What we all knew about the D3X

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-9319-9802

Not that this is exactly news, but interesting to see how Nikon tries to say "we are using a sensor from Sony, but you've never seen it before." Yeah, right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laydros

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-9319-9802

Not that this is exactly news, but interesting to see how Nikon tries to say "we are using a sensor from Sony, but you've never seen it before." Yeah, right.

---

Nikon weren't trying to say that at all. but why let the truth get in the way of a good story...

What Nikon actually said is the following, (from the exact same link):

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.

what i take out of that is that Sony make the D3X sensor, (which we already knew), but according to Nikon's requirements. ahh...so ?

and regardless of all that, all that will matter will be the quality of the image. if the quality of the image is the same as an a900, the d3x will bomb out at that price. if the image quality is as good as they say it is, it will be a successful top end dslr.

hardly surprising though...a common problem with internet forums is people paraphrasing the facts in order to fit their own interpretations and agendas.

Welcome to my world, Rooz ... Muahahahahahaha!

Signed, "Mr. Agenda!"

All roads lead to ... SONY!

C'mon, you guys know I'm not one to start a flame war. I understand that forums tend to be trolled by people who have nothing better to do than incite riot. Thats part of why I typically avoid internet forums.

Rooz the last time we, uh.. conversed in this forum, I was joking about how much better the Nikon's high ISO performance seems to be. I don't think I come across as much of a Sony fanboy, I'm just more interested in them because I own the A300.

My statement was a bit of a sweeping generalization and I apologize for that. It gets under my skin when people jump to conclusions like that, so I shouldn't do it myself. But there is some basis. The first line of the press release says that the sensor was "developed expressly" for the D3X. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I understand "expressly" in that context to mean specifically for the D3X.

It was.

What's the big deal?

This is nothing new, they have been doing business like this for years. Sony has the manufacturing equipment to make highly complex sensors on a mass production scale. Consider Nikon a customer.

Not sure what exactly "it was" was a reply to, but I agree with the rest of the post. I posted the link with a smart-ass comment in an off the cuff way. What Nikon is doing is totally normal. Everyone knows that Sony makes most of Nikons sensors, and that press release was just marketing speak. Nikon probably has some tweaks to the sensor, and a great body to go with it. It wasn't "designed expressly" for the D3X, or for the A900, it was designed for Sony to make money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laydros

Rooz the last time we, uh.. conversed in this forum, I was joking about how much better the Nikon's high ISO performance seems to be.

---

sorry, i cant remember...

Quote:

---

But there is some basis. The first line of the press release says that the sensor was "developed expressly" for the D3X. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I understand "expressly" in that context to mean specifically for the D3X.

---

there are many things that make up a cameras image quality performance, the sensor is only one of them. as i said before. the ONLY basis will come down to the quality of the image. period. people will be prepared to pay a price premium for Nikon over Sony, but not THAT much if the output is identical. so until we see what the d3x can do, the jury is out.

btw: there is no need to apologise. we're not curing cancer here...its not that serious. :)

Aren't we getting "our knickers in a twist" over not a lot. Some useful discussion and real facts are preferable to nitpicking over Nikon Marketing Speak.

Question - Is the sensor basically the same as the one in the A700 or not?
Question - is the "Sensor Stack" different to the A700 and how?
Question - Is the performance of the Nikon better than the A900 and, if yes, why?

I think I can guess at some of the answers but it would be nice to hear from the more techically aware members. Maybe it's too early for any real facts and opinions, anyway.