DSLRUsers.com

Now that I have your attention, I just noticed that Sony have made a pre-PMA announcement of a 24MP full frame CMOS sensor. DPR are suggesting that this could be the basis of a Sony FF camera, and I would not question that.

But we also know that Nikon are working on other cameras in the D3 line, and this resolution is roughly the D300's scaled up to FX size.

We all know that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, either of Nikon's design (in the D3 and D300) or as an OEM product in most of the other cameras.

Who's for this avenue of speculation and rumour mongering?

yupp yupp. i'd say this is it.
i wonder if the sony will be able to do their own FF a900 (??) with SSS ?

I agree would be exciting the only thing i'd add, bias aside being that i'm Italian, can we get an Italian or other design astute country to design the body for Sony as the A series leaves a lot to be desired in terms of style and the 'I want you in my hands' factor. Then again i could be totally off base here.
cheers
marco

Marco,

marcotrov wrote:design the body for Sony

Design?

Sony ???

Choose one.

gstark wrote:Marco,

marcotrov wrote:design the body for Sony

Design?

Sony ???

Choose one.

KInda like sound systems, you wan t design you choose Bose, you want sound quality you choose anything but.

Gary wrote:

Design?

Sony ???

Choose one.

cheers
marco

Benny2707 wrote:

gstark wrote:Marco,

marcotrov wrote:design the body for Sony

Design?

Sony ???

Choose one.

KInda like sound systems, you wan t design you choose Bose, you want sound quality you choose anything but.

Finally, someone who thinks like I do of Bose!

As for Sony, I find when they do hit on a good design it never stays around long enough to be of use.

I think I'm doing the right thing waiting until late 2008 before getting a second Nikon body.

Quite possible that this new sensor will go into a new FX format Nikon camera.

Though if you look at the past releases for the Nikon pro cameras (D1, D2h/s, D2X/s, D3) there was never a press release given regarding the sensor used with details on sensor part number etc.

Usually only the lower end Nikon bodies would use a Sony sensor that had an announcement/press release. What would happen would be that Sony would announce a new sensor in a press release. A few months later, Nikon would announce a camera using a sensor that is based on the sensor Sony announced which may have some Nikon specific design tweaks. Then a few months after that the other manufacturers would announce cameras using the stock Sony sensor announced earlier in the press release.

This happened with the 6mp D100/D70/D50/D40 sensor - with the unique Nikon design tweak of the electronic shutter in the D70/D50/D40 (other cameras based on this sensor never had this electronic shutter). Happened again with the 10MP sensor on the D200/D80/D40x - with the unique Nikon design tweak of the 4 channel readout of the D200 (other cameras never had the 4 channel readout). Same again with the D300 sensor - with the unique Nikon tweak being the extra off chip 14-bit A/D conversion in addition to the 12-bit onchip A/D conv. (the Sony Alpha 700 only having the 12-bit on chip A/D conv.)

For the pro series bodies, there was never a press release announcing the sensor. So, I have a suspicion that for a Nikon pro series body, this may not be the sensor. But you never know, they could be doing things differently.

D3X can't be too far away... D3 prices coming down soon...

Hmmm.

Quite a beast of a chip.

[tla]

So what we have is an inbuilt parallel HDR on a SMF PGA-CMOS FET with fast A/D conv (CPA/DCT).

[/tla]

They're using it in their own body.

Now we're talkin!
My decision to concentrate on non-dx lenses is justified... We bought another D200 to see us through - can't afford a D3 and the D300 is not FF so we (I) figure I get my wife a D200, then concentrate on FF lenses, D200's keeping us happy until this sort of chip comes mainstream and more affordable. BTW 24-70 going great! So sharp... And should be, for the price.

Since we're speculating, does anyone want to have a guess at what the high ISO noise will be like? Closer to the D300 I would guess?

If that is the case, then the D3 would probably be my choice... 24MP sounds cool but I don't know if I'd really need it and it would just add extra burden on the processing and workflow...

Hybrid wrote:Since we're speculating, does anyone want to have a guess at what the high ISO noise will be like? Closer to the D300 I would guess?

That would be my expectation as well. While it could certainly handle field work, this would be more focussed upon studio work, whereas the D3 would be more of a field camera.

tasadam wrote:My decision to concentrate on non-dx lenses is justified... We bought another D200 to see us through - can't afford a D3 and the D300 is not FF so we (I) figure I get my wife a D200

While I agree with the lens decision, I think that the D300 is a significant step above the D200.

A very significant step, and the relatively small price difference between the two bodies justifies that upgrade within the DX format. Consider that most people are suggesting that the D300 is the successor to the D2x, not the D200, such is the capability of this body.

Leigh's D300 arrived on Monday, and he used it for the first time yesterday at Eastern Creek. He came home very impressed with its performance. (As it happens, he's just now called me from trackside, where it's wet, and from a media perspective, the oranisation is less than stellar.)

Having used mine now for a few months, I'm coming to the opinion that the D300 is to the D2x what the D70 was to the D100, and the D3 is a whole new class of camera again. I suspect that it's point worth considering.

Interesting... I've had my D200 for just over 2 years now and have used it every day without fail... 40,000 shots later, I'm really pleased with it. However, I do worry a bit about having just one camera body, especially when I'm doing the odd wedding or important event. Question is, do I go all out and get a D3 (the high ISO performance is really tempting for my type of photography) or get the D300 or just wait a while... hmm, I think I might wait a while and try to stop reading D3 posts...

Or I could just get both

If you wait too long you will run out of toilet paper

haha, well that's one way of looking at it

It's really a question of need - a new camera isn't going to suddenly make me take better photos. My main reason for looking to upgrade right now would be as insurance so I am not caught without a camera if the worst should happen.

A couple of interesting articles:

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/wor ... 2-2008.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... d300.shtml

Ok, I'm really going to stop reading now.

Hybrid wrote:haha, well that's one way of looking at it

It's really a question of need - a new camera isn't going to suddenly make me take better photos.

Correct, And an on-site failure of your sole body will prevent you from taking any photos at all, and will make you look very unprofessional in the eyes of the bride whose wedding you're supposed to be shooting. I would not even contemplate shooting a critical job without a second body.

That, to me, more than suggests "need".

gstark wrote:We all know that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, either of Nikon's design (in the D3 and D300)

Is this news? Last I heard was "Nikon isn't revealing their manufacturing partner" (Rob Galbraith about the D3 sensor)

Are there quotable sources that say the D3 sensor is made by Sony?

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:

gstark wrote:We all know that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, either of Nikon's design (in the D3 and D300)

Is this news? Last I heard was "Nikon isn't revealing their manufacturing partner" (Rob Galbraith about the D3 sensor)

Are there quotable sources that say the D3 sensor is made by Sony?

Not news to me. My recollection is that Leigh (and the rest of the assembled media) were told this at one of the media launches for the D3/D300.

gstark wrote:

Steffen wrote:

gstark wrote:We all know that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, either of Nikon's design (in the D3 and D300)

Is this news? Last I heard was "Nikon isn't revealing their manufacturing partner" (Rob Galbraith about the D3 sensor)

Are there quotable sources that say the D3 sensor is made by Sony?

Not news to me. My recollection is that Leigh (and the rest of the assembled media) were told this at one of the media launches for the D3/D300.

It's not such a bad thing though is it? I'd much rather they outsourced and got the best rather than putting something together in house that isn't as good.

Benny2707 wrote:

gstark wrote:

Steffen wrote:

gstark wrote:We all know that Sony makes Nikon's sensors, either of Nikon's design (in the D3 and D300)

Is this news? Last I heard was "Nikon isn't revealing their manufacturing partner" (Rob Galbraith about the D3 sensor)

Are there quotable sources that say the D3 sensor is made by Sony?

Not news to me. My recollection is that Leigh (and the rest of the assembled media) were told this at one of the media launches for the D3/D300.

It's not such a bad thing though is it? I'd much rather they outsourced and got the best rather than putting something together in house that isn't as good.

Understand what's happening here: Nikon manufacture the steppers that are used in the manufacture of these chips. Sony is one of their customers.

The sensors in the D3, D300, D2H, and I think the D2X are all of Nikon's design. The sensors in most of their other cameras are of Sony design, and purchased from Sony.

In the case of the D3 and D300, the manufacture of the Nikon designed sensors has been outsourced, and it's my understanding and belief that this is being done by Sony.

And some might argue that the Canon sensors, rather than the Nikon, or the Sony, are the best.

gstark wrote:And some might argue that the Canon sensors, rather than the Nikon, or the Sony, are the best.

I'm sure that if Nikon made a suitably rich offer they could afford to buy the best sensors available. I don't think those are made by Canon, either, but UNSW might be able to help. Canon compromise their sensors to make them easier to manufacture in bulk, while the UNSW ones are lovingly hand-crafted one at a time by caring professionals.

moz wrote: lovingly hand-crafted one at a time by caring professionals.

At the individual pixel level? Puts the term "pixel peeping" into a whole new perspective for me.

Seriously, the D3 is stated to be, I believe, hand built. I think that hand assembled would probably be the more appropriate term.

For commercial grade sensors, I think that a certain level of mass production is acceptable. I suspect the hand crafted UNSW ones might push the price of the D3 (or any other camera into which they were installed) into a slightly more expensive bracket.

gstark wrote:

Hybrid wrote:It's really a question of need - a new camera isn't going to suddenly make me take better photos.

Correct, And an on-site failure of your sole body will prevent you from taking any photos at all, and will make you look very unprofessional in the eyes of the bride whose wedding you're supposed to be shooting. I would not even contemplate shooting a critical job without a second body.

That, to me, more than suggests "need".

You're absolutely right Gary... Which is why I always try to have a second shooter with me at weddings or failing that, a borrowed second camera body. If I was doing these things on a much more regular basis, a second camera would be an easy decision.

gstark wrote:I suspect the hand crafted UNSW ones might push the price of the D3 (or any other camera into which they were installed) into a slightly more expensive bracket.

The appropriate term is astronomical

I only like Sony's more technical and ground breaking projects, well like that sensor and the Cell processor in the PS3, other than that I can safely say that all their other stuff are very hyped up. PS Bose sucks.

moz wrote:

gstark wrote:I suspect the hand crafted UNSW ones might push the price of the D3 (or any other camera into which they were installed) into a slightly more expensive bracket.

The appropriate term is astronomical

As always, I wished to slightly understate the true situation.

- whats UNSW - apart from the Uni?

Nathan Rodger wrote::? - whats UNSW - apart from the Uni?

Unilumescent Nikon Sensor Wafers

Cutting edge technology whereby the sensor is constructed from a sandwich of layers (aka "wafers") which have a different sensitivity to light. This allows an increased dynamic range by having a sensor constructed of a layer very sensitive to light sandwiched with one with a normal sensitivity to light and one which reacts less to light. In camera software (Continuous Light Unified Balance) blends the images from the wafers together and gives an extended range dynamic shot out of camera. In house its referred to as the CLUB SANDWICH, but that's a pretty lame geek name for a really cool feature which is likely to be in D4 generation cameras, though I understand there are some prototypes using a D3 body. Well that's the rumour I heard.

Interesting... I read UNSW and assumed, given the lack of info on UNSW until that post, and my laziness to run a search or ask, that UNSW stood for an NSW Uni. And that they had invented a pretty specky sensor. Seems the reality is more optimistic as it may be in future gen Nikon cameras.

My decision to get a 2nd D200 body and skip a generation of Nikon is in the hope that the next gen of affordable (the D3 is not affordable to my budget) cameras will be full frame. No doubt all the enhancements in the current crop will be rolled in and fine tuned. If they have a body at under 3k then we can look at upgrading the D200's. We cannot afford to upgrade bodies every generation of cameras and if we did (go for D300) this time round, our budget wouldn't allow us the glass we are obtaining. The D200 does a good enough job for our needs now, so we will just have to be happy with that. $700 extra for glass.
By the sounds of UNSW and what they are doing with the D3, maybe the next gen won't be affordable anyway.
It's always a battle of technology - buy it today and it's obsolete tomorrow. Ya never know for sure when to jump in and spend.

In the mean time, it's still Nikon glass-collection mode, with the 24-70 going well, the 17-35 added to the family yesterday, and the 70-200 to come next - when the budget allows.

And watch the technology advance.

tasadam wrote:In the mean time, it's still Nikon glass-collection mode, with the 24-70 going well, the 17-35 added to the family yesterday, and the 70-200 to come next - when the budget allows.

I'm doing what you're doing.

tasadam wrote:It's always a battle of technology - buy it today and it's obsolete tomorrow. Ya never know for sure when to jump in and spend.

You jump in and spend when you have the money and motivation to buy a body!

I bet you that if you shot a photo on say, a D100,

and then on a D200...

and then on a D300...

...The photo would be pretty much the same.

I guess the only proviso is that we're shooting at native ISO (either 100 or 200).

Buy the most suited product to your needs at the time!

I have a d200 and a d70, editors don't care what body I use, they care about the end result... and the end result (i would suggest) is far more dependant upon my own skills and abilities rather than what equiptment I used...

I have always been biased towards Nikon. However, do you know where I can get a Nikon Lens to Sony Mount converter?

tasadam wrote:My decision to get a 2nd D200 body and skip a generation of Nikon is in the hope that the next gen of affordable (the D3 is not affordable to my budget) cameras will be full frame. <snip>
In the mean time, it's still Nikon glass-collection mode, with the 24-70 going well, the 17-35 added to the family yesterday, and the 70-200 to come next - when the budget allows.

And watch the technology advance.

What was I saying about full frame??
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=32862

Here's hoping it's affordable.

shakey wrote:

Nathan Rodger wrote::? - whats UNSW - apart from the Uni?

Unilumescent Nikon Sensor Wafers

Are they edible?