What if the GH3 uses a Sony sensor too? - Page 6

RT_Panther · #51 September 22nd, 2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by With_Eyes_Unclouded

In that sense, Sony's involvement acts as an equalizer of sorts.

Yes.
The Sony α580, Pentax K5, and Nikon D7000 all share the same Sony sensor....only difference is company firmware.

MajorMagee · #52 September 22nd, 2012, 07:09 PM

There actually are not that many companies with the $1B needed to build a new sensor fab facility.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c...sideview64.pdf

With_Eyes_Unclouded · #53 September 22nd, 2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajorMagee

There actually are not that many companies with the $1B needed to build a new sensor fab facility.

http://www.sony.net/Products/SC-HP/c...sideview64.pdf

Very interesting.

What I'd like to know is how guys like Aptina or this Belgian company (CMOSIS) that allegedly made the new Leica sensor can stay in business (which is what we'd have to actually pray for, for competitions sense).

arad85 · #54 September 22nd, 2012, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by With_Eyes_Unclouded

Very interesting.

What I'd like to know is how guys like Aptina or this Belgian company (CMOSIS) that allegedly made the new Leica sensor can stay in business (which is what we'd have to actually pray for, for competitions sense).

They will be fabless manufacturing in places like TSMC.

RT_Panther · #55 September 22nd, 2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by With_Eyes_Unclouded

Very interesting.

What I'd like to know is how guys like Aptina or this Belgian company (CMOSIS) that allegedly made the new Leica sensor can stay in business (which is what we'd have to actually pray for, for competitions sense).

Specialized markets & believe it or not (like it or not), the Nikon 1 has done well sales wise.
And on a side note, the Nikon 1 was designed for the "Mom & Pop" shooter as smaller alternative to the DSLR - and not designed for the semi-pro/advanced hobbyist that we are in the Micro Four Thirds community. The mom & pop shooter don't need Zeiss or Leica glass - but they do need something smaller and easier to shoot than a DSLR - hence the Nikon 1 system

With_Eyes_Unclouded · #56 September 22nd, 2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RT_Panther

Specialized markets & believe it or not (like it or not), the Nikon 1 has done well sales wise.
And on a side note, the Nikon 1 was designed for the "Mom & Pop" shooter as smaller alternative to the DSLR - and not designed for the semi-pro/advanced hobbyist that we are in the Micro Four Thirds community. The mom & pop shooter don't need Zeiss or Leica glass - but they do need something smaller and easier to shoot than a DSLR - hence the Nikon 1 system

You are right and Nikon 1 (whatever else one could say about it) is a succesful design, as an alternative to high end P&S and even low end

for many people.

What's interesting is that (SARCASM ALLERT) non-Sony sensors can evidently be quite good overall

. It remains to be seen how the CMOSIS-Leica sensor fairs, but Aptina in the Nikon 1 shows very good IQ characteristics and even introduces PD-AF on-sensor. Which almost begs the question on how comes Canon, Panasonic, Samsung et al, seem incompetent following Sony in the "sensor tech" wars.

RT_Panther · #57 September 22nd, 2012, 08:38 PM

Actually,
I'm glad to see Leica using a non-Sony sensor.

IMHO, I was one of the one that liked the Kodak CCD with Leica glass......

Luckypenguin · #58 September 22nd, 2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CUB

In an interview earlier in 2012, a Panasonic board member confirmed that no Panasonic 4/3 sensors with greater than 12.3 MP would be made available to Olympus. The reason was not to give away a competitive advantage.

So no matter how sensible you might think it is, there was never any question of it happening.

While I think that this one was of the best things that could have happened to the E-M5, this seems to me to be one of the stranger corporate decisions that I have seen. To maintain a competitive advantage, Panasonic chose not to supply Olympus with their best sensors, who as a result went and sourced an even better sensor which gave them a competitive advantage, and arguably even further increased the sales of a camera that Panasonic could have been earning a cut from had they chosen to supply the key component.

With_Eyes_Unclouded · #59 September 23rd, 2012, 12:34 AM

Speaking of small companies and sensors, here are two interesting bits from Sansmirror (Photokina 2012 | Sans Mirror â€” mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan)

Quote:

Aptina 1" Sensor—Aptina was showing a licensable sensor very close to that used in the Nikon 1: 1", 10mp, 60 fps for the full frame grab, and so on. There were a few differences. No embedded phase detect autofocus sensors, and apparently 120 fps 1080P support, for example. Aptina also was showing why this sensor performs so well: it has a variable approach to holding electrons depending upon brightness. Now we know why there were those slight changes to the curves in DxO's raw data: the sensor tries to collect electrons optimally at each cell depending upon whether it's recording shadow or highlight detail. It's almost a bit like bringing back reciprocity failure (a feature of film's response to extreme levels of light), but optimized for digital signal-to-noise.

Quote:

Leica M Sensor—We're learning more about the CMOSIS sensor inside the M. One thing that all Leica M users (on Leica cameras or adapted to others) have had some struggle with is edge to edge color changes and vignetting. The rule of thumb in sensors has always been that light needs to hit a no more than 15° off of vertical in order to be fully captured by a photosite. Wide angle lenses (and some fast aperture lenses), especially the Leica designs, tend to throw light at higher angles than that towards the sensor. This has a couple of unintended consequences towards edges: Bayer color spillover happens between adjacent photosites, and some of the extreme edge light gets "shadowed"—basically run into sides of the tunnel between the filtration and the actual photodiode. The CMOSIS sensor attempts to correct this problem with a different microlens design, one that bends the light more dramatically towards perpendicular. As you'll see me write elsewhere Leica really has been listening to user feedback, and it appears that they've come up with (at least partial) solutions for every complaint they've heard. Other aspects of the sensor that might be of interest to some are the fact that it has a linear full well capacity of just over 40,000 electrons and linear dynamic range of almost 76dB. The sensor uses 14-bit column AD converters and digital correlated double sampling, much like the recent Sony sensors. There's no word on the rolling shutter speed, but it does have a rolling shutter. Maximum sustained frame rate from the full sensor is 5 fps. The truly interesting thing, and dangerous thing to the big sensor makers, is CMOSIS is another of those European disrupters, with little facility investor, using cooperation and consolidation of existing technologies to serve up specialty products. CMOSIS doesn't have a fab. Heck, it has less than 50 employees. This is the "move fast, do the right R&D, use the best resources" type of company that is dangerous to the companies with huge sunk facilities costs that also get locked into specific R&D strategies. At one time Nikon held more than 50% of the stepper market (the machines that make [fab] semiconductors). Heck, Nikon and Canon together held 75% of that market as late as 2001. ASML was a different beast than the Nikon/Canon stepper divisions: ASML basically integrates other parts from other companies into a better stepper, sort of pick and choosing best technologies rather than putting down large bets on a few. What was the market share 10 years later? ASML 57%, Nikon 28%, Canon 15%. And ASML is still a pretty lean company at 8000 employees total. CMOSIS looks to me like another ASML: tie together key technologies, work closely with customers (in this case Leica), create the solution and fab (make) it at the best provider. We're going to see more of this in the future.

CUB · #60 September 28th, 2012, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckypenguin

While I think that this one was of the best things that could have happened to the E-M5, this seems to me to be one of the stranger corporate decisions that I have seen. To maintain a competitive advantage, Panasonic chose not to supply Olympus with their best sensors, who as a result went and sourced an even better sensor which gave them a competitive advantage, and arguably even further increased the sales of a camera that Panasonic could have been earning a cut from had they chosen to supply the key component.

I could not agree with you more. There must have been other, better ways of Panasonic doing business than denying better sensors to Olympus.