Why don't Sony and Pentax have this problem? Dead pixels, defective pixels

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    A problem that has plagued Nikon entry to upper entry bodies since the
    D80. All the cameras sport Sony sensors. Is it possible that Nikon
    knowingly buys (at a cut rate) defective sensors, that most won't
    notice have a problem, reserving the good sensors for the D200's on
    up? Is it possible neither Sony nor Pentax will use defective ones?

    http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2662&page=12
     
    RichA, Apr 8, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Why don't Sony and Pentax have this problem? Dead pixels, defectivepixels

    On 8/04/2011 3:24 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > A problem that has plagued Nikon entry to upper entry bodies since the
    > D80. All the cameras sport Sony sensors. Is it possible that Nikon
    > knowingly buys (at a cut rate) defective sensors, that most won't
    > notice have a problem, reserving the good sensors for the D200's on
    > up? Is it possible neither Sony nor Pentax will use defective ones?
    >
    > http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2662&page=12


    Probably more to do with (battery saving?) method used for pixel-binning
    for downsampling to HD video - that's where most of the problems seems
    to be reported (rather than for stills) in the few posts I read on that
    link. At least as annoying (IMO) is jiggly aliasing artifacts from poor
    downsampling with other dslr HD output. An affordable video cam with
    APS-c native 1080p sensor with appropriate AA filter would be nice.
    Does such a thing exist?
    I hope the next d*00 doesn't use a version of the D7000 sensor. Would
    be a retrograde step for Nikon to offer a camera in that range with a
    tighter crop ratio. Cutting the sensor size to save a few bucks might
    be okay at the lower end, but I'd be a bit pissed off if 10mm became
    11mm on my next "DX" nikon body.
     
    Me, Apr 9, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    Nikon sensor sizes

    On 9/04/2011 5:11 p.m., Me wrote:
    > On 8/04/2011 3:24 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > I hope the next d*00 doesn't use a version of the D7000 sensor. Would be
    > a retrograde step for Nikon to offer a camera in that range with a
    > tighter crop ratio. Cutting the sensor size to save a few bucks might be
    > okay at the lower end, but I'd be a bit pissed off if 10mm became 11mm
    > on my next "DX" nikon body.


    I don't think you have to worry too much about that changing from 23.6mm
    x 15.8mm sensor to a 23.6mm x 15.6mm one.

    And I tend to assume that the 23.6mm x 15.6mm is the new Nikon DX
    standard. They don't usually chop and change their sensor sizes too
    often. With the D100 in 2002, Nikon introduced a sensor sized at 23.7mm
    x 15.6mm. The same size (though not the same sensor) was used in the
    D70, D70s, D2, D2X, D50, D40, D40x. Then they introduced a new size of
    23.6mm x 15.8mm in the D200, and used the same size for the D80, D60,
    D300, D90, D300s, D5000, and D3000 (there was an overlap between the new
    and old between the D200 and D80 (2006) and the D40x (2007)).

    Since introducing the 23.6mm x 15.6mm sized sensor in the D7000, they
    are now using it in the D5100.

    Apart from the Return Of The D100 Sensor Size in the 2007 D40x (they
    probably had a few lying around) the only oddity is the D3100.
    Introduced between the last 23.6 x 15.8 sensor camera and the first 23.6
    x 15.6 one, it has a 23.1mm x 15.4mm sensor. Time will tell whether that
    remains an oddity, or is the new standard size for D3xxx series cameras.

    Apteryx
     
    Apteryx, Apr 10, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Apteryx Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes: correction

    On 10/04/2011 12:12 p.m., Apteryx wrote:
    The same size (though not the same sensor) was used in the
    > D70, D70s, D2, D2X, D50, D40, D40x.


    Ok, there was no D2. And the D2X (and D2Xs, D2H and D2Hs) had different
    sized sensors. The D2X (and I think the D2Xs) within the "normal" DX
    range at 23.7mm x 15.7mm), while the D2H and D2Hs were smaller, 23.3 x
    15.5 and 23.1 x 15.5, close to the present D3100.

    Apteryx
     
    Apteryx, Apr 10, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: Why don't Sony and Pentax have this problem? Dead pixels,defective pixels

    On Apr 9, 1:11 am, Me <> wrote:
    > On 8/04/2011 3:24 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >
    > > A problem that has plagued Nikon entry to upper entry bodies since the
    > > D80.  All the cameras sport Sony sensors.  Is it possible that Nikon
    > > knowingly buys (at a cut rate) defective sensors, that most won't
    > > notice have a problem, reserving the good sensors for the D200's on
    > > up?  Is it possible neither Sony nor Pentax will use defective ones?

    >
    > >http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2662&page=12

    >
    > Probably more to do with (battery saving?) method used for pixel-binning
    > for downsampling to HD video -


    I doubt it, since the problem long predates video in DSLRs.
     
    RichA, Apr 10, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes

    On 10/04/2011 3:09 p.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Apteryx"<> wrote in message
    > news:inqslg$pf1$...
    >> On 9/04/2011 5:11 p.m., Me wrote:
    >>> On 8/04/2011 3:24 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> I hope the next d*00 doesn't use a version of the D7000 sensor. Would be
    >>> a retrograde step for Nikon to offer a camera in that range with a
    >>> tighter crop ratio. Cutting the sensor size to save a few bucks might be
    >>> okay at the lower end, but I'd be a bit pissed off if 10mm became 11mm
    >>> on my next "DX" nikon body.

    >>
    >> I don't think you have to worry too much about that changing from 23.6mm x
    >> 15.8mm sensor to a 23.6mm x 15.6mm one.

    >
    > Right. Those and the other differences mentioned are completely
    > inconsequential.
    >
    > There were more effective differences in 35mm, and who complained about
    > that? The image wasn't always exactly 24 x 36 mm. Wide angle lenses would
    > generally produce slightly larger dimensions, and anyway slide mounts and
    > negative carriers rarely if ever made the full image available -- except in
    > the case of negative carriers that had been filed out to show the full
    > frame.
    >
    >

    My bad. Don't know where I got the idea that Nikon had released other
    cameras (than the D3100) with smaller (than 1:1.5 crop) sensors.
    The difference between 23.6 and 23.1 mm isn't inconsequential. YMMV.
     
    Me, Apr 10, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes

    On 11/04/2011 2:56 p.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Me"<> wrote in message
    > news:int1ph$qh8$...
    >> On 10/04/2011 3:09 p.m., Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "Apteryx"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:inqslg$pf1$...
    >>>> On 9/04/2011 5:11 p.m., Me wrote:
    >>>>> On 8/04/2011 3:24 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>> I hope the next d*00 doesn't use a version of the D7000 sensor. Would
    >>>>> be
    >>>>> a retrograde step for Nikon to offer a camera in that range with a
    >>>>> tighter crop ratio. Cutting the sensor size to save a few bucks might
    >>>>> be
    >>>>> okay at the lower end, but I'd be a bit pissed off if 10mm became 11mm
    >>>>> on my next "DX" nikon body.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't think you have to worry too much about that changing from 23.6mm
    >>>> x
    >>>> 15.8mm sensor to a 23.6mm x 15.6mm one.
    >>>
    >>> Right. Those and the other differences mentioned are completely
    >>> inconsequential.
    >>>
    >>> There were more effective differences in 35mm, and who complained about
    >>> that? The image wasn't always exactly 24 x 36 mm. Wide angle lenses would
    >>> generally produce slightly larger dimensions, and anyway slide mounts and
    >>> negative carriers rarely if ever made the full image available -- except
    >>> in
    >>> the case of negative carriers that had been filed out to show the full
    >>> frame.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> My bad. Don't know where I got the idea that Nikon had released other
    >> cameras (than the D3100) with smaller (than 1:1.5 crop) sensors.
    >> The difference between 23.6 and 23.1 mm isn't inconsequential. YMMV.

    >
    > Actually, I didn't know the D3100's sensor was reduced half a millimeter in
    > that dimension. That is a greater difference than the usual change in
    > dimensions, but most of the different sensors have varied somewhat in
    > overall size. They have all been something-less-than-24mm x
    > something-less-than-16mm, and the difference generally has been
    > inconsequential.
    >
    > As for "smaller (than 1:1.5 crop)", DX sensors have always been a bit
    > smaller than that. The 1.5 was a rounding off of something closer to 1.52,
    > based on given sensor size compared to 24 x 36mm. This smaller sensor size
    > indicates a true lens factor closer to 1.56x.
    >
    > The important question is, What size is the *effective* area of the sensor?
    > In the case of the 3100, according to the manual which I've just now
    > downloaded, total pixels are 14.8 million but effective pixels are 14.2
    > million. So presumably the overall size given includes all 14.8 Mpixels, and
    > the effective pixels occupy a still smaller size rectangle. Or do they? It's
    > possible that they used to do it that way but now call "sensor size" only
    > the area with effective pixels, which might mean there's no difference at
    > all compared to the older models.
    >
    > I really don't know. Someone must. In any case I still think it's too small
    > a difference to be worth worrying about.
    >
    >
    >

    I'm pretty sure that the size stated is for the effective pixels /
    imaging area.
     
    Me, Apr 11, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes

    In article <>, Neil
    Harrington <> wrote:

    > > I'm pretty sure that the size stated is for the effective pixels /
    > > imaging area.

    >
    > You may be right. On the other hand, if that's so then why do they give the
    > total Mpixels too?


    it's a bigger number, so why not use it?

    > I have never really understood the reason for that. Do
    > the other 0.6 Mpixels not do anything *at all*?


    it needs pixels around the periphery for black level, among other
    things.
     
    nospam, Apr 12, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    me Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes

    On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:16:42 -0700, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, Neil
    >Harrington <> wrote:
    >
    >> > I'm pretty sure that the size stated is for the effective pixels /
    >> > imaging area.

    >>
    >> You may be right. On the other hand, if that's so then why do they give the
    >> total Mpixels too?

    >
    >it's a bigger number, so why not use it?
    >
    >> I have never really understood the reason for that. Do
    >> the other 0.6 Mpixels not do anything *at all*?

    >
    >it needs pixels around the periphery for black level, among other
    >things.


    Through the years (D70/D200/D300) I've seen different raw converters
    also come up with different image sizes for a given camera.
     
    me, Apr 12, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Me Guest

    Re: Nikon sensor sizes

    On 12/04/2011 8:45 p.m., me wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:16:42 -0700, nospam<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article<>, Neil
    >> Harrington<> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I'm pretty sure that the size stated is for the effective pixels /
    >>>> imaging area.
    >>>
    >>> You may be right. On the other hand, if that's so then why do they give the
    >>> total Mpixels too?

    >>
    >> it's a bigger number, so why not use it?
    >>
    >>> I have never really understood the reason for that. Do
    >>> the other 0.6 Mpixels not do anything *at all*?

    >>
    >> it needs pixels around the periphery for black level, among other
    >> things.

    >
    > Through the years (D70/D200/D300) I've seen different raw converters
    > also come up with different image sizes for a given camera.
    >

    Likewise, but I suspect that's just where they cut off the edges of the
    RGBG matrix in demosaicing.
     
    Me, Apr 12, 2011
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Grady
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    869
  2. notreallyme
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    964
  3. John Llort

    how to identify a defective sony 828 lens for RMA

    John Llort, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    333
    Dave W.
    Jan 6, 2004
  4. kl_tom

    Can hot pixels become dead pixels?

    kl_tom, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    530
    Bill Funk
    Oct 5, 2006
  5. fashion t shirts seller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,245
    fashion t shirts seller
    Jun 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page