Could SSS be a dead-end due to sensor heat dissipation issues?

[Jekabs]

A while ago, when Sony bought out KM camera division, SSS was marketed as the distinctive feature of the A-mount over competition. One can only speculate on why this was ommited in E-mount, and optical IS was used instead.

I wonder if this has something to do with heat dissipation. Not the heat generated by SSS itself, but rather with the difficulaty of dissipating heat the sensor produces. With a fixed sensor you can just put it on heat-sink (or use cameras internal shell as a heat-sink). But for SSS to work and to be fast, the sensor assembly has to be light and it has to be mechanically detached from the rest of the body. Getting the heat away from it must be a challenge at best, or impossible at worst.

If so, cameras with SSS will always be limited to slower read-out speeds and less pixel density, compared to their OIS siblings... And very well might affect the future of A-mount.

P.S. No bashing or trolling intended, just curious about rationale to design E-mount or E-mount cameras without SSS.

 

[dka91]

Hmm well I won't pretend to know the technicalities, but it seems the A mount has been fine with SSS and it was only omitted from the E mount as the bodies are quite a bit smaller than the a mount bodies, which means heat is actually a very real problem for it, and especially for video.

As for the future of the A mount because of this....well if the heat ever became THAT much of an issue I suppose future cameras could simply omit SSS in the worst case scenario, although quite a few lenses would be left without stabilization, there is actually a decent amount with os.

 

[tbcass]

I'll second what was previously said. Heat from SSS can be dissipated in a larger camera but in the smaller E mount bodies it could be a problem. Overall for A mount the advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages.

 

[VirtualMirage]

My thought or reason why SSS was not implemented in the E-mounts wasn't so much due to heat but due to a limitation on its effectiveness since the distance from the sensor to the rear of the lens element is so much closer on E-mount than it is A-mount. Because it is so close, the amount of movement you can get away with the sensor while still keep the field of view completely intact and not create distortion is very small to nil on the E-mount.

On the A-mount, that isn't the case. From flange to sensor, the E-mount only has 18mm. For the A-mount that distance is 44.5mm.

When you think about a rifle scope, if you are too close to the eye relief the slightest movement causes your view to disappear. But if you give your eye some distance from the eye relief, there is a lot more forgiveness in movement and still maintain your view.

 

[sybersitizen]

A while ago, when Sony bought out KM camera division, SSS was marketed as the distinctive feature of the A-mount over competition. One can only speculate on why this was ommited in E-mount, and optical IS was used instead.

I wonder if this has something to do with heat dissipation. Not the heat generated by SSS itself, but rather with the difficulaty of dissipating heat the sensor produces...

I doubt it. Were you around when the first video-capable A-mount models were introduced? They were prone to overheating during video. That issue was addressed by switching to electronic stabilization during video, and the overheating essentially stopped. If the mechanical SS assembly, which is still present in all A-mount bodies, is a design that leads to general overheating, we should expect to still see significant problems with overheating during video - but we don't.

 

[Mike Fewster]

A while ago, when Sony bought out KM camera division, SSS was marketed as the distinctive feature of the A-mount over competition. One can only speculate on why this was ommited in E-mount, and optical IS was used instead.

I wonder if this has something to do with heat dissipation. Not the heat generated by SSS itself, but rather with the difficulaty of dissipating heat the sensor produces. With a fixed sensor you can just put it on heat-sink (or use cameras internal shell as a heat-sink). But for SSS to work and to be fast, the sensor assembly has to be light and it has to be mechanically detached from the rest of the body. Getting the heat away from it must be a challenge at best, or impossible at worst.

If so, cameras with SSS will always be limited to slower read-out speeds and less pixel density, compared to their OIS siblings... And very well might affect the future of A-mount.

P.S. No bashing or trolling intended, just curious about rationale to design E-mount or E-mount cameras without SSS.

Not long after the Nex was first released a Sony engineer said this was the case. I have never seen this repeated however, but it seems likely. The problem is likely to be heat inducing noise on the sensor. The Nex had a bigger sensor in a smaller body than the mft cameras and this could well have been why the Nex had heating isssues and has never adopted OIS, especially when the Minolta group was first to develop this technology.

 

[K E Hoffman]

most of the various reasons this question is not based in facts have been covered. I suggest you look up modifying Canon for astrophotograpy. There is no large heat sink in unstablized DSLRs even ones equiped with liveview and video.

 

[OpticsEngineer]

Sony press releases stated the reason IBIS was not used in NEX bodies was because the IBIS mechanisms took up too much space.

Remember, the whole rationale for NEX was as small a body as possible. Everything else was secondary.

 

[JimmyMelbourne]

Seems to be more of a design issue for E Mount than A Mount. A mount has it. E Mount does not. So far A mount has had no issues with pixel density. Lets see what the next FF releases bring.

 

[Mike Fewster]

Sony press releases stated the reason IBIS was not used in NEX bodies was because the IBIS mechanisms took up too much space.

Remember, the whole rationale for NEX was as small a body as possible. Everything else was secondary.

That has never seemed to me to be an adequate explanation. If you have to make bigger lenses to include an OIS in every lens, then the extra size of a small system soon outweighs the initial gain of the body. An early statement from an engineer (not an official press statement) did mention heat dissipation and concerns with heat causing noise. I think the Sony press statement is correct as far as it goes, it just isn't mentioning the heat build up issues.

 

[Jim Funston]

My thought is SSS whether inbody or in the lens will become a moot technology due to sensor technological improvements. I say this with this reasoning ... If we soon have high mp sensors that could generate as pleasing a image at 6400 ISO as we currently see at cameras base ISO then there is very little need to shoot at base iso's and the resulting slower shutter speeds that go along with base ISO shooting while hand held.
Granted its a lot of IF's but I tend to believe this will be a reality in the not too distant future. When it happens SSS will be like the 8 track players of old.

 

[Dave Oddie]

A while ago, when Sony bought out KM camera division, SSS was marketed as the distinctive feature of the A-mount over competition. One can only speculate on why this was ommited in E-mount, and optical IS was used instead.

It won't fit. They went for ultra slim bodies and it just won't fit.

I wonder if this has something to do with heat dissipation. Not the heat generated by SSS itself, but rather with the difficulaty of dissipating heat the sensor produces. With a fixed sensor you can just put it on heat-sink (or use cameras internal shell as a heat-sink). But for SSS to work and to be fast, the sensor assembly has to be light and it has to be mechanically detached from the rest of the body. Getting the heat away from it must be a challenge at best, or impossible at worst.

No idea but given the technology clearly works and not only Sony use it (Oly, Pentax and even Panasonic on one camera) aren't you looking for problems where there aren't any?

If so, cameras with SSS will always be limited to slower read-out speeds and less pixel density, compared to their OIS siblings... And very well might affect the future of A-mount.

But we don't know is to so, so you are basing your argument on a false premise.

P.S. No bashing or trolling intended, just curious about rationale to design E-mount or E-mount cameras without SSS.

Stupidity on Sony's part? They seem to make a big thing about the ability to attach just about any lens to the E mount cameras due to the short front to back dimension but threw the SSS out in giving them this capability.

You can however do the same thing with Olympus cameras and lo and behold that old Helios 58mm F2 suddenly becomes stabilized. I am pretty sure you can even dial in the focal length so the camera knows what sort of lens is on it.

I think Sony screwed up and even if they didn't want what was the "Nex" line to use the A mount I am sure they could have added a few mm's to the depth to the E mount and still achieved the same thing with SSS.

One of the most interesting developments recently for me was Panasonic bringing out a camera that featured in-body SSS for when you attach a lens that doesn't have OIS built in. Seems very sensible to me but Sony went the other way.

 

[tbcass]

Are OIS lenses larger than ones without?

 

[tbcass]

There are a lot of reasons to use low ISO and lower shutter speeds. Many times some kinds of motion blur are desireable for artistic reasons but you don't want camera shake along with it.

 

[Leandros S]

My thought or reason why SSS was not implemented in the E-mounts wasn't so much due to heat but due to a limitation on its effectiveness since the distance from the sensor to the rear of the lens element is so much closer on E-mount than it is A-mount. Because it is so close, the amount of movement you can get away with the sensor while still keep the field of view completely intact and not create distortion is very small to nil on the E-mount.

The imaging circle can be a problem for IBIS, yes, but not for the reason you state. Due to the shorter flange distance in a MILC, you also need less sensor movement to compensate the same amount of camera shake. So the two things cancel.

--
Love the lens you're with.

 

[VirtualMirage]

My thought or reason why SSS was not implemented in the E-mounts wasn't so much due to heat but due to a limitation on its effectiveness since the distance from the sensor to the rear of the lens element is so much closer on E-mount than it is A-mount. Because it is so close, the amount of movement you can get away with the sensor while still keep the field of view completely intact and not create distortion is very small to nil on the E-mount.

The imaging circle can be a problem for IBIS, yes, but not for the reason you state. Due to the shorter flange distance in a MILC, you also need less sensor movement to compensate the same amount of camera shake. So the two things cancel.

 

[Brian_Smith]

Sony press releases stated the reason IBIS was not used in NEX bodies was because the IBIS mechanisms took up too much space.

Remember, the whole rationale for NEX was as small a body as possible. Everything else was secondary.

Correct.

It's all about size.

Sony's SteadyShot mechanism would not fit into E-Mount bodies unless you made them thicker and larger and with more air space to dissipate the heat.

Expect to continue to see IBIS used in A-mount and OSS in E-Mount.

 

[nandbytes]

Sony press releases stated the reason IBIS was not used in NEX bodies was because the IBIS mechanisms took up too much space.

Remember, the whole rationale for NEX was as small a body as possible. Everything else was secondary.

Correct.

It's all about size.

Sony's SteadyShot mechanism would not fit into E-Mount bodies unless you made them thicker and larger and with more air space to dissipate the heat.

Expect to continue to see IBIS used in A-mount and OSS in E-Mount.

--
Brian Smith
Sony Artisan of Imagery
Brian Smith Pictures

Olympus (and panasonic now) seem to manage it. But I am not sure if the sensor size affects that too...

--
Focus on what you have, not on what you don't.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nandbytes/

 

[Mike Fewster]

Sony press releases stated the reason IBIS was not used in NEX bodies was because the IBIS mechanisms took up too much space.

Remember, the whole rationale for NEX was as small a body as possible. Everything else was secondary.

Correct.

It's all about size.

Sony's SteadyShot mechanism would not fit into E-Mount bodies unless you made them thicker and larger and with more air space to dissipate the heat.

Expect to continue to see IBIS used in A-mount and OSS in E-Mount.

 

[Mike Fewster]

Are OIS lenses larger than ones without?