Rethinking stacked sensor in om-5

[Raist3d]

Been saying they need to put the new sensor down the line but I am rethinking this now since stacked sensors are $$$

So to me the most important thing is the on-5 sensor if it’s not the stacked one, that I shares the modest image quality improvements of the new sensor and also able to auto iso to 25600

But all said I rather have them do a pro specced smaller om-5 priced high than a model with some obvious compromises to make it “cheap”

Even if that means a price north of $1,500 USD - say $1600 or even $1799 - make it right make it pro small That would be pretty unique in the market

thoughts? What you think is key for the om-5 to come out in todays market competitively - assuming this is an em5 mark iii follow up or even em1 mark iii

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Interceptor121]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

 

[Raist3d]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

actually stacked sensors do cost more everything else equal phones are cheaper because they are both significantly smaller and significantly higher volume

that’s not the same context of an om-5 manufacture

uodate: at least stacked sensors that are more ram to the sensor itself to handle the new increased burst speeds are The sensors aren’t just for integration but for faster readout That’s all more complexity

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[AlmostDoctor]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

--
instagram http://instagram.com/interceptor121
My flickr sets http://www.flickr.com/photos/interceptor121/
Youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/interceptor121
Underwater Photo and Video Blog http://interceptor121.com
Deer Photography workshops https://interceptor121.com/2021/09/26/2021-22-deer-photography-workshops-in-woburn/

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit it using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

 

[AlmostDoctor]

Been saying they need to put the new sensor down the line but I am rethinking this now since stacked sensors are $$$

So to me the most important thing is the on-5 sensor if it’s not the stacked one, that I shares the modest image quality improvements of the new sensor and also able to auto iso to 25600

But all said I rather have them do a pro specced smaller om-5 priced high than a model with some obvious compromises to make it “cheap”

Even if that means a price north of $1,500 USD - say $1600 or even $1799 - make it right make it pro small That would be pretty unique in the market

thoughts? What you think is key for the om-5 to come out in todays market competitively - assuming this is an em5 mark iii follow up or even em1 mark iii

 

[Interceptor121]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit it using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

stacking is required to increase pixel density not to Be confused with back illumination non stacked that for security applications

stacked sensors are in compact cameras and phones

 

[Interceptor121]

Been saying they need to put the new sensor down the line but I am rethinking this now since stacked sensors are $$$

So to me the most important thing is the on-5 sensor if it’s not the stacked one, that I shares the modest image quality improvements of the new sensor and also able to auto iso to 25600

But all said I rather have them do a pro specced smaller om-5 priced high than a model with some obvious compromises to make it “cheap”

Even if that means a price north of $1,500 USD - say $1600 or even $1799 - make it right make it pro small That would be pretty unique in the market

thoughts? What you think is key for the om-5 to come out in todays market competitively - assuming this is an em5 mark iii follow up or even em1 mark iii

I think it has go one way or the other. Either the same sensor that's in OM1, or a non-stacked, higher resolution BSI sensor to cater to different needs. I don't think 20mp non-stacked sensor will be that appealing, given that it'll be competing with EM1III and EM5III in that price range, not to mention other m43 and APSC offerings in that range. But whether we see higher resolution sensor also depends on how well the current lenses can resolve the additional detail. OM doesn't seem to prioritize spec sheet bragging as much as real world improvements (e.g. they improved IBIS in OM1 even though it makes zero difference in CIPA rating since CIPA does not test for rolls) so I think it would happen only if they believe that there's real image resolution gain from higher res sensor.

There was a low credibility rumor about OM5 having higher resolution sensor. I think it's actually possible they would go for a higher resolution sensor. It will differentiate OM1 and OM5 in a way that will make them more appealing as a set, using one for wildlife and the other for nature

back illuminated sensor read slower so the pixel count is limited like the GH5S

you need stacking to read faster or front illumination

 

[gary0319]

I frankly don’t care what the technology (sensor and firmware) is as long as it can support HHHR, maybe not as fast as my OM-1 but faster than what my E-M1 III was. If they can get that crammed into a body the same size, or close, to my 5.3, I’m sure the rest of the computational goodies that would make it a first class travel and off road adventure, non-wildlife centric, camera will fall into place.

Price it where it needs to be to be profitable, under $2K

 

[Interceptor121]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

actually stacked sensors do cost more everything else equal phones are cheaper because they are both significantly smaller and significantly higher volume

that’s not the same context of an om-5 manufacture

uodate: at least stacked sensors that are more ram to the sensor itself to handle the new increased burst speeds are The sensors aren’t just for integration but for faster readout That’s all more complexity

 

[Day Hiker]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit [in] using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

It might occur to people that AlmostDoctor wants to educate himself/herself by reading the source(s) you supply. If you view asking to supply a source as combative, then AlmostDoctor seemingly was very perceptive to make the ask.

James

 

[Raist3d]

Been saying they need to put the new sensor down the line but I am rethinking this now since stacked sensors are $$$

So to me the most important thing is the on-5 sensor if it’s not the stacked one, that I shares the modest image quality improvements of the new sensor and also able to auto iso to 25600

But all said I rather have them do a pro specced smaller om-5 priced high than a model with some obvious compromises to make it “cheap”

Even if that means a price north of $1,500 USD - say $1600 or even $1799 - make it right make it pro small That would be pretty unique in the market

thoughts? What you think is key for the om-5 to come out in todays market competitively - assuming this is an em5 mark iii follow up or even em1 mark iii

I think it has go one way or the other. Either the same sensor that's in OM1, or a non-stacked, higher resolution BSI sensor to cater to different needs. I don't think 20mp non-stacked sensor will be that appealing, given that it'll be competing with EM1III and EM5III in that price range, not to mention other m43 and APSC offerings in that range.

Well, the idea is that this camera takes out of the market Em5MKIII and EM1MKIII probably. So it won't be competing. It could be released at a higher price and lower it when those other two get out of stock.

But whether we see higher resolution sensor also depends on how well the current lenses can resolve the additional detail. OM doesn't seem to prioritize spec sheet bragging as much as real world improvements (e.g. they improved IBIS in OM1 even though it makes zero difference in CIPA rating since CIPA does not test for rolls) so I think it would happen only if they believe that there's real image resolution gain from higher res sensor.

I honestly don't see a sensor resolution increase. What they should absolutely have is HHHR though.

There was a low credibility rumor about OM5 having higher resolution sensor.

Saw that. I don't think it's happening.

I think it's actually possible they would go for a higher resolution sensor. It will differentiate OM1 and OM5 in a way that will make them more appealing as a set, using one for wildlife and the other for nature landscape.

I don't see OMDS doing that given HHHR and tripod HR. Unless it was a same-body / different feature set OM-1 as the OM-5.

 

[Raist3d]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

actually stacked sensors do cost more everything else equal phones are cheaper because they are both significantly smaller and significantly higher volume

that’s not the same context of an om-5 manufacture

uodate: at least stacked sensors that are more ram to the sensor itself to handle the new increased burst speeds are The sensors aren’t just for integration but for faster readout That’s all more complexity

Correct what’s expensive is fast readout not the layering itself which complicates matters

The stacked sensor part goes in hand with the faster readout, so I think those two go hand in hand.

Fast readout makes also the downstream expensive

Definitively that also ads cost. You need faster ram/bandwidth/cpu to handle it.

reducing the performance downstream will achieve zero IQ benefits so it makes no sense except to build volumes to reduce purchase price

I don't think that's necessarily true. The modest improvements in the OM-1 sensor come not because of the faster readout.

as of today the front illuminated imx272 is still top performer for IQ and would benefit from a higher bit depth

Would it? Can it really capture 14-bits? Not sure about that.

 

[Raist3d]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit it using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

Wait, I haven't quite "changed my position as it was wrong." First I don't quite agree with you 2nd, I was making the point that in these sensors faster readout is the win. For faster FPS etc you need the buffers.

Finally someone asking you to provide a source for your claim is completely irrelevant of whatever I original posted and if I did change my opinion later or not. These are parallel points, not mutually exclusive.

stacking is required to increase pixel density not to Be confused with back illumination non stacked that for security applications

Where is the source that stacking is required for pixel density? All I read is to increase speed.

stacked sensors are in compact cameras and phones

Yes but once again, they are much smaller sensors.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Interceptor121]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit [in] using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

It might occur to people that AlmostDoctor wants to educate himself/herself by reading the source(s) you supply. If you view asking to supply a source as combative, then AlmostDoctor seemingly was very perceptive to make the ask.

James

But he didn’t ask the op did he? So on which basis he doesn’t have to provide a source but I do?

the op has no idea as prices are on B2B sites which am not going to provide to you

by the way sensors are low cost the EVF instead is very expensive on this camera so this goes to show the amount of misinformation and assumptions people make

 

[Raist3d]

Been saying they need to put the new sensor down the line but I am rethinking this now since stacked sensors are $$$

So to me the most important thing is the on-5 sensor if it’s not the stacked one, that I shares the modest image quality improvements of the new sensor and also able to auto iso to 25600

But all said I rather have them do a pro specced smaller om-5 priced high than a model with some obvious compromises to make it “cheap”

Even if that means a price north of $1,500 USD - say $1600 or even $1799 - make it right make it pro small That would be pretty unique in the market

thoughts? What you think is key for the om-5 to come out in todays market competitively - assuming this is an em5 mark iii follow up or even em1 mark iii

I think it has go one way or the other. Either the same sensor that's in OM1, or a non-stacked, higher resolution BSI sensor to cater to different needs. I don't think 20mp non-stacked sensor will be that appealing, given that it'll be competing with EM1III and EM5III in that price range, not to mention other m43 and APSC offerings in that range. But whether we see higher resolution sensor also depends on how well the current lenses can resolve the additional detail. OM doesn't seem to prioritize spec sheet bragging as much as real world improvements (e.g. they improved IBIS in OM1 even though it makes zero difference in CIPA rating since CIPA does not test for rolls) so I think it would happen only if they believe that there's real image resolution gain from higher res sensor.

There was a low credibility rumor about OM5 having higher resolution sensor. I think it's actually possible they would go for a higher resolution sensor. It will differentiate OM1 and OM5 in a way that will make them more appealing as a set, using one for wildlife and the other for nature

back illuminated sensor read slower so the pixel count is limited like the GH5S

Please explain to me why the Fuji APSC of 26MP then is BSI and 26 MP? That doesn't make sense. Also the Fuji 26MP is a relatively fast sensor (close to EM1.2/.3 readouts) in its class. Of course doesn't compare to the super fast stacked sensors but that's beside the point.

Evidence the Fuji 26MP is BSI and has been that for a while now:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/54716...s-with-a-26mp-x-trans-sensor-and-4k-60p-video

you need stacking to read faster or front illumination

Update: BSI enables actually bigger pixel counts without sacrificing image quality vs some degree of lower pixel counts. No, I am not going to bother looking where this piece of knowledge came from but I am pretty sure you can find it if you look for it. I already gave you evidence.

Hope you now return in kind.

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell

 

[Raist3d]

I frankly don’t care what the technology (sensor and firmware) is as long as it can support HHHR, maybe not as fast as my OM-1 but faster than what my E-M1 III was. If they can get that crammed into a body the same size, or close, to my 5.3, I’m sure the rest of the computational goodies that would make it a first class travel and off road adventure, non-wildlife centric, camera will fall into place.

Price it where it needs to be to be profitable, under $2K

I overall like your idea, but I think the sensor in terms of high ISO needs to behave more like the OM1's rather than the EM5.3/EM1.3's. But it could have the new cpu and that hopefully can enable some things with another tweak to the IBIS system.

 

[Interceptor121]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit it using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

Wait, I haven't quite "changed my position as it was wrong." First I don't quite agree with you 2nd, I was making the point that in these sensors faster readout is the win. For faster FPS etc you need the buffers.

Finally someone asking you to provide a source for your claim is completely irrelevant of whatever I original posted and if I did change my opinion later or not. These are parallel points, not mutually exclusive.

stacking is required to increase pixel density not to Be confused with back illumination non stacked that for security applications

Where is the source that stacking is required for pixel density? All I read is to increase speed.

stacked sensors are in compact cameras and phones

Yes but once again, they are much smaller sensors.

 

[Raist3d]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit [in] using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

It might occur to people that AlmostDoctor wants to educate himself/herself by reading the source(s) you supply. If you view asking to supply a source as combative, then AlmostDoctor seemingly was very perceptive to make the ask.

James

But he didn’t ask the op did he? So on which basis he doesn’t have to provide a source but I do?

Perhaps the case that you mentioned as a faulty example mobile phones having stacked sensor in the lower price context raises more questions about your claims since mobile phones also have much cheaper to build sensors due to being smaller/higher yield and vastly higher volumes?

the op has no idea as prices are on B2B sites which am not going to provide to you

by the way sensors are low cost the EVF instead is very expensive on this camera so this goes to show the amount of misinformation and assumptions people make

 

[Raist3d]

Here

https://www.imaging-resource.com/ne...re-of-autofocus-plus-expect-more-aps-c-bodies

"

DE: As time goes on, will the cost of stacked technology come down enough that it will fit cost-wise into consumer cameras?

KT: Can it come down enough? <laughs> Unfortunately, the stacked image sensor is still very high-price. This is my personal opinion. In the semiconductor business, if we use a lot of image sensors, the bulk price is going to go down. That is a theory of the semiconductor business. Volume covers the price.

DE: Yes. And of course, the stacked is just a more complicated technology. There's a lot going on there ,so it's going to be always more expensive than not stacked. But on the other hand, the cell-phone sensors that Sony makes use stacked technology, so that also helps drive the cost down. It sounds like, really, there's no way to tell how much it's going to come down over time, and whether that will be enough for entry-level models too."

 

[Raist3d]

The fact that a sensor is stacked doesn’t mean it costs more. Stacking is a method to increase integration and many mobile phones have stacked sensors

Low volumes instead drive higher not lower prices

Do you have sources for that claim? If the stacked costs the same as non-stacked sensor, I don't see why every manufacturer wouldn't put them in every camera since there would be no benefit it using the older non-stacked sensor. I think it's reasonable to assume that there must be some higher costs associated with stacked over non-stacked sensor, though exactly how much more, I'm not sure.

Why exactly do I have to provide a source when the op doesn’t provide one and has already changed his position as it was wrong?

Wait, I haven't quite "changed my position as it was wrong." First I don't quite agree with you 2nd, I was making the point that in these sensors faster readout is the win. For faster FPS etc you need the buffers.

Finally someone asking you to provide a source for your claim is completely irrelevant of whatever I original posted and if I did change my opinion later or not. These are parallel points, not mutually exclusive.

stacking is required to increase pixel density not to Be confused with back illumination non stacked that for security applications

Where is the source that stacking is required for pixel density? All I read is to increase speed.

stacked sensors are in compact cameras and phones

Yes but once again, they are much smaller sensors.

So where is your source? You are the one making the point do you know or you assume?

You asking me is a valid question. He asking you is also a valid question.

if you assume what is the basis of your assumption?

I read it somewhere, but I found it. See:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66214232

stacking is the way to increase density as it achieves smaller pixels at comparable or higher readout

it is well documented i think even sony public site mentions it

Sony is def. saying they are higher cost to make

While we are at it, can you please explain what led you to say that BSI sensors are smaller pixel counts?

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

that's pretty false. Thanks.