D3x likely official next week

[Guy Mancuso]

I think the prices will come down to below $5,000 in a few months.

Sony is becoming more and more attractive.

Have to say given the size and price it certainly is. As someone mentioned though the biggering and postering lives on and pretty funny to read some of chest pumping going on in other forums. The bottom line for me as I see these things hits the streets there still avoiding what 35mm DSLR's need more than anything is improvements in the glass and not really being addressed by Canon and Nikon directly. Sony on the other hand with the Zeiss glass is refreshing. Funny how Zeiss is making glass for the Nikons and Canons now obviously some of these companies have been sleeping.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

What I am trying to say is very simple:

Nikon is slow in development and even the long time they take to come up with somehow decent products does not help to really improve over the competition. And BTW - you really should look into Canon documents, then you would know that the 1DSM3 has sensor cleaning. And this since over a year already!

I shoot with a D3 myself and while this camera was a real milestone, I expected the D3X to bring at least similar improvements after this year of development. But obviously Nikon is hitting the wall with their digital technology again. Canon is already far ahead.

Take it as you like - I am no longer convinced of Nikon becoming the leader again.

Ok, I've watched the video, so the 1DsIII apparently has dust removal. Just four years after the Olympus E-1. I also found that the Mark III has ISO in the viewfinder, as opposed to the Mark II, something I believe pro Nikon cameras have had since the D2H in 2003 (this according to dpreview).

We can discuss features of camera bodies for weeks without getting anywhere, and it doesn't really matter. I'm sure I can take the same photos with any of these two. Lenses, on the other hand...

The one camera that really stands out, is the A900. It has all the megapixels, sensor cleaning and in-body IS, all for well under half the price of either the Nikon or the Canon, and it mounts Zeiss AF-glass, zooms as well as primes.

 

[jonoslack]

The one camera that really stands out, is the A900. It has all the megapixels, sensor cleaning and in-body IS, all for well under half the price of either the Nikon or the Canon, and it mounts Zeiss AF-glass, zooms as well as primes.

I think Peter is about to throw the Canon 5DMkII gauntlet at your feet

Still, even that isn't a walkman

 

[robmac]

Never been a walkman fan myself, but if it delivers what you want...

 

[jonoslack]

Never been a walkman fan myself, but if it delivers what you want...

No Rob
Nor have I - the 'walkman' jibe is from Jurgen.
Truth is that I'm not fond of any other Sony 'tech'. But this is so 'unSony' as to be hard to believe.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I think Peter is about to throw the Canon 5DMkII gauntlet at your feet

Still, even that isn't a walkman

I actually consider buying a 5D or 5DII to use with my OM-lenses, but no Canon glass. But then, I've been considering that since the 5D was launched. Canon users seem to love that camera for its image quality, while others hate it for the ergonomics. A digital OM would be better, but alas...

I actually have a Walkman, a real one. It's a Walkman Professional, with stereo mike and all the gadgets. Unfortunately, it doesn't work properly

It doesn't mount Zeiss lenses either.... what on earth were they thinking

 

[Lars]

Apparently Nikon confirmed that the D3x sensor is a Nikon design manufactured in a Sony plant:

"At the launch, Nikon officials were at pains to point out that although the D3X's sensor is manufactured in a Sony plant, it's still very much "a Nikon designed sensor". Indeed, their respective pixel pitches are quite different: 5.9 microns on the A900, whereas the Nikon's is surprisingly smaller at 5.49 microns. So, they're pretty much different sensors and should have different performance characteristics."

http://www.cnet.com.au/digitalcameras/cameras/0,239036184,339293606,00.htm

 

[jonoslack]

Apparently Nikon confirmed that the D3x sensor is a Nikon design manufactured in a Sony plant:

"At the launch, Nikon officials were at pains to point out that although the D3X's sensor is manufactured in a Sony plant, it's still very much "a Nikon designed sensor". Indeed, their respective pixel pitches are quite different: 5.9 microns on the A900, whereas the Nikon's is surprisingly smaller at 5.49 microns. So, they're pretty much different sensors and should have different performance characteristics."

http://www.cnet.com.au/digitalcameras/cameras/0,239036184,339293606,00.htm

HI Lars
It's difficult isn't it - we have so much information!
Thom Hogan:
Thom Hogans D3x comments

Says that the photosite size being the same, they must be based on the same sensor.

Also - pixel pitch is a simple function of the size of the sensor and the number of photosites (unlike photosite size). How can the Nikon pixel pitch be significantly smaller on the same size sensor with slightly less pixels?

Don't make sense to me!

Still, isn't all this irrelevant, there are things we know - there is no doubt that even if the data is collected in the same kind of buckets, the image quality will be pretty different.

I'm not sure that anything else is very relevant

 

[Lars]

I'm not sure that anything else is very relevant

Yep we have to wait for that pudding that the proof supposedly is in.

BTW Thom's analysis was interesting reading.

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Says that the photosite size being the same, they must be based on the same sensor.

Also - pixel pitch is a simple function of the size of the sensor and the number of photosites (unlike photosite size). How can the Nikon pixel pitch be significantly smaller on the same size sensor with slightly less pixels?

Don't make sense to me!

Correct me if I am wrong, but can't the difference be in the distance between the photosites? I thought that was one of the way that medium format makers were making larger chips -- they were keeping the size of the photosites, but pushing them closer together, so that they can have more pixels with the same light gathering ability. Perhaps the Sony's pixels are closer together.

 

[Vivek]

Says that the photosite size being the same, they must be based on the same sensor.

Also - pixel pitch is a simple function of the size of the sensor and the number of photosites (unlike photosite size). How can the Nikon pixel pitch be significantly smaller on the same size sensor with slightly less pixels?

This applies only in the case of a CCD where the active photo site is not surrounded by electronic circuitary (as in the case of a CMOS sensor).

Sony made some big advances in making their CMOS sensors (starting with the D300 sensor). So, their photosite size is less affected.

Stuart, Your thinking is correct but the CCD-CMOS design differences are at play.

 

[Lars]

According to robgalbraith.com Nikon corrected its statement re sensor pitch, to be the same as that of the A900:

"Update, December 1, 2008: Nikon USA has now issued a correction to the pixel pitch specification, restating it as 5.94µm."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9318-9761

 

[robmac]

JS,

Hi. I guess I'd have to actually play with one (around here - har, har) and see the files for myself to start to be a believer. So far, what I've seen file wise has yet to impress. The lens prices (unless they've dropped a LOT lately) haven't exactly rocked my world either.

It may be un-Sony (thankfully), but they still had to go and bolt a MS slot on the thing.....;>

No Rob
Nor have I - the 'walkman' jibe is from Jurgen.
Truth is that I'm not fond of any other Sony 'tech'. But this is so 'unSony' as to be hard to believe.

 

[jonoslack]

Correct me if I am wrong, but can't the difference be in the distance between the photosites? I thought that was one of the way that medium format makers were making larger chips -- they were keeping the size of the photosites, but pushing them closer together, so that they can have more pixels with the same light gathering ability. Perhaps the Sony's pixels are closer together.

Hi Stuart
I think you're wrong . . . . . .

Seriously I thought the pixel 'pitch' was the difference between the centre of one photosite and the centre of the next - pushing them closer together in these terms would make for more pixels . . . and the Nikon and Sony have the same.

Pixel 'size' I grant you can vary a lot for the same pixel 'pitch' . . . but it was pitch they were claiming for . . . and apparently it was a load of old bollocks anyway

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

No Rob
Nor have I - the 'walkman' jibe is from Jurgen.
Truth is that I'm not fond of any other Sony 'tech'. But this is so 'unSony' as to be hard to believe.

Maybe I should start calling things by their real name
Minolta A900, wasn't it

I actually tried the A900 for the first time last week, and I agree, it seems very unSony indeed. Not at all the feeling of general electronics gear that I had feared, except the on/off switch. Why can't all camera manufacturers copy Nikon's on/off switch It's so totally superior :lecture:

 

[jonoslack]

Maybe I should start calling things by their real name
Minolta A900, wasn't it

That's the one! You keep on calling things just as you do. Levity (taking the piss) is definitely required in such gear discussions.

I actually tried the A900 for the first time last week, and I agree, it seems very unSony indeed. Not at all the feeling of general electronics gear that I had feared, except the on/off switch. Why can't all camera manufacturers copy Nikon's on/off switch It's so totally superior :lecture:

I don't mind the switch . . . I just wish everyone would put them in the same place!

 

[fotografz]

According to robgalbraith.com Nikon corrected its statement re sensor pitch, to be the same as that of the A900:

"Update, December 1, 2008: Nikon USA has now issued a correction to the pixel pitch specification, restating it as 5.94µm."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9318-9761

That sounds more like it.

I wonder what the differences are in Nikon's take on the 24.5 meg sensor compared to the Sony? Claimed ISO range is different. Again, I wonder if the filter in the Nikon is less aggressive, and they limited the ISO range a bit because of noise? That could provide interesting performance in terms of IQ. IMO, it better for 8K.

 

[Lars]

I have the impression that Nikon has prioritized IQ (and that they probably are about 6-9 months overdue on the announcement for that reason).

Notably:

Nikon's sensor has A/D converter on the sensor, supposedly this will reduce noise as the path for the analog signal is shorter.

Sony uses 12-bit A/D converter whereas Nikon uses 14-bit.

As for the AA/lowpass filter and/or microlenses, it seems clear that Sony and Nikon products differ. Nikon does point out that the filter in the D3x is not the same as in earlier cameras. Either this is pure marketing, or there is some substance to it.

Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Speculating is fun but we'll have to wait for critical reviews and comparisons.

I wonder what the differences are in Nikon's take on the 24.5 meg sensor compared to the Sony? Claimed ISO range is different. Again, I wonder if the filter in the Nikon is less aggressive, and they limited the ISO range a bit because of noise? That could provide interesting performance in terms of IQ. IMO, it better for 8K.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I don't mind the switch . . . I just wish everyone would put them in the same place!

Yes, something like that. The one on the OM-1 was very easy to find

 

[Arne Hvaring]

..

The one camera that really stands out, is the A900. It has all the megapixels, sensor cleaning and in-body IS, all for well under half the price of either the Nikon or the Canon, and it mounts Zeiss AF-glass, zooms as well as primes.

I agree, but it lacks live view, and for me, that rules the Sony out, I'm afraid. That's the single serious omission with this body IMO. Strange really.