low ISO values

[William W]

On that particular point which Adam raised (post 34 which I noted as helpful), I started researching exactly how many camera manufactures use Sony made sensors - and what the actual spread between different sensor makers, is.

It is a big task to collate and I admit I gave up and was distracted by the Ashes.

I think that (as one example) Manfred would be more interested in that particular area of Photography technology and history than I: I think no matter how many sensor manufacturers there are out there - the ROI argument would stand true for most of them.

WW

[Adzman808]

Not correct Adam - there are an number of companies out there making sensors, not just Sony. I remember that Nikon used Aptina sensors in the V and J series cameras. Samsung, Toshiba, Foveon (owned by Sigma and make a non-Bayer array sensor found in Sigma cameras), STMicroelectronics are some other sensor makers, in addition to Sony and Canon.

Sorry Manfred, but I quite clearly said “a significant number” not EVERYBODY

Sony sensors are used by Nikon, Fuji, Leica (APSC models), Panasonic M43, Pentax and likely in the Hasselblad X1D

Some manufacturers use different suppliers, for example the D850 and the Leica SL/Q/M10 are RUMOURED to use sensors from TowerJazz. Typically compact (sub 1”) sensors are supplied by Toshiba (or were at one stage anyway)

Canon make their own sensors (iirc) nigh on everyone else making cameras including and bigger than m43 tends to use Sony

There are indeed a lot of sensor manufacturers (at least until Sony has finished buying them all up) but there’s also a lot of non prosumer applications for sensors (telescopes for example)

That Nikon/Fuji/Leica/Panasonic/Hasselblad/Pentax all have at least some of there models with a Sony sensor really does indicate a “significant number”

According to a DPR article

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/72...-sensor-market

Sony supplies over 40% of the image sensor industry. How can that not be anything other than significant?

Just because some other companies make sensors, doesn’t mean that Sony doesn’t have a lion share of the business.

My Mum makes a nice hamburger, but I don’t think we can use that fact to claim that McDonalds don’t have a bigger share of the meat in a bread bun business, do you?

[Adzman808]

Kodak sensor?? Kodak sold their sensor business in 2011. I know they did CCD sensors and in fact Leica used Kodak sensors when they got into the digital camera business.

Very true, and On Semiconductor bought it. You can still order new KAF 18500 FF CCD sensors today. Which got Leica out of a pickle huh? Let’s hope the cover glass doesn’t corrode this time arround ;-)

[Manfred M]

Sorry Manfred, but I quite clearly said “a significant number” not EVERYBODY

Yes 40% is a large market share (and is a significant number), but that also suggests that the majority of the sensors (around 60%) are made by others. If the almost three year old (May 2015) DP Review article is correct, a significant portion of the volume was due to sales to Apple, so the iPhone sales are definitely skewing that data. I suspect the same can be said for other SmartPhone cameras and suspect that Samsung is a major supplier to non-Apple cameras.

Frankly as mainstream photographer I don't particularly care about who makes the sensors in SmartPhones, video cameras, industrial control cameras, security cameras, etc, etc. These are totally different markets. I would suggest most "serious" photographers are probably more interested in cameras that feature interchangeable lenses.

So what percentage of "traditional" cameras use Sony sensors? I don't know. They seem to have the lions share of the medium format market, with Leica being the only exception here (I believe their sensors for the S series comes from Cmosis, a Belgian sensor manufacturer). As for the rest, I have not been able to find good reliable data (I would trust CIPA data more than DP Review).

[DanK]

How does one know who makes the sensors for various cameras? In some cases, there is clearly authoritative information (e.g., Canon has written that it makes its own for the EOS lines), but most of what I have seen online is second- and third-hand. In any event, the 40% figure in the cited dpreview article purports to be about all sensors, not just camera sensors. Also, outsourcing manufacturing does not necessarily mean giving up control over design or specs. After all, a lot of the US tech industry entails designs and specifications from the US manufactured by jobbers in China. I tried to find out which manufacturers outsource the chip manufacturing but maintain some control over design and specs, but that information too is mostly incomplete and second-hand. For example, it's rumored that when Nikon shifted from Sony to Tower Jazz, they (Nikon) specified the design. From what I have read, this is not the only case, but again, I haven't found many sources I would consider first-hand or entirely authoritative (not that I have spent much time looking).

In any event, I don't think it has much bearing on the original issues in this thread.

[Adzman808]

Canon make their own sensors, so no debate

A list of Nikon cameras are their sensor suppliers can be found on the link below.

https://nikonhacker.com/wiki/Camera_Matrix

Please do note the actual part number of the sensors being used, rather than a typical DPR my brother's mate's cousin's Dad spoke with a guy in a bar who said another guy in another bar said that all cameras used xyz sensors type post.

So who does that leave?

Well Sony, whom I think we can assume use their own sensors ;-)

Leica, which are a small volume brand

Fuji, who use Sony (and make no secret of this)

Samsung apparently made their own, but they've stopped making cameras

Pentax/Ricoh/Olympus I'm not sure about (Although plenty of Sony conjecture)

and yes phones and tablets aren't real serious cameras, but of the 4 out of 6 brands (Sony/Canon/Nikon/Fuji and Olympus/Panasonic) that you find in most regular (UK) stores (say Jessops or John Lewis) only canon are using in house tech and S/F/N have Sony chips in many of their prosumer/professional models.

This relates to the OP because when sensors are commissioned from catalogue components, it's far cheaper to go with incumbent tech (and maybe specify your filter stack and CFA and microlenses) rather than ask for a ground up design that works with (say) ISO25 (and which ISO standard would that be exactly? ASA? SOS? :-) )

Who makes your sensor is largely irrelevant, it's the IQ that counts. However, as per the OP, when we ask "why can't I have xyz performance from a sensor" then the answer becomes hard to disentangle from the maker of the sensor

[Manfred M]

Adam - the builder of the sensor is relevant only when it comes to commodity sensors. Custom designed sensors are different.

Nikon has its own sensor design department, even though it does not have its own fabrication facilitiy. When the D800 was released, Sony was the supplier, but the sensor was a Nikon design / spec. Sony was not allowed to use the knowledge it got in manufacturing that sensor for one year after the release of the D800. This is a pretty common approach in the semicondutor industry. Intel manufactures its own CPUs, but AMD (mainly Global Foundaries) and Qualcomm (uses Samsung) do not.

Outside of Canon and Nikon, (and Sony and Sigma), none of the other camera companies are large enough to engineer their own sensors, so commodity sensors will be used on the lower end cameras and semi-customized sensors might be used in the higher end stuff. As to which company has their own fabs (and uses them). We don't know that Sony fabs all their own sensors; there are definitely strongly held opinions that they do contract out the manufacturing of at least some of their sensor manufacturing. The situation is not all that clear.

This is a very old list, but you get the idea...

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot....nies-list.html



This is similar to where the companies source their glass for lenses. Only Canon and Zeiss manufacture their own glass (Zeiss has owned 100% of the glassmaker Schott since the late 1800s). Others will source glass from Hoya (the world's largest manufacturer of optical glass) or Schott or possibly some small custom compounders. Some of this glass will be commodity glass that comes out of the manufacturer's. So far as I know, Corning no longer produces glass used in camera lenses.

I worked for a company for over 25 years that worked in a similar way. We had no internal manufacturing capacity, but we designed and produced lot of equipment (I should know, as I was responsible for a lot of that design work done and then getting it manufactured). This was not small scale stuff; some of the manufacturing contracts ran into the tens of millions of dollars. Manufacturing was not our company's core competency. Other companies in the same business we were in did have their own manufacturing division, but they were the minority.

[Adzman808]

design to manufacture is easy with a blank cheque book, but usually commercial constraints (especially on a product with a limited shelf life such as a camera) mean it’s prudent to work within existing tooling as the tooling is where the true cost is

Sony buys out Semiconductor businesses, their share is bought not won, in fact Sony is only the camera company is it becuase they bought minolta

[DanK]

This from Nikon Rumors:

While Nikon contracts with a silicon foundry to actually manufacture the chips, Nikon confirmed that the D850's sensor is entirely their own design, vs. an off-the-shelf unit from a sensor manufacturer.

[xpatUSA]

Sigma purchased Foveon Inc some years ago and the X3 sensors are currently made by Dongbu Hitek, S. Korea.

[rpcrowe]

Canon full frame cameras such as the 5D2 and 6D2 have ISO 50. However, these cameras are probably aimed at a bit more sophisticated buyer. If there is a choice between a camera could shoot at 50 ISO or six hundred gazilllion ISO, which camera would be chosen by that buyer???

[DanK]

Canon full frame cameras such as the 5D2 and 6D2 have ISO 50. However, these cameras are probably aimed at a bit more sophisticated buyer. If there is a choice between a camera could shoot at 50 ISO or six hundred gazilllion ISO, which camera would be chosen by that buyer???

My 5D III does not go below 100


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

Canon full frame cameras such as the 5D2 and 6D2 have ISO 50. However, these cameras are probably aimed at a bit more sophisticated buyer. If there is a choice between a camera could shoot at 50 ISO or six hundred gazilllion ISO, which camera would be chosen by that buyer???

Because six hundred gazilllion ISO involves under-exposing the sensor by six kajillion EV, I am rather tempted by the 50 ISO.

[rpcrowe]

My 5D III does not go below 100


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Dan,

I think that the 5Diii "plays" with the ISO levels and is able to shoot at ISO 50. Anyway, that is how my 5Dii can end up with ISO 50.

To get the ISO 50, you need to go into menu. second tab on the camera section, ISO speed settings. Lets you define the available range. by default its set from 100-25600. select the 100 and then you can take it down to 50.

I have not tested and compared the image quality of this ISO level. However, when you are aiming at a low shutter speed (say to smooth out water) you can sometimes achieve this without using a ND filter by shooting at ISO 50. I most often have a CPL on my lens. Since I don't aim for a cotton candy effect with running water, the ISO 50 with a CPL can give me an exposure if around 1/10 second or so - even in relatively bright sunlight...

If I am going out to specifically shoot running water, I will of course use an ND filter. But, if it is just one shot among many, I won't switch filters, simply reduce the ISO. As I said, I think that reducing running water to a cotton candy effect looks phony and is way-way overdone by today's photographers. That is not to say that I don't occasionally shoot using this technique.

[Manfred M]

design to manufacture is easy with a blank cheque book, but usually commercial constraints (especially on a product with a limited shelf life such as a camera) mean it’s prudent to work within existing tooling as the tooling is where the true cost is

Sony buys out Semiconductor businesses, their share is bought not won, in fact Sony is only the camera company is it becuase they bought minolta

The first line in a business case or design brief will include that type of information. Target product cost, production volumes, budgets and even the design budget are top and centre when any design team starts their work.

When it comes to tooling, I don't know the chip business at all, so I would only be making educated guesses. Creating x-Ray lithography masks is unlikely to be an expensive process; but the equipment to create them is. This is the heart and soul of a modern semiconductor fab, and a new fab cost exceeds $1 billion, mostly in equipment costs (by the way Nikon used to be a leading supplier of this type of gear), but clean room production environment facilities are not inexpensive builds either. I would suggest that the in chip costs, which includes sensors, the two highest costs will be the development work on the design itself and the production equipment cycle costs. Material and labour will also impact the bottom line.

Tooling costs are generally going to be more of an issue in building the cameras themselves, where moulds, dies (magnesium bodies of higher end cameras are die cast), etc. These major tooling costs have come down rapidly in the past decade, in an order of magnitude scale in many cases.

When it comes to growth large companies generally do not innovate well. They have too many checks and balances to minimize financial risks, something small startups don't have to worry about (until they become large and inefficient). They tend to grow by buying up small innovative companies. When it comes to Sony absorbing Konica-Minolta's photography business in 2006. Konica and Minolta merged in 2003 because both were losing money in the photography business. They were not able to compete, so Sony effectively bought out an established company that was not able to compete. The Alpha line is really the legacy of this buy-out. In the early days, Sony was not particularly competitive either and did not become all that competitive until almost a decade later when they pushed the envelope and came out with innovative full-frame mirrorless cameras that had technology that was superior to the market leader, Canon.

[DanK]

I think that the 5Diii "plays" with the ISO levels and is able to shoot at ISO 50. Anyway, that is how my 5Dii can end up with ISO 50.

To get the ISO 50, you need to go into menu. second tab on the camera section, ISO speed settings. Lets you define the available range. by default its set from 100-25600. select the 100 and then you can take it down to 50.

I never knew that. I will do some searching to see how this is done. 50 is not the native ISO. From what little I have read, ISO 50 changes how the signal is recorded and costs about 1 stop of DR, hence risks losing highlights. But that is based only on a quick search. If anyone knows more, I would like to know.

[xpatUSA]

I never knew that. I will do some searching to see how this is done. 50 is not the native ISO. From what little I have read, ISO 50 changes how the signal is recorded and costs about 1 stop of DR, hence risks losing highlights. But that is based only on a quick search. If anyone knows more, I would like to know.

My experience Dan, for what it's worth:

I did a lot testing last year on some of my cameras to determine their "native" ISO. It involved using a Kodak R27 gray card and a lux-meter. I won't go into the method or the math, eyes would glaze over pretty quick here.

However, most of us should already know that normal camera metering will try to adjust the average luminance of a scene to so-called "mid-gray", irrespective of the ISO setting. Obviously, with no EC, a full-frame shot of the R27 card will come out mid-gray.

Now we come to the nitty-gritty:

One kind of metering (my cameras for example) will up the sensor exposure by 1EV for 50 ISO relative to 100 ISO. The 'ISO gain' will be reduced by that amount so as to still get a mid-gray review image. My cameras do that.

I have read that other cameras don't do that. For example, if the gain is 1 for 100 ISO, it remains 1 for 50 ISO. As to what Canon, Nikon, et alia do, I have no idea. Others here should know.

Now someone might be yelling "over-exposure" but let's remember we are shooting an R27 gray card for the sake of argument and for a known reference.

So, for my cameras and assuming the SOS method (CIPA DC-004), then the theoretical mid-gray comes out as 117/255 at any ISO setting.

But if the gain is left at 1 for 50 ISO, then mid-gray instead comes out at 160/255 (not double, remember good old gamma compensation).

Not sure that halving the ISO costs 1 stop of DR. Is there a reference for that?

[dje]

I never knew that. I will do some searching to see how this is done. 50 is not the native ISO. From what little I have read, ISO 50 changes how the signal is recorded and costs about 1 stop of DR, hence risks losing highlights. But that is based only on a quick search. If anyone knows more, I would like to know.

Dan I believe what you say is correct. Nikon actually refer to such settings as changes in EV. The following DXOMark measurements show that the measured ISO sensitivity for the 5DIII is the same (about 80) for camera settings of 50 and 100. DXOMark use the Saturaion method for measuring ISO sensitivity.

Dave

[xpatUSA]

The following DXOMark measurements show that the measured ISO sensitivity for the 5DIII is the same (about 80) for camera settings of 50 and 100. DXOMark use the Saturaion method for measuring ISO sensitivity.

Good find.

As to DxO's saturation-based measurement, I've read that Canon has changed to something like the SOS method which allows less headroom.

Personally, I'm rarely happy with DxO's dumbed-down metrics but that is just a personal view, sorry. Still smarting from being told here that DxO is the "industry standard" as if nobody else's measurements mattered (wasn't you, Manfred!).

[dje]

Good find.

As to DxO's saturation-based measurement, I've read that Canon has changed to something like the SOS method which allows less headroom.

Personally, I'm rarely happy with DxO's dumbed-down metrics but that is just a personal view, sorry. Still smarting from being told here that DxO is the "industry standard" as if nobody else's measurements mattered (wasn't you, Manfred!).

Ted I don't have much time for DXO's scoring system. I prefer to look at their measurements and make my own judgements. This is a link to their ISO measurements technique. It's based on ISO 12232.

Dave