Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?

[jpk]

The reason I ask the question. Before digital, the various manufacturers made their respective bodies and lenses while the film was made by someone totally unrelated to their company. The things that set one camera manufacturer apart from another was the build quality of their bodies, ie: ruggedness, sophistication and their lens construction, ie: build quality, optical quality.

They all used the same "imaging device" if you will. It was called film. It could be made by one of several different manufacturers, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ilford, etc., all with their own image characteristics. One film stock could be used to compare the quality of one lens vs another. One body vs another.

So why is it important that Canon even make its own imaging sensor? Nikon tried then decided not to. They gave up on the the sensor race. They didn't have the size company with the deep pockets Canon had. Now, Canon should just buy them from Sony like Nikon and let the sensor wars become the body and lens wars again. I don't think Canon has the deep pockets or research capabilities Sony has for the long haul.

 

[Khalai]

That would be the death of all the forum trolling around the internet, no way!

 

[ewg963]

The reason I ask the question. Before digital, the various manufacturers made their respective bodies and lenses while the film was made by someone totally unrelated to their company. The things that set one camera manufacturer apart from another was the build quality of their bodies, ie: ruggedness, sophistication and their lens construction, ie: build quality, optical quality.

They all used the same "imaging device" if you will. It was called film. It could be made by one of several different manufacturers, Kodak, Agfa, Fuji, Ilford, etc., all with their own image characteristics. One film stock could be used to compare the quality of one lens vs another. One body vs another.

So why is it important that Canon even make its own imaging sensor? Nikon tried then decided not to. They gave up on the the sensor race. They didn't have the size company with the deep pockets Canon had. Now, Canon should just buy them from Sony like Nikon and let the sensor wars become the body and lens wars again. I don't think Canon has the deep pockets or research capabilities Sony has for the long haul.

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[davidcl0nel]

Sony is the company, who have currently some seriously financial problems... maybe in 5 years Sony is busted?

 

[Tanispyre]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation. Following your logic it would be as if Fuji gave up and said, we will just repackage kodak film and save money. We would all have the same look to the photos. We would no longer have that magical pop of shooting flowers with Velvia, or the crispness of a landscape on Provia F. Perhaps, it might of saved the warmth of Kodachrome, but at least our snowscapes, and weddings will look good on our Portra and Ektachrome.

Point being, Canon and other sensor companies like Foveon, are not trying to copy Sony, they are trying to find solutions to distinguish themselves from the competition, and that is always good for the industry. If you want a Sony sensor, you can buy a Sony camera. Personally, I am going to stick with my Kodachrome like Canon sensors. Sony May have more DR, but I find their images too cold, and have to spend a lot more time in post tweaking them. My Canon just looks better to me.

 

[Don Haines]

Sony is the company, who have currently some seriously financial problems... maybe in 5 years Sony is busted?

If Sony went bankrupt today, bits and pieces of the company would be sold off to whoever would pay the most. I would imagine that Nikon/Olympus/Panasonic would set up a company to take over the camera sensor division....

 

[Tanispyre]

That would be the death of all the forum trolling around the internet, no way!

+1

Half the fun of these sites is watching everybody bash each other .

 

[brad-man]

Sony is the company, who have currently some seriously financial problems... maybe in 5 years Sony is busted?

If Sony went bankrupt today, bits and pieces of the company would be sold off to whoever would pay the most. I would imagine that Nikon/Olympus/Panasonic would set up a company to take over the camera sensor division....

Why is Canon not on your list of vultures?

 

[jpk]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation. Following your logic it would be as if Fuji gave up and said, we will just repackage kodak film and save money. We would all have the same look to the photos. We would no longer have that magical pop of shooting flowers with Velvia, or the crispness of a landscape on Provia F. Perhaps, it might of saved the warmth of Kodachrome, but at least our snowscapes, and weddings will look good on our Portra and Ektachrome.

Point being, Canon and other sensor companies like Foveon, are not trying to copy Sony, they are trying to find solutions to distinguish themselves from the competition, and that is always good for the industry. If you want a Sony sensor, you can buy a Sony camera. Personally, I am going to stick with my Kodachrome like Canon sensors. Sony May have more DR, but I find their images too cold, and have to spend a lot more time in post tweaking them. My Canon just looks better to me.

I've been shooting with Sony video cameras for the better part of 30 years from the original Betacam to their current FS700, F55 and XDCam. I've always felt Sony imagers had a cold look to them. We were always trying to find ways to trick the cameras to produce a warmer image. We'd use 810 filters, warming cards, putting a piece of 1/8 CTB gel over a white card, etc.. When Panasonic came out with their Varicam, SDX900, HDX900 their imagers had a much nicer, warmer image than Sony. I feel the same with Canon sensors. They have a much more pleasant look right out of the camera vs Sony. I've got a 5D2 right now with some nice L glass Hope to get a 5D3 at some point. I've used the Canon C500 and will be using a C300 tomorrow and Tuesday. Love the look of the Canons. Like you said, they have a Kodachrome look to them. Not complaining about their sensors, just making an observation. I'm happy with my 5D2 and lenses. I've been a Canon guy since the late 1970's. I'll never buy Nikon. I really like the color rendition of my 5D2 over my friend's D800. I don't get into the weeds about pixel count, DR etc.. I look at the picture and if it looks good to me I like it.

 

[zim]

Yes it does matter, not from Sony going bust actually the reverse, being held to ransom is not a business risk I think Canon would want to make.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation. Following your logic it would be as if Fuji gave up and said, we will just repackage kodak film and save money. We would all have the same look to the photos. We would no longer have that magical pop of shooting flowers with Velvia, or the crispness of a landscape on Provia F. Perhaps, it might of saved the warmth of Kodachrome, but at least our snowscapes, and weddings will look good on our Portra and Ektachrome.

Point being, Canon and other sensor companies like Foveon, are not trying to copy Sony, they are trying to find solutions to distinguish themselves from the competition, and that is always good for the industry. If you want a Sony sensor, you can buy a Sony camera. Personally, I am going to stick with my Kodachrome like Canon sensors. Sony May have more DR, but I find their images too cold, and have to spend a lot more time in post tweaking them. My Canon just looks better to me.

I've been shooting with Sony video cameras for the better part of 30 years from the original Betacam to their current FS700, F55 and XDCam. I've always felt Sony imagers had a cold look to them. We were always trying to find ways to trick the cameras to produce a warmer image. We'd use 810 filters, warming cards, putting a piece of 1/8 CTB gel over a white card, etc.. When Panasonic came out with their Varicam, SDX900, HDX900 their imagers had a much nicer, warmer image than Sony. I feel the same with Canon sensors. They have a much more pleasant look right out of the camera vs Sony. I've got a 5D2 right now with some nice L glass Hope to get a 5D3 at some point. I've used the Canon C500 and will be using a C300 tomorrow and Tuesday. Love the look of the Canons. Like you said, they have a Kodachrome look to them. Not complaining about their sensors, just making an observation. I'm happy with my 5D2 and lenses. I've been a Canon guy since the late 1970's. I'll never buy Nikon. I really like the color rendition of my 5D2 over my friend's D800. I don't get into the weeds about pixel count, DR etc.. I look at the picture and if it looks good to me I like it.

As I am not obsessed with DR and megapixel, also feel that the images of Canon DSLR cameras, and Panasonic video cameras have skin tones more pleasing to my eyes.

 

[jpk]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation. Following your logic it would be as if Fuji gave up and said, we will just repackage kodak film and save money. We would all have the same look to the photos. We would no longer have that magical pop of shooting flowers with Velvia, or the crispness of a landscape on Provia F. Perhaps, it might of saved the warmth of Kodachrome, but at least our snowscapes, and weddings will look good on our Portra and Ektachrome.

Point being, Canon and other sensor companies like Foveon, are not trying to copy Sony, they are trying to find solutions to distinguish themselves from the competition, and that is always good for the industry. If you want a Sony sensor, you can buy a Sony camera. Personally, I am going to stick with my Kodachrome like Canon sensors. Sony May have more DR, but I find their images too cold, and have to spend a lot more time in post tweaking them. My Canon just looks better to me.

I've been shooting with Sony video cameras for the better part of 30 years from the original Betacam to their current FS700, F55 and XDCam. I've always felt Sony imagers had a cold look to them. We were always trying to find ways to trick the cameras to produce a warmer image. We'd use 810 filters, warming cards, putting a piece of 1/8 CTB gel over a white card, etc.. When Panasonic came out with their Varicam, SDX900, HDX900 their imagers had a much nicer, warmer image than Sony. I feel the same with Canon sensors. They have a much more pleasant look right out of the camera vs Sony. I've got a 5D2 right now with some nice L glass Hope to get a 5D3 at some point. I've used the Canon C500 and will be using a C300 tomorrow and Tuesday. Love the look of the Canons. Like you said, they have a Kodachrome look to them. Not complaining about their sensors, just making an observation. I'm happy with my 5D2 and lenses. I've been a Canon guy since the late 1970's. I'll never buy Nikon. I really like the color rendition of my 5D2 over my friend's D800. I don't get into the weeds about pixel count, DR etc.. I look at the picture and if it looks good to me I like it.

As I am not obsessed with DR and megapixel, also feel that the images of Canon DSLR cameras, and Panasonic video cameras have skin tones more pleasing to my eyes.

To put it simply, Canon imagers have a more film like quality to them vs Sony.

 

[Don Haines]

Sony is the company, who have currently some seriously financial problems... maybe in 5 years Sony is busted?

If Sony went bankrupt today, bits and pieces of the company would be sold off to whoever would pay the most. I would imagine that Nikon/Olympus/Panasonic would set up a company to take over the camera sensor division....

Why is Canon not on your list of vultures?

You are right! Imagine what it would do to the arguments on the forum if Nikon was buying Sony sensors from Canon

 

[noisejammer]

I think I see both sides of the argument. I think both are bogus.

I'm unconvinced that innovation would being stifled - whether Sony was the single source or not, I assume they would want to sell more sensors. This means their customers need to offer better imaging performance which - to the extent that the sensor dominates things - means the sensors need to develop.

Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.

There is risk because Sony could close their fab plant... Struggling companies do not close or sell business units that make money. If it's a profit centre, it is safe. This feeds back into my first point - to continue making money, Sony needs to continue selling sensors which means more innovation.

On the different "look" offered by various cameras - I think this is bogus too. Most on the forum will know how to change the colour mapping. (If not, download Lightroom and move the sliders around or look for a preset.) Secondly, a lot of Canon's "warm look" arises from the lenses. If you switch to Zeiss glass, suddenly your images are quite cool.

I like the Canon ergonomics, I do not like the Nikon's. I have lots of EF mount lenses and none with an F.2 mount. I have adapters that let me use legacy lenses on my Canon camera but they would not work on a Nikon. You might say I'm locked in... and I really would like to have a Canon camera with a sensor similar to that in the D810.

Judging from the published performance of the 7D2, Canon is still doing its own thing. That's ok too. Their business is selling cameras not making me happy....

 

[Phenix205]

Competition makes everyone better and can only benefit consumers. There are always better ideas and our money helps move technology forward.

 

[zim]

I think I see both sides of the argument. I think both are bogus.

I'm unconvinced that innovation would being stifled - whether Sony was the single source or not, I assume they would want to sell more sensors. This means their customers need to offer better imaging performance which - to the extent that the sensor dominates things - means the sensors need to develop.

Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.

There is risk because Sony could close their fab plant... Struggling companies do not close or sell business units that make money. If it's a profit centre, it is safe. This feeds back into my first point - to continue making money, Sony needs to continue selling sensors which means more innovation.

On the different "look" offered by various cameras - I think this is bogus too. Most on the forum will know how to change the colour mapping. (If not, download Lightroom and move the sliders around or look for a preset.) Secondly, a lot of Canon's "warm look" arises from the lenses. If you switch to Zeiss glass, suddenly your images are quite cool.

I like the Canon ergonomics, I do not like the Nikon's. I have lots of EF mount lenses and none with an F.2 mount. I have adapters that let me use legacy lenses on my Canon camera but they would not work on a Nikon. You might say I'm locked in... and I really would like to have a Canon camera with a sensor similar to that in the D810.

Judging from the published performance of the 7D2, Canon is still doing its own thing. That's ok too. Their business is selling cameras not making me happy....

Contracts end and have to be re-negotiated, companies sell off divisions, the buying companies may and very often do have a very different vision, it’s not nonsense. ‘Ransom’ isn't exactly the best word though.

 

[distant.star]

.
Ronald McDonald could make the sensors for all I care.

My interest is making pictures. I'll buy whatever equipment best works for me in making pictures.

 

[swampler]

Being held to ransom - well that's what contracts are for. So that's nonsense too.

No, it isn't nonsense. If there is only ONE sensor supplier, then you either pay what the supplier wants or you don't get their sensor, then you have no product. It would in reality simply raise prices for the end user.

 

[9VIII]

I actually appreciate that Canon does as much as possible in house. It's part of the "home grown" philosophy.
The sensor technology situation we see right now is entirely fabricated, it is the way it is because Canon wants it that way. When they decide to move on, it will happen.

 

[sb in ak]

Even if Sony/Toshiba are creating "better" sensors than Canon, it only matters so much. The photographer/lens is still 95% of the equation. Canon sensors are perfectly fine for most things.