why 16mp sensor is enough..for everyday used

[JakeJY]

Actually there was an article about this before on the whole controversy. This part is the critical bit. Basically it all falls into what is the definition of "design":

Not "design", but sensor design. That's a well-defined term.

Where's the definition posted?

Try to find out what documentation you need to submit to Sony Oita or some other fab, that's what sensor design is.

Again that's one definition of sensor design. That may not necessarily be what people (the general public here to make it clear) mean they say "this sensor was designed by Nikon". I'm not giving one myself.

You can easily find some introduction material through Google.

Don't appeal to authority, and try to answer direct questions next time. "I don't know" is a very good answer.

Ciao.

So your answer is you don't know either? Not sure how telling me to look on Google is any better than appealing to authority (what I find would likely be written by some sort of authority too).

The other issue is we don't know specifically how much involvement Nikon had. Various scenarios that all may fit what have been reported so far.

1) Sony had an existing sensor (with client selectable options) that Nikon just used and kept exclusive (with dedicated model number).

2) Sony had an existing sensor that Nikon modified or specified modifications

3) Nikon gave a list of specifications (with varying levels of specificity) and had Sony make it

4) Sony and Nikon worked closely together to come up with the sensor design (actual back and forth discussion of details, not just a list of specifications as above)

5) Nikon used Sony sensor elements to layout their own sensor

After knowing that then it can be matched up with the accepted definition of "sensor design".

 

[Brick_Shooter_Pro]

hi again.

Some time ago i reviewed my gx80/85 after 1year of used. Today i just hang my big print 40x60cm and 6pieces 30x45cm up in my wall.

I just surprising how good it look in big print. And I know I can make it bigger if I love too. Why? because I just send files with 3mp to the lab for 40x60cm prints..It's looks stunning in my opinion.

What I discovered is 16mp sensor is enough for me,,but if you a person who loved to crop a lots , more mp sensor is better..the most important quality from a print is find a good lab to make it.

I use CEWE in europa,,and every print its looks like what you see in your PC/MAC is what your see in the prints..I developed my prints in my 8years old IMac,, no calibrated since I bought it.

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

Cheers

Tan

Pictures from my Canon 1dmk2 are perfectly fine so you could even say 16MP is "overkill"

 

[bobn2]

3) Sensors commissioned exclusively for a single camera manufacturer (like IMX270 for Olympus, first camera 10/2016 but never put in catalog, and perhaps that IMX309 for Nikon if it's not available for any other client or in catalog).

For the last type, usually the camera manufacturers would claim they designed it. Of course, we don't know how much involvement they have in that specific sensor's development.

One can get a pretty good idea. Engineers are not automata, they are human beings. Although that often convince themselves that they are completely rational and only take optimum design decisions most companies' products are identifiable from the custom and practice of their design teams. In sensors, different design teams do the same things subtly different ways. Sony's sensors are very distinctive. First, they habitually layout the pixel array of their CCD sensors as though it was a CCD. Presumably this is CCD heritage. Sensors designed by Nikon have a completely different layout, as individual pixels with the transistors arranged around them, similar to (though in detail, different from) Canon's practice - possibly due to a common heritage from Mitsubishi Semiconductor.

The layout of the pixels determines the wiring of the sensor, particularly the column lines. Sony sensors have column ADCs, which are distinctive in arrangement and very well patent protected. Change the arrangement of column lines and the arrangement of the column ADCs is likely to be changed. What else do we have in a sensor? Output buffers. Again, Sony is quite distinctive. Whilst most sensor manufacturers use MIPI standards, Sony uses its our LVDS, evolving into SLVS-EC, for preference (they do use MIPI in specific markets). The rest of the sensor is control and sequencing, which is entirely dependent on the architecture of the pixel array, ADCs and output arrangements.

So, lets consider a case of a company sourcing a sensor from Sony, where is it going to insert its own IP? Maybe it has its own pixel design. It has to consider several things. First, does its own design work better than Sony's. Second, is it compatible with Sony's process. Third, will it fit into a pixel array that fits with Sony's column ADC architecture. In the end, the decision is very, very likely to use Sony's own design. After all, Sony can design pretty good pixels, and they are optimised for Sony's fab process and they fit the ADCs. Would the company insert its IP into the column ADCs? There would be little point, given that Sony has invested long and hard in developing the best in the business, and that is its major USP. Once you've used SONy column ADCs, you're pretty much committed to Sony control and sequencing. So that leaves the output circuitry. Sony has the capacity to do pretty much what you want from its own libraries. So the question is, where such a company could, with advantage, insert its own IP into a Sony design? And if it wanted to use its own IP, why would it be using Sony as a foundry? There are quite a few CIS foundries available, eager for the business. And as it happens, Sony doesn't offer a foundry service..

 

[robert1955]

3) Sensors commissioned exclusively for a single camera manufacturer (like IMX270 for Olympus, first camera 10/2016 but never put in catalog, and perhaps that IMX309 for Nikon if it's not available for any other client or in catalog).

For the last type, usually the camera manufacturers would claim they designed it. Of course, we don't know how much involvement they have in that specific sensor's development.

One can get a pretty good idea. Engineers are not automata, they are human beings. Although that often convince themselves that they are completely rational and only take optimum design decisions most companies' products are identifiable from the custom and practice of their design teams. In sensors, different design teams do the same things subtly different ways. Sony's sensors are very distinctive. First, they habitually layout the pixel array of their CCD sensors as though it was a CCD.

I think you meant to write:

First, they habitually layout the pixel array of their CMOS sensors as though it was a CCD.

Presumably this is CCD heritage. Sensors designed by Nikon have a completely different layout, as individual pixels with the transistors arranged around them, similar to (though in detail, different from) Canon's practice - possibly due to a common heritage from Mitsubishi Semiconductor.

The layout of the pixels determines the wiring of the sensor, particularly the column lines. Sony sensors have column ADCs, which are distinctive in arrangement and very well patent protected. Change the arrangement of column lines and the arrangement of the column ADCs is likely to be changed. What else do we have in a sensor? Output buffers. Again, Sony is quite distinctive. Whilst most sensor manufacturers use MIPI standards, Sony uses its our LVDS, evolving into SLVS-EC, for preference (they do use MIPI in specific markets). The rest of the sensor is control and sequencing, which is entirely dependent on the architecture of the pixel array, ADCs and output arrangements.

So, lets consider a case of a company sourcing a sensor from Sony, where is it going to insert its own IP? Maybe it has its own pixel design. It has to consider several things. First, does its own design work better than Sony's. Second, is it compatible with Sony's process. Third, will it fit into a pixel array that fits with Sony's column ADC architecture. In the end, the decision is very, very likely to use Sony's own design. After all, Sony can design pretty good pixels, and they are optimised for Sony's fab process and they fit the ADCs. Would the company insert its IP into the column ADCs? There would be little point, given that Sony has invested long and hard in developing the best in the business, and that is its major USP. Once you've used SONy column ADCs, you're pretty much committed to Sony control and sequencing. So that leaves the output circuitry. Sony has the capacity to do pretty much what you want from its own libraries. So the question is, where such a company could, with advantage, insert its own IP into a Sony design? And if it wanted to use its own IP, why would it be using Sony as a foundry? There are quite a few CIS foundries available, eager for the business. And as it happens, Sony doesn't offer a foundry service..

 

[bobn2]

3) Sensors commissioned exclusively for a single camera manufacturer (like IMX270 for Olympus, first camera 10/2016 but never put in catalog, and perhaps that IMX309 for Nikon if it's not available for any other client or in catalog).

For the last type, usually the camera manufacturers would claim they designed it. Of course, we don't know how much involvement they have in that specific sensor's development.

One can get a pretty good idea. Engineers are not automata, they are human beings. Although that often convince themselves that they are completely rational and only take optimum design decisions most companies' products are identifiable from the custom and practice of their design teams. In sensors, different design teams do the same things subtly different ways. Sony's sensors are very distinctive. First, they habitually layout the pixel array of their CCD sensors as though it was a CCD.

I think you meant to write:

First, they habitually layout the pixel array of their CMOS sensors as though it was a CCD.

Indeed I did. Thanks for that.

 

[Miron09]

suffices

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the original comparison (augment as you say) using the A7R bobn first mention. Two cameras with the same sensor. Despite your not being truthful.

A7R vs. D800

Here is the 2nd example I gave:

A7 vs. D600

You statement "cameras that use different senors" is untruthful. (and what is a "senor" anyway? LOL!!!!)

 

[Iliah Borg]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is your post:

===

The sensor is one part, but there is more to the design and getting an image processed. Nikon has almost always "slightly" beaten Sony when using the same sensor due to their "better" overall designs.

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

There is a bigger difference between D7200 and A6000 (or even the A6300/A6500 which camera a few years later).

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Nikon-D7200___942_1020

===

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Stop digging, you are already in a hole.

-

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[DavidMillier]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is your post:

===

The sensor is one part, but there is more to the design and getting an image processed. Nikon has almost always "slightly" beaten Sony when using the same sensor due to their "better" overall designs.

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

There is a bigger difference between D7200 and A6000 (or even the A6300/A6500 which camera a few years later).

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Nikon-D7200___942_1020

===

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63012294

Stop digging, you are already in a hole.

-
http://www.libraw.org/

Don't DXO say 5 marks on their score is the range of error in their measurement system?

 

[Iliah Borg]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is your post:

===

The sensor is one part, but there is more to the design and getting an image processed. Nikon has almost always "slightly" beaten Sony when using the same sensor due to their "better" overall designs.

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

There is a bigger difference between D7200 and A6000 (or even the A6300/A6500 which camera a few years later).

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A6000-versus-Nikon-D7200___942_1020

===

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63012294

Stop digging, you are already in a hole.

-
http://www.libraw.org/

Don't DXO say 5 marks on their score is the range of error in their measurement system?

Maybe, I'm not following DxO too closely. From the look of it my guess would be 3 to 5 on average.

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

It was built by Sony, but NIkon's overall design was able to squeeze a little more DR out of the sensor that what Sony could.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Sony-A7R___792_917

Here is [FIRST PART] your [2nd] post:

===

The sensor is one part, but there is more to the design and getting an image processed. Nikon has almost always "slightly" beaten Sony when using the same sensor due to their "better" overall designs.

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

Yep. in the first TWO cases the cameras use the same sensor. In YOUR cherry picked post is STILL is an example with the same sensor!

Are you going to lie and say they are not the same sensor? LOL!!!!!

 

[Iliah Borg]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Doesn't matter what you say now.

Bless your little heart.

It was built by Sony, but NIkon's overall design was able to squeeze a little more DR out of the sensor that what Sony could.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D800-versus-Sony-A7R___792_917

Here is [FIRST PART] your [2nd] post:

===

The sensor is one part, but there is more to the design and getting an image processed. Nikon has almost always "slightly" beaten Sony when using the same sensor due to their "better" overall designs.

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

Yep. in the first TWO cases the cameras use the same sensor. In YOUR cherry picked post is STILL is an example with the same sensor!

Are you going to lie and say they are not the same sensor? LOL!!!!!

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes and even though it was not the original example (you cherry picked and STILL FAILED), in that link the first comparison was the A7 vs D600 which use the same sensor.

So you own link made you look bad. That is really funny.

From YOUR link...

Another classic example is D600 vs. A7 where there is even more of a difference.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D600-versus-Sony-A7___834_916

Yet you say the examples we with cameras that used different sensors. This and the ORIGINAL example DID show cameras with the same sensor, which kills you argument and with you sticking to your false claim it kills your reputation.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^
--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^

And in the link you posted (that wasn't the original comparison) the first comparison was between two cameras using the same sensor.

That is freaking hilarious. You busted your own argument! LOL!!!!!!! You cheery picked and still made yourself look bad.

 

[Xasan]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^

And in the link you posted (that wasn't the original comparison) the first comparison was between two cameras using the same sensor.

That is freaking hilarious. You busted your own argument! LOL!!!!!!! You cheery picked and still made yourself look bad.

You aren't going to weasel your way out of this one.

 

[Zack Brainiac]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^

And in the link you posted (that wasn't the original comparison) the first comparison was between two cameras using the same sensor.

That is freaking hilarious. You busted your own argument! LOL!!!!!!! You cheery picked and still made yourself look bad.

You aren't going to weasel your way out of this one.

The first example I posted was between two cameras that used the same sensor.

Our friend posted a link to a later example with 2 cameras that used the same sensor.

He declared that I only gave examples of cameras that used different sensors which was an obvious lie,

I don't even know what his argument is. Is it most of your examples were valid, but one (that came long after) was not so all the rest don't count? LOL!!!!! That is a very dishonest argument of his.

 

[Doug Janis]

hi again.

Some time ago i reviewed my gx80/85 after 1year of used. Today i just hang my big print 40x60cm and 6pieces 30x45cm up in my wall.

I just surprising how good it look in big print. And I know I can make it bigger if I love too. Why? because I just send files with 3mp to the lab for 40x60cm prints..It's looks stunning in my opinion.

What I discovered is 16mp sensor is enough for me,,but if you a person who loved to crop a lots , more mp sensor is better..the most important quality from a print is find a good lab to make it.

I use CEWE in europa,,and every print its looks like what you see in your PC/MAC is what your see in the prints..I developed my prints in my 8years old IMac,, no calibrated since I bought it.

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

Cheers

Tan

Being into art and exhibitions, you can see huge detailed prints being sold for €€€€€€€€ in galleries. And they sure ain't 16mp!

This is a forum for serious photographers, right?

Many are sold that were taken at 16 or even 12 mega pickles.

David Yarrow shot at 12 and 16 MP for years, prints large, and only 2 years ago switched to 20 MP:

Loading…

davidyarrow.photography

 

[robert1955]

Bob's point that is no difference when Nikon and Sony use the same sensor was incorrect.

Especially when your counter-argument is with cameras that use different senors )

You sure made yourself look bad there. Either you are untruthful or didn't read.

Here is the 1st post.

I quoted your post, with a link.

Yes

^^^^

And in the link you posted (that wasn't the original comparison) the first comparison was between two cameras using the same sensor.

That is freaking hilarious. You busted your own argument! LOL!!!!!!! You cheery picked and still made yourself look bad.

The really hilarious thing is that the only one who is creating links to DXO is ZB. All others are only quoting him

In DXO he seems to be only looking at the so called scores, probably the one called landscape. The difficulty with these scores is that DXO does not really divulge how they come to them. Of more interest on that site are the measurements. If you look at the graphs for DR, you will see that for the 'normal' ISO range with ZB's first example they are virtually identical. Which means his original claim about Nikon doing a bit better than Sony fails at least for that camera.

 

[Raist3d]

[No message]