Truly a different sensor in E-3?

[vlatko]

Now, compare this...

L10 sensor:

• 11.8 million total pixels
• 10.1 million effective pixels

E-510 sensor:

• 10.0 million effective pixels
• 10.9 million total photo detectors

Is that the same sensor, even if we assume that the first L10 number is a simple typo in the press release and there should have been 10.8 MP there? (DPReview, CNET Asia and Photography Blog report the same number, 11.8.)

But if we assume that the first number is not a typo (Panasonic has it on their site), wouldn't that mean that E-3 might have something like 11 megapixels because there apparently is a different sensor ready for a full-scale production? Mind you, might. I have no objection if it uses the same sensor as E-510.

Anyways, 1.7 MP of dead space on the L10 sensor is a bit too much.

 

[Jay Turberville]

Anyways, 1.7 MP of dead space on the L10 sensor is a bit too much.

Yep. Something doesn't add up quite right. But we just don't have enough info to make sense out of it with any confidence. We can only guess.

For a few moments I had the brilliant idea that the sensor was actually a 3:2 sensor that had been masked down to 4:3 - either that or a 16:9. But the math doesn't quite work out - especially for the 16:9. Maybe it does for the 3:2. But the pictures of the sensor installed in the L10 make clear that there is at least a physical mask that makes the new sensor 4:3.

We'll just have to wait and see. It is an interesting little puzzle.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Goffen]

According to (Norwegian) http://www.digit.no/wip4/test_diverse.epl?id=153287

the new Panny does not have the same sensor as the 10mp Olys.

My translation from the Norwegian text:

"When it comes to IQ the camera seem to offer great DR and nicely tuned exposure. The sensor is newly developed. Panasonic confirmed that its definately not the same that is used in Olympus e-410 and e-510"

 

[Guido FORRIER]

For what i know :

I have been told a while ago by a photographer , who is working in a oly promotion team that the sensor will be made by panasonic nmos life and slightly more than 10M.
Guido

 

[LM1]

The extra pixels around the edges might be related to the in body IS.
--
A member of the rabble in good standing.

 

[headlessmike]

The L10 doesn't have in-body IS, it uses OIS in the lens.

The extra pixels around the edges might be related to the in body IS.
--
A member of the rabble in good standing.

--



http://web.mac.com/headlessmike

Michael Gatchell

 

[LM1]

The extra pixels around the edges might be related to the in body IS.
--
A member of the rabble in good standing.

--



http://web.mac.com/headlessmike

Michael Gatchell

Yeah, but maybe Panny is using the new sensor because Oly specified it to Panny who fabricated it. Why not use the new sensor that you've already set up a fabrication line for?

It's Oly that would use the extra pixels for the IS while Panny may just mask them out.
Is that clear?
--
A member of the rabble in good standing.

 

[Jay Turberville]

Yeah, but maybe Panny is using the new sensor because Oly specified
it to Panny who fabricated it. Why not use the new sensor that
you've already set up a fabrication line for?
It's Oly that would use the extra pixels for the IS while Panny may
just mask them out.
Is that clear?

But the E-510 uses IS and they spec a different and lower pixel count. Also, the sensor shifting shouldn't take that many pixels to work. So it doesn't really seem to explain the difference.
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[Thomas_A]

E-410 and E-510 differs mainly by that E510 have in-body IS. Both E-410 and E-510 have the same spec of its sensor 10 MP effective and 10.9 MP total, so the IS in E-510 does not require a bigger sensor than that in E-410.

Perhaps the IS frame that holds the sensor waste some pixels at the sensor borders (the mechanical coupling must be firm) and that the mechanical coupling in the E-3 IS is even more rugged to get better spec and durability (and thereby requiring a larger sensor).

Two possible reasons why they put it in the L10; 1) increase sales and bring prod costs down, 2) it has some improved specs over E-410/E-510 sensor (DR, speed, you name it).

 

[Leejay Wu]

(proportional to the size of the sensor)

Makes some sense -- for sensor-shift IS to be meaningful, the sensor must have additional photodetectors to replace those which have been shifted out of the target area.

Curiously the trend is not entirely clear -- taking sqrt(pixels total / pixels effective)

Some bodies with sensor-shift IS
E-510 ~ 4.4%
Panasonic DMC-L10 ~ 8.1% margin along linear dims
Sony A100 --~ 2.9%
Pentax K10D -- 2.7%

comparing to non-IS body

E-410 ~ 4.4%, but same package as E-510...
E-400 ~ 3.9%
E-330 ~ 2.6%
E-1 ~ 4.8% (using 5.1mp 2614x1966 output)
E500, E300 ~ 5.5% (!)
DMC-L1 ~ 3.3%
Canon 40D ~ 2% margin
Canon 1Ds Mk III ~ 1.9% margin

 

[LLS1]

It's Oly that would use the extra pixels for the IS while Panny may
just mask them out.
Is that clear?

Why would oly need extra pixels for the IS? Isn't the whole point of the IS to keep the same pixels under the same part of the image?

 

[Thomas_A]

Exactly.

The extras would just be framed out. I am not sure how the sensor is connected, a picture of the E-510 shows a black frame around the sensor, that connects to the IS mechanics. A bigger sensor allows a stronger coupling to the frame. Perhaps this is needed if E-3 should sport max "5 steps" of IS.

 

[BJL]

The L10 has exactly the same output pixel count as the E-510 and E-510,

3648x2736, which is 9,980,928. That is, 10.0MP effective, as stated for the E-41o and E-51o, and NOT 10.1MP effective as stated for the L10.

The 10.1MP figure for the L10 is quite simply an error, refuted by the precise numbers lower down on the same spec. sheets:
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l10/specifications.html

Given that, the 11.8MP figure becomes rather unreliable too.

Does it make sense to modify a design to add about 900,000 more total pixels, but not a single additional effective output pixel?

 

[Goffen]

...spares ? Like a spare tire, When you map out stuck pixels you just map in a spare ?

Goffen

 

[BamaPanda]

The extra pixels around the edges might be related to the in body IS.
--
A member of the rabble in good standing.

In the ever expanding intro to the E3 on Olys web site - they mentioned this on the new sensor .....

"And finally, we were able to eliminate a ceramic package, which in turn enabled us to make the board thinner and also helped improve heat radiation."

Apparently the new E3 will have in body IS. This description to me lends extra credibility to a new sensor being part of the new camera.

Just wonder how it will work, not having a ceramic package surrounding it?
--
'We all have it, but how do we use it?'

 

[Leejay Wu]

E-510 has full-time live view, in-body IS. E-410, FTLV. The heat they're talking about is the heat caused by running the main sensor all the time (and not just a smaller secondary sensor as per the E-330) -- which is exactly what the E-410 and E-510 must be capable of sustaining for FTLV, which they took into account for the Live MOS sensor.

 

[vlatko]

Given that, the 11.8MP figure becomes rather unreliable too.
Does it make sense to modify a design to add about 900,000 more total
pixels, but not a single additional effective output pixel?

Now, this is pure speculation...

Given that L10 is apparently positioned between E-510 and E-3, it makes sense that it won't have all the characteristics of E-3. But if they created a new sensor with "great DR", they would want to use that new sensor in their own camera.

OTOH, E-3 is a step above L10, so in addition to the "great DR" it gets more pixels too. And, as stated elsewhere in this thread, Panasonic keeps the cost per chip down by manufacturing more sensors.

Makes sense to me, but whether it's true, we'll see on 17. 10.

 

[Torsten Hoff]

But that's not how the IS system in the E-510 works. What you are describing is the electronic IS (EIS) system used in many consumer camcorders and P&S cameras. The E-510 physically shifts the sensor itself, rather than electronically cropping an image from a larger sensor -- that's why the body vibrates when it is turned off, or when the IS button is held down to activate IS in LiveView mode.

 

[Jay Turberville]

The L10 has exactly the same output pixel count as the E-510 and E-510,
3648x2736, which is 9,980,928. That is, 10.0MP effective, as stated
for the E-41o and E-51o, and NOT 10.1MP effective as stated for the
L10.

The 10.1MP figure for the L10 is quite simply an error, refuted by
the precise numbers lower down on the same spec. sheets:
http://panasonic.co.jp/pavc/global/lumix/l10/specifications.html

Actually, the error is in your assumption of what an "effective pixel" is. Your calculation determines the number of "recording" pixels.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0108/01080104jciamegapixel.asp

Given that, the 11.8MP figure becomes rather unreliable too.
Does it make sense to modify a design to add about 900,000 more total
pixels, but not a single additional effective output pixel?

Off hand, the extra number of pixels does not make sense. But there may be more to the story. It doesn't make sense that Panasonic would make a goof on the 11.8Mp number either and still not have issued a correction. We are simply missing part of the story.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[BJL]

That page
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode9_02.html
is not jst aot rteh E-3; it also talks abot the E-410 and E-510.

It talks about the new 10MP MOS sensor, with claims like "we were able to eliminate a ceramic package", and later talks specifically about the E-40 and E-510, so that previous claim applies to the sensor already being used in those models, not yet another one. That is they are talking about "new this year", new relative to last year's 7.5MP Live MOS and 8MP FF CCD sensors.

It seems clear that references later on that page to "The Live MOS sensor" (singular!) are to the sensor already being used in the E-410 and E-510, not an imagined even newer one.

Here is an interesting fact though: "Episode 9" refers to "Masaaki Komiya, Group Leader, Device Development Department, R & D Division, Olympus Imaging Corporation" as being
"the engineer who headed the image sensor development team".

Is this an actual claim that an Olympus engineer lead the development of that sensor, with Matsushita thus only a junior partner, maybe more on the fabrication side? Or is this just marketing talk, with Masaaki Komiya just the Olympus person who wrote up Olympus' requirements for Matsushita, which then designed to those specs?

For analogy, Nikon apparently contributes quite a lot of input input to the designs of the sensors fabricated by Sony and used mostly in Nikon cameras (with far smaller numbers used in Sony and Pentax cameras). It is a mistake to think that Sony designs all those DLSR sensors all by itself, and then asks Nikon if it wants to buy some. (By the way, Sony might be at risk of losing that market if Nikon can now design very good CMOS sensors itself, and so can shop around for a CMOS foundry to make them.)