Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-11-2015, 10:20 AM   #811
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Some of the elephants in the room i see:
a. as some have mentioned, the 42mp sensor has been designed for silent shutter - something i would expect Pentax to implement - how cool if it works out

b. This talk about speed has been approached differently by mfr. Sony has chosen to deal with high mp levels and large files - by compressible RAW. Nikon makes compressible RAW optional - Sony not. It will be interesting to see if Sony allows non-compressible RAW in its latest A7. Compressible RAW probably allows smaller chips and smaller cases - such as the A7 series. Not to mention, more files in the buffer, faster processing time,less heat - etc.

c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions.

06-11-2015, 10:57 AM   #812
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
c. If you look at the DXOmark measurements for DR for Nikon/Pentax, and Sony for the same sensors, typically, Sony cameras lag behind in DR measurements from Nikon and Pentax. What could be going on? I think, but don't know for sure, that its Sony's lossy compressible RAW is skewing DR measurements in favor of Pentax and Nikon. Is this a big deal - many Sony owners don't think so. In fact, its probably the compressible lossy RAW that allows Sony to put such a big sensor in such a small case. I still haven't made my mind up, don't like the lossy RAW, but on the other hand - like small form designs for camera case. If i'm right, we probably will see lossy RAW again in the A7RII camera. So what will Pentax settle on with regard to lossy RAW and small files; or full RAW and large files. Its all about trade-offs. Processing time, buffer size, heat production, case size - its al affected by these design decisions.
I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.
06-11-2015, 11:17 AM   #813
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
The 36mp sensor first appeared in the Nikon D800 after that in the A7R. ....
This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later?
06-11-2015, 11:21 AM   #814
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,323
Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact.
But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor.

06-11-2015, 11:22 AM   #815
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,068
That's a fact.
Don't forget talking about sensors that resolutionwise, some of them share the same silicium/electronic matrix ; but that anything else can be or is always (btw manufacturers) different : microlenses design, filters number/properties, ... and regarding the data extraction part : analog/digital conversion & encoding process and components, derawtisation process and components...

Last edited by Zygonyx; 06-11-2015 at 11:36 AM.
06-11-2015, 11:34 AM   #816
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,342
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Nikon announced the D800 in Feb 7, 2012, while Sony announced its A7r in Oct 16, 2013. That's an easily verifiable fact.
But the decision is way more complex than making a sensor available to a manufacturer or another. I'm sure Sony wasn't idling just because they were trying to play nice with one of their competitor.
Maybe Nikon custom ordered the 36mp sensor from Sony, and Sony decided to use it themselves once they had the A7 ready.
06-11-2015, 01:23 PM   #817
Loyal Site Supporter
drougge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Malmö
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 787
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.
As long as it's optional I can't see how anyone would be against it. And a scaled raw is going to be a less precise aproximation of the data that was read out from the sensor than some sensible type of lossy compression (without scaling). (Or, to be clear: Scaling is more lossy than reasonable compression.) Escpecially on bayer matrix data, which is what we're talking about here (you basically have to demosaic it to scale it).

I'd like to have both options even though I know how "untrue" they are. I don't want raw because I'm analysing the sensor, I want it so I don't have to worry about WB and similar when shooting.
06-11-2015, 01:55 PM - 1 Like   #818
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
This doesn't make sense, you mean Nikon (as a customer) has a first dip into Sony's new sensor before Sony put it in it's own A7R later?
That's a complete misunderstanding of Sony.

Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.

OTOH, Sony semiconductor (with imaging sensors as their most important segment) was promoted to strategic role. They have more than 50% market share worldwide in imaging sensors and are a multi billion dollar business.

That's like thinking Intel not giving a chip to Apple because Intel may want to build a few computers themselves ...

The D800 sensor went to nikon years ahead of Sony using it (the D800 was delayed at least a year), The D810 sensor isn't used anywhere within the indistry elsewhere (and it is a much better sensor with almost twice the full well capacity).

And the new stacked image sensors will be sold too.

I assume one of the driving forces behind the new stacked sensors (which contains an embedded image processor) is to get an even bigger share of the camera components market. It will be more difficult to adopt for Nikon or Pentax because it requires substantial changes to their firmware. But given the significant advantages, they'll do so sooner or later.

It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.

---------- Post added 11-06-15 at 22:06 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.
I strongly disagree.

It is true that the compression scheme used by Sony is unfortunate. It can produce visible artefacts in post-processed images. However, it is reported that Sony management recognized the fact and promised to escalate the matter to engineering for a (possibly optional) solution. Not easy because it requires all raw converters to adapt.

On the other hand, most of the bits within a raw file are random for physical reasons. It can be proven mathematically that no information is lost if only their statistical properties rather than every bit are stored. And random bits be restored upon load.

It is possible although I am unaware of anybody actually doing it (maybe, I should publish a paper about it?).

But the religious beliefs that RAW must remain uncompressed (or lossless compressed) are lacking a real reason.

sRAW, on the other hand, are a complete mess and it is these formats which should be eliminated. Nikon sRAW esp. is a ridiculous format.

06-11-2015, 02:07 PM   #819
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,828
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.
The only 'restriction' may be price.
Early runs of sensor production will probably be more expensive, but as production ramps up, unit prices come down. So if Ricoh wants to go to the head of the queue, it will probably cost them more per chip.
06-11-2015, 09:57 PM   #820
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I don't agree. Lossy RAW means useless RAW. How can this be RAW if it is no RAW? No Thank you. RAW is already manipulated enough as it is.
sRAW though, combining pixels, saving space and computing power but, at least potentially, allowing better DR is a WAY better possibility IMO.

Lower res RAW is a nice option. Lossy RAW should be banned. Or renamed. This is no RAW.
I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there.
06-11-2015, 10:43 PM   #821
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,521
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.
Could you please provide evidence for this claim?
06-11-2015, 11:35 PM   #822
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,260
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. However when i looked at an example of the artifact produced by Sony RAW, it was only visible with difficulty at 100% at the Rawdigger site. Without today's pixel peeping technology, noone would know its there.
Thanks. What's the point of getting massive amounts of (not always useful I'll agree) pixels/data if you throw part of it away. Even if it is@ 100%, I don't care.
Then we might use Jpeg as well.
06-12-2015, 01:06 AM   #823
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that Sony poses any restrictions on sensor supply to camera vendors.
Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors...
06-12-2015, 01:52 AM   #824
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Could you please provide evidence for this claim?
Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring?
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Unless those sensors contain technology patented by certain camera vendors...
Like in Intel selling processors using Intel patents?
Or do you mean that contract work isn't of course sold to others? Don't get it ...

Last edited by falconeye; 06-12-2015 at 01:57 AM.
06-12-2015, 02:58 AM   #825
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,997
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
(...)

Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony and shortlisted to be sold out.

(...)
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Could you please provide evidence for this claim?
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Yes, I could. Could you please google for one of the more recent Sony press releases on plans for restructuring?

(...)
That Sony camera business is a relatively unimportant department within Sony or rather a department of lesser importance, in particular in size, is indeed obvious from figures and various reports. That it is shortlisted to be sold out, not so much, or you have found something I didn't see.

Could you please provide the corresponding link? I thank you in advance.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps, aps-c, camera, card, conversation, cp, dof, ff, flash, focus, format, full frame, images, k-3, lens, lenses, magnification, mp, off-topic, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, plastic, pop-up, popup, ricoh, sd, unveiling
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First image of the Full Frame Curved sensor!…made for the RX2? interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 12 09-15-2014 10:04 PM
Economics of full frame mikemike Pentax Film SLR Discussion 47 06-24-2014 03:47 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Is full frame the medium format of the digital era ? ghelary Photographic Technique 2 05-28-2009 08:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:00 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top