Does it matter anymore who makes the sensors?

[Mitch.Conner]

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

I'll take my 5DIV with extra honey mustard dipping sauce then.

 

[dgatwood]

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.

Curious. In consumer camcorders, I always found Panasonic to be very cold, with Sony right in the middle, and Canon on the warm side.

 

[dgatwood]

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.

To play devil's advocate, if they have no one to compete against, then they could much more easily drive sales though planned obsolescence, and make higher profits without all those pesky R&D expenses.

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

Assuming innovation doesn't stop, those contracts get renegotiated for every subsequent sensor. The problem with buying parts from a highly vertically integrated company that competes against your products is that they have every incentive to charge more money to their competitors than to companies that don't compete against them, to make up for some of their losses.

Right now, Sony isn't the only company building sensors and making them available to third parties, so there's competition in that market. If that ceased to be the case, Sony would probably crank up the price for Nikon and other companies whose products compete with Sony's products.

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.

The bigger risk is a manufacturer choosing to focus their R&D on parts for a different, more profitable area. For example, right now, Sony's sensor division reluctantly builds big sensors for companies like Nikon, in part because they use them in their high-end camera gear. But Sony could decide to scrap or sell off that division tomorrow, and to focus their sensor R&D on cell phone camera parts whose high volume makes them a better, more reliable profit center than broadcast video gear. If that happens, Nikon would be seriously screwed.

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 agree that it's mostly math. There's a caveat, though; in some cases, there may be differences that can't readily be compensated for, particularly between sensors that have different combinations of color components, where entire parts of the color signal are not captured at all. This is particularly likely to be a problem when dealing with fluorescent light or, to a lesser degree, LED light.

 

[tolusina]

.....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.....

And there's the flaw in your contention.
The camera manufacturers didn't use any imaging device at all, choice of imaging device (film) was left to the photographer from among the film manufacturers.
While Neuro likes to point out that a sensor does not make a camera, sensor characteristics have a very significant influence on the final output.

 

[jpk]

.....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.....

And there's the flaw in your contention.
The camera manufacturers didn't use any imaging device at all, choice of imaging device (film) was left to the photographer from among the film manufacturers.
While Neuro likes to point out that a sensor does not make a camera, sensor characteristics have a very significant influence on the final output.

Why is that a flaw? A photographer had a choice as to which particular stock suited their style of photography or the particular photographic situation they were in. With todays computer programs for image post processing a very competent colorist can pretty much have limitless control over the image from any comparable sensor to look the way they want, regardless of manufacturer. The only thing you can't create is more pixels if they are not there.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation.

I agree with your disagreement (huh? )

Is this not the situtation we have with Canon? Canon SLRs only uses Canon sensors, so any innovation of the sensors used in Canon cameras must come from Canon. Is not more likely that Canon will drift along trying to sell their existing sensors for as long as they can in order to reduce costs (increase profits)?

Canon is not going to innovate their sensors simply because a newer technology is there. Canon will innovate their sensors only if they feel they can make a business case of lowering costs/increasing profits.

Once you get your customers hooked with a big expensive lens kit, you can innovate the sensor when ever you feel like it.... or not.

The customers have hairs that are shorter, and Canon has a pretty good grip on them. ;D

 

[noisejammer]

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.

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.

Of course contracts can end and they can be re-negotiated. On the other hand, they can be set up to protect both parties. For example, an option can be sold on a specified product to be delivered at a specified price on a specified date and with a specified performance. You can agree to terms that will be acceptable if either party cannot fulfill their part of the deal. The important part about contracts is you can't break the laws of physics and you can't break the laws of of a country. Everything else can be negotiable.

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

I'm not convinced this is either true or applicable. It certainly works when the item or service is fungible but it's complete bs if one source has access to technology that excludes the others from catching up. It's also bs if circumstances prevent the customer from changing supplier.

The camera market finds both circumstances. Firstly, technology is heavily protected through patent law and second, users cannot migrate because their lens "investment" constrains them to using a single source for camera bodies. Now, if third parties - say Sony - would start offering EF or F.2 mount cameras, everything really could change.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

+1 LOL.

Seriously, the important aspect in film age was competition in the industry, and moreover the remarkable different characteristics of different films. As a photographer you had a huge selection available.

Now if every leading camera maker of today would get his sensors only from Sony, this would be the end any of competition, the motor of progress would stop running. We still profit e.g. from Canon's early decision to advance CMOS technology when all others used CCD. Now, Sony kicks Canon because they have the later and better technology, and if Canon invests in new technology lines, they may change the game again. Finally, we customers are profiting from this race.

 

[swampler]

I tend to disagree, having such a monopoly on sensors would be bad for innovation.

I agree with your disagreement (huh? )

Is this not the situtation we have with Canon? Canon SLRs only uses Canon sensors, so any innovation of the sensors used in Canon cameras must come from Canon. Is not more likely that Canon will drift along trying to sell their existing sensors for as long as they can in order to reduce costs (increase profits)?

Canon is not going to innovate their sensors simply because a newer technology is there. Canon will innovate their sensors only if they feel they can make a business case of lowering costs/increasing profits.

Once you get your customers hooked with a big expensive lens kit, you can innovate the sensor when ever you feel like it.... or not.

The customers have hairs that are shorter, and Canon has a pretty good grip on them. ;D

No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.

But the more system unique equipment a photographer owns, especially if expensive, the less likely they will switch to another system.

How many times do photographers say "I would consider switching to system xxx, but unfortunately, I have too much invested in YYY? That is called a captive customer and companies really really like those. ;D

Canon, or any manufacturer for that matter, has to innovate at just the right pace to keep costs low, without reaching the point of alienating their customer base enough to where switching is more attractive than staying.

What that pace is, depends on the risk/cost/benefit of the customer choosing another product.

A business can't operate at either extreme.

1. If a company never innovates, their customers' needs will probably evolve to the point it is advantagous for the customer to change to another product that does meet their needs.

2. If a company constantly innovates, it will drive costs higher and may tend to alienate the customer's preception of the product when new models are released too fast. There is an optimum interval for releasing new products.

The answer is somewhere in the middle. Innovate at just the right pace to keep the customers happy but not too much to drive the costs/tech risks up. That can be a delicate balancing act.

Every company approaches it differently.

In my opinion, the best thing that could happen would be if magically all camera lenses could be used on all cameras with all sensors.

Imagine being able to pick a Pentax body, with Canon autofocus, and Sony sensors (or any combination that is important to the customer) THAT would spur innovation as the customer has choices and the freedom to make those choices with out a considerable cost.

Of course, the camera manufacturers might not like this freedom. Locking in customers is a good business practice. You don't make money by making it easy for your customers to go elsewhere. 8)

But I often dream about being able to assemble a camera/sensor/lens combination that works for me because the camera industry is modular. Its a dream. ;D

 

[candc]

apparently the new canon G7X uses the same sony 1" sensor as the RX100iii

 

[noisejammer]

No, not the same situation at all. Canon has to compete with Nikon, Sony, and the others. The other companies are what give Canon their incentive to innovate.

Nonsense! Canon's only incentive (like all the others) is maximising shareholder value. Innovation and product improvement are happy side effects of this. Innovation helps when you are trying to attract new customers (which is why there's such a turnover of models at the bottom end of the market.) It may help to secure brand loyalty when customers go from one lens to (say) four. After that, the customer is locked in and you give them the minimum that will prevent them from walking away in disgust.

The slow turnover at the top end is a result of the manufacturers knowing their market - if users find change between models significant, the captive user may upgrade. If not, they will probably sit on their hands and wait for the next model before reconsidering. This is a difficult field to play in. If a disruptive model comes along - say the A7 series - you may suddenly find a number of high end customers changing brands at very low immediate cost.

But the more system unique equipment a photographer owns, especially if expensive, the less likely they will switch to another system....

Of course, the camera manufacturers might not like this freedom. Locking in customers is a good business practice. You don't make money by making it easy for your customers to go elsewhere. 8)

Yay.... at least one other person gets it!

 

[jeffa4444]

Innovation and therefor advantage go hand in glove. Canon design & fabricate sensors and they have benefitted by doing so. Currently Hasselblad, Phase One & Pentax are all using Sony 50MP CMOS sensor so all three premium brands cannot clain a unique selling point. Leica used CMOSIS to design their M 240 camera sensor which is made in a foundry in France. This IS unique to them but CMOSIS uses its IP to make "custom" sensor designs for clients.

Fuji / Panasonic are working together on organic sensors with BSI but Panasonic have sold their fab plants to TowerJazz. Fab plants are expensive to build & operate, Canon needs to move to its new um .18 process which is expensive but the sensors will likely not only be in cameras but surveilance etc. which spreads the financial outlay.