Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-27-2012, 06:14 AM   #676
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,246
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It is pretty clear that Nikon has been driving a lot of the advances in FF tech, and that Sony fabs the sensors in Nikon's FF flagships. But Sony also wants some of Nikon's tech post-Alpha A900/850 runs. It's probably far cheaper for Sony to license from Nikon but then give Nikon exclusivity of supply for a period of time on an equitable basis for both.
No, it is not "pretty clear".
There are Sony patents for sensor technology.
Where are the Nikon patents?

Of course Nikon likes to present themselves as a leader in sensor technology, but for all we know, they could be just buying Sony technology with null input on their behalf.

The rest of your post does not make sense to me either. It is fine for you to entertain your -- apparently Thom Hogan inspired (who is very much stabbing in the dark himself) -- assumptions, but please don't portray them as known facts.


Last edited by Class A; 06-27-2012 at 06:23 AM.
06-27-2012, 08:04 AM   #677
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
No, it is not "pretty clear".
There are Sony patents for sensor technology.
Where are the Nikon patents?

Of course Nikon likes to present themselves as a leader in sensor technology, but for all we know, they could be just buying Sony technology with null input on their behalf.

The rest of your post does not make sense to me either. It is fine for you to entertain your -- apparently Thom Hogan inspired (who is very much stabbing in the dark himself) -- assumptions, but please don't portray them as known facts.
We are now pushing 2 years where Nikon is Sony's only FF sensor customer. Sony's book-to-bill has been growing astoundingly in semi production at a time when the rest of the company is floundering. Between their FF supply to Nikon and dominance ni the small CMOS cellphone supply, Sony has been on a tear.

Google Nikon sensor patents and you will find plenty. And, in case you didn't know, Nikon manufactures phiotolithography equipment used in fabs:

Nikon Precision | Global Site

The issue for FF CMOS is wafer size and stitching, and the major economic issue is the substrate processing and fabrication on an industrial scale where multi-billion $ expenditures from a company like Sony Industrial are required and where Nikon is simply too small to leverage such a large industrial outlay (the plant size is measured in hectares for some of these assets):

Sony to invest $1bn in stacked-CMOS production for smartphones: Digital Photography Review

Nikon also works with Aptina, but Aptina's CMOS fab system until recently was not able to accommodate FF. They were a smaller foundry only started as a spin-off of Micron in 2008. Most CMOS systems were artisanal and small wafer until about 5 years ago. It was Canon and Nikon that opened up the larger sensor market. The market for large sensors is very limited, almost exclusively to SLR cameras and some astronomy equipment. the market for small sensor CMOS is enormous including the guy who stuck a camera down my water main last week.

So the idea that anyone can just order a FF sensor is nonsense. Hogan is right; you need in at the foundry phase both with money (proven market assets) and design (for this much $$$, what do you want?). Canon did their own, and that left Sony, and maybe Teledyne Dalsa (who also have a huge CMOS patent portfolio). No one is going to fab up and then stitch FF sensors for a small player like Pentax. To get there you need combined muscle which appears to have come from Sony and Nikon working together and Canon working alone. No Sony FF cameras manufactured for almost 2 years now and 100% of their supply going to Nikon's assembly system tells you something, especially when Pentax has nothing.

Oh, that's right. You lost an argument in another thread so you're back for more.
06-27-2012, 08:17 AM   #678
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,213
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
. . .
So the idea that anyone can just order a FF sensor is nonsense. Hogan is right; you need in at the foundry phase both with money (proven market assets) and design (for this much $$$, what do you want?). Canon did their own, and that left Sony, and maybe Teledyne Dalsa (who also have a huge CMOS patent portfolio). No one is going to fab up and then stitch FF sensors for a small player like Pentax. To get there you need combined muscle which appears to have come from Sony and Nikon working together and Canon working alone. No Sony FF cameras manufactured for almost 2 years now and 100% of their supply going to Nikon's assembly system tells you something, especially when Pentax has nothing.

Oh, that's right. You lost an argument in another thread so you're back for more.
While no one can just call up the Sony Sensor division and order 100 ff sensors, a company can send in negotiators to make a deal. There is always the company that took over the Kodak sensors. They are still supplying Leica for the M9 and Pentax for the 645D. Granted, a ff camera with a ccd may give up video.
06-27-2012, 08:23 AM   #679
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
While no one can just call up the Sony Sensor division and order 100 ff sensors, a company can send in negotiators to make a deal. There is always the company that took over the Kodak sensors. They are still supplying Leica for the M9 and Pentax for the 645D. Granted, a ff camera with a ccd may give up video.
with the right CCD though it may provide a unique alternative. Personally though I do use it I could live without video if it gave me better iq (I held on to my K10 specifically for the iso 100 performance). It would have to be better than the sensor leica is using in the M9 though. and they are rumoured to be moving to cmos for the M10 and the next Gen S2

06-27-2012, 08:54 AM   #680
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
with the right CCD though it may provide a unique alternative. Personally though I do use it I could live without video if it gave me better iq (I held on to my K10 specifically for the iso 100 performance). It would have to be better than the sensor leica is using in the M9 though. and they are rumoured to be moving to cmos for the M10 and the next Gen S2
Who says you can't use CCD for video? Funny enough most video camera's actually use CCD because they can use a electronic shutter.
06-27-2012, 09:43 AM   #681
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Who says you can't use CCD for video? Funny enough most video camera's actually use CCD because they can use a electronic shutter.
but none have been implemented for DSLR, and in fact one of the reasons for the CMOS move was it's better implementation at low cost (many of the best camcorders used 3 CCD actually not just one. but much smaller CCD than we would use in a DSLR - it may be a heat/cooling issue at the size versus space thing in DSLR
Some of the best camcorder systems have moved to CMOS (the Red sensor is a CMOS) -but there is still the rolling shutter problem. Most of them are still using a 3 CCD configuration.
Problem with CCD for video in a DSLR (Or CCD in a DSLR at all at this point) is it is more complex to implement (chip is easier to develop, but the back end after the chip is more complicated. Power consumption is also Higher with CCD though that has improved. CCD also is not as good at high iso (this too has improved i am sure but it is still far beyond Cmos. the closest comparison would be to look at the M9 chip versus say a 5D2 chip since they are about the same age
the Canon sensor crushes the leica on high iso, DR is almost a wash asn colour depth is slightly better on the canon as well.
06-27-2012, 09:44 AM   #682
Veteran Member
RXrenesis8's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Orlando, FL (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 523
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
We are now pushing 2 years where Nikon is Sony's only FF sensor customer.
Regarding this point: Can't APS-C and 135 format sensors come from the same wafer stock? I was under the impression that they were just cut to different sizes.
06-27-2012, 09:52 AM   #683
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by RXrenesis8 Quote
Regarding this point: Can't APS-C and 135 format sensors come from the same wafer stock? I was under the impression that they were just cut to different sizes.
not quite. they can from the same stock (the D800 is almost certainly using much the same stock the K5 does) but the size is something that requires stitching of more than one piece to acheive that is one of the big reasons for the cost increase (there is about 2.2 x times as much sensor area on FF) the biggest single cut sensor size without stitching is apsh (and only Canon ever did that)

06-27-2012, 10:18 AM   #684
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
No, it is not "pretty clear".
There are Sony patents for sensor technology.
Where are the Nikon patents?

Of course Nikon likes to present themselves as a leader in sensor technology, but for all we know, they could be just buying Sony technology with null input on their behalf.

The rest of your post does not make sense to me either. It is fine for you to entertain your -- apparently Thom Hogan inspired (who is very much stabbing in the dark himself) -- assumptions, but please don't portray them as known facts.
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
While no one can just call up the Sony Sensor division and order 100 ff sensors, a company can send in negotiators to make a deal. There is always the company that took over the Kodak sensors. They are still supplying Leica for the M9 and Pentax for the 645D. Granted, a ff camera with a ccd may give up video.
The company that bought Kodak's sensor is a vulture fund.

It's also CCD only.
06-27-2012, 10:21 AM   #685
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
Who says you can't use CCD for video? Funny enough most video camera's actually use CCD because they can use a electronic shutter.
CMOS vs. CCD is partly a power consumption issue.

CCD has become very rare as the mass manufacture of the CMOS tech has well overtaken CCD.

MF cameras are using 10 year-old CCD designs which are very capable, but they do not scale well to low-power consumption, video, and portability.
06-27-2012, 10:23 AM   #686
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,924
QuoteOriginally posted by RXrenesis8 Quote
Regarding this point: Can't APS-C and 135 format sensors come from the same wafer stock? I was under the impression that they were just cut to different sizes.
No. FF is quilted or stitched which is costly and has higher loss and QC issues.

Much of that has been ameliorated in the last gen of CMOS FF sensors, but with APS-C the fact this is not necessary has allowed the APS-C sensor to become a commodity with rocket ship sales.
06-27-2012, 01:02 PM   #687
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,213
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The company that bought Kodak's sensor is a vulture fund.

It's also CCD only.
Where did I say it wasn't a ccd? In fact, that is why I said video was an issue. However, ccd is still a possibility for full frame still imaging.
06-27-2012, 01:05 PM   #688
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,213
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
but none have been implemented for DSLR, and in fact one of the reasons for the CMOS move was it's better implementation at low cost (many of the best camcorders used 3 CCD actually not just one. but much smaller CCD than we would use in a DSLR - it may be a heat/cooling issue at the size versus space thing in DSLR
Some of the best camcorder systems have moved to CMOS (the Red sensor is a CMOS) -but there is still the rolling shutter problem. Most of them are still using a 3 CCD configuration.
Problem with CCD for video in a DSLR (Or CCD in a DSLR at all at this point) is it is more complex to implement (chip is easier to develop, but the back end after the chip is more complicated. Power consumption is also Higher with CCD though that has improved. CCD also is not as good at high iso (this too has improved i am sure but it is still far beyond Cmos. the closest comparison would be to look at the M9 chip versus say a 5D2 chip since they are about the same age
the Canon sensor crushes the leica on high iso, DR is almost a wash asn colour depth is slightly better on the canon as well.
How does the 645D ccd chip compare to the Leica and 5D 2? It is an even bigger ccd. I wonder how many chips they get out of one of those 645D wafers and if it would be feasible to get full frame 135 wafers from the wafer stock. However, I suspect the 645D upgrade may see a cmos.
06-27-2012, 01:11 PM   #689
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Where did I say it wasn't a ccd? In fact, that is why I said video was an issue. However, ccd is still a possibility for full frame still imaging.
Technically it is possible for Video as well, though it could get quite pricey and run hot and need much more processor power to do well (a lort of high end pro video still uses 3 ccd. though some newer gen (like the red who claim 4 K but in fact are not 4:4:4 that a 3 sensor setup would offer but are like a bayer array setup so lower res. the canon 2K model though cmos actually is full couor info for each pixel
06-27-2012, 05:06 PM   #690
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
but none have been implemented for DSLR, and in fact one of the reasons for the CMOS move was it's better implementation at low cost (many of the best camcorders used 3 CCD actually not just one. but much smaller CCD than we would use in a DSLR - it may be a heat/cooling issue at the size versus space thing in DSLR
Some of the best camcorder systems have moved to CMOS (the Red sensor is a CMOS) -but there is still the rolling shutter problem. Most of them are still using a 3 CCD configuration.
Problem with CCD for video in a DSLR (Or CCD in a DSLR at all at this point) is it is more complex to implement (chip is easier to develop, but the back end after the chip is more complicated. Power consumption is also Higher with CCD though that has improved. CCD also is not as good at high iso (this too has improved i am sure but it is still far beyond Cmos. the closest comparison would be to look at the M9 chip versus say a 5D2 chip since they are about the same age
the Canon sensor crushes the leica on high iso, DR is almost a wash asn colour depth is slightly better on the canon as well.
But you aren't saying it can't be done

And the complexity is it not the other way around if you look at the whole system, actually many of the extra components of the CCD are baked in into the CMOS chip so in theory CCD should be easier to be adapted to suit a certain task then CMOS. Wouldn't it be intersting to have 2 paths for the image processing to take, one for stills and one for moving images?
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, capacity, company, d4s, dont, ff, followers, frame, full-frame, idea, im, iso, k-3, lens, lenses, letter, light, lw/ph, nikon, page, pentax, release, time, traffic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:18 AM. | 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