap rate is high enough to influence decision making such as is suggested, the amount of problems inherent to the manufacturing process reveals itself in customer complaints, despite QC catching it at the point of inspection ... i.e. loose is loose, tight is tight.
Rather, if I were to attribute it to the manufacturing process decision, I might theorize that the amount of capacity / availability for the two different lines is significantly different (i.e. 30% capacity utilization vs. 99% capacity utilization). That, or the cost (capital + overhead / ROI) is too skinny a margin (kinda your point with the failure rates, iiuc) to hit a given price point, and still retain the "requisite" ROI as prescribed by the bean counters extraordinaire.
But, even with that ... an extra $50 or $100 (on par with original 6D release) would be sufficient to retain the ROI (or failure rate costs) for the sensor portion of the camera. Where I see the cost being rather different is in the redesign of the body, etc. and that may have influenced the decision to use a different line, etc.
However ... even with all that potentially in play. I don't think that was the reason why Canon chose to do as they did. I think it has more to do with the perspective that the target market (i.e. entry level FF) being less concerned about ISO invariance, thus they could go quid pro quo with regard to other aspects.
Likely ... we'll never know what the truth is behind their decision. That said, the only thing left for me is to get it in my hands and see if it fits my objectives (which I think it will very nicely) at the ability to produce excellent images as long as I feed it the requisite amount of light / ISO relationship appropriate to a given EV level. If it does that well (which is different from starving & lifting), I'll be pleased with it ... even if it doesn't do the ISO invariance trick very well.
Kinda like driving an V-8 pickup without the variable timing and a turbo charger to tweak out its performance. It's still got plenty of HP for me to get my work done, even if it isn't wringing out the maximum potential that could have been put into it ... neither is it wringing out the last bit of my wallet to get those things.
Again ... I appreciate the line of thought and we likely won't ever know for sure. For me, it's not much diff that why Ford or Chevy went they way they did on a given model that goes against what I was thinking. They did it ... it's done. It's now my choice to buy it or not as it fits my needs vs. my expectation, desire, hope or want.
Simplistically, it is what it is ... do I want it or not?
That's the question that we all get to answer for ourselves.
I know what it doesn't have (4K video, dual slots, wider AF points, etc.), I know what it "doesn't do" (ISO invariance).
Now it's time to find out just how well it does what it does do.
YMMV
|