Don't do it at all. Suggestions that the pro market is all full frame based on resolution or price are wacko.
Seriously learn something real about cameras, interchangeable lens cameras are about the lens systems not the bodes.
Smaller sensor have advantages and disadvantages compared to larger sensors. Obvious advantages in many cases are lighter telephoto lenses, and increased effective DOF at the same FOV.
There probably will not be much at PMA this year because of Photokina + holiday season wish to get cameras to market. You'll see some P+S. Olympus/Panny are the most likely to have new stuff in the u4/3 area.
Yes it is all about glass. It so happens that Canon, Nikon, and Sony - the three brands with the largest catalogs of lenses - are also the three brands with full-frame cameras. Nikon and Canon, the two biggest brands, both have multiple full-frame cameras. I thought the first tenet - it is all about lenses - was pretty obvious and did not need to be repeated.
Surely though, it should be about the quality of the lenses, and not the size of the catalog, particularly when the majority are relics from film days.
Although some view it as limited, I would say 4/3 still has the best lens lineup, in terms of quality, fit for purpose glass.
Many thought the DSLR market was recession proof?! They're $1000 plus cameras that only people who make a living taking pictures and camera enthusiasts with money to spare care about. Not to mention the types of pictures most consumers take, don't benefit in a noticeable way from spending that much on a camera. $8000 for a camera?! Are you fricking kidding me; rather buy a car. Or go on a couple kick ass vacations, or build an amazing computer and a projector and surround sound, and an all in one logitech remote and... well, you get the idea.
Well, the dSLR market starts well below $1000, in some cases below $500. I'm not sure why he would call it recession-proof (I'd think basic food groups are about the only thing recession-proof) but most of the action happens well below the $8000 bodies.
OTOH, have you seen the prices top photographers can charge? A few grand for some baby pictures? Over $10k for a wedding? There are enough pros making enough money at this to support these and more (a top medium-format back runs close to $50k IIRC, and then you add a body and lenses). And fortunately for the rest of the market, a lot of the technology eventually filters its way down to the mainstream.
Some of those all-in-one Logitech remotes run around $500 IIRC, which to me is more insane than a $8000 camera. Unlikely to make money with a remote.
Ah, you miss the point. These cameras have always been a niche product. In as much as the people who buy these cameras themselves are essentially recession proof.
The common man has never been the target market for these cameras.
Panasonic G1 is really small and light weight. No need to discuss it anymore. If you compare it with Nikon D90, both including kit lenses, D90 feels like a brick. What can I say more?
Panasonic could make it even smaller, but then people would say; "it feels too small, not enough grip, it is not balanced enough" etc. I am sure we will see less conservative designs by Panasonic in future, which look like rangefinder cameras and they will be indeed smaller. For the time being Panasonic did not want to take bigger risk, which is a good decision imo.
This is the way to go for future and sooner or later you will see smaller non-dslr cameras and dslr will eventually disappear, because dslr mechanism does not have any technical advantages by itself.
Other than an optical viewfinder that is usable in low light? These cameras like the G1 may take over for the cheap dSLRs, but I don't expect it to threaten the dSLR with extinction. Still plenty of market where the OVF is needed.
At this point, I don't think it is the best option for most people. Functionally, it offers little over traditional SLRs, it isn't THAT small, and the lens selection is currently limited compared to the class leaders.
I agree that what the G1 really offers is "promise". Right now, it proves that a non-SLR camera can perform on par with an SLR. The fast contrast-based focus and sharp, bright EVF are true innovations. Combine these with 1080p video, which I hear is coming soon, and things get really interesting.
We all have our favorite brand usually because we have accumulated lenses for that brand and have adapted to their controls. Most cameras have more bells and whistles than 98% of us need or use including pros. I do like a flexible camera but don't loose the art in all the technology.
The G1 looks like it is following Leica's designs closely with cameras big enough to contain the parts but no more. A lot of people don't care to pull out a monster lens for most shooting but want a quality image. I would like to see what it can do.
As for me I have been using Canons since my first A1 and have adapted to them. I would love an M series Leica if I only had the cash...
The article claims they are. Although they are both manufactured by Sony, has this ever been established as a fact? The high ISO performance of the D3X appears to be superior, consider:
"While it's acknowledged that Nikon uses image sensors principally designed by Sony in many of its digital SLRs past and present, the D3X's sensor was described in a recent briefing by Nikon USA's Silverman as an "original Nikon design" that does not and will not appear in cameras from other digital SLR manufacturers. In addition, Nikon issued the following response to the questions they received from us and others about the D3X imager's roots:
The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony. Featuring refined low-noise characteristics, 12 and 14 bit output, Live View capability and more, the D3X’s unique sensor design was carefully blueprinted to perform in perfect concert with proprietary Nikon technologies including EXPEED Image Processing and the Scene Recognition System. Meticulous efforts allowed the sensor to become one of the many essential components and technologies which contribute to the D3X’s superior image fidelity."
Anyone who still believes the Nikon D3x sensor is not the Sony sensor is reading too many Nikon press releases. The electronics and image prcessing are Nikon, and that is largely responsible for the slightly lower noise at higher ISOs in the D3x compared to the A900.
Since most CMOS sensors do a lot of the image processing on the sensor itself it is likely Nikon did specify different processing paths on the sensor, which would technically make the D3x sensor a "Nikon design", but the base sensor is the Sony 24.6 megapixel with one row not used as is the case in the D300/A700 pair.
Let's see: from one purveyor, a sensor with 12-bit data access and support electronics, a Bayer filter, an AA filter and a specific micro-len design; from another purveyor, the same identical sensor substrate but with both 12-bit & 14-bit data access, different support electronics, multiple "read" areas, a different Bayer filter, a different AA filter and a significantly different micro-lens design. [dripping-sarcasm] Sounds like the identical sensor to me -- Nikon should be horse-whipped for charging $5K extra for the same camera and everyone should just buy the Sony in protest. [/dripping-sarcasm]
For some all of the points you mention will make the Nikon D3x worth the extra $5000. You forgot to mention that the A900 and D3x both feature the same 5FPS maximum shooting speed, and that the ISO for the Nikon is 50-6400 and the Sony is 100-6400.
Also contrary to what many are saying weather sealing on the Sony A900 is decent and there, but definitely not to the level of the Nikon D2x. The dual CF cards on the Nikon with auto switching and the ability to save RAW to one and the same JPEG shot to the other is important to some - or to save the same shot to both cards for insurance. The Sony dual CF/MSPro slots can only be manually selected and cannot work simultaneously, which is far inferior.
There are many differences between the A900 and the D3X -- the sensor is only one of them. My post was in response to your having referred to the sensor as being the same in both cameras, in spite of Nikon's marketing hype. While the sensor substrate is clearly the same, the "sensor package" is clearly different. It would be impossible to use Sony's version in the Nikon body and vice versa.
While I question the value of the D3X for "most" photographers outside those professionals already invested in the Nikon system and in need of a high-resolution, full-frame body, your blog post and later comment infer that the two cameras are little different because of their use of the "same" sensor -- a statement that is both misleading and out-of-line. I expect better of you and AnandTech.
The Sony A900 is, indeed, a great value for those wanting a high-resolution 35mm body. The Canon 5DII is arguably an even better value in that it is supported by a much larger system of lenses and accessories. But the Nikon D3X has its place and that place is currently top-of-the-heap among 35mm DSLR bodies -- Sony sensor or no....
Nikon has responded to our inquiry asking if Sony makes the D3x sensor and what the real differences are from the A900 sensor:
"Wesley – Thanks for getting back to me so quick, and we appreciate you giving us the opportunity to explain our case better.
The D3X image sensor is manufactured by Sony Corporation and it has been expressly developed to conform to Nikon standards.
As this sensor is expressly developed according to Nikon specifications regarding such aspects as imaging characteristics and A/D conversion, it is not the same image sensor built into the a900. As we are unaware of detailed a900 image sensor specifications, we cannot say whether some components of the image sensors are the same or not.
This is the extent of detail we currently have on the technical details of the sensor – I hope this is helpful. If you’re looking for additional points of difference, we can also confirm that the D3X specifications respond to the strict demands of all professional photographers in terms of image quality, operation, feel, speed, durability, and product quality. In addition, based on a900 specifications noted in the camera's brochures, we consider the following D3X specifications to be superior:
1. Lateral chromatic aberration compensation effectively applied with all NIKKOR lenses
2. 16-bit data transfer for image processing
3. Shutter unit durable for approximately 300,000 cycles (built-in self-diagnostic shutter)
4. Built-in mirror balancer
5. Body, including mirror box, made of magnesium alloy
6. 51-point autofocus (including 15 cross-type sensors with lenses with maximum aperture of f/5.6) with Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus sensor module
7. Auto-exposure with 1,005-pixel RGB sensor
8. Built-in virtual horizon function
We believe that the price of the D3X is appropriate for its specifications, which go far beyond simply satisfying user demands, and the attention paid to minute details from initial design to final manufacture.
Also, if you are looking for someone to quote, let me know, and I can arrange that for you since I am not an appropriate spokesperson for Nikon.
Thank you, and I appreciate your patience on this matter."
I did not name the Nikon source since they would prefer a more appropriate spokesperson for an official quote. However, it seemed a relevant explanation in the context of the comments section.
In the body of your blog entry, you stated: "The Nikon D3x was shipped with a controversial $8000 price tag. It turned out to be a Sony sensor 24.5 megapixel Pro camera with Nikon electronics and build quality. Like the Pro D3 the D3x features an integral motor and incredible ruggedness to stand up to anything a Pro might ask of the $8000 camera. The Sony A900, with the same Sony sensor, is selling for $2999."
In the comments, you stated: "Anyone who still believes the Nikon D3x sensor is not the Sony sensor is reading too many Nikon press releases. The electronics and image prcessing are Nikon, and that is largely responsible for the slightly lower noise at higher ISOs in the D3x compared to the A900."
Moreover, you've implied that the D300/A700 sensors are similarly identical, claiming that a firmware patch from Sony has made them equal and implying that a similar patch could erase the minimal differences between the D3X and the A900. In truth, you could make more of a case with the D300/A700 pair than with the D3X/A900 pair. The sensors, while NOT identical, are clearly more similar in the D300/A700 comparison than the sensors in the D3X/A900 comparison.
Don't take me wrongly, I'm pulling for Sony to make a go of their recently acquired 35mm DSLR division and the A900 is one h-e-double-l of a bargain. The world's photographers need the camera companies to be in healthy competition. I'm just not used to blogs and posts on AnandTech being littered with such blatent bias.
I'm finished with this thread. I'll not post another retort.
I'm certainly not refuting my statements. Nikon finally states that Sony makes the sensor for the D3x. Many operations, like analog/digital conversion can take place on a CMOS sensor, which is one advantage of CMOS over CCD sensors. I have no doubt Nikon specified what they wanted activated on the Sony sensor to match with their electronics.
If you read the statement from Nikon you should be able to read between the lines. Nikon indicates they can't comment on the similarity or commonality of components on the A900 sensor because they are not familiar with it, but they do know what they specify. While the two sensors are clearly not 100% identical it seems likely they start as the same base sensor.
The Pentax K10D and Sony A100 and Nikon D80 all started with the same sensor in the last generation. Today the D300, D90, and A700 share the same base sensor.
No one argues about whether Sony builds the sensor. That's never been in question.
However, it seems as though the "sensor" part of the package is the only part that Sony builds for them, and even there, the specs are more Nikon's than Sony's. It's even possible that Nikon is getting a higher quality part from them than they use themselves. Possibly Sony's version as used in the a900 is too noisy to go to 14 bits, and that's why the camera doesn't have that option, very strange for a new camera in that, or almost any, price range today.
The sensor also, more correctly, must be thought of as a "package", consisting of all the parts, the filters, etc. To just say that the chip itself is built by Sony is not enough, if everything else is different, and possibly even the specs of the chip are as well.
They way you have written it: "The Sony A900, with the same Sony sensor, is selling for $2999." very much implies that you will get the same image quality from the $5000 cheaper Sony. Which you most definitely will not.
To me it seems very misleading no matter how _you_ want to define 'sensor'. Poor form.
Really, did someone miss the point on the G1? That thing is not that small compared to, say, some of the digital SLR cameras from Olympus. So, maybe Panasonic missed the point. If and when it gets smaller will anyone begin to see the real benefits of the MFT. People that have held a G1 don't get it because it doesn't separate itself from the current crowd.
The G1 is still the smallest of the interchangeable lens cameras, and while small it still handles very well. Reviews have found the image quality the best of any 4/3 family camera and certainly equal in most ways to the APS-C competitors.
Panasonic made the design decision to make the G1 look like a smaller version of its DSLR competition. There is no real reason for the top hump or all the bulk with a mirrorless micro 4/3 camera. They say they did it because their main Japanese market is resistant to change in appearance. What's important is the very fast multi-point contrast detect AF, no mirror and the hi-res EVF that is the first useful EVF we've seen outside of Pro grade video cameras.
It is the perfect platform for a superb interchangeable lens still camera with no-compromise full HD video. The next generation should have both and the break from the mirror box and the unique Panasonic CMOS 12 MP sensor are making that possible at this price point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are now many reviewers who consider the G1 a break-through design.
Yes, but all the reviews say that as ISO goes higher, the IQ drops faster than APS-C sensor cameras. The quality is lower than the lowest price APS-C sensor camera once you get to 800 and above.
This affects shadow noise and detail even at the lowest ISO's.
Quite frankly, I think Pop gave them "Camera of the Year" much more because of the concept that this is what it was supposed to be in the first place, rather than it being the best new camera out there, which it certainly isn't.
One thing that's strange is that every camera review, formal or informal, mentiones how good or bad the "rubber" surfaces on the camera grip and body are. Interestingly enough, this is the only "D-SLR" that has NO grippy surface at all. Why hasn't someone mentioned this? I've now played with the camera for a bit, and found that it's slippery when your hands are cold, as they are outside, and the camera is too small to be used comfortably with effectively warm gloves. I would imaging that when it's hot, and your hands are moist, the same problem will occur.
It seems to have been given a pass on this which is strange, small size or not.
Lastly, the viewfinder is almost useless when it's dark outside, or indoors when it's also dimmer. I would think that this would knock a few lumps, but it doesn't seem to be figured into ratings. Odd, considering how much is made of viewfinder quality.
In addition, when it first came out, I said here that it was priced much too highly. As we've now seen, it has undergone two good price drops, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't undergo at least one more.
It's a decent first try, but a second generation must be better, or it will fade away.
Gotta agree with that, I was impressed with the DPReview of the G1, and it is an attractive first start, but the lack of lenses for it so far, the fact that it's not *that* much smaller yet, and the EVF problems in low light still kill it as a useful photographic tool.
Make it rangefinder sized, with a reasonable lens range would do it for me, I could put up with the EVF issues for size advantages.
Unless they come up with a technology to replace the screen, the volume defined between the front of the lens and the corners of the screen has to stay about the same size. So the system can be smaller than traditional SLRs, but not what I would consider pocketable (unless you always wear a jacket). Once you need a camera bag, I don't see the size being enough different from small SLRs to matter as much.
I'd say the real breakthrough here is the fast contrast-detect AF, which could be beneficial to the entire digital camera market.
I currently own a D300 and find even though it was released backend of 2007, it still remains the best crop sensor DSLR on the market.
The recently released Canon 50D comes close,but still doesn't match the D300 on both noise control or features if anything it's image quality is slightly worst than the older 40D, due to cramming 15mp into that sensor.
Rumor has it Nikon will show either the D300x or D400 at PMA, with 14mp and full 1080p HD video but after all that won't offer much more over the current D300.
I personally think the D300X or D400 will suffer from more noise if they use 14mp, Personally 12mp is enough for most and proberly the sweet spot for this size of sensor.
As for video in a DSLR hmmmm not for me i rather use a Video camera and use my camera as they meant to be used ie taking pictures.
Actually, the 50D is better. It's a complex question though.
If you bring the rez down to what is in the D300, the noise is the same. If you bring the rez down to what is in the 40D, its better.
At the same print size, which is the only fair comparison between cameras, a higher rez image will look less noisy than a lower rez one, if the per pixel noise is the same. If the higher rez image has a bit more per pixel noise, then it could very well look the same.
Many considered the 5D Mark 2 not a full blown pro camera with its limited autofocusing ability, and it's body construction (not weather sealed). They would consider the D700 a pro camera as it has everything that canon lacks in the 5D mk2 (51 points, horizon leveler, environmental seals, etc.) However, I guess it really depends on what you would consider "pro" grade.
Probably depends on what field that pro works in. For studio or wedding photography (largely indoor and slow-paced) environmental seals and focus tracking are not huge issues. For travel/journalism, those factors become much more important.
For weddings (especially receptions), you want a fast, responsive camera with excellent low-light autofocus. Receptions are anything but "slow-paced". You also want manageable file sizes when you have to sort and process a thousand images from a wedding/reception.
21MP in a $2700 body is attractive for studio work and landscapes, but only a very small percentage of wedding photos are ever printed larger than 8x12.
I still use a K100d and couldn't recommend a stronger camera to a beginning photographer. It's menu system is easy to understand, lens compatibility is vast, street price is low and durability is exceptional. I can't wait to get a K200 someday; my buddy just ordered one for $850 (kit with lens!) and I have a feeling as soon as I use his I'm going to want one of my own.
These camera's are too underrated. It seems like everything is Sony this, Nikon that...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
40 Comments
Back to Article
drwho9437 - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Don't do it at all. Suggestions that the pro market is all full frame based on resolution or price are wacko.Seriously learn something real about cameras, interchangeable lens cameras are about the lens systems not the bodes.
Smaller sensor have advantages and disadvantages compared to larger sensors. Obvious advantages in many cases are lighter telephoto lenses, and increased effective DOF at the same FOV.
There probably will not be much at PMA this year because of Photokina + holiday season wish to get cameras to market. You'll see some P+S. Olympus/Panny are the most likely to have new stuff in the u4/3 area.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Yes it is all about glass. It so happens that Canon, Nikon, and Sony - the three brands with the largest catalogs of lenses - are also the three brands with full-frame cameras. Nikon and Canon, the two biggest brands, both have multiple full-frame cameras. I thought the first tenet - it is all about lenses - was pretty obvious and did not need to be repeated.alexwgreen - Thursday, January 29, 2009 - link
Agree again. It is all about the glass.Surely though, it should be about the quality of the lenses, and not the size of the catalog, particularly when the majority are relics from film days.
Although some view it as limited, I would say 4/3 still has the best lens lineup, in terms of quality, fit for purpose glass.
But that's just my two cents
Hrel - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Many thought the DSLR market was recession proof?! They're $1000 plus cameras that only people who make a living taking pictures and camera enthusiasts with money to spare care about. Not to mention the types of pictures most consumers take, don't benefit in a noticeable way from spending that much on a camera. $8000 for a camera?! Are you fricking kidding me; rather buy a car. Or go on a couple kick ass vacations, or build an amazing computer and a projector and surround sound, and an all in one logitech remote and... well, you get the idea.strikeback03 - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Well, the dSLR market starts well below $1000, in some cases below $500. I'm not sure why he would call it recession-proof (I'd think basic food groups are about the only thing recession-proof) but most of the action happens well below the $8000 bodies.OTOH, have you seen the prices top photographers can charge? A few grand for some baby pictures? Over $10k for a wedding? There are enough pros making enough money at this to support these and more (a top medium-format back runs close to $50k IIRC, and then you add a body and lenses). And fortunately for the rest of the market, a lot of the technology eventually filters its way down to the mainstream.
Some of those all-in-one Logitech remotes run around $500 IIRC, which to me is more insane than a $8000 camera. Unlikely to make money with a remote.
punko - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Ah, you miss the point. These cameras have always been a niche product. In as much as the people who buy these cameras themselves are essentially recession proof.The common man has never been the target market for these cameras.
zagortenay - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Panasonic G1 is really small and light weight. No need to discuss it anymore. If you compare it with Nikon D90, both including kit lenses, D90 feels like a brick. What can I say more?Panasonic could make it even smaller, but then people would say; "it feels too small, not enough grip, it is not balanced enough" etc. I am sure we will see less conservative designs by Panasonic in future, which look like rangefinder cameras and they will be indeed smaller. For the time being Panasonic did not want to take bigger risk, which is a good decision imo.
This is the way to go for future and sooner or later you will see smaller non-dslr cameras and dslr will eventually disappear, because dslr mechanism does not have any technical advantages by itself.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Other than an optical viewfinder that is usable in low light? These cameras like the G1 may take over for the cheap dSLRs, but I don't expect it to threaten the dSLR with extinction. Still plenty of market where the OVF is needed.roymbrown - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
At this point, I don't think it is the best option for most people. Functionally, it offers little over traditional SLRs, it isn't THAT small, and the lens selection is currently limited compared to the class leaders.I agree that what the G1 really offers is "promise". Right now, it proves that a non-SLR camera can perform on par with an SLR. The fast contrast-based focus and sharp, bright EVF are true innovations. Combine these with 1080p video, which I hear is coming soon, and things get really interesting.
teko - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Broken link on: Popular Photography has named the Panasonic G1 their "Camera of the Year". (contains double http)Wesley Fink - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. The link is now corrected and should work.kompulsive - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Too many people sleep on Pentax.knutjb - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
We all have our favorite brand usually because we have accumulated lenses for that brand and have adapted to their controls. Most cameras have more bells and whistles than 98% of us need or use including pros. I do like a flexible camera but don't loose the art in all the technology.The G1 looks like it is following Leica's designs closely with cameras big enough to contain the parts but no more. A lot of people don't care to pull out a monster lens for most shooting but want a quality image. I would like to see what it can do.
As for me I have been using Canons since my first A1 and have adapted to them. I would love an M series Leica if I only had the cash...
mattsaccount - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
The article claims they are. Although they are both manufactured by Sony, has this ever been established as a fact? The high ISO performance of the D3X appears to be superior, consider:http://masterchong.com/v3/sony-alpha/nikon-d3x-vs-...">http://masterchong.com/v3/sony-alpha/ni...50-iso64...
mattsaccount - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Here's some better evidence that these two sensors are not the same:http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?ci...">http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?ci...
"While it's acknowledged that Nikon uses image sensors principally designed by Sony in many of its digital SLRs past and present, the D3X's sensor was described in a recent briefing by Nikon USA's Silverman as an "original Nikon design" that does not and will not appear in cameras from other digital SLR manufacturers. In addition, Nikon issued the following response to the questions they received from us and others about the D3X imager's roots:
The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony. Featuring refined low-noise characteristics, 12 and 14 bit output, Live View capability and more, the D3X’s unique sensor design was carefully blueprinted to perform in perfect concert with proprietary Nikon technologies including EXPEED Image Processing and the Scene Recognition System. Meticulous efforts allowed the sensor to become one of the many essential components and technologies which contribute to the D3X’s superior image fidelity."
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Anyone who still believes the Nikon D3x sensor is not the Sony sensor is reading too many Nikon press releases. The electronics and image prcessing are Nikon, and that is largely responsible for the slightly lower noise at higher ISOs in the D3x compared to the A900.Since most CMOS sensors do a lot of the image processing on the sensor itself it is likely Nikon did specify different processing paths on the sensor, which would technically make the D3x sensor a "Nikon design", but the base sensor is the Sony 24.6 megapixel with one row not used as is the case in the D300/A700 pair.
weh - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Let's see: from one purveyor, a sensor with 12-bit data access and support electronics, a Bayer filter, an AA filter and a specific micro-len design; from another purveyor, the same identical sensor substrate but with both 12-bit & 14-bit data access, different support electronics, multiple "read" areas, a different Bayer filter, a different AA filter and a significantly different micro-lens design. [dripping-sarcasm] Sounds like the identical sensor to me -- Nikon should be horse-whipped for charging $5K extra for the same camera and everyone should just buy the Sony in protest. [/dripping-sarcasm]Wesley Fink - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
For some all of the points you mention will make the Nikon D3x worth the extra $5000. You forgot to mention that the A900 and D3x both feature the same 5FPS maximum shooting speed, and that the ISO for the Nikon is 50-6400 and the Sony is 100-6400.Also contrary to what many are saying weather sealing on the Sony A900 is decent and there, but definitely not to the level of the Nikon D2x. The dual CF cards on the Nikon with auto switching and the ability to save RAW to one and the same JPEG shot to the other is important to some - or to save the same shot to both cards for insurance. The Sony dual CF/MSPro slots can only be manually selected and cannot work simultaneously, which is far inferior.
weh - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
There are many differences between the A900 and the D3X -- the sensor is only one of them. My post was in response to your having referred to the sensor as being the same in both cameras, in spite of Nikon's marketing hype. While the sensor substrate is clearly the same, the "sensor package" is clearly different. It would be impossible to use Sony's version in the Nikon body and vice versa.While I question the value of the D3X for "most" photographers outside those professionals already invested in the Nikon system and in need of a high-resolution, full-frame body, your blog post and later comment infer that the two cameras are little different because of their use of the "same" sensor -- a statement that is both misleading and out-of-line. I expect better of you and AnandTech.
The Sony A900 is, indeed, a great value for those wanting a high-resolution 35mm body. The Canon 5DII is arguably an even better value in that it is supported by a much larger system of lenses and accessories. But the Nikon D3X has its place and that place is currently top-of-the-heap among 35mm DSLR bodies -- Sony sensor or no....
Wesley Fink - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Nikon has responded to our inquiry asking if Sony makes the D3x sensor and what the real differences are from the A900 sensor:"Wesley – Thanks for getting back to me so quick, and we appreciate you giving us the opportunity to explain our case better.
The D3X image sensor is manufactured by Sony Corporation and it has been expressly developed to conform to Nikon standards.
As this sensor is expressly developed according to Nikon specifications regarding such aspects as imaging characteristics and A/D conversion, it is not the same image sensor built into the a900. As we are unaware of detailed a900 image sensor specifications, we cannot say whether some components of the image sensors are the same or not.
This is the extent of detail we currently have on the technical details of the sensor – I hope this is helpful. If you’re looking for additional points of difference, we can also confirm that the D3X specifications respond to the strict demands of all professional photographers in terms of image quality, operation, feel, speed, durability, and product quality. In addition, based on a900 specifications noted in the camera's brochures, we consider the following D3X specifications to be superior:
1. Lateral chromatic aberration compensation effectively applied with all NIKKOR lenses
2. 16-bit data transfer for image processing
3. Shutter unit durable for approximately 300,000 cycles (built-in self-diagnostic shutter)
4. Built-in mirror balancer
5. Body, including mirror box, made of magnesium alloy
6. 51-point autofocus (including 15 cross-type sensors with lenses with maximum aperture of f/5.6) with Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus sensor module
7. Auto-exposure with 1,005-pixel RGB sensor
8. Built-in virtual horizon function
We believe that the price of the D3X is appropriate for its specifications, which go far beyond simply satisfying user demands, and the attention paid to minute details from initial design to final manufacture.
Also, if you are looking for someone to quote, let me know, and I can arrange that for you since I am not an appropriate spokesperson for Nikon.
Thank you, and I appreciate your patience on this matter."
I did not name the Nikon source since they would prefer a more appropriate spokesperson for an official quote. However, it seemed a relevant explanation in the context of the comments section.
weh - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Now you are refuting your own statements.In the body of your blog entry, you stated: "The Nikon D3x was shipped with a controversial $8000 price tag. It turned out to be a Sony sensor 24.5 megapixel Pro camera with Nikon electronics and build quality. Like the Pro D3 the D3x features an integral motor and incredible ruggedness to stand up to anything a Pro might ask of the $8000 camera. The Sony A900, with the same Sony sensor, is selling for $2999."
In the comments, you stated: "Anyone who still believes the Nikon D3x sensor is not the Sony sensor is reading too many Nikon press releases. The electronics and image prcessing are Nikon, and that is largely responsible for the slightly lower noise at higher ISOs in the D3x compared to the A900."
Moreover, you've implied that the D300/A700 sensors are similarly identical, claiming that a firmware patch from Sony has made them equal and implying that a similar patch could erase the minimal differences between the D3X and the A900. In truth, you could make more of a case with the D300/A700 pair than with the D3X/A900 pair. The sensors, while NOT identical, are clearly more similar in the D300/A700 comparison than the sensors in the D3X/A900 comparison.
Don't take me wrongly, I'm pulling for Sony to make a go of their recently acquired 35mm DSLR division and the A900 is one h-e-double-l of a bargain. The world's photographers need the camera companies to be in healthy competition. I'm just not used to blogs and posts on AnandTech being littered with such blatent bias.
I'm finished with this thread. I'll not post another retort.
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
I'm certainly not refuting my statements. Nikon finally states that Sony makes the sensor for the D3x. Many operations, like analog/digital conversion can take place on a CMOS sensor, which is one advantage of CMOS over CCD sensors. I have no doubt Nikon specified what they wanted activated on the Sony sensor to match with their electronics.If you read the statement from Nikon you should be able to read between the lines. Nikon indicates they can't comment on the similarity or commonality of components on the A900 sensor because they are not familiar with it, but they do know what they specify. While the two sensors are clearly not 100% identical it seems likely they start as the same base sensor.
The Pentax K10D and Sony A100 and Nikon D80 all started with the same sensor in the last generation. Today the D300, D90, and A700 share the same base sensor.
melgross - Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - link
No one argues about whether Sony builds the sensor. That's never been in question.However, it seems as though the "sensor" part of the package is the only part that Sony builds for them, and even there, the specs are more Nikon's than Sony's. It's even possible that Nikon is getting a higher quality part from them than they use themselves. Possibly Sony's version as used in the a900 is too noisy to go to 14 bits, and that's why the camera doesn't have that option, very strange for a new camera in that, or almost any, price range today.
The sensor also, more correctly, must be thought of as a "package", consisting of all the parts, the filters, etc. To just say that the chip itself is built by Sony is not enough, if everything else is different, and possibly even the specs of the chip are as well.
badnews - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
They way you have written it: "The Sony A900, with the same Sony sensor, is selling for $2999." very much implies that you will get the same image quality from the $5000 cheaper Sony. Which you most definitely will not.To me it seems very misleading no matter how _you_ want to define 'sensor'. Poor form.
roberts2424 - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Really, did someone miss the point on the G1? That thing is not that small compared to, say, some of the digital SLR cameras from Olympus. So, maybe Panasonic missed the point. If and when it gets smaller will anyone begin to see the real benefits of the MFT. People that have held a G1 don't get it because it doesn't separate itself from the current crowd.Wesley Fink - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
The G1 is still the smallest of the interchangeable lens cameras, and while small it still handles very well. Reviews have found the image quality the best of any 4/3 family camera and certainly equal in most ways to the APS-C competitors.Panasonic made the design decision to make the G1 look like a smaller version of its DSLR competition. There is no real reason for the top hump or all the bulk with a mirrorless micro 4/3 camera. They say they did it because their main Japanese market is resistant to change in appearance. What's important is the very fast multi-point contrast detect AF, no mirror and the hi-res EVF that is the first useful EVF we've seen outside of Pro grade video cameras.
It is the perfect platform for a superb interchangeable lens still camera with no-compromise full HD video. The next generation should have both and the break from the mirror box and the unique Panasonic CMOS 12 MP sensor are making that possible at this price point.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there are now many reviewers who consider the G1 a break-through design.
melgross - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Yes, but all the reviews say that as ISO goes higher, the IQ drops faster than APS-C sensor cameras. The quality is lower than the lowest price APS-C sensor camera once you get to 800 and above.This affects shadow noise and detail even at the lowest ISO's.
Quite frankly, I think Pop gave them "Camera of the Year" much more because of the concept that this is what it was supposed to be in the first place, rather than it being the best new camera out there, which it certainly isn't.
One thing that's strange is that every camera review, formal or informal, mentiones how good or bad the "rubber" surfaces on the camera grip and body are. Interestingly enough, this is the only "D-SLR" that has NO grippy surface at all. Why hasn't someone mentioned this? I've now played with the camera for a bit, and found that it's slippery when your hands are cold, as they are outside, and the camera is too small to be used comfortably with effectively warm gloves. I would imaging that when it's hot, and your hands are moist, the same problem will occur.
It seems to have been given a pass on this which is strange, small size or not.
Lastly, the viewfinder is almost useless when it's dark outside, or indoors when it's also dimmer. I would think that this would knock a few lumps, but it doesn't seem to be figured into ratings. Odd, considering how much is made of viewfinder quality.
In addition, when it first came out, I said here that it was priced much too highly. As we've now seen, it has undergone two good price drops, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't undergo at least one more.
It's a decent first try, but a second generation must be better, or it will fade away.
Maxington - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Gotta agree with that, I was impressed with the DPReview of the G1, and it is an attractive first start, but the lack of lenses for it so far, the fact that it's not *that* much smaller yet, and the EVF problems in low light still kill it as a useful photographic tool.Make it rangefinder sized, with a reasonable lens range would do it for me, I could put up with the EVF issues for size advantages.
strikeback03 - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Unless they come up with a technology to replace the screen, the volume defined between the front of the lens and the corners of the screen has to stay about the same size. So the system can be smaller than traditional SLRs, but not what I would consider pocketable (unless you always wear a jacket). Once you need a camera bag, I don't see the size being enough different from small SLRs to matter as much.I'd say the real breakthrough here is the fast contrast-detect AF, which could be beneficial to the entire digital camera market.
ste761 - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
I currently own a D300 and find even though it was released backend of 2007, it still remains the best crop sensor DSLR on the market.The recently released Canon 50D comes close,but still doesn't match the D300 on both noise control or features if anything it's image quality is slightly worst than the older 40D, due to cramming 15mp into that sensor.
Rumor has it Nikon will show either the D300x or D400 at PMA, with 14mp and full 1080p HD video but after all that won't offer much more over the current D300.
I personally think the D300X or D400 will suffer from more noise if they use 14mp, Personally 12mp is enough for most and proberly the sweet spot for this size of sensor.
As for video in a DSLR hmmmm not for me i rather use a Video camera and use my camera as they meant to be used ie taking pictures.
melgross - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Actually, the 50D is better. It's a complex question though.If you bring the rez down to what is in the D300, the noise is the same. If you bring the rez down to what is in the 40D, its better.
At the same print size, which is the only fair comparison between cameras, a higher rez image will look less noisy than a lower rez one, if the per pixel noise is the same. If the higher rez image has a bit more per pixel noise, then it could very well look the same.
finbarqs - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Many considered the 5D Mark 2 not a full blown pro camera with its limited autofocusing ability, and it's body construction (not weather sealed). They would consider the D700 a pro camera as it has everything that canon lacks in the 5D mk2 (51 points, horizon leveler, environmental seals, etc.) However, I guess it really depends on what you would consider "pro" grade.strikeback03 - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Probably depends on what field that pro works in. For studio or wedding photography (largely indoor and slow-paced) environmental seals and focus tracking are not huge issues. For travel/journalism, those factors become much more important.jpeyton - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
For weddings (especially receptions), you want a fast, responsive camera with excellent low-light autofocus. Receptions are anything but "slow-paced". You also want manageable file sizes when you have to sort and process a thousand images from a wedding/reception.21MP in a $2700 body is attractive for studio work and landscapes, but only a very small percentage of wedding photos are ever printed larger than 8x12.
strikeback03 - Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - link
Maybe a cultural thing. I have never done a reception that had exactly high action. Nothing to compare to, say, HS basketball.BiscuitMonster - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Great to see Pentax made your list! I am one of the few eagerly anticipating Pentax's next move - and really hope they manage to weather the storm.feraltoad - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
It would be a shame to lose Pentax. I love my k200d. I don't know why they don't get more attention considering what you get for the price.Samus - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
I still use a K100d and couldn't recommend a stronger camera to a beginning photographer. It's menu system is easy to understand, lens compatibility is vast, street price is low and durability is exceptional. I can't wait to get a K200 someday; my buddy just ordered one for $850 (kit with lens!) and I have a feeling as soon as I use his I'm going to want one of my own.These camera's are too underrated. It seems like everything is Sony this, Nikon that...
dr4gon - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Great roundup, can't wait to see what Sony has in store for PMA which usually comes in January (now in March) can't come soon enough!Lord 666 - Monday, January 26, 2009 - link
Bah, reads more like a soap opera or a serial cliff-hanger.No new news to report here.