List of all Nikon DSLR cameras and their sensor manufacturer/designer

A reader linked in the comments (thanks El Aura) to this dpreview thread that contains a list of all Nikon DSLR cameras and the corresponding sensor manufacturer/designer. I always wanted to create such list for reference, so here it is - feel free to post in the comments section if any of the information listed below is incorrect and I will update:

D40: 6 MP CCD Sony
D40x: 10 MP CCD Sony
D50: 6 MP CCD Sony
D60: 10 MP CCD Sony
D70: 6 MP CCD Sony
D80: 10 MP CCD Sony
D90: 12 MP CMOS Sony
D7000: 16 MP CMOS Sony
D7100: 24 MP CMOS Toshiba
D7200: 24 MP CMOS Toshiba (source)

D3000: 10 MP CCD Sony
D3100: 14 MP CMOS Nikon
D3200: 24 MP CMOS Nikon
D3300: 24 MP CMOS Sony

D5000: 12 MP CMOS Sony
D5100: 16 MP CMOS Sony
D5200: 24 MP CMOS Toshiba
D5300: 24 MP CMOS Sony (?)
D5500: 24 MP CMOS Sony

D100: 6 MP CCD Sony
D200: 10 MP CCD Sony
D300: 12 MP CMOS Sony

D600: 24 MP CMOS Sony
D610: 24 MP CMOS Sony
D750: 24 MP CMOS Sony

D700: 12 MP CMOS Nikon
Df: 16 MP CMOS Nikon

D800/D800E: 36 MP CMOS Sony
D810/D810A: 36 MP CMOS Sony

D1: 2.7 MP Sony
D1h: 2.7 MP Sony
D1x: 5.47 MP Sony
D2h: 4 MP LBCAST Nikon
D2x: 12 MP CMOS Sony (Nikon designed)
D3: 12 MP CMOS Nikon
D3s: 12 MP CMOS Nikon
D3x: 24 MP CMOS Sony
D4: 16 MP CMOS Nikon
D4s: 16 MP CMOS Nikon

Nikon 1 cameras: sensors made by Aptina (not sure about the J5)

Note: some of the Nikon-designed sensors are made by Renesas.

Her is another table with the actual sensor models from

Sensor Nikon model
Nikon NC81338L D3, D700
Nikon NC81361A D3s
Nikon NC81362A D3100
Nikon NC81369R D3200
Nikon NC81366W D4, D4s, Df
Nikon JFET-LBCAST D2h, D2hs
Sony IMX-007-AQ D2x, D2xs
Sony IMX-071 D7000, D5100
Sony IMX-094-AQP D800, D800E, D810, D810a
Sony IMX-021-BQR D300
Sony IMX-038-BQL D300s, D90, D5000
Sony IMX-128-(L)-AQP D600, D610, D750
Sony IMX-028 D3x
Sony ICX-453-AQ D40, D50, D70, D70s
Sony ICX-493-AQA D40x, D60, D80, D3000
Sony ICX-483-AQA D200
Sony ICX-413-AQ D100
Sony IMX-193-AQK D5300, D3300, D5500, D7200
Toshiba HEZ1 TOS-5105 D5200, D7100

Another online reference can be found here.

Update: both the Nikon D5 and D500 sensors are made by Sony.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • doge


  • Shane Laake

    Is Nikon a “manufacturer/designer” or just the latter (ala Apple, AMD, Nvidia, etc…)? I didn’t know Nikon had a fab or capability to actually make sensors. I believe Renesas (Hitachi, Mitsubishi, and NEC joint effort) makes them:

    • Mark

      You are correct, Nikon doesn’t manufacturer their sensors, Renesas does. Nikon designs, Renesas makes it (for the ones with Nikon listed beside it)

      • Bob Newman

        Renesas fabricates the silicon wafers. That’s not the same thing as ‘making’ the sensor.

      • Bob Newman

        I think Renesas just fabricated the wafers. That’s not making the sensor. Nikon has had image processor capability (using foundry service for the wafers) since the D2H.

    • ArkadiiShapoval

      Here is my researches for Nikon (Sony/Toshiba) sensors (all Nikon DSLR)

      • I will add this table – I also approved your other comments.

        • ArkadiiShapoval

          Thanks, I spent a lot of time to find this information

      • KnightPhoto

        Some interesting things in your list:
        – D4S = D4 sensor;
        – D800 entire series same sensor, even the 810A;
        – strangely the D200 was not = D80 sensor group!

        • ArkadiiShapoval

          Nikon D80 use the Sony ICX-493-AQA sensor,
          which is a two-channel version of the four-channel Sony ICX-483-AQA used
          in the D200. The difference is one has more pins so it can read out
          data quickly enough for the D200’s 5FPS, otherwise it’s the same data
          and image quality.

          And D4s is just program upgrade of D4 (as D70 and D70s).

      • Bob Newman

        D7200 is wrong. It’s the Toshiba sensor.

    • Robert Disney

      You do realize that Nikon is part of The Mitsubishi group right? So in that sense, Nikon does have access to fabs.

  • Toshik

    The list is not correct.

    D5300 has sony sensor, D7200 has Sony sensor

    • Mark

      You are correct on the D5300, but wrong on the D7200 – the D7200 is in fact a Toshiba sensor, confirmed by multiple credible sources.

      This list is also very misleading, Renesas is the manufacturer for Nikon’s designs.

      • El Aura

        The label ‘manufacturer’ is the misleading part. This list is only about the sensor designer (though of course most if not all of the Sony and Toshiba designed sensors in that list are also manufactured by the respective company).

        • Mark

          Agreed – I think the data just needs another column to show both designer and manufacturer. Nikon also tweaks the third party sensors that end up in it’s bodies but that’s getting into unnecessary detail I imagine.

          • Bob Newman

            ‘Manufacturer’ is misleading. Nikon remains the ‘manufacturer’ of the Nikon sensors, eve if they contract out some of the manufacturing. Contract services in manufacturing are commonplace. There is only this silly discussion for camera sensors because Canon marketing makes such a play of owning their own fab lines, which really is neither here nor there. Most sensor manufacturers use foundry services.

          • go on then add the column 😉

      • but not for all Nikon-designed sensors – some were made by Sony

        • manhattanboy

          Is anyone curious as to why Nikon stayed with Toshiba for the 7200 when all of their other DX cameras flipped to Sony? Is it something to do with throughput from the higher fps?

          • I have no idea.

          • AR22

            I guess it is to show sony that they are not the only ones

            • Piotr Kosewski

              And it worked because Sony took over Toshiba not so long after D7200 was released. 😛

              Basically, different sensor manufacturer means vastly different interface. Switching the sensor provider would mean a serious redesign of camera interiors (hardware and software). D7200 is a minor update after all – based on unlocking some features rather than actual improvement.

              This is an interesting situation. Will Sony keep the old sensor in production? Nikon might be forced to switch to a Sony-designed sensor, which could mean a successor (D7500) is on its way already…

            • El Aura

              The best explanation for staying with the Toshiba sensor, I have seen so far. Others have speculated contracts but I think your explanation is more likely.

              But I think the sensor will stay in production (for the 18 months or so when the next D7x00 model is scheduled to be released), Sony seems to keep producing a 16 MP APS-C sensor since 2010.

            • Bob Newman

              ‘Contracts’ is actually pretty likely. Any company exists to make a profit. When Toshiba bid to supply Nikon with an APS-C sensor, the tender would have been framed so that Toshiba recovered the R&D costs for a type of sensor they’d never done before (size of sensor, pixel size and bit depth of ADC were all greater than Toshiba had done before). So the terms would have either included Nikon paying for R&D or Nikon committing to sufficient quantity to recoup the R&D. So, the D7200 could simply have been Nikon using up the contractual quantity. Possibly reluctance to re-engineer the camera would have contributed, but I doubt it, because they already had done all that work for the D5300.

        • Bob Newman

          Which ones? There is no evidence that any ‘Nikon designed’ sensors were made by Sony. ‘Nikon designed’ are D2h, D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D3100, D3200 (by first model) – none of those were ‘made’ by Sony. Nor were the Nikon sensors ‘made’ by Renesas, the silicon was fabricated on a Renesas line doing contract manufacturing for Nikon.
          The only other sensor some might argue were ‘designed’ by Nikon were the original D1 sensor and the D2X sensor. In both cases, its pretty clear that all the substantive design work was done by Sony, because Sony retained rights to the IP.

      • Could you name at least one ‘credible’ source? Just curious, ‘coz tried to search through the net before, no success…

        • El Aura

          Apart from trusting certain people like Thom Hogan or Bob Newman there are two verifiable sources:
          (1) companies that dissect the actual sensor and find part numbers and company markings at a size only visible with specialised equipments (high-powered microscopes up to electron microscopes).
          (2) official photos of the sensor package without the camera, you’ll find clear resemblances between different sensors from the same designer (as in company) and clear differences between sensors from different companies. On their own they don’t tell you the name of the designer but if you combine that with other know information (eg, from (1)), you can eventually figure most things out.

          • El Aura

            Chipworks was the company I had in mind for (1).

          • I think I read somewhere that someone disassembled it, and found that the sensor looks like a Toshiba one in many aspects (the statement based on certain physical properties like the color and the border size of the sensor, etc.) but found *some* signs of Sony design, too… As I remember, part number was not found. Confusing, ehh. Help me NR, you are my only hope… 😀

        • Mark

          Chipworks says the D7200 is a Toshiba sensor – IMO they are the best possible source.

      • Bob Newman

        No, Nikon is. Renesas fabricates the Silicon. Otherwise, you’re going to have to credit TSMC for the Aptina sensors and who knows for the Sony sensors that they outsource silicon fabrication. A sensor is more than just the silicon and most sensor companies (and many other semiconductor companies) outsource fabrication at foundry services.

      • peevee

        I wonder why the sensor in D5200, D7100 is listed as 24.1Mpix, while the one in D5300, D5500, D7200 as 24.2Mpix, on Nikon’s own website:

        Obviously, Chipworks should know, and they list D7200 as Toshiba.

    • El Aura

      You are correct about the D5300. If you look at the original thread, the ‘position’ of the Toshiba sensor in the D5x00 line was originally set to the D5300 and then the D5200 got corrected to being Toshiba without the D5300 being corrected back to Nikon.

      Here are two images of the D5200 and D5300 sensors (which look clearly different):

  • Eric Calabros

    This list shows Nikon never trust Sony for big pixel sensors 🙂

  • Larry Holt

    You missed the D50.

    • ArkadiiShapoval

      Also missed D2hs, d2xs, d800e, d810a

      • El Aura

        As are the D70s and the D300s. All of which didn’t really have different sensors than their non-‘s’ (or non-‘E’ or ‘a’) companions (except for the stuff in front of the sensor for the D800E and D810a). The D3s however clearly had a new sensor (compared to the D3) and the D4s sensor also performs noticeably different from the D4 sensor.

        • ArkadiiShapoval

          In fact D300s and D300 has different sensors. D300 use old-style Sony IMX-021-BQR, and D300s use the same sensor as D90 and D5000 – Sony IMX-038-BQL (with video capability). And, yes, D3s is clearly new.

          • El Aura

            You are right, forgot about the newer sensor in the D300s (and D90 & D5000). Though all are Sony designs.

      • T.I.M

        The D800, D800E, D810A share the same sensor (with some filtering modifications)

    • El Aura

      True, it has the same sensor as the D70.

  • Jan

    D2H/s and D2X/s are DX not FF.

    • Thom Hogan

      And the D2x is a Nikon-designed sensor fabbed by Sony, another of those strange nuances that are difficult to show in such a simplified list. Indeed, of the “Sony” sensors in that list, three of them were clearly Nikon-influenced in design.

      Then there’s the D1, D1h, and D1x, which you don’t list. The D1 was Sony design with Nikon binning. The D1h ditto, the D1x was even more of a dramatic Nikon change to existing Sony sensel structures.

      • El Aura

        Yep, that D2x is another slip up. But which other ‘Sony’ sensors in that list do you count as Nikon-influenced (would you count the D810 with that)?

      • thanks, will update the list

      • Bob Newman

        “And the D2x is a Nikon-designed sensor fabbed by Sony”. Not so sure. It looks like the IP remained with Sony. The Sony R1 used a slightly cut-down version of the same sensor and it looks like the IMX021 used pretty much the same pixel design. So while Nikon worked with Sony and persuaded them to make a CMOS sensor, I think it’s clear it was essentially a Sony product (as evidenced by the Sony product number, IMX007, suggesting it was actually their 7th CMOS design-I think the IMX001 was a CCTV sensor).

        • Thom Hogan

          The Nikon/Sony relationship is very intertwined. Nikon has often used basic Sony pixel designs (including the original D1, which was a 10.4mp pixel layout with Nikon binning and communications changes), but then added to them. The Sony transition from CCD to CMOS was helped by Nikon tech, and the D2x sensor was one of the crossover points for that. The D2x sensor appeared prior to the R1 using the same tech.

          • Bob Newman

            Hi Thom,

            Sure, likewise, every Sony process development (such as stitching, for instance) depends on the engineering support of the photolithography supplier, Nikon. What I was quibbling with was the description of the D2X sensor as ‘Nikon designed’. I don’t think there’s much evidence for that. There is plenty pf evidence of Nikon persuading Sony to go into CMOS but lots of things suggest that sensor came from Sony designers, not Nikon. First, as I said, Sony retained the IP and reused it in the R1 and the IMX021. Next, the part had ‘Sony’ and a Sony part number (IMX007) on the chip, as verified by Chipworks. That also suggests Sony retaining the IP. Then there is how the chips are designed. As you know from your own engineering experience, individual designers and teams develop their own way of doing things. Sony pixels have a very distinctive ‘striped’ pixel layout (almost as if they had been designed by people brought up designing CCDs, funny that), which places the transfer transistor and source follower opposite sides top and bottom of the pixel with nothing on the sides. That’s a layout that seems common all the way from the IMX007 right through to the IMX094. See these chipworks images (the ones publicly released) of the IMX021 (same pixel as IMX007) and IMX094 (D800 sensor). Then look at how Nikon designs a pixel in the NC81366W (D4 sensor) showing a Canon style layout with the electronics round all four sides of the sensor. So, I have no doubt that the IMX007 was designed by the same team (maybe eve the same people) as the IMX094, which makes it a Sony, not a Nikon.

            • Bob Newman

              Sorry, one image lost from the last post. It shows IMX021 top, NC81366W bottom. Here’s the IMX094.

            • Thom Hogan

              “Design” is such a tough word. Also, as you know, the layout tools used by the actual producer (fab) will influence some of the things you note. To my knowledge, Nikon has transferred multiple IPs to Sony over the course of the last two decades. Almost none of them have to do with the photo diode design. Most have to do with the data interpretation and transfer.

              There’s no doubt in my mind that Sony/Nikon have long had a coopetetion agreement between sensor “design” groups. This dates all the way back to 1988 as far as I can tell. The difference between “Sony Semiconductor” and “Nikon Imaging” is pretty simple: Sony Semi sells chips to others; Nikon is only interested in their own internal use of chips. This has resulted in a quite a few arrangements where Nikon was first to use something the two cooperatively created, then Sony went on to sell it to others (and use it themselves).

              At the time of the D2, Nikon actually had three different “sensor design” groups active. One of those was pursuing the switch from CCD to CMOS with Sony.

            • Bob Newman

              “Also, as you know, the layout tools used by the actual producer (fab) will influence some of the things you note.” The fab doesn’t specify the layout tools, they simply set design rules, none of which would affect the pixel design to this large scale. Moreover, any set of VLSI tools you choose (be it Cadence or Mentor or another) would be capable of laying out either of these. All that has happened here is that one team has decided to restrict the transistors to top and bottom of the pixels (as I said, most likely because they were used to designing CCDs, so started out with a layout with which they were familiar

              “Nikon has transferred multiple IPs to Sony over the course of the last two decades. Almost none of them have to do with the photo diode design. ” – No doubt, but this isn’t just the ‘photodiode design’, this is the layout of the photodiode and all of the transistors in the pixel.

              “The difference between “Sony Semiconductor” and “Nikon Imaging” is pretty simple: Sony Semi sells chips to others; Nikon is only interested in their own internal use of chips.” – well, plus the difference that they design sensors completely differently, from top to bottom. Not just the pixel layout, but the ADC architecture and how the chip itself is organised and packaged. These are two design teams with almost no common practice. Nikon’s is more similar to Canon’s than it is to Sony (actually not surprising, since the same team of Mitsubishi consultants advised Canon when it got into sensor design and Nikon for the D3 design).

              “This has resulted in a quite a few arrangements where Nikon was first to use something the two cooperatively created, then Sony went on to sell it to others (and use it themselves).” Interesting that Sony went on to develop and exploit this joint endeavour, while Nikon started again with the D3, and produced its own sensor which owed practically nothing to it at all.

              “At the time of the D2, Nikon actually had three different “sensor design” groups active. One of those was pursuing the switch from CCD to CMOS with Sony.” I would speculate that the different teams were doing quite different things, and the team working with Sony was probably mainly involved in helping them develop a CIS process, with such things as pinned photodiodes and deep implants. As Sony’s photolithography partner, Nikon would almost inevitably have been involved in developments like that for any customer. One can imagine that if Nikon wanted the sensor, that support would have been part of the deal, which would mean that Nikon could count it as a joint development.

              My guess (maybe you have better information) would be:
              Team 1: the LBCAST team.
              Team 2: Process engineers working with Sony to develop a CMOS imager process from Sony’s existing processor CMOS process.
              Team 3: The Mitsubishi team that had been working with Canon (not strictly a Nikon team but in the environs).
              Then possibly Team 2 went on to work with Renesas to get their CMOS process imager compatible so that for the D3 Team 3 could design a sensor and have it fabbed there. (this team probably also helped both fabs develop stitching capability for FF sensors). A bit more interesting information, Sony was at the time in a ‘fab club’ with IBM and Toshiba, keeping their CMOS processes compatible for the Cell processor that was used for the Playstations. That would have made it very simple for Team 2 to get Toshiba’s CIS process ready, and coincidentally resulted in three process compatible lines (Sony, Renesas, Toshiba) which later all ended under Sony ownership.

            • Thom Hogan

              Pretty good guess. The main LBCAST team members were given window offices after the D2h disaster (I suspect you know what that means). You’re close on your other two guesses, but it’s more complex than that. The D3 team was a split out of those, I think, with the remaining LBCAST team. At present, I don’t think Nikon has three teams anymore. I suspect two with overlap, but my source there is now gone so I don’t know for sure.

            • Bob Newman

              “The main LBCAST team members were given window offices after the D2h disaster (I suspect you know what that means).”


  • Nikon1isAwesome!

    By this list I prefer sensors by Nikon.

    • MonkeySpanner

      You mean the pro full frame bodies?

      • Nikon1isAwesome!

        Yes, in my humble opinion the D700 and Df have more POP (whatever that is). I just like the images better than the D7000 and the D800 that I have used.

  • Steve Perry

    Hmm… I guess I don’t care who makes the sensor as long as Nikon is calling the shots. It looks like I’ve had Sony, Nikon, and Toshiba sensors and have been happy with all of them.

  • Spy Black

    No Nikon 1 manufacturers.

    • El Aura

      They are all Aptina except for the J5 which might be Sony though some of the sensor IP of all of them is clearly Nikon.

      • Mark

        Also I believe Sony purchased Aptina’s sensor fabrication lines, and there are rumors they are looking to buy Toshiba’s as well.

        • Sony already purchased Toshiba:

          • Mark

            Thank you sir – I did not know it was a done deal.

            • very welcome – I try to cover other non-Nikon related news on

            • Bob Newman

              No they didn’t buy ‘Toshiba;. They bought Toshiba’s sensor business. The two companies have always been very closely related, with Toshiba fabricating the processor chips for the play stations (which is the same chip that forms the core of the Bionz, probably also fabricated by Toshiba). Over the years there have been fab lines swapped back and forth, repurposed for image sensors or processors and back again.

            • that’s correct, they only bought their sensor business

        • El Aura

          Aptina itself was purchased by the industrial imaging sensor company ON Semiconductor (which I would have assumed included any manufacturing assets but some of them could have been sold to others).

          Sony bought Toshiba’s complete imaging sensor division just recently (give or take maybe some smaller elements of it).

          • Bob Newman

            ON Semi is not an ‘image sensor company; it is a general semiconductor manufacturer, specialising originally in analog chips. It’s also not ‘international’, it’s American. It is part of what was the Motorola conglomerate which span off its semiconductor interests into two companies, On Semi, doing the analog stuff and the digital stuff to Freescale. Since then the rump of Motorola was acquired by Google (mainly for its patent portfolio to aid the patent war against Apple) and then on to Lenovo (which was IBM’s PC business).
            Aptina never did have any manufacturing assets. They were a ‘fabless’ company.

        • Bob Newman

          No they didn’t. Aptina never had any sensor fabrication lines. They used (probably still use) the TSMC foundry in Taiwan.

  • animalsbybarry

    The new ff mirrorless sensor will be made by Samsung.

  • Michiel953

    Thanks for that info!

  • thanks for the input, I will start updating the list

  • J J

    So, better DR = Sony design, better high ISO = Nikon design

    • Wesley

      Not really.

      Nikon just didn’t create the D700S with the Sony a7S sensor 😉

  • ArkadiiShapoval

    What kind of sensor is inside D1x, D1, D1h?

    • Thom Hogan

      D1/D1h was a Sony 10.4mp sensor fully binned by Nikon, the D1x was partially binned.

      • Good ‘ol 6 MP images; those were the days… I could fit a couple thousand images on a 4 GB microdrive. Eww, microdrive!

      • RRRoger

        My D1 was only 2.7 MP.
        So was my D1H
        The D1x was only 5.3 MegaPixels

        • Thom Hogan

          You don’t understand the term “binned.”

  • DrToast

    Toshiba makes good sensors.

    • Dima135

      I think its somethind like patented variations of sony sensor. Who is this Toshiba ? Where did they come here so soon with a 24 megapixel sensor for SLRs, although did not do anything like that? and why graphics on DXO are almost identical ?

      • El Aura

        For once the performance you get out of modern sensor design is converging. Moreover, Toshiba reportedly is/was licensing some Sony technology (maybe via some legal detour via Nikon).

        And us camera enthusiasts generally are only aware of who is making the relatively large format sensors we find in our ILCs (or premium compacts like those with 1″ sensors). In regard to volume the phone market is one or two orders of magnitude larger (even compact camera sensors used to sell multiple times more units than DSLR sensor) and then there is the whole market of industrial imaging sensors. Toshiba’s 24 MP ASP-C sensor wasn’t their first imaging sensor by a long shot.

      • Piotr Kosewski

        Toshiba is one of the biggest names in the semiconductor business. It’s rather disturbing that you ask such a question…

        First: Toshiba has been making camera sensors for a long time. They were smaller than what we use in DSLRs, but that doesn’t say anything about the quality or technical grandness.

        Second: as consumer camera’s users we are far from the best that modern technology offers.
        You might think the BSI Sony sensor is the best one available. But sensors with similar noise levels or dynamic range have been around for years. They were simply more expensive or much smaller (Sony offered this EXMOR tech in their phones).
        What Sony did (and this is a great achievement indeed) is make this technology so cheap that you can get such performance in a $3000 camera. A year or two ago another company could make you an identically performing sensor, but they could ask $2000 just for this chip.
        That said, Samsung’s BSI offers similar performance and NX1 was released a year before the A7RII.

  • T.I.M

    There is a mistake, I don’t see my D900 and it’s 48MP Sony sensor !

    • What’s the launch date again?

  • Good ‘ol LBCAST. Those were the days! Man that camera was way ahead of it’s time, I considered it a very solid “alternative” to all other DX flagships, until the 12 MP barrier was broken. I still contemplate picking up a used D2H on Ebay for dirt-cheap, just as a collectors item that can be taken out for a spin on occasion. Nikon nostalgia at its finest!

  • Lubos

    So the best Nikon cameras of all time (digital) are designed by Nikon – D3, D3s, D700, D4, D4s 🙂
    Peter, any idea if there would be D750 and D810 upgrade / modifications in 2016? 🙂

    • manhattanboy

      you mean like the D2h and D3200? There is more than just a sensor that makes a camera great. The one thing that is interesting is that many of their flagship cameras they have designed the sensor. With the D5 coming soon, I wonder if that will be true or whether it will be a Sony or Samsung sensor.

    • Dima135

      Sony manufacturing process is better. But for pro camera with bold pixels this is not important. For this class Nikon has other requirements.

    • Nikos Skartsilas

      Also this bunch of cameras you named, happens to have the most faithful colors without critical amounts of casts to manage. If I am right, Is this an option of Nikon’s pro requirements or something else ?

  • Stelios E.

    What do you mean by:

    D1: 10.4 MP Sony design with Nikon binning

    D1h: 10.4 MP Sony design with Nikon binning

    My D1 (which i still have but don’t use) is only 2.7 MP (2000x1312px)

    And the D1X was a 5.47 MP, with that odd NC in-software doubling getting to ~10 MP

    • I am still updating the list.

      • PhotoJoe55

        Did you expect the D750 to be an improved version of the D700? I was quite disappointed that it wasn’t part of the same line ( …and that there was no D400).

    • BjornP

      The D1 and D1h bin four pixels on the imaging sensor to make one pixel in the image file. The D1x bins two pixels on the imaging sensor to make one pixel in the image file. That is also the reason why D1x has the rather odd native resolution of 4028 x 1324. The use of a 10MP imaging sensor in the D1 series was also confirmed by Nikon in the behind-the-scenes story on D200.

      • Stelios E.

        Thank you for the clarification, i suspected something like this. So the next question would be, is there a way, to “unbin” those pixels, and get somehow those 10MP images??

        • RMJ

          Depends if it’s done with the software or the hardware. If it’s done by the software, then in theory a custom firmware could be written.

  • According to the first list the D7200 has Toshiba sensor, but the table says that it’s Sony IMX-193-AQK. Now what?

  • Captain Megaton

    Other than the big improvement in IQ in the J5, is there any evidence at all that it was made by Sony and not Aptina?

    • El Aura

      I vaguely remember some comments from people like Thom Hogan having insider information on this. But I am not sure whether it really was Thom or somebody else and whether it was labelled ‘insider information’ or informed speculation.

  • point

    Nikon deserves a lot of credit here. It is their software imaging engineers who take other sensors and make good stuff. Who cares who makes the imaging hardware. Its what happens to it after the photons hit. Nikon excells while others with the same sensors fall short.

    • PhotoJoe55

      I agree. They seem to use what us best for each camera!

  • PhotoJoe55

    The lists seem to contradict each other, at least on the D7100 & D7200, and the prior page had both models using Toshiba, but this page has the D7200 using a Sony (with a question mark). I didn’t think there was much of a change to go to D7200 (that is unless their goal is to ultimately reach a D7500 model).

  • Am I correct in assuming that Nikon is NOT actually manufacturing ANY of these sensors themselves? Sensor manufacturing is a very specialized and expensive process that I can’t imagine a company like Nikon trying to tackle.

  • Seryoga

    The D7200 is defenetly the same as in the D7100 from Toshiba, you see it in the fact that you can shoot FULL HD still only in 1.3x crop mode..

  • Bojan

    Sensor in the D7100 and the D7200 is probably the same. I run some tests with this two cameras and in RAW ther is almost identical behavior betvin this two cameras. Nikon D7200 has a slightly brighter picture.

  • @ArkadiiShapoval:disqus

    Your entry for Sony IMX-094-AQP cannot be correct.
    You state that both A:D800/D800E as well as B:D810/D810A use this processor. It is true both A and B use a Sony 36MP sensor, but clearly not the same and possibly not the same as the A7r.

    Therefore, the Sony IMX-094-AQP cannot be the correct designation for all these cameras.

    As reference that A and B use different sensors, refer to and compare the full well capacities: ~50k e- for A and ~80k e- for B. This difference is significant and cannot be measured for the same sensor.


    Please correct the entry. Thanks.

  • Brian

    I thought it was widely reported that the D4 and D4S had different sensor?

  • thanks, I updated my post

  • Nikos Delhanidis

    D3100, D3200, Nikon did factually abricate sensors?

  • Bob Newman

    A couple of comments. Your second table ( lists the D7200 has having the Sony IMX193 sensor. This is wrong, it is the Toshiba 5101 as confirmed by chipworks. The attribution as Sony comes from speculation in the DPR review, which they haven’t corrected.
    You say ‘some of the Nikon sensors are made by Renesas’. This is possibly not true. Nikon has used the Renesas fab line for all their sensors, so far as we know, but fabricating the silicon is not the same thing as making a sensor. Most image sensor manufacturers use third party ‘foundry’ fabrication. Some of those are full CIS (CMOS image sensor) foundries, that can do the silicon, toppings (CFA and microlenses) for the chip, and there are contractors that can do the specialist packaging that CIS requires. Since the D2H Nikon has the ability to do all the bits that turn a normal silicon wafer into image sensors (toppings and packaging) but subcontracts silicon fabrication, as do most sensor manufacturers. So, the discussion on whether Nikon ‘makes’ their own sensors is pretty futile. They are Nikon products, whatever the subcontract services used to produce them.

  • Most interesting

  • One thing is for sure: they are NOT the same. If they were, the banding were corrected by firmware upgrade. But banding can not be corrected nor filtered by software methods (nor firmware) that’s a physical property of a sensor.

    Based on the facts that the sensor’s outfit looks like a Toshiba one (someone stated) and the color rendition looks much more like the D7100’s, than any oversaturated Sony sensor’s, I agree that’s 7200 has a Toshiba sensor, but clearly not the same as in the 7100.

    (No, the slightly less noise is not a direct evidence of another type of sensor, this little less noise can be achieved by fine filter in firmware. Oh yes, there ARE some DSLRs that do use noise reduction always above specific ISO, even on raw data. Surprise: the D7100 is like this…)

  • Andrew Peters

    nikon claims that they designed all their sensors in house. if you look under imaging technology

  • Aboygreenyellowyellow RM

    buy a sony camera..were done

    • Duncan Dimanche

      i think the correct spelling is “we are done” or “we’re done”

  • Back to top