Sony’s flagship a1 camera appears to be using an exclusive IMX610 image sensor

Well in video the Z9's inferior DR is down to its log profile but 1 stop down in DR is not noticeable in most situations, its terrible over/under exposure performance is though, not much info on TicoRAW and how it plays with popular NLEs.

Not a big issue though, the Z9 was never meant to be a video centric camera.

The big myth about Nikon is that, for pride's sake, they 'design' their own sensors and outsource for manufacture. This narrative is BS and purely marketing gobbledygook. More likely, the manufacturer of the sensors have sensor models available in their catalogue which can be tweaked according to the customer, and Nikon adds their own processor and software. If Nikon really 'designs' their own sensors, then why are they eerily similar to Sony sensors, from the MP count, readout rate, DR, etc.? And every time Nikon users get defensive about Sony making the sensors, they throw out the name Tower. The vast majority of sensors in Nikon cameras for the last few years were Sony, especially the FF ones. It's been proven by so many camera tear downs.

"All Sony needs is a better IBIS, and they will be better than any other manufacturer. "

Define "better?" That's the issue. Really at this point no brand in FF mirrorless can claim absolute technical superiority. And even if one brand ends up being technically "better" in some tech metrics, does that matter? Most tech differences these days amount to very little in real world shooting. And of course once one benchmark is achieved, then other brands leapfrog.

It's a fool's errand to chase tech specs these days. Choose what you like to use and what gets the job done for you, and don't worry about the spec comparisons.

@ Funny Valentine: The strange thing is that when people seriously try to compare the stabilization system of different full frame camera systems, the results are pretty much even. Some camera/lens combinations might be a tad better at some shutter speed ranges, and weaker at others. Even so when compared to the bold claim from Canon "up to 8 stop" - with a lot of ***** reservations.

Regarding IBIS, while I'd always say 'yes' to more. What I've got works.
Assuming a non-stabilized shutter speed of twice the focal length (because we print and display bigger with the higher resolution sensors of digital than we did with film) - I have no problems in hand-holding a 500mm lens at 1/100th. That 'only' requires 3.5 stops of stabilization.
It is nice to have gains, but it is always worth bearing in mind that they are likely to be marginal for technologies that have been around for a few years.

Huh look at Olympus they have a really small mount but good ibis.

@Djehuty

The CIPA protocol is here:

https://www.cipa.jp/image-stabilization/documents_e/DC-X011-2014_E.pdf

Gordon Laing tests IBIS in camera bodies and got 5 stops using a Sony lens in his A1 review and 3 with a Sigma third party. In his R5 test he got 5 stops for the RF 24-105/4 and 4 for the RF 50/1.2. Canon claims 8 and 7 stops for both those lenses incidentally.

Timestamped links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5GeNH3Ip0&t=613s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uazLXO3oLS4

@Funny Valentine, I'm pretty sure we're reading the same thing but seems like you're ignoring the tests. Marketing stops =/= usable stops, they do this all the time with DR.

I still stick to tried and true methods with shutter and focal length though, even with IBIS.

@Funny Valentine

"then what's the explanation between the huge gap of Canon (8 stops) and Sony (5,5 stops) ?"

Canon only claims 8 stops with one lens - RF the 24-105/4 and only at one focal length - 105mm:

"8-stops based on the CIPA standard with RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM at a focal length of 105mm".
https://www.canon.co.uk/cameras/eos-r5/specifications/ First footnote

If you watch the tests above by Gordon Laing you will see that he said he could not achieve this using the same lens, he only got 5 stops. You're free to interpret that as you wish but it's clear to me why that was.

@Bob Janes

Canon uses magnets in an Halbach array - a system that is unique to them - which could account for the improved performance. Canon is said to employ lens compensation TOGETHER with x and y axis translation, whereas Sony only employs one or the other, depending on whether the Lens has IS. That possibly has an impact.

As others have already replied it’s been tested to death, no one has ever managed to crank more then 5 stop out of Canon, in most cases Canon is 3.5-5 stops, Sony is 3-5 stops and most other brand are also within that range. The difference is insignificant and you cannot conclude it has anything with mount seize as performance between different seized are all over the map.

The 7-8 stop is wishful thinking, it also goes beyond earth’s rotation something that isn’t easily to go beyond and certainly no one has been able to counter it or been able to prove it, when people ask for the data they are silent as the grave.

This is a gear site, primarily. So discussions of the tech are expected and warranted.

The sync speed is what I noticed on the A1.

Been stuck at 250 for a while. Any improvement is welcomed.

Agree on the sync speeds. Even my decades old Hassy 500 C/M could sync to it's max shutter speed.

;-)

Technology is great but I think the term more applicable is "Spec Sheet numbers". People here judge everything off the spec sheet and if it's not #1 it's somehow worthless. Lens AF speeds or shutter FPS counts are a perfect example. 10 years ago 10FPS was great. Today if your camera doesn't do it it will never take good photos according to the comment section.

Adding to what Kerensky97 wrote, I think the review/YouTuber community needs to do a better job putting differences into real world perspective.

I don't need them to regurgitate the same tech specs that anyone can read, or to tell me which number is bigger, better, etc. That's the easiest, laziest approach.

Many reviewers act as if their job is to only point out differences, but it shouldn't stop there.

At their best, reviewers are desired for their insight, perspective, experience, wisdom...the higher level factors of human intelligence and judgement. Yes, you venture into the subjective, but who cares? That's what the job is.

Reviewers in the arts do not shy away from using their judgement, because they don't have tech specs to rely upon. The best reviewers of products are the same: they give customers useful perspective.

It could but my prediction is global shutter never comes to mainstream cameras. Instead we will get faster and faster readouts. In 5 years time we will be talking about 1/1000s readout and 1/800 sync speed.

Main reason for my prediction is that computational technologies require fast readout. That is, getting the data off the sensor faster so multiple frames can be processed in rapid succession. Global shutter doesn’t help achieve this. Global shutter may have instantaneous start and stop times but the readout is still slow.

Anyway I think readout continues to be improved and global shutter becomes a niche sensor technology for the areas that absolutely need frame wide start and stop times like industrial imaging.

@2JoeA7R2: with every gallery we have comments like yours. Not saying that there's no validity to it, but the point is that I could look at any gallery and say that the photos could have been taken with any camera.

In fact, I like BIF and so read some BIF forums. I see the same quality images taken with all 3 major brands: Canon, Nikon and Sony.

There's even one guy on FM who likes to try out the major gear from those 3. He's shot the R5, A1 and now is using the Z9. His images are wonderful and they look the same regardless of which camera system he is using. He has joked that he'll get his next camera to take the same shots all over again!

We are at a point where I believe most users would be best served by choosing the camera they like to use the most (in the category of cameras they need...for instance, sports/action, general purpose, etc) and not worry as much about the tech specs.

Not without stacking. (Or some other news technology we haven’t heard of yet.) And if you’re going to incur the stacking expense anyway what’s the point?

They have never been able to catch up in things like noise and DR and I don’t see that changing. For our photographic applications how much performance are you willing to give up in terms of image quality to go from a “readout speed” of 1ms to a “global rolling shutter” of 0ms (I know global rolling shutter is an oxymoron but you get the point.)

Furthermore I think advantages of fast readout in a rolling shutter will eventually outweigh the global shutter benefits.

Sony already seems to be doing this in some sensors (not the FF ones yet) to improve dynamic range. I believe their DOL-HDR mode is basically doing two readouts back to back without a charge reset in between. So it captures one image at 1/1000s and another image at 1/100 that started at the same time as the 1/1000s. The 1/1000s image can be used for highlights and the 1/100s image can be used for shadows.

Both images should be combinable on the sensor for a 3 stop DR improvement. (I don’t know if that’s how it’s implemented though).

This can’t be done with global sensor without a gap in the exposure.

Not sure if my explanation is clear. And some of you may not agree with me. But it’s very clear in my head and I really do believe the stacked sensor is obsoleting the global shutter for mainstream applications.

Actually a global shutter sensor should be substantially cheaper than a stacked sensor with rolling shutter.

If the performance becomes good enough maybe they have some relatively short lifespan for cheaper cameras. As computational photography processors get cheaper, global shutters will be squeezed out of the market In lieu of traditional rolling shutters that will continue to get faster (and will have an advantage over global) and stacked sensors that will also continue to get faster (on a different plane.)

lol.

False info.

The best full frame sensors ever have a DxOMark ranking of 100pts. The A1 sensor has a ranking of 98pts which is only neglegibly less (*) and still among the top 10 sensors.
___
(*) Differences 3pts or less are regarded unperceivable by DxO.

I will once again agree with Mike here: the A1 sensor is a really fantastic one.

A1`s sensor is ranked sixth in the DXO Mark. Moreover, it is weaker than the other five sensors. If it was good it would be the first. A1's sensor is not successful.

SMH…

"If it was good it would be the first."

So only the very best is good? You have high standards.
And since when did the DxOMark score equal photo quality?

“The Sony A1's sensor had poor results.”
“A1’s sensor is not successful.”

The only one exaggerating here is you.

6th place.

"If it was good it would be the first. A1's sensor is not successful."

LOL! IS this the same guy that was arguing that even though the new Nikon 100-400 is was described as "very fast" by DPR reviewers, because it's not as fast as a Sony lens "it's terribly designed and slow"?

If somebody's full opinion of gear is based purely on a ranking (where the difference from 1st to 10th is essentially imperceptible outside of precision testing), you know they're just a keyboard photographer who doesn't actually shoot. The A1 is more camera than 99% of the people complaining about it can handle.

Yeah, I'm dying with poor image quality from my A1. Hurt so bad! lol

The DxO rankings are not the final word on testing. Any process which takes an array of measurements to concoct a single number is flawed. If you have three sensors, and each is best in one area, you cannot describe any of them as the "winner".

The fact that you believe the A1 to be "not successful" and to have "poor results" says a lot about how you think, and nothing about the A1.

Top marks on trolling, though.

The cloud of confusion is only in your head.
Based on the upvotes I think it’s clear where the problem is.

The OP's assertions do illustrate a problem of perspective that many exhibit when evaluating gear, or at least as we see in these comments.

First, is an over reliance on tech specs and test results, which can be very arbitrary. As someone else mentioned, who made DXO the final arbiter of sensor quality? And how does one reduce a camera sensor down to a single number?

Second, is the idea that if a particular product is not absolute best, then it becomes useless. Many times in these brand debates we see this reasoning applied: "My brand is a tiny percent better in some metric, therefore your brand is a rotting stinking piece of garbage and of no worth."

Third, and related to the second, is an exaggeration of what tiny tech spec differences mean in the real world. I think in general the review/YouTuber community would do everyone a service if instead of just pointing out differences they actually gave us perspective on how much it mattered.

“It is not clear how the A1's sensor has passed the A7R II, which was released 6 years ago”

Oh, it is clear. The A1 sensor can provide 50 million samples of data in less than 1/250 (someone else quoted the measured time). That data can be captured as an image or used by the autofocus system. The A7RII can provide 42 million samples in around 1/15. That is a simple case of one of the ways the A1 sensor has surpassed the A7RII. There are other measures, but that one is a major difference. It is the reason why the A1 sensor is capable of operating without a mechanical shutter. Try using an A7RII to photograph something like a swinging bat in e-shutter mode, and observe the “rolling shutter” effect.

Oh. According to your gear list you don’t have any Sony cameras.

#MikeRan I think they get it from TikTok..

@gok
Does that take into account the lower pixel count of the ar2? Shouldn't the a1 be better simply because of more mp? Or is the a7s3 a better sensor than both?

The A1's sensor and other BSI sony sensors generally give a two-dimensional image due to the high but not good DR. If three dimensions were not lost, we can say that it is a good DR, but it is not good. When we look at the photos of the A1 in general, there is a sense of these two dimensions. DPR provided an example of a silver coin photo while reviewing the A1. A very nice shot taken in a studio environment, in strong dull light. But it's two-dimensional. Silver coin came out like paper coin. And why the silver coin came out red is another problem. I can take a more impressive photo with a 10-year-old 15mp apsc sigma dp3m with a hand flashlight. Being fast is another matter, other cameras also have fast read-out speed.
https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/4586421701/9339952440.jpeg
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129705981@N08/51149655853/in/photostream/

If you can’t make a good photograph with the A1 I would suggest the problem isn’t the sensor.

@gok
If you're looking for 3d pop everyone knows you need Zeiss lenses not good sensors

I for one have owned the A7R2,R3,R4 still own the R3 and now A1, anyone who thinks the images of the A1 are worse in real life use is just kidding themselves. The A7R2 and R3 are miles behind getting the image (which is step number 1) in the first place the A7R4 i can see in some cases better the A1 for me but the newer cpu's,speed,hitrate, buffer depth and speed and just knowing you can shoot all day without shutter wear makes me smile every time. I don't know any owners of the 7R2/7R3 and even 7R4 owners who feel 'sad' in upgrading to the A1 in fact most seem to sell the 7R4 after a while and ponder what todo for a backup many now turn to the a7IV as a backup to get the same controls, menu and a second 'solid' video camera with flipscreen.

And all of that mean zip zero if you use it for still standing objects, I can guarantee you allot who use the A7riii use it for that and for those the speed is rather irrelevant.

And for the price difference they can buy some nice glass…

Malling I think you have lost touch with the context of this post. Check the history to see what all this craziness was about.

Yep. I’m fake.
You just can’t handle you got ratioed 40:1..

@gkuzu
Dr and contrast aren't mutually exclusive... stop trolling

Never, because they use old sensors and still their apsc are far more popular than fuji.

Why bother?

Sony Semiconductor functions like an autonomous division separate from Sony Imaging. They will make any sensor for any customer if they can, and if the customer pays the price they ask.

The head of Sony Semi gets paid based on what his division does, not what Sony Imaging does.

As we've already seen, now Sony, Canon and Nikon have access to the stacked sensor technology.

if Z9 sensor is made by Sony it is strange that it has a full stop worse dynamic range than the A1 sensor, which is older

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%209,Sony%20ILCE-1

Thoughts, If you don't see a competitive advantage between division and division in Sony and Sony Semiconductor and different companies you are fooling yourself. It is, the question is how much. I think the fact that Sony seems to beat the competitors to the punch of late in sensor upgrades says a real lot. I'm not saying the competitors can't do it better than Sony, which is a challenge, because that's up for debate but Sony has leverage and expect them to continue to exploit it while you deny it.

@Ying Yon

Where do you see one stop difference in that chart? I can't.

Reminds me of when Sony split off the sensor division and Sony Semiconductor had to reassure everybody that they're not playing any favorites, whoever wants the newest sensor tech can get it from them if they pay. Then everybody thought it was doom and gloom for Sony Imaging because Sony seemed to be making the sensors more of a priority than the cameras.

Sony Semiconductor is completely different from Sony Camera division. They'll sell the top tech to whoever keeps giving them money. That's how businesses thrive.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0790860407/sony-spins-off-image-sensor-division-to-form-its-own-company

Pretty wide ranging and profound advantage to have in a technology lead product

The question is not if others can get these sensors, but when they can, when they get to know what the sensor division has in its pipeline, what will be the capabilities of new sensors 3 ir 5 years from now. I'm pretty sure that kind of information is available internally at Sony earlier than it is available to customers. And that can be an advantage.

One stop is not huge (we used to lose 1/3 of a stop via an SLT mirror - no biggie). The relationship between Sony semiconductor and its clients is also reliant to honoring their designs and patents - if someone coems to them with something that is a big advantage they will produce it, but they have to withold that from other competitors (even other divisions) - In a similar way if Sony Imaging has something they bring, Sony semiconductor is not necessarily open to sell it to competitors (although I think co-operation and technology swaps are not uncommon).

Until I see the current cycle break in the introduction of new sensor tech outside of Sony cameras first, I have doubts they aren't as cozy as you might think. Particularly in the FF mirrorless market. We will see.

One stop difference? More like a 1/4 stop. Probably within the bounds of measurement error.

@mferencz If Sony always got the best of Sony Semiconductors sensors they would dominate the performance charts but their competitors also running Sony made sensors test higher than them. Sure that cozy relationship means Sony seems to get new tech out the door first, but then other brands using Sony sensors outperform them. You'd think if they had exclusivity or an inside line the other camera companies didn't have they wouldn't be coming in second.

Leica would charge you $20.000 for same camera.

That depends on what you want to use it for @Magnar. Those who know, know and those who don't, say things like you... Ciao.

It's an interesting discussion, as it gets to the heart of what customers value in a camera, and the diversity of that.

Some value features and performance; obviously in that the A1 wins out over the Leica M11.

Some value other qualities like the bulld quality, overall feel, the user experience, etc...and for those many value the Leica over Sony.

There is no right answer but it does get to the heart of what users value, and the fact that there are different types of customers out there.

As someone mentioned, you don't have to put a motor on every canoe.

That's pretty much been the price for flagship sports bodies for a long time, Sony just hadn't positioned a body in the same class as a 1D or D5 before...

You can quibble about whether it's worth it or get into all sorts of subjective debates about value, but $6,500 is not strictly Leica territory, it's really nothing new for the big 3 in this industry.

@Magnar W: I think the point that Hoxton is making is that for him there is more than the array of tech features to a camera.

Everyone I think concedes that the A1 can do far more than a Leica. But to some it doesn't matter. They aren't wanting to shoot fast moving objects at a distance, for instance. They value a certain type of experience, even one that slows them down in their photographic journey.

A Leica does have a fascinating charm to it. There is a certain feel to it, and a pride of ownership. The experience is also unique. OTOH, the camera is the essence of simplicity to operate. OTOH, you don't have a modern convenience like AF to rely upon, so you are challenged more in that area.

Photographers understand more than most that many people value a connection to the past. In this modern tech era, many also value a return to simplicity.

Lol have you seen Leica glass prices you peasant. The price of the body is the least of your problems.

As if this place is for the mature? You must be new.

Sony, overhyping their products and gouging their gullible fanbase... aka fanboys.

If $6500 is gouging their fan base for a 50MP flagship camera that shoots 30FPS what do you call $6500 pricing on 20MP DSLR flagships that shoot at 14 or 16FPS?

Asking for a friend.

@MikeRan: I will be your friend for this question. :)

I will say that the $6500 DSLR body that you allude to is built like a tank and has a reputation and known history for holding up in all sorts of adverse conditions and usage. Those bodies will last for several years under extreme usage.

Not saying the Sony necessarily will not, but we don't have that type of history on it, at least not yet.

It gets to the heart of the question in another discussion, of what a customer places value upon. Sony puts all of their value in the electronic features inside, which is one way. But other companies not only do that, but place value on body build quality and user experience.

Yes. You put immense (pun intended) value on size and weight. I know.

And you completely missed the point. The point is a $6500 flagship is not gouging.

@MikeRan: gouging or not, but just the shutter sound worth +$1000 on the A1.

Huh? What are you talking about?
For me 50MP with a 1/260s readout with anti flicker mode in silent shutter in a package the size of an EOS rebel that makes me not a theft target is worth it to me.

YMMV.

*by a speaker.

Haha. This whole conversation has gotten very silly.
I’m out.

I don't know what the A1 shutter sounds like. I've never used it. The A1 can shoot anything (except 1/400 sync speed) using electronic shutter, and that's how I use it.

Not sure how someone can judge the sound of the Z9 shutter, either...

I like the sound of silence :-D

And this article isn't Sony hyping anything. In fact, it's a report by a firm doing product analysis that's verging on industrial espionage.

"In fact, it's a report by a firm doing product analysis that's verging on industrial espionage."

They do the analysis after the products have been released into the market. I think they're steering well clear of industrial espionage.

Are the pixels binned or are they grouped so four adjacent pixels are read as the same color (basically 4 become 1)?

Suspect they are doing this to provide more color data per pixel. But I wonder what does a RAW file look like internally. I wonder if someone like Jim Kasson has analyzed one.

How is that deceitful? The sensor was designed this way and It isn't marketed as an 48 megapixel camera. It's more a point of interest than anything else.

It's exactly like all the new smartphone camera sensors.

Not really deceitful. It says “effective”..
What’s more interesting to me is understanding how they are reading out 48MP raw pixels in 9.1ms without stacking.

Fair point. However deceit would generally imply you’re not getting what you paid for. And in this case if they’re able to provide more color data than would be available with a traditional bayer arranged 12MP sensor then the deception is perhaps better performance than one would otherwise expect.

I’m totally speculating but the deceit may have been aimed at their competition, not their customers.

@iso rivolta
It's absolutely not deceitful. That's twisting the meaning of a word to fit an agenda.

“Writing it has 12 Mp and instead the image has 48?”
No. The image has 12.

See? That’s the thing. You’re making it into something it’s not.

I really don’t consider this deceit. So pretty much anything would be more deceitful.

I guess the question is really whether you think Sony was being disingenuous in calling the sensor inside the A7sIII a 12 MP sensor.

Do you consider the 45MP R5 sensor actually being a 90MP sensor equally disingenuous? It still says 45 effective pixels?

I don’t. I think you’re reading too much into it.
But that’s just my opinion.

I have no idea what is the actual specs relating to the Sony A7SIII sensor, but it's amazing to me how some would rather take the word of a blogger cited by Sony Alpha Rumors rather than Sony itself.

If the A7SIII had some breakthrough sensor design, Sony marketing surely would have publicized that.

Either the speculation by the blogger cited is wrong, or inconsequential to the final product.

Because again, when has Sony ever been shy about promoting its technology inside of its devices?

Is it worse? Or are you making all of this up?

I have to agree with Mike here...everyone knows the performance of the A7SIII, and it's far superior the A7SII. So I don't see how it's worse than the "previous technology?"

If it's cheaper to manufacture, then good for Sony. The bottom line to the customer is the end performance and they can judge it through that. Right now it seems no one is really complaining about the performance of the A7SIII.

Teardown of camera and also using 🔎 shows a7s3 has quadbayer cmos.

@iso rivolta
That's just an incredibly strange point of view. You are literally twisting the word deceitful to fit your argument and you say that "I" have an agenda?

A Quad-Bayer fitted sensor are supposed to output a certain resolution, in this case 12 megapixel. You are not supposed to be able to output the "raw" 48 megapixels. It's not like those images would look like you suddenly have an Z7 or something. The images would not look better than an upscaled image from 12 megapixel.

You should stop staring at the megapixels, and learn what color filter arrays are doing.

Haha I know.

Totally. Same with all the armchair lens and optics experts posting so much theory-crafting and bad guesses/opinions. This is not a good site for anyone to properly learn about these topics.

Its possible that at least one of us knows what we are talking about

I wasn’t suggesting NOONE knows what they’re talking about. Know at least one other guy in here also works in a semi fab. Maybe you do too.

But looking at the comments here *almost* everyone posting here is basing their comments on what they read on the internet.

I'm amazed in this day and age people are still willing to believe anything that comes off the internet.
Sure maybe one person knows what they're talking about but their comments are identical to the other 1000 people who have no clue and are spreading misinformation like wildfire.
Basically just treat everything on the internet as false until confirmed by the real world. Otherwise you end up with people injecting bleach or drinking pee for medical reasons... "But I heard it on a podcast!"

The reality is the world has become one of such high speed information transfer (via the internet) such that it becomes so much more important to apply your own critical thinking to the information you read from various sources and you have to draw for yourself what is the most likely story. The so called Information Age.

There are multiple stacked sensors available from Sony.
IMX472
IMX383
IMX677
IMX204
IMX511
IMX577
IMX477
IMX458
All listed on their website as stacked.

I am also curious the cost impact of stacked sensors.
Likely easily double the cost of a non stacked sensor since there is an equally sized (I.e. very large) VLSI chip and the aligning and bonding process and associated yield loss.

How that translates to product cost is another factor.

Do you know how much it costs? It’s probably expensive and intended to be paid by a corporation.

(I’m sure it would also be a license violation to share it…. But I know you are kidding. 😁)

Almost a decade ago TechInsights (when they were Chipworks I think) did a blog series covering FF sensors at the time.

Back then, Canon was at 500nm, and Sony was at around 180-250 - IIRC one of Sony's earlier FF 24MP was 250, and the A7R/D800 36MP sensor was made on a 180nm process. Cross sections were included back then.

The blog has since been deleted and TechInsights hasn't done a similar roundup since. :(

The A1 image sensor is 90nm and the stacked VLSI chip is 45nm.
Edit: the VLSI chip is 40nm.

I’m particularly interested to see precisely how they are interconnecting the two dies during the stacking process. (Or the end result.)

@MikeRan and @Gannon - They have a free trial that appears to give access to their full database. You need a corporate e-mail address though to sign up - they wont accept any online email service or ISP provided email address. Here's the link to sign up: https://auth.svc.techinsights.com/signup/username?app=TISAPP-PROFILE

Hmmmm..

Here's Nikon's own news story at least. Don't know if it's geeky enough. :-)

https://www.nikon.com/news/2021/0303_cmos_01.htm

Since by far Canon sells the most cameras, No.

Canon does not use their own sensors for all their products. There are a bunch of them that uses Sony sensors, mostly the point and shoots.

Nobody really cares about point an shoots, an nobody doing real photography cares about so called smart phone cameras an their so called good enough images.

if including the most sold imaging devices (phones) pretty much every "camera" is equipped with Sony sensor.

Do Samsung phones use Sony sensors? Do the majority of Chinese phones use Sony sensors?

@noirdesir Statistically yes, Sony produces almost 50% of the worlds image sensors. Samsung is second at just below 20%.

Many of Samsung's phones do use Sony-manufactured sensors (although some of them appear to be Samsung designed and Sony manufactured)

Of interest - Canon is willing to license DPAF to people who don't compete directly with them, so DPAF is available in mobile phones, even (I think) some with Sony-manufactured sensors.

Canon has little to no presence in the mobile sensor market other than IP licensing.

Love how some people like to change the definition of Camera to meet their standards.

If now, nearly everybody are using Sony sensors, that would explain the miserable lack of IQ improvement over the last decade across the board.

@dmanthree, Keep teeling yourself that. Nikon also claimed that D850's sensor is their own research until some enthusiast made teardown and it turned out to be Sony's marking on sensor

@BackToNature1, the only sensors that ain't made by Sony in popular full-frame MILCs are R5 and R6 sensors and both lags behind Sony's

Fancy, when I see actually work that lags, then I would actually see something worthy of note. Most photographers are lagging behind what folks in the DSLRs world are still doing, in spite of the so called heralded advances in mirrorless. So lagging on some spec sheet is mostly, meaningless. Brag about specs sheets, I prefer to see one's actual work.

You must never have heard from a Israeli company called Aptina.... As these sensors are often being used in many of Nikon higher end products.

And yes it is actually quite common to use a stock sensor and have it made to client specifications. Fuji does it with X-Trans, Nikon does it together with Aptina.

So no liars, just facts. Must hurt for you that Sony doesn't sell all of the sensors in the world. Produced by and made by are two entirely different things.

"Keep teeling yourself that. Nikon also claimed that D850's sensor is their own research until some enthusiast made teardown and it turned out to be Sony's marking on sensor"

This is very common...one company, say Nikon does design the sensor and add their own IP, and then another company, say Sony, manufactures it for them according to Nikon's specifications.

There is the design and there is the manufacturing. For instance, Apple designs their own processors but TSMC makes them for Apple. It's Apple IP.

So that D850 sensor could very well be Nikon's "own research" but still made by Sony.

Now it's still an impressive achievement for Sony Semi to have the expertise to make these sensors, and no doubt when a company like Nikon designs a sensor to be made by Sony they have to take into account the capabilities of Sony and work with Sony engineers

Actually same docs about R3 do not have info about who supplies the sensor.
This is why some people suspect it is sony as well.

Wasn't the Z9 sensor rumored to be made by Tower Semiconductor. Until we get a teardown we wont really know. Also wasn't Nikon working with Toshiba to make there custom sensors when Sony bought Toshibas sensor business in 2015. just a few months before D5 and D500 came out

Francis85 Aptina has not existed for 8 years.

@Francis85 TMK Nikon never used Aptina in their high-end cameras when they were around. It was mainly Renesas who fab'd Nikon's internal designs and later Tower (which were quite impressive at the time BTW).

Nikon seems to be using Sony currently, and Nikon is probably still doing their own internal designs or custom mods to make their product different.

If you have any evidence of Aptina sensors in Nikon high-end camera's please share.

" @BackToNature1, the only sensors that ain't made by Sony in popular full-frame MILCs are R5 and R6 sensors and both lags behind Sony's " -Fancy

Hmm, I'd trade away some of my A7R4's res for the much faster readout rate of the R5, that sensor is gonna age pretty well IMO... I wouldn't trade the E mount ecosystem tho. :P

"Actually same docs about R3 do not have info about who supplies the sensor. "

That's because Canon designed and made the sensor; no need to state an external supplier.

There was that dumb rumor about Sony making the sensor for Canon, but Canon responded to this with a firm statement:

In a statement to PetaPixel, Canon has reiterated in no uncertain terms that it is not only the designer of the new sensor but also its manufacturer.

"The sensor in the upcoming EOS R3 camera is Canon designed and manufactured."

https://petapixel.com/2021/06/18/canon-rebuffs-rumors-that-its-r3-sensor-is-made-by-sony/

Of course there's nothing wrong with using a Sony sensor; they make great sensors. But it's absurd to create a narrative that just isn't true.

I thought dual pixel is a Canon thing. I would be surprised that their flagship sensor is made by Sony since Canon make sensors themselves.

Doesn't even matter who makes it? As long as performance is improving and cost goes down. Best part used in the camera is a win for consumers.

I misunderstood. Thanks

I do tend to agree with Mike in that this doesn't seem like any big news.

As Mike says, no other camera today uses a 50MP stacked sensor. And any company could go to Sony Semiconductor and ask them to build a custom sensor just for them, built to their specifications and design.

Nikon could do that, Fuji could do that, and so Sony Imaging could certainly do that as well.

In fact on these high end cameras, I would bet that no matter who manufactures the sensor for the vendor, that they all tend to be exclusive to that vendor. For instance, whoever makes the Z9 sensor for Nikon, then that is probably an exclusive just for Nikon.

While I'm sure it's possible to purchase a mass produced pre manufactured sensor from Sony it's obvious looking at the sensor models that many of the high end sensors are custom made for the customer. Even if they're a variation of a known or existing sensor line they make a "new model" specific to that customer.

Which makes sense, the architecture that it's connecting to is different from the "Sony Camera" sensor everybody claims its identical to. Many of the previous cameras that people said "These two sensors are the same because the MP and ISO performance is almost identical to each other" turned out to be different model numbers. They're probably 99% the same, but they still need to tweak a few things on the customer's request to work with the customer system.

So it's kind of pointless to split hairs over IMX610 being "exclusive." It's not news.