Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BertramPaul on December 25, 2009, 12:40:55 pm
-
Does anybody know which sensors of Nikon are made by themselves and which are made by Sony?
It seems Nikon keeps it a real secret and no real "established" source elaborates on this. All I can find is some guesswork.
-
Hi,
Nikon probably does not make any sensors themselves. My understanding is that Nikon designs some of their sensors themselves, essentially the chips in the D2H and D3 cameras which use a Nikon specific design. There are several possible options:
- Design
- Specify
- Manufacture
Manufacturing is often outsourced to some firm that has free capacity in a "fab". The CMOS sensors used in the D300 and D3X are essentially designed by Sony and manufactured by or for Sony. It may be that Nikon has significant modifications to their chips compared to the Sony designs or they may just use them smarter.
CCD sensors are probably from Sony.
On older cameras circuit board design played a major role. If I recall correctly the D3 has three or six external ADCs (made by Burr Brown). The new Sony CMOS chips have internal readout circuitry which may or may not be used by Nikon. External ADCs seem to be absent from the 3DX circuit board, which may indicate that it also uses on chip pre-amps and ADCs. Sony's ADCs are 12-bit but the Nikon 3Dx has both 12-bit and 14-bit readout. Nikon may have extra circuitry on their chip in order to support 14 bit readout, or they just utilize the same hardware smarter.
Performace is also affected by microlens and color grid array. My guess is that these parts are made in the same process as the CMOS/CCD chip itself.
The last part of the sensor is the optical low pass filter, which is built of thin slices of double refrigent crystals. The parameter deciding the strength of the OLP is the thickness of the slices.
Best regards
Erik
Does anybody know which sensors of Nikon are made by themselves and which are made by Sony?
It seems Nikon keeps it a real secret and no real "established" source elaborates on this. All I can find is some guesswork.
-
Thom Hogan is your best bet for this kind of information.
Search his posts at DPreview.
-
Other than the D2H and the D700/D3/D3S sensors (which are supposedly fabbed at a non-Sony entity based on Nikon's own design), every single other Nikon sensor is designed and manufactured by Sony's sensor unit (Sony semi-conductor Kyushu). Like with all manufacturers, Nikon decides on the thickness/intensity of the CFA (color filter array) and the AA (anti aliasing) filter that sits on top of the sensor - which essentially means that the "Sensor Unit" comprising of the Sensor+CFA+AA will not be identical between the various manufacturers, even if the base sensor is the same/similar.
In my reckoning, after Nikon went and got the D3/D700/D3S sensor fabbed by a non-Sony entity, Sony Semiconductor dropped their preferential/exclusive pricing for Nikon (who is one of their biggest customers), forcing Nikon to purchase the D3X sensor from Sony at a big enough price, that the camera (D3X) could only be sold with a hefty pricetag (effectively, a camera that is otherwise identical to the D3, other than the higher pixel count of its sensor, is being sold for over TWICE the D3's cost).
-
Other than the D2H and the D700/D3/D3S sensors (which are supposedly fabbed at a non-Sony entity based on Nikon's own design), every single other Nikon sensor is designed and manufactured by Sony's sensor unit (Sony semi-conductor Kyushu). Like with all manufacturers, Nikon decides on the thickness/intensity of the CFA (color filter array) and the AA (anti aliasing) filter that sits on top of the sensor - which essentially means that the "Sensor Unit" comprising of the Sensor+CFA+AA will not be identical between the various manufacturers, even if the base sensor is the same/similar.
In my reckoning, after Nikon went and got the D3/D700/D3S sensor fabbed by a non-Sony entity, Sony Semiconductor dropped their preferential/exclusive pricing for Nikon (who is one of their biggest customers), forcing Nikon to purchase the D3X sensor from Sony at a big enough price, that the camera (D3X) could only be sold with a hefty pricetag (effectively, a camera that is otherwise identical to the D3, other than the higher pixel count of its sensor, is being sold for over TWICE the D3's cost).
Don't know how you learned this, but you are correct. Nikon management continues to not fully recognize consequences of many of their decisions. Like moving Digital Technical Relations ( telephone service) to the Dominican Republic from Canada. The problem now is not only if they know how to find out the answer but if they comprehend the question.
-
Most companies without their own sensors won't admit that. Even Leica (not the engineers) claimed on the Photokina that the S2 uses as self-developed sensor. What they meant is an adapted version of a Kodak-sensor (cover glass, CFA, size...) on a self-developed board. RED is similar, they don't even tell who their supplier is to keep up the "mysterium"-myth. It's also very unlikely that somebody has the capability to really design a sensor architecture (and not only specify it) and give it to a fab which "just" (the most complex and expensive part) manufactures it without understanding the design... That's something I know from many economics who try to cut down production and push outsourcing because it's just stupid production...
The point is: everybody but Sony, Panasonic and Canon highly depends on these suppliers - I'm not sure if that's a good thing, especially when your supplier becomes your biggest opponent...
-
Hi,
Panasonic and Samsung also make their own sensors, and so makes Fuji.
Best regards
Erik
Most companies without their own sensors won't admit that. Even Leica (not the engineers) claimed on the Photokina that the S2 uses as self-developed sensor. What they meant is an adapted version of a Kodak-sensor (cover glass, CFA, size...) on a self-developed board. RED is similar, they don't even tell who their supplier is to keep up the "mysterium"-myth. It's also very unlikely that somebody has the capability to really design a sensor architecture (and not only specify it) and give it to a fab which "just" (the most complex and expensive part) manufactures it without understanding the design... That's something I know from many economics who try to cut down production and push outsourcing because it's just stupid production...
The point is: everybody but Sony, Panasonic and Canon highly depends on these suppliers - I'm not sure if that's a good thing, especially when your supplier becomes your biggest opponent...
-
Hi,
Panasonic and Samsung also make their own sensors, and so makes Fuji.
Best regards
Erik
To my knowledge, only Kodak, Sony, Dalsa and Canon have the capability to make large Full-frame (and beyond) sensors, out of which only Sony and Canon have the capability to make such large CMOS sensors in particular. The others like Panasonic, Samsung, Fuji etc only make smaller sensors.
Making small sensors (upto APS-H) size is an entirely different ballgame from the extremely complex and technology intensive effort involved in making a large Full-frame sensor with multiple passes and complex stitching technology that comes into play.
-
In my reckoning, after Nikon went and got the D3/D700/D3S sensor fabbed by a non-Sony entity, Sony Semiconductor dropped their preferential/exclusive pricing for Nikon (who is one of their biggest customers), forcing Nikon to purchase the D3X sensor from Sony at a big enough price, that the camera (D3X) could only be sold with a hefty pricetag (effectively, a camera that is otherwise identical to the D3, other than the higher pixel count of its sensor, is being sold for over TWICE the D3's cost).
Maybe this also is one of the reasons we have not yet seen the FF D3x sensor in a D300/D700 style body.
-
In my reckoning, after Nikon went and got the D3/D700/D3S sensor fabbed by a non-Sony entity, Sony Semiconductor dropped their preferential/exclusive pricing for Nikon (who is one of their biggest customers), forcing Nikon to purchase the D3X sensor from Sony at a big enough price, that the camera (D3X) could only be sold with a hefty pricetag (effectively, a camera that is otherwise identical to the D3, other than the higher pixel count of its sensor, is being sold for over TWICE the D3's cost).
Well, the price differential more likely comes down to ADC hardware, features, and market forces. The Nikon ADC is more precise than the one used in the Sony A900; it stands to reason that part costs more in the D3x than in the A900/A850. The D3x is overall more capable than the A900 (high ISO, AF, the implementation of crop modes, Live View, etc.). Nikon has a larger user base and more lenses than Sony does too, which allows them to charge more for their 24 MP DSLR. Ultimately, the price of a camera is determined by the market, and I'm sure there's a lot of profit coming from the D3x, but probably less so from the A900/A850 cameras.
Maybe this also is one of the reasons we have not yet seen the FF D3x sensor in a D300/D700 style body.
If Sony provoked this, then Sony hurt themselves. Nikon is Sony's largest customer, using more of their APS-C sized sensors than Sony uses. If Sony can't sell sensors to Nikon, they will have to incur higher per unit R&D and production costs for the sensors they use in their own cameras. Maybe this is why the A550 is priced so relatively high.
I asked Thom Hogan at DPR if he thought Nikon would do another DSLR with a Sony sensor in it, and this was his reply: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34047661 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34047661) We'll have a better idea what is happening between these two companies when Nikon gets around to responding to the A900/A850/5DII offerings. If Nikon doesn't use the D3x sensor and goes with a non-Sony sensor instead, that will be the sound of the other shoe dropping; and if Nikon does use the D3x sensor again, that doesn't mean they will be using Sony's next sensor in any of their cameras. If Thom is skeptical about Nikon using any more of Sony's sensors in their FX cameras, it's probably because in addition to the overt things that are happening he's also seeing things most of us don't (leaks and such) that indicate Nikon and Sony are on the verge of discontinuing their cooperation on sensors.
-
Hi,
Who is making the FX sensor in the Nikon D3? Kodak and Dalsa seem to make CCDs only. You have any idea?
Best regards
Erik
To my knowledge, only Kodak, Sony, Dalsa and Canon have the capability to make large Full-frame (and beyond) sensors, out of which only Sony and Canon have the capability to make such large CMOS sensors in particular. The others like Panasonic, Samsung, Fuji etc only make smaller sensors.
Making small sensors (upto APS-H) size is an entirely different ballgame from the extremely complex and technology intensive effort involved in making a large Full-frame sensor with multiple passes and complex stitching technology that comes into play.
-
Hi,
Who is making the FX sensor in the Nikon D3? Kodak and Dalsa seem to make CCDs only. You have any idea?
Best regards
Erik
may be some Nikon has a deal w/ some other players that are known to manufacture smaller sensor - Toshiba, NEC, Cypress they all make smaller sensors.
-
Well, the price differential more likely comes down to ADC hardware, features, and market forces. The Nikon ADC is more precise than the one used in the Sony A900; it stands to reason that part costs more in the D3x than in the A900/A850. The D3x is overall more capable than the A900 (high ISO, AF, the implementation of crop modes, Live View, etc.). Nikon has a larger user base and more lenses than Sony does too, which allows them to charge more for their 24 MP DSLR. Ultimately, the price of a camera is determined by the market, and I'm sure there's a lot of profit coming from the D3x, but probably less so from the A900/A850 cameras.
I think you misunderstood when you bought the Sony A900 into the equation, since you probably did not read what I wrote. I did not say a thing about the Sony A900. I was talking about the Nikon D3/D3s/D700
If Sony provoked this, then Sony hurt themselves. Nikon is Sony's largest customer, using more of their APS-C sized sensors than Sony uses. If Sony can't sell sensors to Nikon, they will have to incur higher per unit R&D and production costs for the sensors they use in their own cameras. Maybe this is why the A550 is priced so relatively high.
Sony did not provoke this. Nikon did. By dropping Sony as a supplier for their D3 sensor and going outside. And then turning up with hat in hand at Sony's door, when they needed a high resolution FX sensor.
Sony semi-conductor Kyushu (the sensor division of Sony) is probably as large or even larger than Nikon Corporation taken as a whole. Nikon will buy the sensors from Sony, whether they like it or not. There is no other supplier who can or will supply sensors to Nikon with the manufacturing critical mass that the Sony foundry has or the sheer R&D resources that Sony semiconductor has. Sony semiconductor not only supplier dSLR, video and p&s sensors but also makes several other types of sensors for a variety of industries, including the broadcast line and also higher-end video line which are a LOT more specialized and provides MUCH larger margins.
Interestingly, when Sony first started eyeing the dSLR line, their first choice was to "work with" Nikon (than Konica Minolta). Relatively tiny Nikon, clearly realizing that they would get swiftly subdued and "absorbed" by Sony, bolted like a scalded cat, which was when Sony's predatory eyes fell on Konica Minolta. Of course within less than a year, KM's dSLR line was "assimilated" into the Sony fold - a fate that Nikon narrowly avoided. Of course if Sony had grabbed Nikon, they would now have had a companion to their overwhelmingly market dominating high-end professional video/broadcast line.
I asked Thom Hogan at DPR if he thought Nikon would do another DSLR with a Sony sensor in it, and this was his reply: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=34047661 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=34047661) We'll have a better idea what is happening between these two companies when Nikon gets around to responding to the A900/A850/5DII offerings. If Nikon doesn't use the D3x sensor and goes with a non-Sony sensor instead, that will be the sound of the other shoe dropping; and if Nikon does use the D3x sensor again, that doesn't mean they will be using Sony's next sensor in any of their cameras. If Thom is skeptical about Nikon using any more of Sony's sensors in their FX cameras, it's probably because in addition to the overt things that are happening he's also seeing things most of us don't (leaks and such) that indicate Nikon and Sony are on the verge of discontinuing their cooperation on sensors.
Don't know what Thom is basing his conclusion on. I believe Nikon and Sony will continue their relationship in all spheres and even expand it even further. It is highly symbiotic, even if laypeople start making conclusions on specific actions with specific products.
-
Hi,
Who is making the FX sensor in the Nikon D3? Kodak and Dalsa seem to make CCDs only. You have any idea?
Best regards
Erik
Seems like even the Nikon sensor itself does not have any specific markings on them, indicating who the foundry is. There is some speculation that the foundry is Renesas, even though there does not seem to be solid corroboration about it. There is even some speculation that Nikon has leased out portions of the Sony foundry to get the fab done, even though Sony was not involved in the R&D associated with the sensors. But these are all speculations.
-
I think you misunderstood when you bought the Sony A900 into the equation, since you probably did not read what I wrote. I did not say a thing about the Sony A900. I was talking about the Nikon D3/D3s/D700.
Fine, the price difference between the D3x and D3s is 35%, whereas the price difference between the D3x and the A900 is 300%. I was addressing why there's such a discrepancy in price in the latter comparison, but the former comparison is probably mainly attributable to market forces rather than Sony unreasonably jacking up the price of the sensor.
Sony did not provoke this. Nikon did. By dropping Sony as a supplier for their D3 sensor and going outside. And then turning up with hat in hand at Sony's door, when they needed a high resolution FX sensor.
I suspect that the reasons for Nikon using Sony for the D3x and not for the D3/D700/D3s sensors has to do with sharing R&D. Probably Nikon is sharing R&D on the D3x sensor, but not on the D3/D700/D3s sensors.
Sony semi-conductor Kyushu (the sensor division of Sony) is probably as large or even larger than Nikon Corporation taken as a whole. Nikon will buy the sensors from Sony, whether they like it or not. There is no other supplier who can or will supply sensors to Nikon with the manufacturing critical mass that the Sony foundry has or the sheer R&D resources that Sony semiconductor has. Sony semiconductor not only supplier dSLR, video and p&s sensors but also makes several other types of sensors for a variety of industries, including the broadcast line and also higher-end video line which are a LOT more specialized and provides MUCH larger margins.
There are other manufacturers Nikon can turn to for their sensors. The fact that Nikon's number one selling FX sensor is now coming from a source other than Sony proves that Nikon has viable options. Also, the fact that the best low noise sensor on the market today was engineered completely in-house by Nikon and not Sony undermines your apparent assertion that Sony is driving the sensor R&D more than Nikon is.
Don't know what Thom is basing his conclusion on.
Like I said, Thom is privy to leaks and such, and he usually knows what sensors Nikon is considering in their next generation of DSLRs. Nikon uses prototypes in mules to test sensors, and Thom was aware of three different ones being tested, two of which now constitute Nikon's FX line-up, the third prototype might just be Nikon's next FX DSLR (there are some fairly strong rumors about an 18 MP sensor being used, and that too appears not to be tied to Sony).
I believe Nikon and Sony will continue their relationship in all spheres and even expand it even further. It is highly symbiotic, even if laypeople start making conclusions on specific actions with specific products.
It is not only notable that Nikon went elsewhere for the D3/D700/D3s sensors, but also that they didn't take a 14 MP sensor from Sony when they updated the D300 to D300s. Nikon is taking their sweet time on replying to Sony and Canon with a more modestly priced high MP DSLR, but perhaps in the next month or so (pre-PMA) Nikon may come out with something. If Nikon uses the D3x sensor again, then the explanation for Nikon's delay would be that they are simply pushing as many higher priced D3x sales as they can before undercutting it with a lower priced model; OTOH, if Nikon comes out with a different non-Sony sensor, then that would be one more piece of evidence that Nikon and Sony are diverging in sensor development.
-
There are other manufacturers Nikon can turn to for their sensors. The fact that Nikon's number one selling FX sensor is now coming from a source other than Sony proves that Nikon has viable options. Also, the fact that the best low noise sensor on the market today was engineered completely in-house by Nikon and not Sony undermines your apparent assertion that Sony is driving the sensor R&D more than Nikon is.
Which one is that? The sensor of the D700?
-
From what I have read, Nikon has collaborated with Sony on the design of many of the Sony-made sensors in Nikon DSLRs, even though Sony might be the major source of the technology. This might be one reason why Nikon has often had a given Sony sensor model for some time before third parties (Pentax, Epson, Leica and formerly Konica-Minolta) get to use it. So it is an oversimplification to say that Nikon is merely a customer, choosing from the sensor designs that Sony creates all by itself and offers to all comers. Indeed, it would be strange for a customer that buys the great majority of a product to have no say in its design. Maybe Nikon balances the advantages of having exclusive design in higher end products with the cost advantages for lower end SLR models of working with Sony for their sensors.
This would be similar to the fact that both Canon and Nikon buy most of the sensors for their digital cameras from Sony: the CCD's in the compact cameras that make up the great majority of digital camera unit sales for both Canon and Nikon.
-
Fine, the price difference between the D3x and D3s is 35%, whereas the price difference between the D3x and the A900 is 300%. I was addressing why there's such a discrepancy in price in the latter comparison, but the former comparison is probably mainly attributable to market forces rather than Sony unreasonably jacking up the price of the sensor.
I think you are mixing and matching things to suit your argument. For coming up with the 35%, you compared the D3X with its near-identical FX twin, the D3. For coming out with the 300%, you compared the D3X with another model from a totally different class, the A900, when you had the D700 as an equivalent model (to the A900) to compare the D3X against.
Bottomline, the D3X and the D3 are near identical, except for the sensor - like it or not. The D3X has a MASSIVE increase in price over the D3 (in terms of 1000s of dollars), with the only discernible difference being the FX sensor employed. That 1000s of dollars of difference in price, did not arise out of thin air nor out of a desire by Nikon corp to be mean to their customer base.
-
I think you are mixing and matching things to suit your argument. For coming up with the 35%, you compared the D3X with its near-identical FX twin, the D3. For coming out with the 300%, you compared the D3X with another model from a totally different class, the A900, when you had the D700 as an equivalent model (to the A900) to compare the D3X against.
Bottomline, the D3X and the D3 are near identical, except for the sensor - like it or not. The D3X has a MASSIVE increase in price over the D3 (in terms of 1000s of dollars), with the only discernible difference being the FX sensor employed. That 1000s of dollars of difference in price, did not arise out of thin air nor out of a desire by Nikon corp to be mean to their customer base.
No, but they can pick the number of cameras they want to sell based on price.
-
QUOTE (Tony Beach @ Dec 27 2009, 01:08 AM) *
There are other manufacturers Nikon can turn to for their sensors. The fact that Nikon's number one selling FX sensor is now coming from a source other than Sony proves that Nikon has viable options. Also, the fact that the best low noise sensor on the market today was engineered completely in-house by Nikon and not Sony undermines your apparent assertion that Sony is driving the sensor R&D more than Nikon is.
Which one is that? The sensor of the D700?
Yes, as well as the sensor in the D3s (which is an improved version of the D3/D700 sensor), and which almost certainly come out later next year as a "D700s."
Meanwhile, Sony will at some point come out with a successor to its A850/A900 sensor, and my guess is we will not see Nikon using that sensor in any of their cameras.
-
I think you are mixing and matching things to suit your argument. For coming up with the 35%, you compared the D3X with its near-identical FX twin, the D3. For coming out with the 300%, you compared the D3X with another model from a totally different class, the A900, when you had the D700 as an equivalent model (to the A900) to compare the D3X against.
No, the comparisons are cameras from different companies using similar sensors, cameras from the same company using different sensors, and cameras from different companies that cost about the same. There are different explanations for why a D3x costs more than a D3, or a D3 costs more than a D700 or A900; but in the end the price of all of them boils down to one simple thing, they cost as much as the companies making them can get away with charging for them.
Bottomline, the D3X and the D3 are near identical, except for the sensor - like it or not. The D3X has a MASSIVE increase in price over the D3 (in terms of 1000s of dollars), with the only discernible difference being the FX sensor employed. That 1000s of dollars of difference in price, did not arise out of thin air nor out of a desire by Nikon corp to be mean to their customer base.
If by "thin air" you mean the market, then yes it did. Canon started out selling the 1DsIII for $8000, so for Nikon to offer an arguably better camera for less would be undermining both companies by provoking a price war neither wants to fight. Sony's A900 isn't as capable, doesn't have as many pro lenses [where are the fast telephotos and T/S lenses] to use on it, etcetera; Sony probably could have sold the A900 and now the A850 for more, but Sony is using brute force to attempt to wrest some market share from Nikon and Canon. Nikon can afford right now to ignore Sony and instead reap as much in profits from the D3x as they can -- and this has worked for Nikon because they are selling a lot of D3x cameras, reportedly more than they had anticipated. Maybe Sony is selling more A900/A850 bodies (I don't know), but I'll bet Nikon is making more money off of their version of that sensor than Sony is making of their version of the same sensor.
-
No, but they can pick the number of cameras they want to sell based on price.
Ah, probably true. Words of wisdom from a fellow Minnesotan !
-
Maybe Sony is selling more A900/A850 bodies (I don't know), but I'll bet Nikon is making more money off of their version of that sensor than Sony is making of their version of the same sensor.
No question that Nikon is making more money from every D3X they sell, than Sony is making from their A900/A850. But whether that is good for the consumers is a whole different thing.
-
No question that Nikon is making more money from every D3X they sell, than Sony is making from their A900/A850.
I would go farther inasmuch as I suspect Nikon is making more money off the D3x model than Sony is making off both the A850 and A900 models combined. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon makes 10x as much off of each D3x they sell as Sony makes off of each A850/A900 they sell, and that Nikon sells more than 10% as many D3x cameras as Sony sells A850/A900 cameras.
But whether that is good for the consumers is a whole different thing.
I'm not really happy about it because I really wanted to buy a reasonably priced DSLR with the D3x sensor in it, but I am mostly enjoying my A850. [I say "mostly" about my A850 because is now on its way to Texas for service. A most peculiar issue has arisen with dust and now cleaning fluid underneath the glass on the sensor. The cleaning fluid appeared under the glass on Saturday and I'm refraining from commenting on it at length until the issue is resolved. I will say though that the way the low pass filter is attached in front of the sensor appears to be the issue and that Nikon does not do it the same way -- this would be one more reason costs are different between the cameras.] I think that having three companies working on sensors independently of one another could be a good thing as it might allow for three distinct approaches, whereas the Sony/Nikon collaboration could conceivably cause compromises in either or both company's priorities.
I think what would be really good for consumers would be a modular system that allows the photographer to select the best sensor for their purposes. Not only would this be good for the photographer, but I think it would be good for the company that does it too. Personally, I would buy two bodies and could easily imagine having three or four sensors to put in them (high resolution, B&W, IR, and high ISO with lower resolution). OF course, such a modular system would need to be better sealed than what I'm seeing in my current A850 body, but both of these issues are topics for another thread.
-
I'm not really happy about it because I really wanted to buy a reasonably priced DSLR with the D3x sensor in it, but I am mostly enjoying my A850. [I say "mostly" about my A850 because is now on its way to Texas for service. A most peculiar issue has arisen with dust and now cleaning fluid underneath the glass on the sensor. The cleaning fluid appeared under the glass on Saturday and I'm refraining from commenting on it at length until the issue is resolved. I will say though that the way the low pass filter is attached in front of the sensor appears to be the issue and that Nikon does not do it the same way -- this would be one more reason costs are different between the cameras.]
Having now had my A900 since October 2008 (over a year now), I have not had even a whisper of a problem. Have carted it along across the US, to Europe, South Asia (extremely humid/wet conditions) et al and the camera has never misbehaved in any way, shape or form. The lenses too have been exemplary. I would say that this theme is pretty much valid across the hundreds of Sony A900 users on the dyxum forum (and also the several on this forum).
Wonder if there is some difference in the build quality between the A900 and the A850, even though your case is the first I ever heard, where such a situation has happened with a FF Sony camera. Hope it gets fixed soon.
-
Having now had my A900 since October 2008 (over a year now), I have not had even a whisper of a problem. Have carted it along across the US, to Europe, South Asia (extremely humid/wet conditions) et al and the camera has never misbehaved in any way, shape or form. The lenses too have been exemplary. I would say that this theme is pretty much valid across the hundreds of Sony A900 users on the dyxum forum (and also the several on this forum).
If I had it to over again, I would have bought an A900 last January. Nonetheless, I'm liking the A850 very much, except for this one dust/moisture issue. If Sony resolves it without any issues, then I will be singing their praises. I've heard that Sony is very good about service; unfortunately, my experiences with Nikon service are on the negative side (which was one more reason for me to adopt the Sony system for my high resolution DSLR).
My copy of the CZ24-70/2.8 is also headed to Texas. From 24mm to about 28mm the extreme corners are not good at all (no matter how much I stop the lens down). Again, I'm maybe a little unlucky with quality control, although the lens issue is less unheard of than the camera issue (I've never heard of the problem I experienced with the camera ever happening to anyone before).
Wonder if there is some difference in the build quality between the A900 and the A850, even though your case is the first I ever heard, where such a situation has happened with a FF Sony camera.
I wonder that myself, but I think I was just unlucky. Iliah Borg wrote somewhere that he's seeing more variance in the spectral responses of the A850 than he sees in the A900, so I think this is a QC issue. I'm very happy with the image quality I'm getting from the A850, so I may end up getting an A900 next year as I want a back-up and prefer to have two cameras when shooting so I can minimize lens changes.
Hope it gets fixed soon.
Thanks, I'm optimistic right now and expect to have the camera back by the middle of January. Like I said before, I'm refraining from discussing this at length as I want to wait to hear what Sony has to say about this and will be including the service experience as part of the overall assessment my copy of the A850.
-
My copy of the CZ24-70/2.8 is also headed to Texas. From 24mm to about 28mm the extreme corners are not good at all (no matter how much I stop the lens down). Again, I'm maybe a little unlucky with quality control, although the lens issue is less unheard of than the camera issue (I've never heard of the problem I experienced with the camera ever happening to anyone before).
Wow, you seem to have really grabbed hold of the short straw.
The CZ 24-70 has been my workhorse all along and if anything, the wider-end in particular, is exemplary. The good thing about the Carl Zeiss lenses is that when there is an optical issue, they replace the entire optical module, which in turn comes directly from Zeiss. The mechanicals (outer casing, SSM unit etc) are from Sony, the optical components (the glass) are from Zeiss and the final assembly happens in a Japanese Sony plant.
If you notice, there are 2 serial#s in every one of these Zeiss lenses. One is the unique Zeiss serial# and the second one is the separate and unique Sony Serial#. One other person who had an issue with one of his Zeiss lenses, was surprised to note that after the repair, the Sony serial# of the lens he received back, remained the same, while the Zeiss serial# changed. In other words, the entire optical unit got replaced with a new one, while the outer mechanicals were from the unit that was sent out for repair.
-
I know we're going way OT here, but oh well. I would note though that a sensor is part of the entire system, so the quality of optics and the service that backs it all up are every bit as important as the sensor itself (sometimes those ancillary issues are even more important).
Wow, you seem to have really grabbed hold of the short straw.
Seems that way. My copy of the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR isn't the greatest either (still a fine lens). My experience sending it back to Nikon was alarming as they charged me $400 for unseen damage (apparently caused by a minor drop), when it came back the lens still had edge issues (and I'm talking about on DX cameras!), but having banged the lens around some more I'm not going to bother sending it back to them again because I don't want to spend another $400 for another unsatisfactory repair. Now it's Sony's turn to wow me.
The CZ 24-70 has been my workhorse all along and if anything, the wider-end in particular, is exemplary.
Other than the extreme corners at the widest end, I've been very impressed with the lens. If it comes back performing as good at the wide end as it performs from 35mm to 50mm, I will be beside myself.
The good thing about the Carl Zeiss lenses is that when there is an optical issue, they replace the entire optical module, which in turn comes directly from Zeiss. The mechanicals (outer casing, SSM unit etc) are from Sony, the optical components (the glass) are from Zeiss and the final assembly happens in a Japanese Sony plant.
Interesting, and thanks for sharing that information.
If you notice, there are 2 serial#s in every one of these Zeiss lenses. One is the unique Zeiss serial# and the second one is the separate and unique Sony Serial#. One other person who had an issue with one of his Zeiss lenses, was surprised to note that after the repair, the Sony serial# of the lens he received back, remained the same, while the Zeiss serial# changed. In other words, the entire optical unit got replaced with a new one, while the outer mechanicals were from the unit that was sent out for repair.
I can't check this as I sent the lens out yesterday. OTOH, I just picked up my CZ135/1.8 and darned if it doesn't have two different serial numbers on it. BTW, my 135/1.8 is bitingly sharp wide open in the center and is so sharp edge to edge by f/4 on the full frame of the A850 that it simply knocks my socks off -- so I was not so unlucky with that one.