Canon Eos 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jim Townsend, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. Jim Townsend

    Ray Fischer Guest

    I agree the SD9 is a 3.43MP camera
    Georgette in <bq6bp8$rep$>
    Ray Fischer, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Townsend

    Leonard Guest

    I agree that 90% is surely an overestimate. I was being pessimistic,
    partly because my next postulate is certainly optimistic :)
    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
    Leonard, Jul 17, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Townsend

    Leonard Guest

    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, Jul 17, 2004
  4. Jim Townsend

    Skip M Guest

    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 M, Jul 18, 2004
  5. Jim Townsend

    G.T. Guest

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

    G.T., Jul 18, 2004
  6. Leonard wrote:
    ... 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?

    David J Taylor, Jul 18, 2004
  7. Jim Townsend

    Mark Weaver Guest

    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 Weaver, Jul 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.