Nikon's official statement on the D3X sensor

<p><em>"If Nikon actually used the A900 sensor in the D3X, do you honestly believe that Sony would allow Nikon to give such a press release?"</em></p>

<p>Nikon is a billion dollar customer account for Sony Semiconductor.</p>

<p>Olympus bought a few tens of thousands of sensors from Kodak. Because of this, when Olympus asked Kodak execs to stand up beside them at a press conference and say "we have been working together on the four <del>birds</del> thirds system", Kodak snapped to...</p>

<p>If Nikon told Sony they wanted a dozen execs to swear up and down that Nikon and Sony together hand coated every sensor with green tea mochi, Sony would say "mmmm.... mochi."</p>

<p><em><strong>"...it's a case of the D3x sensor being used in the A900! That is almost surely the case." </strong></em><br>

It's possible, but somehow, I doubt it.  Given people's access to information, it'd be an unwise move for Nikon.<br>

Personally, I believe it the design and quality tolerances that matter, not who fabricated it.  I would suspect the tolerances and specs for the Nikon sensor are higher than what is housed in the Sony, even if it is the same basic item.</p>

<p>You say the following:</p>

<p>"While Sony is doing the fabrication  the D3X CMOS sensor is completely designed and engineered by Nikon."</p>

<p>But the quotation you give says:</p>

<p>"<em><strong>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. "</strong> </em></p>

<p>That does not say what you said, so what is your source for the D3x sensor being "completely designed and engineered by Nikon"? Like many cars, the A900 and D3x sensors could well be the same basic pattern, but the D3x version has been modified to suit Nikon requirements hence  they can say "<em><strong>developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with ...". </strong> </em> and they are not lying.<br>

But this arguing is no more than weeing in the wind.<br>

The only way to know how good the D3x sensor is will be through testing. B. Rorslett will have one and hopefully will report his findings on the Nikon Gear web site. I think he can be trusted to give a reliable and honest account.</p>

 

<p>because I have had other talks with Nikon about it at the time of   the D3/D300 (directly with the engineers inolved, in Tokyo and Sendai) launch  and with Nikon USA representatives prior to the official announcement of the D3X.</p>

<p>I am as honest as Bjorn is (maybe not as techy). You can cross verify all of these statements with Imaging-Resource.com</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find the (potential?) commercial confidence issue interesting.  Say Nikon makes some great advance in sensor design, and then gets Sony to make the sensor.  Is this not running the risk of letting your competitor have a first hand look at how they could also make their sensors better?  How do these things work in an arrangement like this?</p>

<p>Ellis: I was not for one minute questioning your integrity, merely wondering if you based your conclusion on the quoted text alone. Anyway, thanks for the information.<br>

So are you saying that Sony had no input? And do you have any explanation for why the Sony A900 and Nikon D3x sensors share so many similarities such as pixel count and other details? I think there are architectural similarities. Not that it is that important ... :)</p>

<p>Leif,</p>

<p>No I am no saying that. I am certain that Nikon worked with Sony engineers to see what was possible with Sony's CMOS making capabilites and then took those baseline qualities in a proprietary direction.</p>

<p>"Is this not running the risk of letting your competitor have a first hand look at how they could also make their sensors better?  How do these things work in an arrangement like this?"</p>

<p>Non Disclosure agreements that go both ways. Trust.  Long term personal relationships. Successful capitalism sometimes requires collaboration even with erstwhile competitors.</p>

<p>Yeah trust.<br>

Anyone remember when Kodak was making instant film packs for Polaroid? They got into a ton of legal trouble

when they stole the Polaroid technology and used it in the Kodak instant cameras. After a big lawsuit, Kodak had to

pull all their cameras out of retail distribution.<br>

Trust.<br>

&nbsp

<p>This is really a discussion about the relative prices of the Sony A900 and Nikon D3X. Why should the Nikon cost so much more than the Sony when it uses the same sensor?  If you recall all film cameras can use the same film but were a wide range of prices. The issue I think is the level of price difference. I just checked and in 1986 the top of the range Canon F1N was $810 vs $350 for the cheapest - the AE1P. This is a 2.3x ratio, whereas the Nikon to Sony ratio is perhaps 6x.  While the construction and physical capabilities of the Nikon will be better than the Sony the difference is hard to explain.  I first noticed this Digital premium when Canon replaced the EOS1V with the 1D series.  The 1V was under $2000 and the 1D was 2 to 4 times as much. Apart from the display and sensor these cameras are almost identical.</p>

<p>I sure hope the D3x has better noise performance than the A900 as tested in this article.  The reviewer compares it's noise performance to cameras from 2 to 3 years ago.<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a900.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony-a900.shtml</a></p>

<p>The statement is very obvious marketing double-speak.  They are being very careful not to say that they designed it.  There's absolutely no reason to phrase it this way if they did the design.</p>

<p>This thread reminds me of why I rarely come here anymore. People arguing about things they really don't know anything about, which wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in any case.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark Ci</p>

<p>It doesn't matter - if Sony made the sensor and we get great images, that's fantastic! But really... if it's a Nikon design and Sony's manufacture, then they an easily say it just like I did. Which they didn't. But once again: whoever designed it doesn't matter.</p>

<p>BTW regarding the trust issue, we have to remember that the Japanese do things differently than in other countries. Ellis put it well.</p>

<p>The most interesting part of this discussion for me is that until now Canon has had far greater commercial grunt than Nikon - with all it's other divisions - printers, photocopiers etc. Nikon, on the other hand has been far smaller (although still large) without the same R&D budgets etc.<br>

If Nikon needed a large scale manufacturer to help with their products (whether in manufacture or design) then why not get into bed with Canon? - Surely that would put an end to the "Canon vs Nikon" argument once and for all.<br>

Obviously they were never going to do that, and so I find it strange that they would choose to get into bed with another DSLR manufacturer who is in direct competition with them. Sony is of course, a giant of home electronics - larger even than Canon.<br>

Of course with the credit crunch, Sony are feeling the pinch and as stated earlier, need to keep their product lines busy - but then again, I'm guessing Canon's in the same boat!<br>

So are we seeing the beginnings of a partnership between Nikon and Sony, with Nikon engineering Sony's DSLR lineup (and Sony manyfacturing Nikon's lineup) Something along the same lines as Jaguar and Ford? If so, then the result could swing one of two ways.<br>

I personally feel that Jaguars have been "cheapened" by Ford manufacture, and have a gut feeling that the Nikon line might go the same way. Of course, the result would be a formidable competitor for Canon, and the cost reductions resulting from Sonys intervention would surely bring down the price of DSLR's further, in the long run.<br>

Of course, it could go the Lamorghini / Fiat way. (Fiats are ten times the car they were before that hookup and Lambo's don't seem to have suffered at all).</p>

<p>Guy, Sony has been manufacturing sensors for Nikon DSLRs since the beginning of time. It's not a "new" partnership.</p>

<p>This is way off topic but Lamborghini made tractors before he made sports cars. He sold his tractor business to Fiat (and if that technology transfer improved Fiat cars tenfold, what can I say?). The sports car business also changed hands several times and is now owned by Audi.<br>

I don't think it says anything about the Nikon/Sony deal, but maybe something about how well informed this discussion is.</p>

<p>To me, this is a careful smart-lawyer rephrasing to go around the taboo word "Sony"</p>

<p>I wonder if Sony+Nikon will eat Canon DSLR sales in years. I wonder if Nikon will be eated, too... if so, please keep the Nikon F mount... ;)</p>

<p>Lamborghini is not Fiat. It belongs to Volkswagen. Fiat owns Ferrari and Maserati.</p>

<p>Luca,<br>

Now which one is D3X, fiat, volkswagon, Ferrari or Lamborghini?</p>

<p>I told you. The BMW Mini and some subcompact Peugeots share the same engines, which are the result of a joint development project. The last generation of the Mini here was offered with a common rail Diesel engine manufactured by Toyota and the same 1.6 gasoline engine was used by Chrysler on the European PT-Cruiser. Problems? A car is not only the engine.<br>

Same applies for photo equipment. Developing a digital sensor and setting up the production lines for it requires a lot of money. Then if you are lucky, you recover the investment running the production lines at full speed for the few years that this piece of equipment will be used, before introducing the next one. I see nothing wrong in using the same sensor for different cameras of different brands, as long as each brand builds its own camera around the sensor. As I saw no issue in Nikon using a Tamron design (or viceversa) some years ago. At the end you have different products targeted at different markets. Most of the issue here for me is coming from two things. The first is that the Nikon is outrageously overpriced, even for the pro or the rich amateur. The second is that for many years marketing departments have pushed the concept that a digital camera IS the sensor and the megapixels. So, at the end of the story I think cameras are intended to take pictures and the answer will come the firs time somebody will do a side by side comparison of both cameras, and answer the fundamental question: do you see a difference in the pictures and is this difference worth the difference in price. In other words, assuming that the Sony and the Nikon have the same identical sensor, do you get something more buying the Nikon that is worth the price? </p>

<p><em> The first is that the Nikon is outrageously overpriced,</em></p>

<p>Sound like you're talking about a user with 2-3 lenses. Whether the D3X is overpriced or not, depends on the image quality it can deliver, and the system its tied to. The actual street price is unknown and the list price is the same as Canon's current 1Ds Mk III. Sony's accessory and lens lines are much more limited and I don't have any information about their support network (apart from the fact that the same company's laptops have essentially no support and IMO their best use is by having them recycled). Sony's inability to even begin to approach Nikon and Canon's market share is simply a testament to the fact that just by being a sensor manufacturer doesn't carry the product line by itself if they don't know what to put in front of the sensor, and what to do with the data from the sensor.</p>

<p><em>In other words, assuming that the Sony and the Nikon have the same identical sensor</em></p>

<p>It was just said that the D3X sensor is exclusive to that camera. Why is it so hard to take it in? In any case the optics in front of the sensor and the image processing seem to have a considerable effect on the image quality, so the possible similarity of the sensors without the optics and processing (which could be very superficial) doesn't mean that image quality will be similar - if past experiences are anything to guide us, there is likely to be a world of difference. But anyway, in a couple of months we should have all the data that is needed to see why the Nikon is priced where it is, or if it's not correctly priced, the price will go up or down.</p>

<p>My word is "assuming". Even assuming that the sensor is the same, considering that a camera is not just a sensor, is the price difference worth or not?</p>

<p>"In other words, assuming that the Sony and the Nikon have the same identical sensor"<br>

The A700 and D300 have 'the same sensor' and yet the D300 performs much better at high ISO. The truth is that t he sensor is not the same, and Nikon added Nikon specific features to the sensor and the DSP pipeline . G iven information from Ellis, the D3x and A900 sensors are related, but we will probably never know quite who did what.<br>

There are a lot of people dissing the D3x without having used it. We need to w ait for thorough tests. Pricewise, the camera is priced according to what Nikon thinks users are prepared to pay. If no -one bites, the price will fall.</p>