More on the Nikon sensor

[zxaar]

I always disliked the idea of Sony selling sensors to direct competitor.

It's called business. Money doesn't hurt, specially when it also allow your own products to be more competitive because of overall volume. If Sony finally drops 'full frame' sensor production, here we may have one of the reasons.

what you replied to are not my words.

not manufactured by nikon only designed by them (it is also not clear how much knowledge sony sensory division gives them because of their collob) . Manufacturing is whole different game.

If anything, it seems Nikon had better knowledge in CMOS sensors than Sony Semiconductor (Nikon's LBCAST => Sony's EXMOR).

I doubt that. It may very well that sony sensor team in background.

And who cares who manufactures the sensor? So far, Sony didn't.

For business it is very important factor. It is not easy to manyfactor. As long as nikon asked others to manufacture they are depending on others.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com

--
::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

 

[CFynn]

And you may have noted that it is the Nikon-tweaked Sony sensor in the D3X that is actually rated best by DXO, quite independent of mpx.

Which goes to show you that Nikon can make better sensors than Sony. Or at least get better results out them.

Of course! at a 3/4 grands premium, Nikon better do something better.

Nikon d3 series body (no electronics) may be worth 1500 bucks more than the Sony a900 body, + 1 grand for the pro customer service. there are probably 3/4 grands of extra premium for the sensor. just for 1 stop of better noise and maybe 1/3 of extra DR.

Not only that but I'm not sure that DXO take into account all desirable attributes

Many prefer the colour rendition in the A900 over that of the D3x - so it is hard to say whoose implementation is "better" ~ depends on what you want for the photographs you take.

• C

 

[Antonio Rojilla]

what you replied to are not my words.

Sorry about that.

For business it is very important factor. It is not easy to manyfactor. As long as nikon asked others to manufacture they are depending on others.

In these days that's how almost everything works. That Mercedes Benz or Ferrari buy their brake disks from Brembo, brake or drive systems from Bosch or seats from Recaro (just examples) doesn't make their cars any worse. That a Pagani Zonda uses a Mercedes Benz engine doesn't make it less desirable.

It would be really hard to find a big company that makes all the parts in their products. As long as the different parts meet the buyer's requirements there is nothing wrong in getting them from others. In fact, it lets you find different sources and try to get the best deal at any given moment. Nikon can well ask five or six companies to manufacture their sensors and given Nikon's big volume I'm sure they are a 'desirable' customer, one that even Sony Semiconductor (not to confuse with Sony Imaging) wouldn't like to see going.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com

 

[lock]

The best sensors were Nikon labeled. The D3s e.g. was a full Nikon design, but who was the baker ? During the last 5 years both Sony and Canon have been investing in their own cmos production. Samsung recently did the same.

Nikon hasn't. Nikon sensor production has been outsourced, and it would not surprise me if the D3/D700/D3s sensors were coming from Sony factories after all.

So a new design from Nikon with a new producer of the sensors me be a reason itself to delay the production of new cameras. Nikon could get into trouble when they get their things done too late.

But who knows, maybe the big guys like Aptina want to go into this market as well. Aptina is known to expand his business in the digital photography (it has small sensors with FSI that equals the performance of BSI sensors). It recently sold its sensors to Sanyo for it's compact photo/video cameras. If Nikon manages to land a deal with them, this may explain why Nikon and Sony have parted. Of course, the latter are just thoughts on my part...

lock

 

[zxaar]

what you replied to are not my words.

Sorry about that.

For business it is very important factor. It is not easy to manyfactor. As long as nikon asked others to manufacture they are depending on others.

In these days that's how almost everything works. That Mercedes Benz or Ferrari buy their brake disks from Brembo, brake or drive systems from Bosch or seats from Recaro (just examples) doesn't make their cars any worse. That a Pagani Zonda uses a Mercedes Benz engine doesn't make it less desirable.

It would be really hard to find a big company that makes all the parts in their products. As long as the different parts meet the buyer's requirements there is nothing wrong in getting them from others. In fact, it lets you find different sources and try to get the best deal at any given moment. Nikon can well ask five or six companies to manufacture their sensors and given Nikon's big volume I'm sure they are a 'desirable' customer, one that even Sony Semiconductor (not to confuse with Sony Imaging) wouldn't like to see going.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com

i understand how business works. Even canon s90 used sony sensor (if i am not wrong). But it still does not change the fact that nikon only designs their sensors.

Anyway my point is that manufacturing a sensor is lot of effort. At the moment nikon can put all their resources to only designing if they manufactured them they would have to share their resources. Which will make things difficult. For business they might survive with it.

--
::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

 

[Dayd3]

What really matters is how good D3100 sensors will be and soon we'll discover that. First samples shot at low ISO looks very promising. I think most Nikon users on this forum are hoping that Nikon designs their own sensors. If they used D3s technology in designing new sensor we may have new king of high ISO in entry level dSLR segment.

 

[Andrew Cruickshank]

And who cares who manufactures the sensor? So far, Sony didn't.

But Nikon did.

Realistically to start with it's likely that Nikon would simply licence some of the technology they need and subcontract fabrication. Tie the whole thing up in confidentiality and then be careful with the marketing language.

They need to differentiate the sensor from the Sony originals to protect their brand.

Sony doesn't have that problem.

As regards the FF rumours - consider that Sony has produced the E-Mount with the same diameter as A-Mount. It's FF capable. They didn't need to do that if they wanted Nex and interchangeable video to stick with APS-C. The E to A adapter could have been designed to take a narrow E to wider A diameter - esp with the lack of screw drive.

I think the question with FF is not whether or not they will continue with FF DSLRs but whether or not they will prioritise high end FF video at the expense of DSLR.

--
---------------
Andrew.

 

[PerL]

I always disliked the idea of Sony selling sensors to direct competitor. Let them build their own sensors. We will find out soon how well they do own their own.

Like with their D700, D3 and D3S? That's one of the best sensors in the market by far.

Better be.

Canon was doing the 1Ds sensor already in 2002. Took Nikon 5 years to come up with something similar.

If resolution is the only measure that counts (1Ds 11 mp, D3 12 mp). However in QE and low light performance the D3 shocked the market. ISO 6400 on the D3 is probably better than ISO 640 was on the Canon 1Ds. The new D3S is further improved, a monster in low light.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

 

[007peter]

According to Nikon rumor. The new sensor is smaller and the resulting magnification is 1.55x not 1.5x anymore. Sort of like canon with their 1.6x crop sensor.

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/20/nikon-now-producing-their-own-sensors.aspx#more-13210

 

[Antonio Rojilla]

And who cares who manufactures the sensor? So far, Sony didn't.

But Nikon did.

I meant 'who' as in us, the consumers. Do Apple users care about Apple not manufacturing their processors and buying them from Intel? I guess they don't.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com

 

[Lucas_]

Seems Thom has talked to more people that would better know about the sensor and that probably Sony didn't even manufacture it, let alone design and use it in their cameras.

............................................

Several of Thom's opinions are just that, but I hope this time he's right. It'll be a great opportunity for Sony to concentrate in sensors for their own DSLR's without having to follow limiting buyer/vendor agreements, mainly in such an important part!

... Lucas

--
Always having fun with photography ...

http://lucaspix.smugmug.com/

 

[winedarksea]

Seems Thom has talked to more people that would better know about the sensor and that probably Sony didn't even manufacture it, let alone design and use it in their cameras.

............................................

Several of Thom's opinions are just that, but I hope this time he's right. It'll be a great opportunity for Sony to concentrate in sensors for their own DSLR's without having to follow limiting buyer/vendor agreements, mainly in such an important part!

... Lucas

--

Exactly, Lucas. And I am sure that those limiting buyer/vendor agreements are there.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4

 

[The_Suede]

The NEX5 and the D3100 sensors:

Both share the 4608x3072pixel ActiveImageArea
Both share the same amount of masked out pixels outside the AIA
Both have a pixel-pitch of 5.02µm
Both look physically very similar in the top-side side connections

Sony reports total pixel area, 23.4x15.6
Nikon reports un-masked area, 23.1x15.4
(this is consistent with the pixelpitch, and the amount of masked pixels)

Sony recommends that the original 4608x3072 pixel area should be cropped down to 4592x3056 (which is done automatically in most raw-converters), but you get the full 4608x3072 if you either ask the converter to ignore the recommendation, or use DCraw.

This MIGHT of course be pure coincidence. But I don't think so...

 

[rhlpetrus]

I called attention tomdifference in size wrt Sony's 14 mp sensor here, confirmed by dpr's Butler:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36078385

Later in thread, the images of sensors were compared and it was clear that the design and connectors were like D3/D700's sensor:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36082589

Then, a more than a day later Thom changed his position, which was initially that it was Sony's.

I find this a wonderful development, since it means Nikon is capable, by itself and/or help of some external fab to produce their own designs in large numbers. The d3000 has been N's hihest selling dslr for some time, actually their best-selling digital camera at Amazon (and among top 10 bs among all digital cameras, any type), so they really have to be capable to produce this sensor in large quantities.

Other intersting fact is that this sensor has ISO range of 6 stops (calibrated) starting at 100, unlike all sensors used recently except for D3x's. It's better thany other DX sensor they have used and similar in range width to d3/d700 (200-6400).

Only D3s has wider range, at 7 stops (calibrated). The talk about d90+ is hi2 at 25600,will it start at 100 and go to 6400?
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[rhlpetrus]

So not quite like Canon, but some difference. I was the first at NR to call attention to that and also here at dpr:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=36079269

That was first hint it was not same sensor as the one Sony uses in the NEX line, with about 0.4 mm difference in each direction.

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 

[aim120]

Well according to photofolio in a press conference in denmark.

I believe the video of the press conference is taken down.
http://www.photofolio.dk/blog/2010/08/20/nikon-d3100-annonceret/

http://www.photofolio.dk/nikonpress20100819.txt

10:14 [Comment from Poul:]
Q: Which sensor sits in (referring to the new D3100)
10:14
@ Paul: A 14-megapixel APS-C sensor. I think that it is a Sony sensor

Q will be the successor to the D90 use the same sensor?
10:21

@ Nicolas: it’s hard to say. But muligeden there. But one could also imagine 16 megapixels

 

[copejorg1]

The NEX5 and the D3100 sensors:

Both share the 4608x3072pixel ActiveImageArea

That's the output pixel count of the D3100 sensor, all right. But where is it documented that this also applies to the Sony 14MP sensor (which has an output pixel count of 4592 X 3056)? Got a link?

Both share the same amount of masked out pixels outside the AIA

Where is this documented? Got a link?

Both have a pixel-pitch of 5.02µm

I seriously doubt it, in the case of the Sony sensor -- but I'll keep a slightly open mind for now. Got a link to some documentation on this?

Both look physically very similar in the top-side side connections

The pictures I saw didn't look similar at all.

Sony reports total pixel area, 23.4x15.6
Nikon reports un-masked area, 23.1x15.4

This is blatantly false. Those are the reported areas, all right. But Sony and Nikon both report only the output area when publishing sensor sizes. Without exception. I'll give you one example, from literally dozens I could have chosen from ...

The IMX021 sensor used in both the Sony A700 and the Nikon D300 is quoted by both companies as having a size of 15.6mm X 23.5mm. The pixel pitch of this sensor is documented, in both Sony and Nikon literature, as being 5.49 microns.

In the A700, the number of output pixels is 2848 X 4272 (an exact 3:2 ratio, BTW). In the D300, the number of output pixels is 2848 X 4288 (Nikon, as usual, utilized an additional 16 columns of pixels for their implementation of this sensor. Sony usually uses an additional 8 or 16 columns beyond the true 3:2 ratio in their own DSLRs, but didn't in the case of the A700). So, doing the arithmetic ...

For the A700 -- 2848 pixels * .00549mm/pixel = 15.63552mm (rounds to 15.6mm).
For the A700 -- 4272 pixels * .00549mm/pixel = 23.45328mm (rounds to 23.5mm).
For the D300 -- 2848 pixels ... same as A700 ... rounds to 15.6mm.

For the D300 -- 4288 pixels * .00549mm/pixel = 23.54112mm (more than the A700, but still rounds to 23.5mm).

So, to recap, Nikon and Sony both used the output pixel area in reporting the size of this particular sensor. And as I said above, I could repeat this exercise, with similar results, for any of the dozens of DSLRs that have ever been made by Sony or Nikon (or Canon or Pentax, for that matter), and for which the sensor's pixel pitch has been published by the manufacturer. The only cases in which I can't demonstrate this (and why I left my mind slightly open on this matter) are for the 14MP Sony DSLRs, and for this new 14MP Nikon D3100. These 14MP sensors (Sony CMOS, Sony CCD and Nikon CMOS) are the only ones for which I've been unsuccessful in finding documentation on their pixel dimensions. I'd be willing to bet the Sonys are actually 5.1 micron (based on published sensor sizes and output pixel counts), but I can't prove that right now.

If the 14MP Sony cameras really had a pixel size of 5.02 microns, as you say, the 3056 X 4592 output area would be only 15.34mm X 23.05mm (for an actual crop factor of 1.564, using the short side for the calculation). And I don't really believe that's the case, because that would be unprecedented.

(this is consistent with the pixelpitch, and the amount of masked pixels)

It would seem not.

Sony recommends that the original 4608x3072 pixel area should be cropped down to 4592x3056 (which is done automatically in most raw-converters), but you get the full 4608x3072 if you either ask the converter to ignore the recommendation, or use DCraw.

Again -- got any documentation on this? And BTW, even if the Sony sensor did output 3072 X 4608 pixels to the RAW file, the output dimensions still would be only 15.4mm X 23.1mm, and the crop factor still would be 1.56, if the pixels were only 5.02 microns in size. So I'd really like to see your documentation on that pixel size.

This MIGHT of course be pure coincidence. But I don't think so...

Maybe, maybe not ...
--
Greg

 

[BillCarr]

............................................

Several of Thom's opinions are just that, but I hope this time he's right. It'll be a great opportunity for Sony to concentrate in sensors for their own DSLR's without having to follow limiting buyer/vendor agreements

There's a difference between Sony Imaging and Sony Semiconductor. One simply cannot order the other to sell it sensors at a low price. If S.S. loses its biggest large-format-sensor client (and loses not only that revenue but lower manufacturing costs from higher production volume) it has to decide whether it remains cost-effective to continue to manufacture full-frame sensors.

As Thom Hogan said recently (and it's pretty well-reasoned), "My impression is that Sony has fumbled a clear advantage that they had early on, when they were one of the few sources of quality sensors. They never built and supported that advantage to dominate small (e.g. cell phone) sensors, and now they are being marginalized at the top, too. Demand for compact camera sensors, which Sony dominated, is flat and will decline. Demand for APS sensors is slightly up, but Sony appears to have lost their biggest customer if Nikon is indeed now doing their own DX sensors. Demand for full frame sensors also appears to be lost with Nikon going their own way, there, too.... Sony Semiconductor [and] Sony Imaging... are separate companies within the Sony umbrella. Sony Semiconductor appears to be losing ground and customers. Sony Imaging is not a large enough customer to make up for that, so Semiconductor has some tough choices ahead, it appears."

 

[Peter McNeill]

Nikon's FF production by Sony Semiconductor is a drop in the bucket to their total output. Camera sensors are only a small part of what they produce. In fact networking components supplies 30% of SS's revenue. I think camera related was 9% or so. Search the net enough and you can get the approx numbers.

As for Sony Imaging, the numbers up til March 2010 were: $8 billion in sales, Sony's digital imaging business, which includes both digital still and video cameras, accounted for just under 10 percent of Sony's overall revenue in the year ended March.

I see no sign either division is in any real trouble.
--
Growing old is not an option.... acting young is.

 

[Antonio Rojilla]

I see no sign either division is in any real trouble.

And who said they were?

What is in trouble is the future of Sony's 'full frame' sensors... Who are going Sony Semiconductor to sell those sensors to? To Sony Imaging? Yeah.

--
http://antonio.rojilla.com