Since you replied to me then you knew I was talking very specifically about full-frame sensors, and the related cost-benefit analysis that the Semiconductor division must make. FF sensors are more expensive to manufacture and are sold in far lower quantities. Take the biggest customer of those chips away and the division has to determine whether it is viable to continue expensive r&d and tooling to make low volumes for Sony Imaging. Total output is irrelevant to making business decisions on continuing costly chip design, research and fabrication if only for a low-volume client (which happens to be a sister company).
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More on the Nikon sensor
- Thread starter Kal-El33
- Start date
Kenneth B
Senior Member
Best in what way? If all you look at is the High ISO performance sure its pretty good. But how much detail from your lens is being tossed out the window because your sensor can't resolve the detail?
--
Kenneth Berntsen
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
Some of you guys are so litteral.....
From 11mp to 12mp, is nothing.
It did not shocked me, when it came out.
Nikon sensor performance, seemed something normal after fine tuning a 5 years old technology.
I would not count it for nikon having done anything outstanding in term of MP count with that sensor, there barely was 1 mp difference on those 2 sensors and 5 years apart.
winedarksea
Senior Member
But what IS relevant is impact on another division in the same corporation. Sony's current CEO has been campaigning for years to break down the barriers between the independent fiefdoms within Sony. If he believes that it is worth it to the corporation to absorb some loss in one division in order to support the campaign of another division to gain significant market share, he'll be there for both divisions. I believe this will likely be the case with FF sensors.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
copejorg1
Senior Member
But you're totally missing the point. The D3 sensor, which came out in 2007, wasn't just better than that 2002-model 1Ds sensor -- it was better (by far) than anything else that was available in 2007.
Never mind how long it took them to introduce it -- when they finally did, it was the best.
--
Greg
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
Again this Thom is just posting conjectures.
Practically, he evens claim that he knows better than Nikon execs in some Nikon subsidiaries.
This man is so obviously far from the sources but he keep posting rumors that cannot be backed.
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
You are missing the point that the 1Ds2 had an higher MP count (16,3) and was already out in 2005. Though Kodak noise performance was disappointing, its 4 years old sensor, was 14mp and had better color rendition and more DR than the 12mp Nikon.
Yet, that makes FF Nikon 12mp sensor "better by far" very, very relative.
Nikon's, 12mp sensor, was definitively better for some tasks, but unsuitable for others.
What i'm saying, and facts supports it, is that nikon did not ever came out with any game changing sensor. Canon did it several times and to some extent Sony did with the 24mp of the a900:
Canon came out with the 1st 'cheap but suitable for pro use aps/c camera: the 10D, the first 35mm FF sensor (1ds), the 1st 16mp FF sensor which was a valid practical alternative for medium format film and made most of MF digital backs redundant. Canon 5d was the first inexpensive FF camera body.
Sony made the highest MP count FF sensor for the lower priced body and forced the FF market do change accordingly. These are some market changing products and Nikon did none of them.
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
The way i see it is:
Sony with all these new products are about and already started to flood the market. They will be able to increase some market shares and picks up some first time DSLR buyers. They will be probably able to produce more sensors for their own cameras and partially offset the loss of not selling sensors to nikon.
Considering that if they will increase camera sales, the profit they will make on selling their own sensors on their own cameras will be much higher of the profit on selling sensors to a third party which is also a competitor.
So far Sony and Nikon were not stepping on each other feet for obvious reasons, but now it is apparent that Sony will attempt to take the most they can from the market.
The NEX plus these 4 new DSLR are covering a range of products that Sony competitors is not doing at the moment. IMO that will translate in more camera sales and consequently more Sony sensor demand for their own products.
winedarksea
Senior Member
Gionni, I think you're on target with these remarks. Sony has obviously put out the R&D money to bring these products to market. Now I hope they'll promote the devil out of them. And I kind of think they will.
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
antoineb
Veteran Member
it cannot be a coincidence that the specs and the mp seem the same, and that every time we see a Nikon camera come up with similar specd sensor a few months after a Sony camera (in this case the NEX).
making chips is a very capital-intensive industry and I'm not really sure Nikon is there yet. Or want to, because this is also a sector with a low return on capital and so the longer you manage to stay away from it, the better. As for Sony, they've got manufacturing capacity and need to fill it.
but of course it's pretty clear why Nikon would not openly talk about it. Even if it doesn't really matter much, because the D3x showed how much more Nikon was able to extract from a Sony sensor, than Sony themselves.
all in all, this is probably why, as Thom says, Nikon "don't make more of a fuss about this (supposedly Nikon-developed sensors): because it is not true.
and mind you, the words are never "Nikon-MADE sensors", they are always "Nikon-DEVELOPED". Developed means designed.
making chips is a very capital-intensive industry and I'm not really sure Nikon is there yet. Or want to, because this is also a sector with a low return on capital and so the longer you manage to stay away from it, the better. As for Sony, they've got manufacturing capacity and need to fill it.
but of course it's pretty clear why Nikon would not openly talk about it. Even if it doesn't really matter much, because the D3x showed how much more Nikon was able to extract from a Sony sensor, than Sony themselves.
all in all, this is probably why, as Thom says, Nikon "don't make more of a fuss about this (supposedly Nikon-developed sensors): because it is not true.
and mind you, the words are never "Nikon-MADE sensors", they are always "Nikon-DEVELOPED". Developed means designed.
I think you are missing the point cause as a customer I don't care who made sensors with same or similar pixel count first. I don't care if sensor is based on new or old technology, what matters is that it suits photgrapher's needs. I heard from many people on this forum they don't need more MP but better high ISO and DR. Nikon listened that and instead of going high MP count made much better high ISO cameras. I hope that D3100 sensor is also based on that same "old" sensor technology as D3 and D3s
And if we speak about MP count, how many photographers really need more than 12 MP? Of curse there are some, but how many really? I'm working for magazine and even 5-6 MP images, if they are shot at 100-400 ISO, are enough for making double pages. You can even make jumbo posters if you know how to upscale images properly. That's why high ISO is of much more importance for most people than higher MP count. Sometimes is not just about innovations but listening people and their needs.
The Nikon D3 was game changing. It actually reversed the trend of pros switching over. The pro count C vs N at the Olympics swtched frpm 85-15 percent to 50-50. An incredible success since huge lens investments are also involved.
For pros, being able to shot with good quality in low light, is much more important than pixel count. With a D3S you can shoot at ISO 12800 with the same or better quality as 1600 with a good APS-C and at 25600 with printable results. Thats is what matter to sports and PJ pros.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
paul_kew
Senior Member
Surely Sony Imaging are the biggest customer for Sony FF sensors, or is the D3x (the only non Sony FF camera we know using their sensors) outselling (worldwide) the A900/850?
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
I even doubt that the d3x outsell the a900 and 850 combined. probably none of them.
Gionni Dorelli
Senior Member
If you listen the people from this forum, which is 99% composed (not disrespect here) by amateurs and enthusiast, yes! they will not need more than 12mp.I think you are missing the point cause as a customer I don't care who made sensors with same or similar pixel count first. I don't care if sensor is based on new or old technology, what matters is that it suits photgrapher's needs. I heard from many people on this forum they don't need more MP but better high ISO and DR. Nikon listened that and instead of going high MP count made much better high ISO cameras. I hope that D3100 sensor is also based on that same "old" sensor technology as D3 and D3s
And if we speak about MP count, how many photographers really need more than 12 MP? Of curse there are some, but how many really? I'm working for magazine and even 5-6 MP images, if they are shot at 100-400 ISO, are enough for making double pages. You can even make jumbo posters if you know how to upscale images properly. That's why high ISO is of much more importance for most people than higher MP count. Sometimes is not just about innovations but listening people and their needs.
All commercial photographers working at a decent level would not use a 12mp camera anymore. We are plenty and most of us adopted canon FF frame when Nikon was still hanging at 6 mp APS/c.
I work for magazines and advertising world wide, if I tell any of my AD that will deliver 5 mp files, they will certainly ask if I have in mind something "very, very creative". ;-)
Sure with some mag you ca get away with that low mp count, hardly good magazines though.
I had 12 pages published from a nikon D1x (5mp) they looked great at that time, if i look at them today, i puke.
I did the exercise of upscaling 6mp images when nothing better was available and was proud of the result, did some posters too, but again, it was back in 2003. After 2003, if you were a serious pro, you knew that 11mp was the tool.
Which has no effect, or should have no effect, on cost-benefit analyses for specific items. If Sony Semiconductor doesn't find the considerable cost of research, development and production of a single low-volume, high cost sensor to be profitable then there's no reason Sony Imaging can't source out its sensors from somewhere else. Remember, one division is not getting a discounted price from the other.
But without Nikon as a customer, the lowered volume would actually ratchet up the price for the sensor to Sony Imaging, so it would reasonably re-evaluate the cost effectiveness of continuing with full-frame production considering the comparatively low profits realized from it with low volume sales. There are significant development costs we're discussing here in both divisions ... for a product which has not set the world (or market) on fire.
winedarksea
Senior Member
Has the possibility not occurred to you that neither the purpose nor the expectation of the A900 was to set the world (or the market) on fire? that instead it was more a sign of things to come, a shot across the Canikon bows?
--
Dulaney
A700; SAL 50 f1.4; SAL 18-250; CZ 85 f1.4
I guess you are not a pro in PJ or sports then, even if you speak for "all commercial photographers". For high res work the Nikon D3x is top. Your opinion seems to be formed 3-5 years ago, but the landscape has changed.If you listen the people from this forum, which is 99% composed (not disrespect here) by amateurs and enthusiast, yes! they will not need more than 12mp.I think you are missing the point cause as a customer I don't care who made sensors with same or similar pixel count first. I don't care if sensor is based on new or old technology, what matters is that it suits photgrapher's needs. I heard from many people on this forum they don't need more MP but better high ISO and DR. Nikon listened that and instead of going high MP count made much better high ISO cameras. I hope that D3100 sensor is also based on that same "old" sensor technology as D3 and D3s
And if we speak about MP count, how many photographers really need more than 12 MP? Of curse there are some, but how many really? I'm working for magazine and even 5-6 MP images, if they are shot at 100-400 ISO, are enough for making double pages. You can even make jumbo posters if you know how to upscale images properly. That's why high ISO is of much more importance for most people than higher MP count. Sometimes is not just about innovations but listening people and their needs.
All commercial photographers working at a decent level would not use a 12mp camera anymore. We are plenty and most of us adopted canon FF frame when Nikon was still hanging at 6 mp APS/c.
I work for magazines and advertising world wide, if I tell any of my AD that will deliver 5 mp files, they will certainly ask if I have in mind something "very, very creative". ;-)
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Danel
Senior Member
I have read this quote and gone to Thom's site and I am not convinced what it means in reality. For example, one could argue that if a company significantly modifies an existing sensor's design that they are "producing their own sensors". They could also argue that the resulting sensor would be "Nikon controlled and Nikon exclusive". Nikon has been using modified Sony sensors in their DSLRs for a long time so this is really nothing new. That is likely why Nikon is not making "a bigger deal of this". If Nikon was actually designing and manufacturing their sensors themselves they would probably be trumpeting their new chip fab plant, which they aren't doing. I also think that it would be a big enough deal that their wouldn't be any Nikon personnel who would not "have gotten the memo".
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum