PKR
Veteran
Hi Roger;
If you look at the largest die a fab can produce in the current, world wide standard, and they are all the same, it is far smaller than 24x36. I'm not sure but I think the common FX sensor is at least 4 pieces. The Phase One is a large number of stitched dies.
One of the things that makes all these cameras different is the sensor designers. The people making the dies take the design data and produce a product. I know that Sony, makes the sensors for Fuji and Nikon. This is production, a standard in the semiconductor industry. The sensor design is the work of the camera company. Researching this should be simple. i know that Foveon is doing some layering that is very difficult to produce. I have hopes for them. I asked their designer, jokingly, when his sensor would look like film, his reply was, never, do the math. It won't happen. I don't have a problem with digital looking different. It's better in some instances (my taste) than film. I don't think film will go away. Fuji for one Co. is in for the long term. p.
http://chipworks.com/blogs.aspx?id=4626&blogid=86
There is a decent description at the above site. And yes, there is much "personality" that goes into the design. They are not all the same. This is a good thing; to my way of thinking.
p.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You clearly know more about this than I, but I still can't see that there is much more than a philosophical difference. After all, you can regard any sensor as being made of stitched-together pixels.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
PKR
Veteran
There are huge differences in the design directions taken by these people. Look at the constant ping-pong between CCD and CMOS. It's a design leap-frog. The good thing is every time it happens, there is improvement. One problem is that the designers are engineers and not artists. They ask the photo-artists what they want and try to give it to them. Currently everyone thinks that digital should look like film, because that's what everyone is used to. If we had film (which I still use and scan) and digital, being a different tool, it opens up a broader use of the new media. And then you have marketing people.. that's another story. p.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I understood, and could be wrong, that Canon fabricate their 24 by 36mm sensors in one piece, but they still need to use 3 lithography passes before etching etc. Failure rates are high.
This size die allows APS-C sensor to be made relatively easily.
MF sensors I believe are made in peices and stitched.
MIke
PKR
Veteran
I don't know what's going on, but it looks like they may have an advantage. It may be serious, it may be nothing. The best way to deal with any of this stuff is to examine sample images that you've made with equipment you are considering for purchase. I would use any marketing info you see as only a guide. Make your own tests and decide. One cameras sensor may be better in sunlight and another with electronic flash. This is a different world, in the sense of higher technology, then the film world. With film, If you didn't like the look, you can just change the film. With digital, you change the camera. It's much more expensive. So, learn all you can.. do a lot of reading. If there is a big difference, the marketing people at Canon will be all over it!
Failure rates are a problem. Years ago when Nikon's ED glass was new, I was told the failure rate was 80%. Well obviously, they fixed it. Chip building is a sensitive process, a change in the water composition at the foundry will close the place down. This could be caused by a guy digging up ths street a block away. Dirt gets into the filters and they clog, and all comes to a stop. It's tricky business. I don't know who is making the latest Nikon sensors, i guess It may not be Sony, who knows?
Last edited:
Paulius
Newbie
Just because it's price drops, doesn't mean that it will be making worse quality images...It is all in the hands of person who holds it 
Don't get caught by the "digital" fever.
Don't get caught by the "digital" fever.
PKR
Veteran
Mike;
I just thought of something that could be interesting. Nikon is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, producers of Steppers. This is the Litho process in the making of a chip. It is very possible that the Canon sensors are being made with Nikon Steppers.. It's a funny world.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Indeed. But Canon also makes steppers. Perhaps Nikon sensors are also being made with Canon steppers
By Canon... ok I'll get me coat...
More seriously, I am interested in who will make the sensor for the next drf. Perhaps we'll find out in September?
Mike
dws21uk
Member
This is where I'm at with my Nikon D700, I can't see anything coming out that I'd need(want) to replace it with. The high ISO quality is fantastic, it's full frame, I guess only a great leap forward in DR would tempt me.
As for other cameras, I'm using an Olympus E-P2 90% of the time now as it's just so much more convenient to carry about than the D700 which is now mainly used for low light at home shots. I'd love a M9 but it is just far too expensive.
Looking at the specs maybe a leap in ISO performance for the M10 would tempt M9'ers to trade in, I hope so, then I may be able to pick up a cheap s/h M9.
PKR
Veteran
Indeed. But Canon also makes steppers. Perhaps Nikon sensors are also being made with Canon steppers
Exactly. I know that Fuji and Nikon are both in the Fujinon building. I think that's why there is so much project sharing among them. And it looks like there are so many new sensors coming up in the next months that it's going to be tough to figure out who is making what. I think Canon owns their own foundry. They make a lot of stuff besides optical equipment. Nikon is a really small company compared to Canon and must outsource their foundry work. Maybe a foundry in Thailand? p.
Do you know who the current sources for CMOS sensors are. At one time there were only 3. Who is making Kodak sensors? Kodak was making them and then they bought Creo and i think Creo used a Kodak sensor. With the trouble Kodak is having, they may have closed their foundry and found a supplier. ?
I kept thinking the move away from the CCD stuff was dust. That may change. And .. if you know, is everyone paying Olympus for the pitzo dust removal design? I think their design works the best, but no one wanted to pay them for the technology. p.
Last edited:
Not anymore. Nikon moved to another building in May this year.
As for Nikon being small compared to Canon ... well yes, but still part of the Mitsubishi group, which is of course huge
PKR
Veteran
Not anymore. Nikon moved to another building in May this year.
As for Nikon being small compared to Canon ... well yes, but still part of the Mitsubishi group, which is of course huge
I knew that, but my understanding was that in Japan the Corp. ownership is more like a banking interest. For instance, two companies both under Mitsubishi holdings aren't expected to share technology. I think in the US, most technology would be shared among commonly owned groups. True?
p.
menos
Veteran
So there we are with high ISO demand as D700/ D3, full frame and questions of who will make THE future sensor…
If Leica doesn't do it, then let's get a Nikon S2 digital camera with D3 sensor or forget about the RF stuff and let's just let it be a FM3a with D3 sensor, improved fit and finish, a set of the best of the best, fast Nikon AiS lenses revived, all sold at a premium if need be (body: 3.500, primes 1.250 EUR each) and I'll get one.
Just let it be full manual, compact, light and nice feeling with black paint or chrome body.
Please…
If Leica doesn't do it, then let's get a Nikon S2 digital camera with D3 sensor or forget about the RF stuff and let's just let it be a FM3a with D3 sensor, improved fit and finish, a set of the best of the best, fast Nikon AiS lenses revived, all sold at a premium if need be (body: 3.500, primes 1.250 EUR each) and I'll get one.
Just let it be full manual, compact, light and nice feeling with black paint or chrome body.
Please…
mrmeadows
Established
People who recoil at the cost of a digital M cannot rationalize their reticence with the argument that film is less expensive. That argument is false, because in the long run THE DIGITAL M WILL BE FREE!
Do the arithmetic. B/W photos cost about 0.12 US$ per frame to buy the film and process it yourself. Digital photos avoid this marginal cost. Thus a used M8 at 2000 US$ will pay for itself in about 16500 frames or 460 rolls of 36-exposure film. A new M9 at 7000 US$ breaks even at about 58000 frames. If you pay to have B/W processed or if you shoot color, then the break-even will occur at even fewer frames. After break-even you could THROW AWAY THE DIGITAL M BODY, and you would have spent less than for the same number of film frames by the cost of the film body. But you probably wouldn't throw the digital body away, because it would very likely last longer than to break-even. Thus arguments involving the cost or limited lifetime of a digital M are irrelevant for all practical purposes.
There are real and valid reasons to shoot film, particularly B/W, but lower cost over the long haul is not one of them.
--- Mike
Do the arithmetic. B/W photos cost about 0.12 US$ per frame to buy the film and process it yourself. Digital photos avoid this marginal cost. Thus a used M8 at 2000 US$ will pay for itself in about 16500 frames or 460 rolls of 36-exposure film. A new M9 at 7000 US$ breaks even at about 58000 frames. If you pay to have B/W processed or if you shoot color, then the break-even will occur at even fewer frames. After break-even you could THROW AWAY THE DIGITAL M BODY, and you would have spent less than for the same number of film frames by the cost of the film body. But you probably wouldn't throw the digital body away, because it would very likely last longer than to break-even. Thus arguments involving the cost or limited lifetime of a digital M are irrelevant for all practical purposes.
There are real and valid reasons to shoot film, particularly B/W, but lower cost over the long haul is not one of them.
--- Mike
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
A nasty, cynical thought which may not have occurred to you:
Film is cheaper if your main hobby is trading cameras.
But of course there's no-one on RFF like that...
Cheers,
R.
swoop
Well-known
I did the math a long time ago. But it was costing me plenty for film and lab processing fees.
I don't think that the digital is "free" But if you shoot often or work professionally then the cost over time and the time savings of having your photos instantly is definitely something to consider. Also my scanned 35mm frames were coming in at about 70MB each. Double that of any full frame digital image size. So I was running out of hard drive space sooner as well.
My reasoning was that digital and film are almost the same in terms of cost. Except with digital you pay the price all at once instead of over time.
PKR
Veteran
It's still early in the development of all this digital stuff. The market will at some point be driven by the customer. If enough people want a particular product and their interest is known by the manufactures, and a profit can be made.. you will get what you want. If you look at the development of the Nikon F to the F3, most of the desired (and I said Most) features were delivered to the photographer. I think the same might be said for the more modern systems. The D700 was an asked for camera. I don't know Canon gear, but I'm sure the same thing happens with them. The Japanese, more so than most equipment builders, try to deliver what their customers want (my opinion). It looks like Leica may have done the same with the (I'm not sure of the correct model) M4P.. the all mechanical model with the M2-M3 film rewind. I think you will see what you want. It doesn't hurt to be vocal, as I'm sure all the camera manufactures read these kind of forms. p.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
There's a lot more to purchase then just an M8 for digital workflow,
including,
a computer that is too slow in 5 years, software that is updated every other year.
including,
a computer that is too slow in 5 years, software that is updated every other year.