Comments on: Nikon D300 and Sony A700 sensor similarity http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/ Search this site - over 170 articles on Alpha system topics! Subscribe to our magazine too! Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:56:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Sonolta http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-588 Sonolta Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:59:59 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-588 Would like to hear more about the pepcok post. Interesting indeed. Maybe DK or someone else will chime in? -Sonolta http://www.sonolta.com Would like to hear more about the pepcok post. Interesting indeed. Maybe DK or someone else will chime in?

-Sonolta

http://www.sonolta.com

]]> By: kimare http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-584 kimare Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:10:15 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-584 <p>A norwegian journalist claiming he's got an confirmation that the sensors are not similar "I asked a top Nikon representative Who manufactured the sensors, NIkon or Sony? The clear answer was "neither""</p> <p>http://foto.no/cgi-bin/diskusjon/lesTraadHier.cgi?id=314359</p> Editor comments - They are clearly the same sensor, the Sony IMX21. No two differently made sensors have exactly concurrent mounting and pinouts, these two do, and photographs show. As stated, this does not prevent Nikon from using different signal paths to handle the image on and off sensor. The results are different. David A norwegian journalist claiming he’s got an confirmation that the sensors are not similar “I asked a top Nikon representative Who manufactured the sensors, NIkon or Sony? The clear answer was “neither”"

http://foto.no/cgi-bin/diskusjon/lesTraadHier.cgi?id=314359

Editor comments - They are clearly the same sensor, the Sony IMX21. No two differently made sensors have exactly concurrent mounting and pinouts, these two do, and photographs show. As stated, this does not prevent Nikon from using different signal paths to handle the image on and off sensor. The results are different.

David

]]> By: pepcok http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-569 pepcok Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:52:27 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-569 <p>David,<br /> what about the DIWA tests indicating that the A700 sensor has a 1.5EV advantage in dynamic range compared to the D300 sensor? Please have a look at this : http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result.epl</p> Reply from David: DIWA does not state whether their test used 12-bit or 14-bit conversion in the D300. 14-bit conversion can handle two stops more dynamic range than 12-bit, and there is definitely some loss if you choose 12-bit in the D300. The A700 is 12-bit only, but of course, the A to D circuit can compress by using a modified tone curve. There is also a real possibility that the entire Nikon 'loss' is placed at the low bit end (which would explain the exceptional noise levels). If you sacrifice more than the usual low bit data, you can lose a lot of noise along with two stops of DR. Sony clearly does not sacrifice anything if it is getting over 11 stops DR from a 12-bit raw image - that is within less than one stop of perfection! Normally, you can only get within two stops - 12-bit data will at the best yield a 10 stop DR. To be honest, the DIWA comparison surprises me, because in use the D300 appears to have just as much adjustment leeway and scope for handling under/over exposed files as the A700. Whatever the case, it's not sensor which is making the difference, it is the signal path and processing. Both are IMX21 sensors, we know that for sure. What is tacked on to them is very different. David,
what about the DIWA tests indicating that the A700 sensor has a 1.5EV advantage in dynamic range compared to the D300 sensor? Please have a look at this : http://www.diwa-labs.com/wip4/test_result.epl

Reply from David: DIWA does not state whether their test used 12-bit or 14-bit conversion in the D300. 14-bit conversion can handle two stops more dynamic range than 12-bit, and there is definitely some loss if you choose 12-bit in the D300. The A700 is 12-bit only, but of course, the A to D circuit can compress by using a modified tone curve. There is also a real possibility that the entire Nikon ‘loss’ is placed at the low bit end (which would explain the exceptional noise levels). If you sacrifice more than the usual low bit data, you can lose a lot of noise along with two stops of DR. Sony clearly does not sacrifice anything if it is getting over 11 stops DR from a 12-bit raw image - that is within less than one stop of perfection! Normally, you can only get within two stops - 12-bit data will at the best yield a 10 stop DR. To be honest, the DIWA comparison surprises me, because in use the D300 appears to have just as much adjustment leeway and scope for handling under/over exposed files as the A700. Whatever the case, it’s not sensor which is making the difference, it is the signal path and processing. Both are IMX21 sensors, we know that for sure. What is tacked on to them is very different.

]]> By: sonolta http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-440 sonolta Sun, 11 Nov 2007 04:02:55 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-440 I believe "insignficant" can mean duplicate and/or repetitive as well as meaningless. Far different from JPG's "insignificant", IMHO. In my personal experience I have concluded cRaw and Raw IQ are the same in the end. Sony says this: Are there any differences in picture quality between cRAW and RAW? No, there is no differences. Quality is not a problem even when compressed, but for those users who like uncompressed data, we left the uncompressed raw data support. http://support.sony-europe.com/DIME/faq/faq.asp?l=en&c=DIME&sc=DSR&m=DSLR-A700&f=mod_DSC_A700 I like to key on the words "no differences" ;-) -Sonolta http://www.sonolta.com I believe “insignficant” can mean duplicate and/or repetitive as well as meaningless. Far different from JPG’s “insignificant”, IMHO.

In my personal experience I have concluded cRaw and Raw IQ are the same in the end.

Sony says this:

Are there any differences in picture quality between cRAW and RAW?

No, there is no differences. Quality is not a problem even when compressed, but for those users who like uncompressed data, we left the uncompressed raw data support.

http://support.sony-europe.com/DIME/faq/faq.asp?l=en&c=DIME&sc=DSR&m=DSLR-A700&f=mod_DSC_A700

I like to key on the words “no differences” ;-)

-Sonolta

http://www.sonolta.com

]]> By: springtide http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-435 springtide Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:10:36 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-435 Hi David, It still isn't actually that clear whether the compression is lossless or lossy. I'm pretty sure ATRAC is lossy as is (generally) "bit depth compression". If you compress "insignificant information", this to me implies that a lossy compression is being used rather than lossless. I would guess that high quality Jpeg could be considered to also "compress only insignificant information". Hi David,
It still isn’t actually that clear whether the compression is lossless or lossy.
I’m pretty sure ATRAC is lossy as is (generally) “bit depth compression”.
If you compress “insignificant information”, this to me implies that a lossy compression is being used rather than lossless.
I would guess that high quality Jpeg could be considered to also “compress only insignificant information”.

]]> By: springtide http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-433 springtide Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:50:03 +0000 http://photoclubalpha.com/2007/11/08/nikon-d300-and-sony-a700-sensor-similarity/#comment-433 <p>I found this comment interesting...</p> <p>"Sony’s .ARW2 file format, uncompressed, is 12-bit. Their cRAW compressed format uses 8-bit depth."</p> <p>I thought that the cRAW was supposed to be identical to the RAW?</p> <p>Can you confirm that the cRAW is actually only 8bit depth, which if I understand right, means that you have less dynamic range with cRAW.</p> DK replies - it is definitely 8-bit. Sony describe it as 'lossless bit depth compression'. I do not understand that fully, but maybe it works like ATRAC and their audio technologies by using perceptual algorithms - compressing insignificant information only. I can see no difference in practical use, because when opened, the 8-bit compression is restored to 12-bit range. I found this comment interesting…

“Sony’s .ARW2 file format, uncompressed, is 12-bit. Their cRAW compressed format uses 8-bit depth.”

I thought that the cRAW was supposed to be identical to the RAW?

Can you confirm that the cRAW is actually only 8bit depth, which if I understand right, means that you have less dynamic range with cRAW.

DK replies - it is definitely 8-bit. Sony describe it as ‘lossless bit depth compression’. I do not understand that fully, but maybe it works like ATRAC and their audio technologies by using perceptual algorithms - compressing insignificant information only. I can see no difference in practical use, because when opened, the 8-bit compression is restored to 12-bit range.

]]>