Nikon's official statement on the D3X sensor

<p>You can now stop speculating.  While Sony is doing the fabrication  the D3X CMOS sensor is completely designed and engineered by Nikon.  To make it crystal clear: It is not the same sensor in the Sony A900. Here is the full text of Nikon's statement as released to me this morning:</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.  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."</strong> </em></p>

<p>Could this not be paraphrased as "It's basically the same, but we we need to make it sound special for this press release"?  I mean, would anyone really expect Nikon to say 'Yeah, you can get the chip that comes in our new $8000 camera in a Sony that costs way less"?</p>

<p>It reminds me of the old 70-300 ED, when somebody pointed out that Tamron was selling an identical lens. :)</p>

<p>Rob, you can believe what you want or make a mockery of the facts if that's the kind of thing you enjoy. 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?</p>

<p>This is useful, thanks for fishing this out.<br>

Although it makes it clear that the sensor has some aspects that are specific to the D3x only, it does not state that it's a Nikon design so it may still be a derivate version from the Sony sensor. They did something similar with D70, if you recall. If memory serves me right, the D70 had a combined mechanical/electronic shutter mode that was unique to Nikon.<br>

Note that "Nikon requirements and performance standards" does not mean much: it is common practice when a company subcontract the design or the development of a component to impose requirements and performance standards on the contractor.</p>

<p>I never understood where that claim or argument came from.  The Nikon & Tamron 70-300 lenses looked nothing alike and had different filter sizes.  I vaguely remember seeing internal diagrams of the lenses and they were different as well.<br>

<br /> OK, back to the D3x discussion already in progress...</p>

<p>Here is a link to interview with Masato Takeishi, design engineer <br />for Nikon FX format sensor.Should kill the rumour that it is <br />a Sony sensor:</p>

<p><a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/24/index.htm">http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/scene/24/index.htm</a></p>

<p>/Clay<br /></p>

<p>Clay, the article seems to be talking about the D3 not the D3X.</p>

<p>Eric, sorry to go off topic, but believe me, the now discontinued Nikon 70-300 4-5.6 AF ED (the lens that replaced the 75-300 AF) and the Tamron 70-300 AF ID are exactly the same design. I have both because I use the Nikon and I got the Tamron in gift (I'm not selling it since the resale value is miserable) and if you look at them side by side you will notice not only that they have the same 62 mm filter thread, the same dimensions and design but also the same internal movements, building construction and the like. At the time I recall somebody saying that the Nikon had a better quality optics because of ED glass and superior coating, but this is my memory. For this reason I am not surprised of the above statement.</p>

<p>Thanks Mike,<br />How about we split the difference ?<br />Nikon also makes machines called 'steppers' that actually manufacture<br />the sensors. Nikon's biggest customer for their steppers is Sony, ha !<br />So, who made the sensor ? Who cares, long as it works.<br />Best regards,<br />/Clay</p>

<p>"Who cares, long as it works."<br>

Exactly, as long as it does the job, it's perfectly matched to the camera and it's up to Nikon standards for a professional camera, who cares about the supplier. The manufacturer could well be ACME Inc., as long as it is not the crappy stuff they sell to Wiley E. Coyote. ;-)</p>

<p>I don't see what is so abhorrent about this process. when I designed hardware, I evaluated existing components and integrating them partially into my design, versus the problematic costs and time-constraints of not doing so. a good design is extensible, and surely Sony in concert with Nikon (and others) created an easy migration-path for designers with specific architectural requirements. I recently designed a rotating platform to align the solar-panel arrays on my sailboat with the sun, as the sun moved and the boat moved relative to it. I had no problem using a micro-controller from Motorola that incorporated the hooks I need for my customization, instead of attempting to plod through my inventions.</p>

<p>not the same I'll admit ... but I don't see that the issue at hand amounts to much.</p>

<p>daniel taylor</p>

<p>Interesting that the number of horizontal/vertical pixels and  the sensor size (35.9 x 24.0 mm.) are exactly the same!</p>

 

<p>Rob is sounding suspiciously <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00Rj0k"><strong>like Hitler</strong> </a> ! :-)</p>

<p>I think the whole thing started when people who wanted the D3x, but couldn't afford it, began whining about it, saying that why could Sony sell the A900 for so much less and it has the same pixel count?<br>

I could care less, I want a Nikon, not a Sony. It's like saying that the Dodge sedan is a Mitsubishi, because it has a Mitsubishi engine in it. No, it's a Dodge, not a Mitsubishi. Just because the Sony A900 has a similar sensor doesn't make it a Nikon.</p>

<p>Agree with Dave here. The BMW Mini is not a Peugeot, even if it shares the same engine. What matters in a camera is not the single component, it is the final result.</p>

<p><em>' it does not state that it's a Nikon design so it may still be a derivate version from the Sony sensor"</em> <br /> <br /> It is not derived from a Sony design.  Sony is doing the fabrication work only.   But as Illka said: you'll believe what you want. Ignorance is bliss as the saying goes.</p>

<p>Think of it this way: Sony has large fabrication facilities that need to be kept busy. From a financial point of view it is no problem to say this assembly line over here makes the chips for Sony cameras and this one makes the chips for Nikon cameras.The two design and engineering are kept seperate for various reasons mostly having to do with intellectual property right issues.  For all we know the Sony plant may also be fabricating the RED camera sensors as well. We know that up until recently Canon was a camera sensor customer as well for point and shoot cameras. Canon is (or possibly was until very recently, depending on who you talk to) a  a long time big customer of Nikon's for steppers as well. Companies in Japan ware set up very differently then they are in the USA. Yes they compete but not stupidly.</p>

 

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

Yes, I have no doubt that the sensor was developed "expressly for the D3x in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony". It's not a case of the Sony A900 sensor being used in the D3x... it's a case of the D3x sensor being used in the A900! That is almost surely the case. It's a clever statement from Nikon that attempts to lead the public into thinking the sensors are different. Somehow I doubt it. No doubt the A900 was released prior to the D3x to judge public opinion, give the Canon 5D2 a scare and to test the sensor in action before applying it to a Nikon. (That's my theory anyway).<br>

Nevertheless, I still think it's a pointless debate really. There's more to the camera than the sensor. The firmware, image processing, design etc will have just as much impact on the end result as the sensor.</p>

<p><strong><em>"It's not a case of the Sony A900 sensor being used in the D3x... it's a case of the D3x sensor being used in the A900! That is almost surely the case.</em> "</strong><br>

Jamie, it's best not to make statements that are not based on facts you can back up with references.</p>

<p>And I bet the Sony A900 is way below the D3X in terms of overall quality, sturdiness, speed and design. How many $$$ below is hard to quantify, but still.</p>

<p>The A900 and the D3X are aimed at very different markets with different goals in mind.  As I generall yunderstand it The ranking in global D-SLR camera sales is a virtual tiie between Canon and Nikon with Sony a distant 3rd. Sony wants to close that gap.<br>

 For all any of us know the A900 is being retailed at  or for far less than actual manufacturing (includding marketing) costs in an effort to gain market share. Once you have people buying yourcameras you also have them (for the most part) buying your lenses, speedlights, etc.  Canon takes care of this n the high megapixel end by having  two cameras with roughly similar pixel count (EOS 1Ds MArk 3 and 5D MArk 2), But beyond the mp count the to Canons are very different. Sort of like Nikon with the D3 and the D700. The small people who actually understand (and the larger market segment who thinks more $$$$ means more camera) what they are getting with an $8,000 DSLR, whether it is the D3X or the 1Ds Mark 3  will gravitate to those cameras. </p>

 

<p>I guess the only answer is to buy one of each and take them apart and reverse engineer the sensors.<br>

Any takers?</p>

<p>Why bother, Jim?  In fact, why bother with the entire issue at all? </p>

<p>It's really comic that people think the entire camera is the sensor. It's like saying an entire PC is the CPU. People are getting all bent out of shape over the fact that Nikon outsourced the manufacture of a sensor they engineered and designed in house to a facility operated by Sony. Folks, this happens all the time. Companies outsource production for everything. Boeing outsources the manufacture of most of their airplane parts to other companies (including entire wing, fuselage, and tail assemblies, which arrive at Boeing fully assembled on the top of a rail car or inside a large cargo plane) and merely assembles the final product in their own factory. Yet it is still called a Boeing airplane, despite the majority of it being produced outside of Boeing. Yet it is a Boeing airplane because Boeing engineered and designed it, and they set up the specs for which it was to be manufactured. Same with Nikon and the sensor for the D3x. Just because they have Sony manufacture it doesn't mean Sony has the right to put the same part in the A900. That would be grounds for a lawsuit.</p>

<p>These 737 fuselages were photographed on a moving train passing Boeing Field near Seattle, where they will later fly to for flight testing and delivery. Photo taken 11-23-2008.<br>

<img src="http://hull534.smugmug.com/photos/423035784_FHo3z-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>