Comments on: Nikon D3x sensor – made by Sony, designed by Nikon

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:09:18 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnwf2RShNV0

By: Renee

Renee — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:46:41 +0000

This sounds also logical, as Sony uses a different brand process equipment, that Nikon cant buy.

That is probably the reason those sensors arent manufactured @ Nikon. The reason for a diffent sensor, could be just a simple as they like to optimise the sensor interface to the image processor. having extra hardware to match those interfaces might me a step they might not wanted to take.

But, I’m just guessing, as things I often see in the embedded software development environments I work in.

Hope this might enlighten some design choices, as I dont know if these I apply here.

Cheers,
Renee

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:00:49 +0000

Thanks for the info – do you have a link for this so I can post it for everyone to read?

By: Xavier

Xavier — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:30:41 +0000

From: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=829432

‘The sensor is manufactured by Sony, but it’s designed exclusively for Nikon,’ Nikon UK’s group marketing manager Jeremy Gilbert tells BJP. ‘We have input in the production. We send them a list of requirements of what we need, and we also send them our specifications. The final result is a sensor designed especially for the D3x. We have a closer relationship in the production of our sensor than any other manufacturer.’

By: luk

luk — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:19:10 +0000

Hmm…why you talking only about expensive zeiss lenses? I saw samples A900 with few old Minolta lenses (cost 300-1000$ – is this expensive?) and work very, very good so your argument isn’t good. There’s no wery wide zoom like nikon 12-24 but new zeiss 16-35/2.8 is coming.

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:12:41 +0000

That’s funny!

By: Aleksey

Aleksey — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:49:41 +0000

He is probably working for Nikon’s marketing department, so he is just doing his job.IMHO. If he is not, then they should pay him some bonus.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:47:49 +0000

You know – I was wondering the same thing. It will not be so difficult for Nikon to track him down now – there are not so many people that had initial access to the D3x before it was released… and he also has a website?

By: SimonG

SimonG — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:06:55 +0000

Errrr . . . nope.

You work it out like this . . .

pixel pitch = 35.9/6048 = 5.9358 microns

and NO ! it’s not a Sony sensor . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:52:29 +0000

i don;t care about D3x i bougth the D3 yet

By: Eric B

Eric B — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 06:28:03 +0000

I agree, just because Sony makes the sensor doesn’t mean the nikon doesn’t add some of its own components to the sensor UNIT design before putting it in camera. I doubt that sony makes the entire D3x sensor unit. that is the A/D circuitry, housing for it, and or course the AA filter and other intangibles that we wouldn’t know about that optimize it for the nikon F-mount lenses…

By: Pablov

Pablov — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:18:13 +0000

mmmm,……….

0.1 inch ?
that would really be a high iso killer (but the lens would be sooooo BIG… )

By: gs

gs — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:15:51 +0000

It is quite possible that sensor “wells” are the same with a different microlens structure, bayer filter, aa filter, hi/lo-pass filter, etc It is also possible that connection paths and some associated electronics are different, e.g., the ability to pull off 3:2/FF, 5:4 and APS-C/DX data streams. And, on-sensor AD conversion could be different.

The same basic sensor design could be altered very slightly and optimized in many different ways resulting in vastly different final results and still have the same well size and pixel pitch and come off the same fab line.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:47:55 +0000

but as has been discussed here MANY times, the D3 and D700 sensor was NOT manufactured by Sony, we have that information on the word of Sony itself…

By: Douglas

Douglas — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:45:46 +0000

those are processors, not sensors…

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:52:07 +0000

Which features are you talking about, specifically, aside from live view?

I don’t remember any nikons having intelligent preview.

By: Ernst

Ernst — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:25:25 +0000

The sensors are made by the same company in the same fab with identical pads and identical (public) specifications.

Any change in pixel design that Nikon may have requested is known to Sony. If the change is a real improvement, the only way Nikon can keep Sony from incorporating those changes into the Alpha is by means of an elaborate and ironclad contract and/or a patent on the design.

Under these circumstances, It’s *possible* they’re different, but it’s hardly “nonsense” to suspect that the sensors are identical and that they differ only in post-processing.

By: Ericwelch@me.com

Ericwelch@me.com — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:03:28 +0000

Maybe people were holding back buying D3s because they were hoping for a cheap D3X? So Nikon brought it out fast to show people it’s not a bad idea to just go with the D3. That’s what I’m going to do. Either a D3 or D700. Forget 24 megapixels. I don’t need that much.

As for the idea that the sensors are the same, that’s nonsense. They might be related and share some technology, but I’m betting that Nikon does things that will make the image quality better. But only time will tell.

By: SimonG

SimonG — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:24:08 +0000

Nikon D3X, pixels wide 6048, sensor size width 35.9mm, pixel pitch = 35.9/6048 = 5.9358 microns (rounded to 5.94 microns)

Sony A900, pixels wide 6048, sensor size width 35.9mm, pixel pitch = 35.9/6048 = 5.9358 microns (rounded to 5.9 microns)

I’m just about to start designing my own 24 Mpixel FF CMOS sensor . . . the image width will be 6048 pixels . . . . guess what the pixel pitch will be ??

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:55:07 +0000

Okay, so the fact that Nikon isn’t making their sensors is not such a big deal to me. Nikon isn’t a microprocessor company. They aren’t set up to make their own silicon. Sony is. I believe this is what is making the camera so expensive. It is kind of like Fuji buying Nikon bodies. It drove the cost up astronomically. It is also what drove them out of business.

No, I am not saying that Nikon is going to go out of business, but this kind of action is crap. There is no way this will compete with medium format cameras. Sensor size is what sets them apart. It seems that at the price they are charging they are shooting for that market.

Oh well, I think this is the Windows Vista of cameras. A lot of hype for a big price that doesn’t deliver anything special. Yeah I know a lot of MPs is good for some. Heck, I am one of them. But this just disappoints.